Every religion is individualistic in that each person interprets it in their own way. And all the religions with which I’m familiar focus on a personal salvation that is not worldly.
Violent instances have been linked to Buddhism because it is a human construct adhered to by humans. It is no different than other religions or ideologies constructed by and participated in by humans that have been linked to violence. Buddhism is not special. It is not better. It is not sanitary.
Whether the person(s) who originally devised it (or any other religion / ideology) intended non/violence doesn’t make one bit of difference. Each person copying them does so not in accordance with who the originator thinks / thought, rather in accordance with who they themselves are. The religion / ideology is different because the person wearing it is not the originator.
Being non/violent is a personal choice. It is a choice that can be made by anyone regardless of their religion / ideology. Sometimes religion / ideology is given by the perpetrator of the violence as the excuse…excuses abound.
I just don’t see Buddhism as anything other than something participated in by folks who need / want some religion or ideology to tell them what to do.
You think that it requires religiosity to be atheist?
I find the second sentence in the above quote completely unnecessary and quite rude. I would suggest you avoid writing things like that in the forum in the future.
Herein lies the problem. It is not a religion. It was treated as a religion. There is an old American expression “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.” I don’t doubt for an instant that the Buddha was an intelligent and rational fellow, if in fact he existed. Buddhism was an exploration of the mind, consciousness, and a path to relive suffering.
Buddha’s teachings were not written down for about 300 years after his death. (Oh dear Christians, does that not sound familiar) We are not completely sure if Buddhist texts are those exactly as Buddha taught. Buddha was reacting against Hinduism and its version of reincarnation. But since Buddhism is NOT about ideas, clinging to an idea is not different than clinging to a gold coin, but about training our mind to gain insight. What matters is that the techniques Buddhism has passed down. Buddhism is about technique, not ideas or belief. The DOGMA of Buddhism is what turned it into a religion.
There are many benefits from mindfulness, being in the here and now, and from the psychology contained in Buddhist koans. I have never found the Nobel Truths to be useful and life is too short to follow an Eight Fold Path. Awareness is right in front of your nose. Shaving your head, putting on a robe, and sitting for hours a day, does not make one any more of a buddhist than enjoying a glass of iced tea on a hot summer day. In fact, 'being a ‘Buddhist’ is exactly how to avoid becoming a Buddhist.
If there is no ‘I’ how does the ‘I’ become anything?
Buddhism is not a religion of peace. It is not a religion of anything. It is an inquiry into the nature of mind. It is noticing the monkey as it jumps from tree to tree. Buddhism is not violent, people are violent. We are animals. We are capable of violence. Buddhism is just one more way we rationalize our violence.
Separate the baby from the bathwater. Separate that which is gold from that which is earth. What is real will stand against critical inquiry and empirical examination. That which is not real, will be exposed for the waste for which it is.
Show me 'Nirvana." Demonstrate to me that I need salvation from anything. What worldly concerns do you imagine I have, that I cannot drop in an instant, and move on from? What spiritual goal? Why fool yourself. This inward focus allows one to be aware of themselves, their own thinking process in the world, and to make better choices. It allows one to see the attachments they do have and how superfluous those attachments are given the course of humanity. The tighter you hold, the more stress you have, and yet, we will choose to hold onto some things. We will choose to endure the stress and the pain. Knowing that it is a choice, is an amazing thing. So many people do not know they have made choices. If you run around chasing spirits, you will do it for the rest of your life and never get anywhere. Have you ever known anyone to catch a spirit? Instead, chase knowledge, experience, and enjoyment. I have found that these are respectable goals. Even in the pursuit of money or wealth, the goal can be knowledge, experience, and enjoyment. I can’t imagine why I would chase anything spiritual. I’ve never even heard a good definition of the word, and so, how would you know if you ever got there? I’ll pass.
Your perspective doesn’t outright reject the notion of suffering reframes as a matter of personal choice and awareness rather than something requiring spiritual intervention. I agree it is a personal choice.
I am not here to convince a set of Atheists to be religious or identify Buddhism as a philosophy or whatever the name you would like to call it.
A balanced perspective should resonate well, showing that spiritual and practical approaches to life are not mutually exclusive.
Psychological observations can seem like objective truths, but discerning if someone is lying or telling the truth isn’t always straightforward. While some behaviors and responses can be linked to neurology, not all aspects of human psychology can be traced back to it, highlighting the complexities in understanding human behavior.
