Christianity

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Because Buddhism so devalues the worth of the individual :rolleyes:.

Yes. Yes it does.

Quote:

You honestly want to suggest that a decentralized faith tradition is somehow more authoritarian than a faith tradition like Christianity which typically involves hierarchical power structures?

The hierarchal power structures commands "Love God and one another."

Shinto, decentralized or not, commands its adherents in many cases to kill themselves. *Cough*Samurai*Cough*Hari Kari*cough*.

@Bonaventurian,

Quote:

Shinto, decentralized or not, commands its adherents in many cases to kill themselves. *Cough*Samurai*Cough*.

This myth has been debunked. It was late samurai politics that developed the Bushido honor through ritual suicide. What better way to get rid of any potential competitors than to have them kill themselves rather than return later to kill you? To regain their honor.

It's brilliant planning on the part of brutal leadership.

They didn't kill themselves because of Shintoism... If it were Shintoism they never would have been known as samurai, everyone would be killing themselves left and right.

@Eudaimon,

Bushido seems to be largely mixed with Confuscianism and Buddhism, according to wiki. In any case, I don't think that Shinto is -that- decentralized, given the belief "Emporer is 'god.'"

@Bonaventurian,

Quote:

according to wiki. In any case, I don't think that Shinto is -that- decentralized, given the belief "Emporer is 'god.'

Initially I doubt shintoism is the cause for people to call the emperor a god. I bet that came far later and influenced by Taoism and Confucianism or Buddhism.

In terms of Buddhism, the argument could be made that the emperor must have had good karma to manage to become emperor. It's not a point of view I hold since historically speaking, it seems there have been more corrupt kings than you can shake a stick at. If they were somehow rewarded their kingdom because they were some benevolent beings in their past lives then they completely ruin it by being absolute harsh a$$holes then what good is a system that works like that?

To me it just seems like if you are the right dumbass in the right place at the right time with the correct dumbass father you just might make it into the throne room and allowed to sit on it.

@Eudaimon,

Shinto was, of course, very much dispersed across Japan, and there was even a form of belief (almost a system) before, or mixed with it, early on, it does seem. With the incoming Buddhism from China's slow but sure inroads into the country, Shinto became a little more grouped and bonded . . . as though in a 'damage control' mode, according to what I have learned (not Wiki). Of course, Shinto today, is very much organized, reaches very much into the daily lives of Japanese people--be they more so Buddhist or Christian (Muslem Japanese do not seem to be effected due to Sharia).

It is correct, the code of the Samurai was different, most influenced by Confuscianism, and came a good while later than even Shinto more organized. When the royal court had been in Kyoto, the emperor didn't seem to play such a great role...even being held to be of divine descent. After the Tokugawa era, when the Empirial system was brought back in, there were some 'hope to die' type that gave that an extra push, it does seem. Anyway...just some info here. Carry on. KJ

@KaseiJin,

Bonaventurian wrote:

Yes. Yes it does.

Many people, including well educated scholars who should know better, share your opinion that Buddhism devalues the worth of the individual. According to the first western ordained Buddist monk and the preeminent Buddhist scholar from the west, Robert Thurman argues that this understanding is not accurate. From my recollection of his explanation as to why this misconception is so common among even the well educated, he sights extensive translation concerns. These concerns are not merely mistakes in translation, but also Thurman says that due to the way some words are translated into other languages like English, that the translated term often only grasps an aspect of the intended meaning, that the translation requires some further explanation. For example, the First Noble Truth is often related as "Life is suffering". This English translation of "dukkha" as suffering seems ominous and life denying, but this is because the translation "suffering" is incomplete and can easily be misleading.

I think the Wikipedia article has a fine explanation:
Dukkha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you want the exact quote, page number, ect, I can look through my copy of Inner Revolution for it, but, as I recall, essentially Thurman explains that Buddhism values the individual, and all individual sentient beings. Enlightenment requires the effort of the individual and individuals, and the spiritual path is a process of improving the individual which, in turn, improves every individual. Thus, the worth of the individual is not devalued but is instead the worth of spiritual practice, the sole impetus for Buddhism, the object of Buddhism.

