Scars of War - Creating Game Religions

[Prime Junta]

I am aware of what you are saying, it's just not really as big a difference as all that. Christians achieve salvation, Buddhists achieve enlightenment. Enlightenment is supposed to be "internal", but it's still an externally imposed set of rules on a human being, a code of conduct and thought they take on and practice. You can argue if you want, but it's fairly equivalent, the semantics are just a bit different.

It's not a set of rules as much as a craft or a technique or set of techniques. Do you think that, for example, chess and carpentry are "fairly equivalent?"

It amounts to the same thing. Even if he's not born special, he ends up special, and his teachings enlighten all who follow. You say he isn't special, so list me a couple of other buddhas, and give me some links to things like murals and statues created idolizing them. I'll bet that for the most part they don't get the type of "kudos" Gautama did. Kind of like Christian saints.

Your wish is my command.

Vairokana Buddha:

Amitabha Buddha:

Dipankara Buddha:

Aparimita Buddha:

Kakusanda Buddha:

Here's a family portrait, from top left: Vajrabhasa, Amoghasiddhi, Vajrasattva, Amitabha, Vairokana, Akshobhya, Vajradharma, Ratnasambhava, and Vajradharma. Want more?

I'm sorry, as far as I'm concerned it's functionally equivalent. You've changed the background philosophy, sure, and it has a different overall flavor, but the structural pattern is similar.

I guess that depends on your definition of "similar."

Erm, as I see it "enlightenment" is essentially a less personified version of divinity.

Then you have a highly unusual concept of divinity, at least among Western Christians these days. It sort of went out of fashion with St. John of the Cross.

He may have had no hotline to God, but he was so close to that enlightened state that people traveled from far and wide to hear his teachings, because he was so enlightened, not so? Divine wisdom, or enlightenment as you call it, is still a form of divinity.

Ah, but there's the rub -- Buddha's wisdom is not divine. It has no divine origin, any more than Sir Isaac Newton's wisdom about the laws of motion.

Whether the Word is coming from a connection to a personified God or a connection to Supreme Enlightenment which is present in everyone is fairly irrelevant. The pattern is the same.

Enlightenment is a state of being, like happiness, or sleep, or death. It's not a source of wisdom at all. Again, there are or were Christians (and Jews, and Muslims) who had a similar idea of God -- that it's not something that exists in objective reality the same way as you, I, or a brick exist in objective reality; that it's a state of being, something you can only reach by introspection. But it's certainly pretty far removed from what most Christians, Jews, and Muslims these days understand by God.

By the way, if you really are carrying on the beautiful tradition of Christian mysticism, I salute you -- I wish I had a talent for mysticism, but I'm completely ungifted in that regard.

He still fits my concept of a supreme mystic or divine figurehead fairly accurately.

Then I would maintain that your concept of divine figurehead is rather different from what's usually understood by it among Christians, Jews, or Muslims. "Supreme mystic," for sure.

So Buddhists seek complete oblivion then?Or is it more like subsuming of the self into oneness with the universe or something? I struggle to believe that this is a religion with no "carrot" dangling at the end. Save me googling it and just describe it for me.

Shan't. It's too complex a topic, and there are too many different schools of thought about it; I wouldn't do any of them justice. I would suggest you read a biography of the Buddha; you'd enjoy it, I think, and it'd get the central concepts of the religion across rather well.

Edit: Here's your list: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_twenty-eight_Buddhas ]

 

[JemyM]

Just for fun, here's The Life of Buddha, a french animated movie.

 

[Prime Junta]

One more thing, NN: would you consider Confucius, Vladimir Lenin or Mao Zedong divinities? 'Cuz the position of Gautama Buddha in Buddhism is similar to Confucius on Confucianism, Lenin in Leninism or Mao in Maoism.

 

[Naked Ninja]

It didn't negate anyone's point about faith. You asked me to elaborate on what I thought were better ways to look at religion, so I offered you an example of something outside of the perspective I see as yours.

Hmmm, ok, don't mean to be offensive, but I just didn't see the point you were making. I said religions are organizations based around faith in something (a really broad statement, honesltly), you said you had a better way and offered me an example. Which I saw as based around faith. I just think my broad statement still applies there, is all. It's a lowest common denominator type thing.

I'm not enjoying this anymore and have decided to get out of this thread. Good luck with your game.

Sorry if I've offended, wasn't my intention. I know religion is personal and a sensitive subject, sorry if I was too brusque.

It's not a set of rules as much as a craft or a technique or set of techniques. Do you think that, for example, chess and carpentry are "fairly equivalent?"

I see it being more along the lines of carpentry vs stone masonry. A set of principles as to how to live your life and think so as to achieve a higher state of some sort. Similar, yeah.

Here's a family portrait, from top left: Vajrabhasa, Amoghasiddhi, Vajrasattva, Amitabha, Vairokana, Akshobhya, Vajradharma, Ratnasambhava, and Vajradharma. Want more?

Yes actually, I do. Still seeing parallels to saints dalai lamas or the like. From the point of view of narrative. I'm not saying they are equivalent in real life. I need to stress this, because people are forgetting. Oh wait, I see your list. Hmmm, says the next Buddha is going to come when people have forgotten the true Dharma and his arrival will be announced by shrinking of oceans so he can walk on them. Seems...messiah like to me. Although I assume that is only one interpretation, right?

I guess that depends on your definition of "similar."