From my perspective, Western science has long focused on materialist reductionism, missing a crucial aspect of our existence: the mind’s profound potential. The rigorous first-person observation of the mind can be used to test spirituality. Testing spirituality through this lens means combining objective scientific inquiry with deep contemplative methods.
The path to Nirvana is about making conscious choices to let go of attachments and live with compassion and wisdom. It’s not about giving up the world but seeing it clearly and acting from a place of understanding and compassion.
The practice of mindfulness and meditation helps one see through the illusions and attachments that cause stress and suffering. While knowledge, experience, and enjoyment are valuable, they are often temporary and can lead to more craving and attachment ultimately more suffering. True freedom, as taught by the Buddha, comes from understanding the nature of the self and the universe, leading to a state of peace and liberation from unnecessary emotional baggage.
What is “Spiritual.” Demonstrate that anything spiritual exists. You might as well be chasing a magical banana. And if you are chasing the feeling of being spiritual, that is distinctly not Buddhist. It is an attachment. You are in a tunnel and instead of seeing a light at the end of the tunnel, you are imagining a light. In following the light you move deeper and deeper into the tunnel. But the light is, and has always been, behind you, back at the entrance.
Please cite one empirical study or test that gave an acceptable definition of spirituality and then tested it.
The path to what? There is no path. (THINK) what is the (GOAL). Nothing prevents you from the goal right now but your willingness to stop! Stop pretending there are paths, stop thinking about Nirvanas, and give up on spirituality. Let it all go, and you will arrive. If the goal is nothing, why spend so much time collecting all this minutia? You are working against yourself.
In fairness to Gawdzilla, I believe that I can argue that it takes an understanding of religiosity to embrace atheism.
By this, I think that a deep understanding of the nastiness and horrors done in the name of religion can reinforce one’s atheistic beliefs.
Also, if one is an evangelistic atheist (which I define has someone who wants to contribute to making a better world by–hopefully–pulling people away from religion), then it benefits such a person to be well-studied in religion and religiosity.
Not sure this is true tbh, if one had no concept of religion at all, one must also by necessity lack theistic belief, and by definition be an atheist.
This is how some people may arrive at atheism, but it is not necessary of course, we are all born atheists.
I too find this an odd expression, since atheism is simply the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, which seems at odds with religion, which is defined as the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods?
I have heard theists make this accusation about atheists in a generic way, and always challenge it, as I suspect they are using the word religion here metaphorically, to describe what I have heard called “crusading atheism”, but I suspect what they are describing is antitheism, rather than atheism per se.
I agree, the definition is wooly enough to be meaningless to me, and I have had too many people use the word spiritual(ism) and then leap tp a false equivalence. So anyone making any claim about spirituality must accurately define what they think it means, and demonstrate why they think it exists (outside of the human imagination), or else it must remain meaningless to me I am afraid.
You wrote a statement for which I was asking some clarification. Your reply said that I have issues. I iterated the question. Your subsequent reply said it was a stupid question.
Interesting…
Do you typically respond this way when someone asks for clarification about something you said?
I still find unclear what you meant by saying that to use atheist as an identifier requires religiosity. Additionally, I now find what appears to me to be a resistance to providing clarification rather confusing.
It really isn’t that difficult to just answer a simple question.
You wrote a statement for which I was asking some clarification. Your reply said that I have issues. I iterated the question. Your subsequent reply said it was a stupid question.
Interesting…
Do you typically respond this way when someone asks for clarification about something you said?
I still find unclear what you meant by saying that to use atheist as an identifier requires religiosity. Additionally, I now find what appears to me to be a resistance to providing clarification rather confusing.
It really isn’t that difficult to just answer a simple question.
After all, without religiosity, there would be no atheism. Atheism is a response to the assertion, that “God exists.” To this assertion, the atheist asks, “How so?” Without the religious assertion, no one is there to ask for evidence of the claim. Atheism is a direct response, to the claims made, by theists. In that way, it is reliant upon religion. It relies upon religion in the same way as not being a stamp collector relies on those who collect stamps. If no one collected stamps, the idea of a non-stamp collector would be superfluous. The biggest difference is that those who collect stamps do not tell us that we all need to collect stamps to avoid the punishment of separation from the mighty Post Master General in the sky and eternal damnation. (Just my thoughts.)