This should make perfect sense when we think about other Buddhist concepts and Buddhist practices. Karma is the process by which willed actions alter the mind: by acting violently the individual is more likely to act violently in the future in the right circumstances. It is up to the individual to be mindful of his/her actions so as to produce good karma rather than bad karma for the sake of refining their own actions to the betterment of themselves and others. Acting peacefully will promote peace, studying diligently will promote diligent study, and so forth.

Buddhism does not teach that you are all important, it is not an egoistic tradition as we all well know. Instead, Buddhism attempts to realistically depict the value of the individual: you are unique, not special. You have intrinsic moral worth: just as much as everyone else.

Bonaventurian wrote:

The hierarchal power structures commands "Love God and one another."

First, "Love God and one another", while beautiful for being so true and direct, in no way contradicts authoritarianism. Recall, as a matter of history, the Roman Catholic Church's handling of the rise of authoritarianism in Germany under the Nazis?

I am not saying that Christianity is more authoritarian than Shinto, much less vice verse. I am saying that the faith traditions in question are inherently irrelevant to a people being more or less authoritarian, which is a generalization that I think is impossible to make in the first place.

Bonaventurian wrote:

Bushido seems to be largely mixed with Confuscianism and Buddhism, according to wiki. In any case, I don't think that Shinto is -that- decentralized, given the belief "Emporer is 'god.'"

Modern Shinto has organizations, but these are just groups of similar local shrine practices, not a centralized, much less hierarchical spiritual authority. Historically, Shinto was centralized between the 1870's (after the Meiji Restoration) and Japan's loss in the Second World War, at which time the Emperor declared that he was not divine. The notion that the Emperor was divine is "State Shinto" which was used at first to unify the nation under the Emperor's rule, and later to foment nationalism. Obviously, after the Second World War, this short-lived politically invented variation of Shinto ceased to exist.

With respect to the larger debate, the matter is completely irrelevant. Christian kings in Europe made claims of divine authority. Many other religions have made similar connections.

@Didymos Thomas,

avatar6v7 wrote:

As for the bolsheviks the Russian Orthodox church hardly supported them, they were in fact persecuted and driven underground, and resisted collectivisation (unsucessfully in the end). While it is true that the Russion Orthodox Church supported the government and the Red Army in WWII, so did the rest of the Allies.

It is surely not the merit. The fact that church supported authorities during WWII shows its opportunist and hypocritic character. How about 'turning the other cheek'?
And who told thee that we in the USSR were living worse than you. Excuse me but unlike not only modern western society but Tzarist Russia also, we did not have pornography etc. Soviet society despite its really terrible political oppression was much more moral than thou probably imaginest.

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Spiritual practice can be a variety of things: it includes communal rituals (such as group prayer), meditation, ect. I am unaware of a religion without a spiritual practice. Spiritual practice is the defining feature of a religion.

Well, superstitions are necessary part of religion, right? Then Leo Tolstoy was not religious man?

Didymos Thomas wrote:

There is no sense arguing with you if you refuse to acknowledge the historical record. Here is a fact: the Catholic Church perverted the teachings of Jesus Christ in order to compel Christians to go on crusade.

Show me which words were perverted.

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Islam teaches that peace should always be pursued first when confronted with a problem. Muhammad was facing the problem of a self destructively violent society. Read your history: Muhammad first tried peace. His followers were persecuted by some clans in Mecca (clans working under the old ways) which forced him and his followers escape to Medina. In Medina, Muhammad rose peacefully to political prominence as his religion attracted new followers. However, clans in Mecca continued to persecute Muslims. As the conflict escalated, Muhammad finally resorted to armed conflict - but only after peace was tried, and tried, and tried again.