Similar in structure or pattern. Of a similar template.

Then you have a highly unusual concept of divinity, at least among Western Christians these days. It sort of went out of fashion with St. John of the Cross.

Erm, dude, I'm talking from a perspective of a writer of fantasy. The Force from Starwars is a sort of "divine agency" within that setting.

Ah, but there's the rub -- Buddha's wisdom is not divine. It has no divine origin, any more than Sir Isaac Newton's wisdom about the laws of motion.

Uh, no, it is. The difference is one is supernatural in nature. If it is similar to Newtons principles it should be provable by science and reproducible in a lab. He understands things about laws of some higher reality, hence divine wisdom.

Enlightenment is a state of being, like happiness, or sleep, or death.

It's a mystical state of being which allows insight into mystical principles, like Karma. Hence, it's a supernatural state of being. Since it has religious overtones it is the equivalent of "divine" within that framework.

By the way, if you really are carrying on the beautiful tradition of Christian mysticism, I salute you -- I wish I had a talent for mysticism, but I'm completely ungifted in that regard.

Is everyone forgetting I'm talking about writing stories here? Let's not make this another religious debate.

usually understood by it among Christians, Jews, or Muslims. "Supreme mystic," for sure.

See above, he fits the narrative pattern. I'm not bringing my personal religious beliefs into this, only looking for patterns to use when writing lore.

Shan't. It's too complex a topic, and there are too many different schools of thought about it; I wouldn't do any of them justice. I would suggest you read a biography of the Buddha; you'd enjoy it, I think, and it'd get the central concepts of the religion across rather well.

I may take you up on that, but there is no need just to answer my question since you have done so implicitly. Since it is so complex it cannot be described in a short sentence and is so open to interpretation, it cannot be as simple as is implied by your dustmen/extinction allusion.

One more thing, NN: would you consider Confucius, Vladimir Lenin or Mao Zedong divinities? 'Cuz the position of Gautama Buddha in Buddhism is similar to Confucius on Confucianism, Lenin in Leninism or Mao in Maoism.

Hmmm, did any of those people preach supernatural insight, or the path to achieve a supernatural state of being/wisdom?

 

[Prime Junta]

I see it being more along the lines of carpentry vs stone masonry. A set of principles as to how to live your life and think so as to achieve a higher state of some sort. Similar, yeah.

Would you consider Dale Carnegie's self-help method similar to Christianity?

Yes actually, I do. Still seeing parallels to saints dalai lamas or the like. From the point of view of narrative. I'm not saying they are equivalent in real life. I need to stress this, because people are forgetting. Oh wait, I see your list. Hmmm, says the next Buddha is going to come when people have forgotten the true Dharma and his arrival will be announced by shrinking of oceans so he can walk on them. Seems...messiah like to me. Although I assume that is only one interpretation, right?

Gah, no. No no no. You're *still* imposing your own conceptual framework and iconography on Buddhism. It's not like that; it's a whole different culture, different worldview, different goals, different ways. In fact, you're making exactly the same mistake educated Europeans made when they first became aware of Buddhism in the 18th and 19th centuries -- they interpreted it according to their own frame of reference, and got it completely wrong.

Similar in structure or pattern. Of a similar template.

Right, but *how* similar? Once more, would you place these things into the same group, or two different groups?

Communism
Christianity
The scientific method
Karate
Yoga
Islam
Keynesian economics
Judaism
Watchmaking
Dale Carnegie's self-help system

I'd put them in two different groups, with Buddhism and Christianity not in the same group. Even though, of course, they do have strong similarities as well.

Uh, no, it is. The difference is one is supernatural in nature. If it is similar to Newtons principles it should be provable by science and reproducible in a lab. He understands things about laws of some higher reality, hence divine wisdom.

But Buddhism isn't about the supernatural. It's about the subjective and the internal. Buddhism doesn't make any provable claims about the external world; it presents a technique for self-improvement with internal goals, and asks you to try it for yourself to see if it works for you. (For what it's worth, those techniques do work, to the limited extent that they have externally verifiable effects.)

It's a mystical state of being which allows insight into mystical principles, like Karma. Hence, it's a supernatural state of being. Since it has religious overtones it is the equivalent of "divine" within that framework.

From where I'm at, you're still stretching definitions big-time. You could say that the class struggle is the equivalent of the divine in Communism, or money the equivalent of the divine in economics, but in both cases IMO you're stretching the definitions beyond the breaking point. Plus, enlightenment isn't a supernatural state of being; in fact, it's seen as the most *natural* state of being -- all you have to do to reach it is shed everything that's holding you down.

I may take you up on that, but there is no need just to answer my question since you have done so implicitly. Since it is so complex it cannot be described in a short sentence and is so open to interpretation, it cannot be as simple as is implied by your dustmen/extinction allusion.

Of course not. That was an aside -- there are plenty of pseudo-Christian religions in fantasy literature; the Dusties are pseudo-Buddhist, and IMO they do capture a central insight of Buddhism, beautifully transposed into the spiritual, ethical multiverse of Planescape.

Hmmm, did any of those people preach supernatural insight, or the path to achieve a supernatural state of being/wisdom?

Not that I know. But then, neither did the Buddha.

 

[OneTimePal]

Buddhism

@PJ: "But Buddhism isn't about the supernatural."

The belief in rebirth is part of the canon of mainstream buddhism.

This is clearly a belief in something supernatural, like believing in heaven, hell, ghosts, astrology or whatever.

 

[Prime Junta]

@PJ: "But Buddhism isn't about the supernatural."

The belief in rebirth is part of the canon of mainstream buddhism.

This is clearly a belief in something supernatural, like believing in heaven, hell, ghosts, astrology or whatever.

Point conceded. It's not *central* to Buddhism, though -- not the way enlightenment is.

 

[Prime Junta]

@NN: I'll try one more thing to explain what the IMO critical difference between Sakyamuni Buddha's role in Buddhism and Christ's role in Christianity is.

A thought experiment.

Suppose you invented a time machine, and decided to pay a few famous people a visit. You chose Gautama Buddha, Jesus Christ, the Prophet Mohammed, and Sir Isaac Newton.

You start with Sir Isaac Newton. Much to your chagrin, you discover that he's actually a lecherous old wretch, and his entire life's work, from calculus to De Rerum Natura, the law of universal gravitation to mechanics, was in fact written by his French chambermaid.

Then you zap backward in time, to Mecca and Medina, early 7th Century. You catch a former merchant named Mohammed in a weak moment, and he confesses to you that the whole thing is a big con-job; his wife put him up to it, and he's in too deep to quit, but feels terrible about it. You get this on video, too.

Then you zap back even further, to Jerusalem, reign of Tiberius. To your surprise, you fail to find anyone like the character of the Gospels. There is no Sermon on the Mount. Nobody's heard of a reanimated Lazarus. No miracles in Cana, although there was one pretty rowdy wedding when some gatecrashers raided a neighboring wine merchant. No walking on water. No miracle of loaves and fish. Lots of itinerant preachers and would-be prophets, some with a few disciples, but no-one named Yeshua bar-Yusef of Nazareth, son of a carpenter who got crucified on Passover. No manger, no star, no annunciation, no virgin birth; no crucifixion, so no resurrection either.

Finally, you warp to Kapilvastu, ca 500 BCE. And find no hide nor hair of anyone named Siddhartha Gautama. Lots of mystics, ascetics, itinerant philosophers, yogis, and what have you, but no son of a king with anything like that name, nor anything like the biography ascribed to him. You do find that many of the philosophers and yogis teach stuff that has similarities to what's ascribed to Gautama Buddha, but, again, you discover that his biography is completely made up.

Now, what would happen to physics, Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism?

Physics would be completely unaffected. Newtonian mechanics, the law of gravitation, and calculus still work, no matter who discovered them. Your discovery becomes a footnote in the history of science, but will make no difference at all to the science of physics itself.

Christianity and Islam would be devastated. They're predicated on the assumption that, respectively, Jesus Christ is the son of God, and Mohammed is the Prophet of God. If the former never existed, and the latter turned out to be a con-man, the bottom falls out from both. If they're to survive at all, they must undergo a profound transformation into something almost beyond recognition.

And Buddhism... would go on, much like physics. Gautama Buddha may never have been, but the dhamma still gets the results it promises, as far as it is possible to verify them. His story is still inspirational and edifying, illustrating the principles of Buddhism, whether it's historically accurate or not. Buddhists would, by and large, shrug and go "Oh well," and continue doing whatever it is they do.

That's the difference, NN: that's how the Buddha is not like the Christ or Mohammed. Gautama Buddha is to Buddhism what Sir Isaac Newton is to physics or Charles Darwin to biology: not a god, not a prophet, but a discoverer.

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

My religious view of everything is influenced through esoterics (or how we call that here).

So, it would be impossible in my case to build it into a world.

Too many parameters would be influenced.

What I liked, is that some games actually used the "avatar" concept.

Now, everyone has a foot into this kind of religious belief without knowing. *chuckles*
Because *we all* are easily talking about avatar pictures in forums, for example, without ever knowing.

Another funny observation is that Sacred 1 actually used a healing skill named "Reiki" *chuckles again*

If they knew that this is real ... *grinns heavily*

 

[Corwin]

"Incidentally, IMO the best fantasy depiction of Buddhism is in Planescape -- the Dustmen. "Nibbana" or "nirvana" properly translates to "extinction." So the ultimate goal Buddhists seek is what the Dusties call True Death. If that doesn't put Buddhism into a category of its own as religions go, I don't know what does. "

While I agree with PJ about the Dustmen, I don't consider it the best fantasy example. I may be biased, but I think Zelazny's Lord of Light is the best!!

 

[Korplem]

I think that this debate is fairly pointless.

Yes, Buddhism isn't a copy/paste religion of the next guys religion but it does have faith based concepts. I think that is all NN really cares about.

The bottom line is that he wants a fantasy religion to be less about knowing there is a god and more about believing there is a god. Debating the finer points of every religion known to man seems silly.

 

[JemyM]

If you want to build religion you should have a look how antropologists identify religions. Religions are social sciences sometimes based on the natural science available at the time they were created. As social sciences they carry political ideas on how a society should be organised, what role each individual have within that body, symbols and rituals that works as a reminder of why things are done the way they are done, central concepts that are known to be valuable (=holy) etc. Without those ideas the system simply fails and the society is shattered. Individuals then each have their own thoughts about that system, what works, what doesn't work, what's important, what's not important, things they believe in, things they do not believe in etc. Not seldom a religion have a founder that have some kind of rised status. Some religions point out an enemy to the system, a scapegoat for everything wrong, others identify that there's no such thing as good/evil. Most religions have some sort of transcendt center to it, something larger than you, beyond your capacity to understand.