Yeah, giving the history a read is definitely a good idea. You might think of it like this: the Allied powers in WW2 used violent means to put down Nazi Germany. Violence was the only apparent alternative to annihilation, and the use of violence against Nazi Germany was far more appealing than allowing Nazi Germany to pursue it's own campaign of unimaginable violence. Muhammad's wars were not so different: sure, they were violent, but considering the alternative, the ancient animism of Arabia, Muhammad's wars resulted in more peace than would have existed in that place had Muhammad done nothing.

O.K. let's imagine I am a gentile. Does it permit to kill me? And if thou wantest to know my opinion, I do not consuder violence against dritte Reich as moral act. I should NEVER killed either Jew or Hitler, or German soldier.
It is rediculous to demand belief from others, to convert them by violence. I cannot even make myself believe in something. That only shows what a primitive and violent man was Muhammed.

@Eudaimon,

I've said it before but I'll say it again, the catholic church have sometimes done the oposite of what Jesus preached. Last time I was in a catholic church I was stunned by how beautiful and well decorated it was. But it kind of made me feel a bit angry. Was this really what Jesus would have wanted? In the first years of christianty they didn't have any churches. Jesus said theat the rich wouldn't get to heaven, and then his own church becomes one of the most wealthy organisations. They even sold redemption. And Jesus spoke about non-violence, and you know the thing the church did. Jesus never said anything bad about homsexuals. Even though I'm not christian, I think Jesus were a good philosopher.

@Eudaimon,

Eudaimon wrote:

Well, superstitions are necessary part of religion, right? Then Leo Tolstoy was not religious man?

No, I do not think superstition is a necessary part of religion. Superstitions are arbitrary beliefs, not based in experience. Most religions tend to place some importance on experiencing the truth of beliefs.

Eudaimon wrote:

Show me which words were perverted.

Okay. Wikipedia has two supposed versions of Pope Urban II's speech at the Council of Clermont.

After chastising hearers for fighting amongst themselves for worldly gains-
"Let those who have been fighting against their brothers and relatives now fight in a proper way against the barbarians."

Jesus spoke about love for one's neighbor, brotherly love, and so forth, but here Urban argues that the Muslims are barbarians, a species unworthy of love. He says that fighting the Muslims is the "proper way" to fight, and by saying that fighting the Muslims will insure "the eternal reward". Recall, Urban called for the Crusade after hearing pleas for support from the Christian Byzantines. Urban is trying to establish the notion that the Byzantines, because they are Christian, are brothers and worthy of love, whereas the Muslims are not worthy of God's supposedly infinite love.

Eudaimon wrote:

O.K. let's imagine I am a gentile. Does it permit to kill me?

For being a gentile? No. A gentile is someone who is not Jewish, and that would include, I imagine, Muslims.

Eudaimon wrote:

It is rediculous to demand belief from others, to convert them by violence. I cannot even make myself believe in something. That only shows what a primitive and violent man was Muhammed.

This happens every day. You cannot force people to believe in anything unless you use some serious brainwashing techniques, something Muhammad never employed. But what you can do is force people, by threat of violence, to act in accordance with some regulations. This is what Muhammad did, and this is what makes every government in the world possible. I'm not defending everything Muhammad did, but I am saying that when we call Muhammad "primitive and violent" we should remember that he was doing exactly the same things then that we do today. Violent? Sure, but far less violent than many other major political and military leaders. Primitive? Maybe, but if we say he was primitive then we have to admit that we are also primitive people.

Can a primitive man compose a work of art as marvelous as the Koran?

@Didymos Thomas,

Lily wrote:

Even though I'm not christian, I think Jesus were a good philosopher.

50/50, Lily. Many of his words include non-philosophical arguments, e.g. allusions to old testament.

Didymos Thomas wrote:

No, I do not think superstition is a necessary part of religion. Superstitions are arbitrary beliefs, not based in experience. Most religions tend to place some importance on experiencing the truth of beliefs.

Is it not clear that through certain practices (self-hypnosis like meditation and prayer) we may "experience" anything whatsoever. "If you are Christian, you will see your Christ, if you are Hindu, you will see your Krishna", Krishnamurti.