There are ideas in our world that people do not consider to be religius, yet they carry the same structure and faith in the system. Two examples of these are capitalism and socialism. Capitalism taken to the extreme have faith in the economy as a system and are ready to submit to "it". It's identified as a force of nature rather than a tool within human control. Within the capitalist society each individual wants to be a part of "it" and if they do not want to they are considered crazy. Your life and your destiny is determined if "it" smiles towards you or not. An ethic system grows up in it's roots, where people who do not work for "it" are shunned. The "parasites" are it's scapegoats. Printed paper and pieces of metal are it's symbols. The rich are it's rolemodels and icons. Receiving your paycheck and using it is the ritual. Critizising the system is blasphemus and widely shunned since lives depend on it. Capitalism tend to see every individual as rational but greedy, but it's fine as long as people follow the rules and that there are prisons for the failures. the color commonly associated with capitalism at least around these parts is the color blue, also it's commonly called the "right".

Socialism taken to the extreme have faith in the people and see the people as a body that each individual should submit to. Again it's treated as a force of nature but here within extreme human control, in fact, every individual is part of it. Within that society, those who do not work for it are treated as traitors, the bourgeoisie, the exploiters, as selfish etc. Your life and destiny is depending on the sucess of your people as a whole. Again an ethic system is created in it's core, where sharing is good and not sharing is evil. Again you should work, but this time you betray your people if you do not. Tools of work have often been known as it's symbols, nameless workers and often some sort of father figure is seen as it's rolemodels and its icons. Rituals include singing the internationale together. Critizising the system is blasphemus since lives depend on it. Socialism tend to see every individual as irrational but good, but it's fine as long as people understand it's values. The color commonly associated with socialism at least around these parts is the color red, also it's commonly called the left.

These systems do not need to rely on ancient mythology to work, but they are based on a very similar patterns, teaching people ideas that responds to natural patterns in a way that makes it possible to upkeep a large civilization, while also removing it's enemy from it's body. The economy or the proletariat are transcendental just like the monotheistic God.

Having said that:
You need no faith to understand Buddhism at all. It's a completely rational core that even have scientific evidence speaking for it.
The first rule of buddhism is the secret why you suffer. It's not much of a "secret" anymore and it have been absorbed into mainstream modern psychology simply because it seems to be true and do not need any superficial ideas to work. How to reach enlightenment, grow as a person, how to behave against others etc are central to buddhism, where as the supernatural stuff isn't neccessary a part of the core.

The first rule of the 10 commandments is "You should not worship any other God". The central idea is that Jesus was the son of God and he died for your sins, or rather your ancestors sins. Submission and worship to these entities makes up the whole bulk of what Christianity is. All the stuff that comes about self improvement etc is either a part of the creed that is barely inspired by the bible, ignored or suppressed.

 

[Prime Junta]

Other than the last paragraph, I'm in complete agreement with you this time, JemyM. I'd add that there are some people who do not consider practice of Buddhism an obstacle to identification with another religion. Leonard Cohen, for example, describes himself as a Jewish Buddhist, and he uses Jewish in its spiritual rather than ethnic sense. (He also calls Sasaki Roshi, the Zen monk who teaches him, his rabbi. Could be a Zen thing though; they love saying things that make people go Whaa...?)

Edit: I came across this bit, ascribed to Bodhidharma, the founder of Zen Buddhism, which I think is pertinent to this discussion about the role of Gautama Buddha in Buddhism:

Buddhas don't save Buddhas. If you use your mind to look for a Buddha, you won't see the Buddha. As long as you look for a Buddha somewhere else, you'll never see that your own mind is the Buddha. Don't use a Buddha to worship a Buddha. And don't use the mind to invoke a Buddha. Buddhas don't recite sutras. Buddhas don't keep precepts. And Buddhas don't break precepts. Buddhas don't keep or break anything. Buddhas don't do good or evil.

To find a Buddha, you have to see your nature.

 

[JemyM]

Other than the last paragraph, I'm in complete agreement with you this time, JemyM.

Buddhism is the only religion i know of right now that in it's core creed tells the reader to reject it if it's found out to be wrong.

If one have lived up within a society that often talk about a reinterpreted religious creed, but not the creed that was used in the translation (humanism), it's very difficult to distinguish the two. The 2nd one is almost completely transparent as well as it's worldview, it's ethics etc, since all of that is believed to be a part of the reinterpreted religious creed rather than the goggles used to reinterpret it.

Since Martin Luther, protestantism in particular carry a strong humanist component with it that is almost universally recognized and accepted by the community but not the core document. In the humanist perspective the individual human is in focus and given enormous value as he/she is to carry out their daily mission within a secular society.

This works as long as the humanist goggles continue to be traded within the community as a vocal tradition, but once you read the doctrine without those goggles, protestantism falls back to it's authoritarian ancient core.

Catholicism is based on a whole different structure. It's not human-centered but church centered. Within that body the church itself have the authority to evolve the core doctrine through a slow but stable process. This means that it's not directly vulnerable by the ancient ideas in it's core, but it also requires each individual to be taught to accept and submit to authority.

It's not impossible to use similar human-focused principles when interpreting other doctrines such as the Torah, Islam, but that approach tend to take a vastly different religion than one that is exclusively inspired/rooted/based on the core manifest.

Another thing that should be recognized is the presence of cloisters, which Buddhism and catholicism have. Each generation rebels are born and when they are not allowed to live accordingly to what they believe is right, they rebel against the authority. A psyche that is consumed by the idea of worship can in those creeds be transfered to a cloister, where as they in the protestant tradition is kept within the society. As a result the most radical followers tend to do almost no harm in Catholicism and Buddhism since they are basically "sent away". In the cloister they can be how radical they like without any authority to keep them down.
In protestantism they often end up forming new subgroups and sects. Ironically these sects/subgroups lasts for a couple of generations before they have became authoritarian themselves on their new doctrine, and then someone give birth to another rebel, who break out to create a new sect/subgroup. And so the cycle goes on and on.

 

[Benedict]

Gah, no. No no no. You're *still* imposing your own conceptual framework and iconography on Buddhism. It's not like that; it's a whole different culture, different worldview, different goals, different ways. In fact, you're making exactly the same mistake educated Europeans made when they first became aware of Buddhism in the 18th and 19th centuries -- they interpreted it according to their own frame of reference, and got it completely wrong. .

Indeed, a lot of the western concepts of buddhism are heavily polluted by existing western concepts. (sure you know this already PJ but expounding on it in case others don't)

Karma in particular - the western christian influenced obsession with "good" and "bad" and punishment systems distorted some of the buddhist concepts of karma, and got translated as "Bad things are happening to you now because of bad things you did in the past" and "bad things you do now will mean bad things happen to you in the future", a very linear concept of karma and a very reward / punishment based one.

The buddhist concept was more non-linear and less specific. A karmic deed now doesn't necessarily store up a reward or punishment for you for later, it's a karmic deed now, and might not have any effect beyond the karmic impact on someone else now. You might hope that later when you need a positive karmic deed from someone else there's someone there to do so, but you don't earn it by doing one yourself now, you do it because it's the right thing to do, because you want to put good karma out there rather than bad.

In part in fairness the westernised concept of karma as reward / punishment isn't entirely the fault of western mindsets - due to close links with india a lot of buddhism was absorbed through indian buddhist sects many of which had more of a rigid interpretation of karma, largely due to their caste system which was well served by a concept of people being in a certain caste because they "deserved" to be.

Buddhism is the only religion i know of right now that in it's core creed tells the reader to reject it if it's found out to be wrong.
.

Beat me to it . . . that's the defining feature of buddhism in my opinion as well. Christianity etc tell you the way to salvation / enlightenment / whatever they're calling it, and if you don't agree with the way then you're wrong.

Buddhism tells you a way that might help and if it doesn't then find your own way.

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

If you want to build religion you should have a look how antropologists identify religions. Religions are social sciences sometimes based on the natural science available at the time they were created.

I'd just add a bit: The so-called "magical thinking", a special way of thinking, of perceiving the enviromnent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking

It's a concept people often overlook, and in a recent article I read that this might be in our brains, perhaps even genetically.

 

[Naked Ninja]

The belief in rebirth is part of the canon of mainstream buddhism. This is clearly a belief in something supernatural, like believing in heaven, hell, ghosts, astrology or whatever.

Yes. Quoted for emphasis.

Would you consider Dale Carnegie's self-help method similar to Christianity?

No, no supernatural basis. You're comparing apples and unicorns. You can test statements about apples.

Gah, no. No no no. You're *still* imposing your own conceptual framework and iconography on Buddhism. It's not like that; it's a whole different culture, different worldview, different goals, different ways. In fact, you're making exactly the same mistake educated Europeans made when they first became aware of Buddhism in the 18th and 19th centuries -- they interpreted it according to their own frame of reference, and got it completely wrong.

Bollocks. Dude, all religions treat their "truth" as being as real and fundamental as science. The flavor is different, the template the same.

Right, but *how* similar? Once more, would you place these things into the same group, or two different groups?

Communism
Christianity
The scientific method
Karate
Yoga
Islam
Keynesian economics
Judaism
Watchmaking
Dale Carnegie's self-help system

You're still trying to imply that Buddhism is similar to Communism because Buddhists believe their supernatural principles are as real as scientific method. Sorry, so do Christians, Heaven is as natural and fundamental a part of existence as gravity within the Christian framework.

It's irrelevant whether the religion holds their own unprovable tenets as being real or not. Unless they're testable and provable by scientific method it's just mysticism/religious belief/faith. Karma and reincarnation lump Buddhism in the mystical section.

You can divide those into 2 groups, yes. Mysticism/not-mysticism. And don't start arguing that karate had/has mystical overtones in the past, please, it is possible for physical principles to be wrapped in mysticism, I know.

But Buddhism isn't about the supernatural. It's about the subjective and the internal. Buddhism doesn't make any provable claims about the external world; it presents a technique for self-improvement with internal goals, and asks you to try it for yourself to see if it works for you. (For what it's worth, those techniques do work, to the limited extent that they have externally verifiable effects.)

Cut that out please, yes it is about the supernatural. Any religion which talks about life after death or rebirth after death jumps feet first into the realm of the supernatural. And don't tell me it says "see for yourself", there is no way for the dead to bring back proof as to whether they were re-incarnated or not. And tell me how you'd prove the "mixing your Dharma with a prostitute" thing? Is Dharma visible under a microscope? Is it a measurable energy field? How is it spread, touch? What if I wear a contamination suit, can I avoid polluting my Dharma then? A lead lined contamination suit? Exactly which scientific principle is at work when you take on the burden of someone else's deeds through close proximity, please tell me exactly? If the only proof you have about a concept is something subjective and external, you've entered the realm of faith again, like a Christian claiming God is answering their prayers subtly. Also "subjective and internal".