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Okay. Wikipedia has two supposed versions of Pope Urban II's speech at the Council of Clermont.

After chastising hearers for fighting amongst themselves for worldly gains-
"Let those who have been fighting against their brothers and relatives now fight in a proper way against the barbarians."

Jesus spoke about love for one's neighbor, brotherly love, and so forth, but here Urban argues that the Muslims are barbarians, a species unworthy of love. He says that fighting the Muslims is the "proper way" to fight, and by saying that fighting the Muslims will insure "the eternal reward". Recall, Urban called for the Crusade after hearing pleas for support from the Christian Byzantines. Urban is trying to establish the notion that the Byzantines, because they are Christian, are brothers and worthy of love, whereas the Muslims are not worthy of God's supposedly infinite love.

Excellent. I say: "Never do harm any man". -- "But they are not men!" In this way every saying may be misinterpreted. When he taught to forgive every human: be that Jew or Samarian, or Roman. It is evident that from all his sayings unlike Mohammed's ones there cannot be derived violence.

Didymos Thomas wrote:

For being a gentile? No. A gentile is someone who is not Jewish, and that would include, I imagine, Muslims.

Ah, I used a biblical word meaning to be just heathen, pagan.

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Violent? Sure, but far less violent than many other major political and military leaders. Primitive? Maybe, but if we say he was primitive then we have to admit that we are also primitive people.

Do not generalise saying: we. There are many fools but we should not follow them.

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Can a primitive man compose a work of art as marvelous as the Koran?

Out of mere lust people make poems and songs, out of desire to power Hebrew priests composed bible...

@Eudaimon,

Eudaimon wrote:

Is it not clear that through certain practices (self-hypnosis like meditation and prayer) we may "experience" anything whatsoever. "If you are Christian, you will see your Christ, if you are Hindu, you will see your Krishna", Krishnamurti.

Whether or not you think certain spiritual practices are effective is irrelevant to the question of whether or not superstition is inherent to religion.

Eudaimon wrote:

Excellent. I say: "Never do harm any man". -- "But they are not men!" In this way every saying may be misinterpreted. When he taught to forgive every human: be that Jew or Samarian, or Roman. It is evident that from all his sayings unlike Mohammed's ones there cannot be derived violence.

So we can at least agree that the teachings of Jesus have been perverted for the sake of inciting violence?

Eudaimon wrote:

Ah, I used a biblical word meaning to be just heathen, pagan.

In the context of the Bible, yes, a gentile would be a pagan of some sort. Even then, Islam does not suggest that pagans should be killed for no other reason than the fact that they are pagan.

Eudaimon wrote:

Do not generalise saying: we. There are many fools but we should not follow them.

Actually, "we" was very specific. Muhammad as a political and military leader was no more violent and primitive as any other major political/military figure.

Eudaimon wrote:

Out of mere lust people make poems and songs, out of desire to power Hebrew priests composed bible...

That is a terribly unnecessary comment to make about the Jewish scribes who compiled their Scripture. There is absolutely no evidence to support such a claim.

@Didymos Thomas,

I hear that argument a lot about Buddhism devaluing the human condition. But if you use that to somehow determine Buddhism isn't good because of that then you miss something unique with it.

I think it is good sometimes to lower your self importance and remind yourself that you are just another biological agent on this moss ball we call earth. It supports your existence without asking anything in return, so do you continue to sh!t on it without one minute of your reflection?

All the animals that die so you can eat, do you ever give them a moment of your attention? All the bugs and insects that go to support the crops and flowers you enjoy looking at. Do you give them any moment of your attention?

All the algae in the oceans that provide large amounts of renewed O2 into the air which we rely upon. Do you give them a moment of your attention?

I am in no way a hippy or tree hugger or environmentalist. But I think it is good to remind yourself that this planet really doesn't need you at all for it to keep doing it's thing. In fact if you were not here, perhaps it could do it's thing a little easier? Oh was that starting to sound a little mean? Perhaps it was...