From where I'm at, you're still stretching definitions big-time. You could say that the class struggle is the equivalent of the divine in Communism, or money the equivalent of the divine in economics, but in both cases IMO you're stretching the definitions beyond the breaking point. Plus, enlightenment isn't a supernatural state of being; in fact, it's seen as the most *natural* state of being -- all you have to do to reach it is shed everything that's holding you down.

Erm, that isn't what I'm saying. Money and class struggles are observable, measurable things, testable by scientific method. Perfect enlightenment or the Christian state of grace aren't, since they are measured against things which are completely unprovable-by-science.

Not that I know. But then, neither did the Buddha.

He preached Karma and Dharma and about existence after death, did he not? = Supernatural.

And no, your thought experiment fails to impress me. You imply that Buddhists would believe in achieving perfect enlightenment and the validity of Dharma etc without any example in history of anyone ever achieving that perfect state....I simply don't buy it. In fact, I leave it up to you to provide proof of any significant, widespread religion without such a "head mystic". I'm willing to bet I could find either images of or teachings of some Buddha in any particular Buddhists past. You want to claim that religions don't need such a human figurehead, go ahead and link to an existing example. Find me real world example of a philosophical religion that promotes achieving a "perfect state of being" without any person or being in it's records every achieving it or any divine being telling people how to get there first.

And Buddhism... would go on, much like physics. Gautama Buddha may never have been, but the dhamma still gets the results it promises, as far as it is
possible to verify them. His story is still inspirational and edifying, illustrating the principles of Buddhism, whether it's historically accurate or not. Buddhists would, by and large, shrug and go "Oh well," and continue doing whatever it is they do.

Rubbish. If you took every Buddhist and showed them that each of those Buddhas in that list you linked to was just a con-man it would shake the religion to it's core. You no longer have any example of the state of perfect enlightenment even existing, never mind being attainable. People need an example to follow.

That's the difference, NN: that's how the Buddha is not like the Christ or Mohammed. Gautama Buddha is to Buddhism what Sir Isaac Newton is to physics or Charles Darwin to biology: not a god, not a prophet, but a discoverer.

Functionally equivalent. The kingdom of heaven and grace isn't something Christ invented either. It's simply something he showed the way to achieve. Whether you are born to show the path to people or discover it during your lifetime and show it to people, it's pretty equivalent.

But feel free to demonstrate a religion where people believe in "the discovery" without any actual historical concept of a "discoverer".

I think that this debate is fairly pointless.

Yes, Buddhism isn't a copy/paste religion of the next guys religion but it does have faith based concepts. I think that is all NN really cares about.

The bottom line is that he wants a fantasy religion to be less about knowing there is a god and more about believing there is a god. Debating the finer points of every religion known to man seems silly.

Thank you, sensible person.

How to reach enlightenment, grow as a person, how to behave against others etc are central to buddhism, where as the supernatural stuff isn't neccessary a part of the core.

The concept of enlightenment is supernatural, a form of supernatural wisdom. Cause it isn't just knowledge, or you could write it down in a book, we could all read it and BANG, enlightened. It is knowledge and practice of some supernatural, unverifiable system.

Buddhas don't save Buddhas. If you use your mind to look for a Buddha, you won't see the Buddha. As long as you look for a Buddha somewhere else, you'll never see that your own mind is the Buddha. Don't use a Buddha to worship a Buddha. And don't use the mind to invoke a Buddha. Buddhas don't recite sutras. Buddhas don't keep precepts. And Buddhas don't break precepts. Buddhas don't keep or break anything. Buddhas don't do good or evil.

To find a Buddha, you have to see your nature.

How poetic. And bollocks. So, if you mustn't use your mind to find a Buddha, and looking elsewhere for a Buddha is pointless, why did Gautama spend, what was it, 50 years teaching to others? Why not turn them away with a poetic turn of phrase like the one above? Gently shoo them off to find themselves?

No, sorry, contradictory, even if poetic. Gautama taught how to attain Buddha-hood, which means he can lead people to enlightenment, which means he is effectively "saving Buddhas" (those who follow his teachings and become enlightened themselves from doing so) from the reincarnation cycle. Which negates the above statement.

Don't quote religious texts at me as proof please. It's as meaningful as saying the Bible is true because the Bible says so.

The buddhist concept was more non-linear and less specific. A karmic deed now doesn't necessarily store up a reward or punishment for you for later, it's a karmic deed now, and might not have any effect beyond the karmic impact on someone else now. You might hope that later when you need a positive karmic deed from someone else there's someone there to do so, but you don't earn it by doing one yourself now, you do it because it's the right thing to do, because you want to put good karma out there rather than bad.

But what is Karma? What atomic structure does it have please. Otherwise, can we do away with the whole "Buddhism is almost science" type argument in any future posts. Thanks.

Beat me to it . . . that's the defining feature of buddhism in my opinion as well. Christianity etc tell you the way to salvation / enlightenment / whatever they're calling it, and if you don't agree with the way then you're wrong.

Buddhism tells you a way that might help and if it doesn't then find your own way.

Indeed, that is nice. But it isn't telling you that Enlightenment is something you can decide on yourself, only that you can make your own path to get there. It still firmly posits the idea of a higher state of being with little scientific proof. To work towards achieving it, you have to at least have faith in the core supernatural concepts actually existing. Like Dharma and reincarnation and enlightenment.

 

[Prime Junta]

No, no supernatural basis. You're comparing apples and unicorns. You can test statements about apples.

But reincarnation isn't central to Buddhism. It's present in it, yes, but it's not the *point.* And in any case, it has nothing to do with the point under contention -- the position of Gautama Buddha in Buddhism.

Bollocks. Dude, all religions treat their "truth" as being as real and fundamental as science. The flavor is different, the template the same.

Which has exactly what to do with what I just said?

You're still trying to imply that Buddhism is similar to Communism because Buddhists believe their supernatural principles are as real as scientific method. Sorry, so do Christians, Heaven is as natural and fundamental a part of existence as gravity within the Christian framework.

No, that's not what I'm arguing. Perhaps I haven't made myself sufficiently clear, though, since you appear to have misunderstood me so badly.

What I'm arguing is this:

The position of Gautama Buddha in Buddhism is analogous to the position of Sir Isaac Newton in physics: a discoverer, not a divine figurehead. Buddhism would go on just fine if it turned out that Gautama Buddha was completely fictional, just like physics would go on just fine if it turned out that De Rerum Natura was written by Newton's French chambermaid, Yvette. That is a significant distinction.

It's irrelevant whether the religion holds their own unprovable tenets as being real or not. Unless they're testable and provable by scientific method it's just mysticism/religious belief/faith. Karma and reincarnation lump Buddhism in the mystical section.

Reincarnation is certainly a supernatural belief, but karma is a good deal more complex than that. Trust me, NN -- you *are* misunderstanding this, and you're misunderstanding it because you're applying your Christian conceptual framework to Buddhism, where it isn't applicable.

You can divide those into 2 groups, yes. Mysticism/not-mysticism. And don't start arguing that karate had/has mystical overtones in the past, please, it is possible for physical principles to be wrapped in mysticism, I know.

Precisely: Buddhism is a set of physical principles -- a discipline, a practice, if you will -- wrapped in mysticism. Like karate.

Cut that out please, yes it is about the supernatural. Any religion which talks about life after death or rebirth after death jumps feet first into the realm of the supernatural.

But Buddhism isn't primarily about reincarnation, even if belief in reincarnation is present in most (but not all) varieties of Buddhism.

And don't tell me it says "see for yourself", there is no way for the dead to bring back proof as to whether they were re-incarnated or not. And tell me how you'd prove the "mixing your Dharma with a prostitute" thing? Is Dharma visible under a microscope? Is it a measurable energy field? How is it spread, touch? What if I wear a contamination suit, can I avoid polluting my Dharma then? A lead lined contamination suit? Exactly which scientific principle is at work when you take on the burden of someone else's deeds through close proximity, please tell me exactly? If the only proof you have about a concept is something subjective and external, you've entered the realm of faith again, like a Christian claiming God is answering their prayers subtly. Also "subjective and internal".

Dharma means "practice." You're clearly confusing it with something else. Karma, perhaps? In any case, it has nothing to do with the topic under discussion -- the position of Gautama Buddha in Buddhism.

Erm, that isn't what I'm saying. Money and class struggles are observable, measurable things, testable by scientific method. Perfect enlightenment or the Christian state of grace aren't, since they are measured against things which are completely unprovable-by-science.

Which has nothing to do with the topic under discussion -- the position of Gautama Buddha in Buddhism.

He preached Karma and Dharma and about existence after death, did he not? = Supernatural.

Which has nothing to do with the topic under discussion -- the position of Gautama Buddha in Buddhism.

And no, your thought experiment fails to impress me. You imply that Buddhists would believe in achieving perfect enlightenment and the validity of Dharma etc without any example in history of anyone ever achieving that perfect state....I simply don't buy it.

Not without *anyone* achieving that enlightenment, I'm sure. But there are those 27 others, plus a whole bunch of people currently alive who are considered to be well on their way to that state. Point being: the person of Gautama Buddha is not central to Buddhism the same way the person of Jesus Christ is to Christianity or Mohammed is to Islam.

In fact, I leave it up to you to provide proof of any significant, widespread religion without such a "head mystic". I'm willing to bet I could find either images of or teachings of some Buddha in any particular Buddhists past. You want to claim that religions don't need such a human figurehead, go ahead and link to an existing example. Find me real world example of a philosophical religion that promotes achieving a "perfect state of being" without any person or being in it's records every achieving it or any divine being telling people how to get there first.

What for?

Rubbish. If you took every Buddhist and showed them that each of those Buddhas in that list you linked to was just a con-man it would shake the religion to it's core. You no longer have any example of the state of perfect enlightenment even existing, never mind being attainable. People need an example to follow.

Absolutely. But that's not the topic under discussion, is it? Namely, the position of Gautama Buddha in Buddhism. He is interchangeable with any of those 27 other Buddhas -- which is the point I'm arguing.

Functionally equivalent. The kingdom of heaven and grace isn't something Christ invented either. It's simply something he showed the way to achieve. Whether you are born to show the path to people or discover it during your lifetime and show it to people, it's pretty equivalent.