On the other note I wanted to make. I'm not a buddhist but I have studied it. When people make the incorrect translation of the first noble truth, I correct them by point out that the Buddha meant, "Life is unfavorable." I explain this to mean that even joy can turn into sadness or misery at any moment notice. It in no way means life is bleak or negative. It's just a truth to remind you that things can't always be great all the time.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

That is a terribly unnecessary comment to make about the Jewish scribes who compiled their Scripture. There is absolutely no evidence to support such a claim.

Hast thou read Voltaire?
But well, Thomas, I don't think it is worth to continue this discussion because there are no practical results that can be obtained through it; so it becomes mere exercise of intelligence. If Muslim teachings are equal to Christian ones concerning tolerance, good and well. If not, does it change anything? If I prove thee they are really violent, that will not imply we should wage war against them. If thou provest the opposite, it will also not change anything.
I am not a christian, neither belong I to any other religion. Christianity or Buddhism or whatever cannot free us, although there are some good thoughts in them. But in order to become free one must abandon all beliefs. There is no ultimate truth either in Christianity or in Buddhism, or in Islam.

@Eudaimon,

Quote:

Because Buddhism so devalues the worth of the individual

I must protest this statement. The Buddha understands the destructive nature of selfishness, and therefore says 'go beyond selfishness'. This does not 'devalue the individual'. And though the Buddha says that 'everything is without self ("anatta") he also constantly taught with the view to assisting and clearly explaining to every individual that approached him in the most suitable way according to their background and previous knowledge. Therefore he demonstrated acute understanding of the individual characteristics of each of his listeners.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs wrote:

And though the Buddha says that 'everything is without self ("anatta") he also constantly taught with the view to assisting and clearly explaining to every individual that approached him in the most suitable way according to their background and previous knowledge. Therefore he demonstrated acute understanding of the individual characteristics of each of his listeners.

Maybe someone will explain me eventually what is the point Buddha's teachings if there is no one to suffer?

@Eudaimon,

Quote:

Maybe someone will explain me eventually what is the point Buddha's teachings if there is no one to suffer?

What this means is that the self is a constantly changing thing, it never remains the same from one moment to the next. It is an illusion backed by memory which makes it appear as though the self is a substantial entity which experiences the world as a separate thing.

In other words, if you look at a river flowing, the water in that river is never the same water from moment to moment. The water is constantly be replaced with other water and so on and so forth. So in all actuality how can you call the river by it's name if it never remains the same?

Our body is constantly renewing itself so it is never the same body from moment to moment. Our minds are constantly changing and it's understanding of the world shifts and turns. So how can you say you are the same person you were at age five? It is an illusion bridged only by one thing, memory. Without memory you would never make the connection to your past.

You are not the same person you were yesterday and you won't be the same person you are in the future. This is why the Buddha says there is no self, he means there is no permanent unchanging thing called the self...

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

What this means is that the self is a constantly changing thing, it never remains the same from one moment to the next. It is an illusion backed by memory which makes it appear as though the self is a substantial entity which experiences the world as a separate thing.

In other words, if you look at a river flowing, the water in that river is never the same water from moment to moment. The water is constantly be replaced with other water and so on and so forth. So in all actuality how can you call the river by it's name if it never remains the same?

Our body is constantly renewing itself so it is never the same body from moment to moment. Our minds are constantly changing and it's understanding of the world shifts and turns. So how can you say you are the same person you were at age five? It is an illusion bridged only by one thing, memory. Without memory you would never make the connection to your past.

You are not the same person you were yesterday and you won't be the same person you are in the future. This is why the Buddha says there is no self, he means there is no permanent unchanging thing called the self...

Yes, body/mind is changing every moment. But that wasn't my point. There is a certain constant thing, soul or atman, which may experience suffering, is it not? Otherwise, what for are all those teachings if there is no one to suffer.

@Eudaimon,

Quote:

There is a certain constant thing, soul or atman, which may experience suffering, is it not?