But the mystical insight is still the sole province of Christ. It is not achievable by any other Christian in this lifetime, since only Christ is regarded as the son of God. Buddhists believe that the state of enlightenment -- the same insight Gautama Buddha achieved -- is in principle available to anyone. That's not a trivial difference.

But feel free to demonstrate a religion where people believe in "the discovery" without any actual historical concept of a "discoverer".

Which has what to do with the question under discussion? Namely, the position of Gautama Buddha in Buddhism.

The concept of enlightenment is supernatural, a form of supernatural wisdom. Cause it isn't just knowledge, or you could write it down in a book, we could all read it and BANG, enlightened. It is knowledge and practice of some supernatural, unverifiable system.

Not supernatural. Mystical, certainly, but the mystical is not the same as supernatural. You can't write down the feeling of being in love either, and have someone read it and experience it the same way.

How poetic. And bollocks. So, if you mustn't use your mind to find a Buddha, and looking elsewhere for a Buddha is pointless, why did Gautama spend, what was it, 50 years teaching to others? Why not turn them away with a poetic turn of phrase like the one above? Gently shoo them off to find themselves?

Actually, that's pretty much what he did. Buddha's teaching consists of pretty much "this is what worked for me; try it out and see if it works for you too." It's not a closed set; if anyone discovers a new, better way to get there, it gets included in the system. That's what Bodhidharma did, as a matter of fact, when he founded Zen.

No, sorry, contradictory, even if poetic. Gautama taught how to attain Buddha-hood, which means he can lead people to enlightenment, which means he is effectively "saving Buddhas" (those who follow his teachings and become enlightened themselves from doing so) from the reincarnation cycle. Which negates the above statement.

LOL! If you had encountered Zen Buddhism even superficially, you'd know that they revel in contradiction.

Don't quote religious texts at me as proof please. It's as meaningful as saying the Bible is true because the Bible says so.

But I'm not saying that what Bodhidharma says is true. I am saying that what Bodhidharma says describes how Buddhists regard Gautama Buddha. Wouldn't you regard, say, the Sermon on the Mount as illustrative of what Christians believe?

Question: why are you so upset about this? I'm picking up a very strong aggressive affect from you -- you're violently rejecting our attempts to explain what Buddhism is about to you, and instead you're clinging to your instinctive interpretation of it -- despite your own admission that you don't know much about the religion.

It's clearly very important to you to believe that Buddhism is just like Christianity, and Gautama Buddha has the same status in Buddhism as the Christ has in Christianity. I'm a bit puzzled, since my intention is honestly to educate -- I happen to know a fair bit about Buddhism, and I like to share what I know. Why is this?

If you're not comfortable discussing the subject, please say so and I'll be happy to withdraw from the discussion; your beliefs about Buddhism don't really matter to me personally (other than the general irritation I get when Someone Is Wrong On The Internet).

 

[Benedict]

Bollocks. Dude, all religions treat their "truth" as being as real and fundamental as science. The flavor is different, the template the same.

At what point does the flavour become so different that the underlying template is essentially different? I agree that there are prevalent concepts within many schools of buddhist thought postulating an ultimate reality of complete interconnectedness beyond the reality that we naturally perceive.

Buddhist teachings however are strongly weighted towards experiencing things for oneself and continuing to strive for greater understanding rather than towards simply accepting a single, unchanging truth. They have a concept of what the ultimate truth is, in many respects scientific consensus has a view on what the ultimate truth is, all religions and ideologies and reality tunnels have their concepts.

The template for an ideology almost invariably involves some fundamental view on how the world (or some aspect of it) is, that's what makes it an ideology. The ways in which ideologies encourage people to react to that view, and the suggested position on the spectrum of independent thought vs blind acceptance varies massively between different ideologies though, and in my mind is significantly more than mere flavour.

 

[Benedict]

But what is Karma? What atomic structure does it have please. Otherwise, can we do away with the whole "Buddhism is almost science" type argument in any future posts. Thanks.

Indeed, that is nice. But it isn't telling you that Enlightenment is something you can decide on yourself, only that you can make your own path to get there. It still firmly posits the idea of a higher state of being with little scientific proof. To work towards achieving it, you have to at least have faith in the core supernatural concepts actually existing. Like Dharma and reincarnation and enlightenment.

I've not suggested it's almost science. I would suggest that in so far as buddhism encourages ongoing questioning of reality it bears little relation to other mainstream religions that actively encourage blind acceptance of promoted "truths", and in that respect is a form of faith much more compatible with scientific mindsets than its peers.

I think the concept of ultimate and sublime true enlightenment is, by and large, a bit misleading. It's not really about a concept of suddenly achieving enlightenment + 50 and finally unlocking the master buddha perk. The concept of an end goal is interwoven in the teachings, but the teachings aren't so much about getting people to flick the magic switch and become buddhas, they're about ways of working towards improving oneself, the expectation is not there that everyone will get to enlightenment.

Not entirely dissimilar to christian commandments and parables as teachings, but the emphasis is very, very different. Christianity says "follow the rules I tell you to follow without thinking and you'll get the divine prize", Buddhism suggests ways to improve your thinking that might move you along the road to it.

And the divine prize in buddhism really doesn't come across as a tasty treat to an unenlightened mind, not like the carrot of divine reward (or at least the non-application of the stick) most religions peddle. The loss of sense of self and cessation of desire means that in achieving it you by definition wouldn't enjoy it in the way an unenlightened mind enjoys things.