Well the Buddha makes the claim that there isn't such a thing or else we would be able to experience it, or know where it resides. He doesn't just say this, he actually says go look for it. Deduce the body and all it's parts and tear through yourself and look for it. Where does this so called permanent thing reside if you can't find it, then something is a little off then. If you think there is a permanent thing, where is it?

If your arm gets severed from your body, does your soul lose its arm? Or is there an invisible soul arm still there? Or does your soul not have arms or legs? Your soul is a floating blob of light? Does the soul hold memories? Does it have nerve endings so it can feel pain in the next life? Does it grow hair or finger nails? Does it have eyes and a mouth? Does it have internal organs for processing food? Does the soul require anything to continue being the soul? Is it just cosmically powered under it's own cause? Our bodies require power which is a chemical process of breaking down food. If you don't have nerve endings for your soul, how does feeling work for the soul? Just some invisible implied electrical impulses? Or some sort of psychological happening were pain or pleasure isn't actually felt but instead it is imagined? So the soul has a brain? A hub where memories are stored? Where language is kept? So my soul is going to eternally speak English? Or is it going to magically understand all languages? Or do all souls speak the same language? Or is there some sort of universal translator in soul land where you can understand all languages without needing to learn them?

I could go on and on with this, but I think you see my point how silly the soul idea becomes if you really do honestly think it over.

But to answer your question. There are people born without the ability to feel pain. It is because their nerves are either impaired by some incomplete network or the electrical impulses do not operate correctly. If you don't believe me, google it, it is quite fascinating. But anyways, you feel pain or pleasure simply because there is this potential for it. But notice pain never stays it changes intensity, length and response. Is it really a you who experiences pain or is it just a happening? A process? An electrical storm?

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

Well the Buddha makes the claim that there isn't such a thing or else we would be able to experience it, or know where it resides. He doesn't just say this, he actually says go look for it. Deduce the body and all it's parts and tear through yourself and look for it. Where does this so called permanent thing reside if you can't find it, then something is a little off then. If you think there is a permanent thing, where is it?

If your arm gets severed from your body, does your soul loose its arm? Or is there an invisible soul arm still there? Or does your soul not have arms or legs? Your soul is a floating blob of light? Does the soul hold memories? Does it have nerve endings so it can feel pain in the next life? Does it grow hair or finger nails? Does it have eyes and a mouth? Does it have internal organs for processing food? Does the soul require anything to continue being the soul? Is it just cosmically powered under it's own cause? Our bodies require power which is a chemical process of breaking down food. If you don't have nerve endings for your soul, how does feeling work for the soul? Just some invisible implied electrical impulses? Or some sort of psychological happening were pain or pleasure isn't actually felt but instead it is imagined? So the soul has a brain? A hub where memories are stored? Where language is kept? So my soul is going to eternally speak English? Or is it going to magically understand all languages? Or do all souls speak the same language? Or is there some sort of universal translator in soul land where you can understand all languages without needing to learn them?

I could go on and on with this, but I think you see my point how silly the soul idea becomes if you really do honestly think it over.

I am not going to assert anything about soul. There is good doctrine "neti, neti".
But well, Krumble, it is interesting for me to ask thee whom thou speakst all that. Surely thou impliest that I, thy interlocutor, exist... While I exist, I have self-awareness, and what would be if there I had no senses, or what would be after death, I wit not. Because this world for me exist only since I exist and perceive that probably (who knows?) not as thou dost.
However, that's not an answer again. When thou teachest some one, thou wantest him to be better supposing that he exist at least as experiencer of suffering. If he as a certain entity does not exist, than why not to teach stones?

@Eudaimon,

The person is nothing but a bio-chemical process. Self cognition is just a working of awareness of a more complex brain with better recognition of patterns and symbols. This honored self is just that, an illusion of something which is nothing more than a process. It is here today but gone tomorrow.

Did I just reduce the person to something insignificant? Well yes I did, because if you look at the universe it really doesn't care weather you live or die. It has provided an environment capable of sustaining your existence but it doesn't hold you in any importance. If it did I don't think it would hurl large boulders at you...

Philosophy Forum

Quick Links

My Account

able2know