Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
The mind habitually thinks harmful things. The mind habitually ruminates on things that precipitate behavior that destroys peace of mind, making itself unhappy and eclipsing creative potential. Is it possible to watch the mind doing this? Is it possible to nip negative or self-destructive thought in the bud, to stop detrimental thinking as soon as it sprouts? Is that religion?
Based on your formulation of the questions I suspect you’ve already answered them for yourself, so I’m not quite sure what your stake is in posing them, however here’s my take on them.
unsmoked - 05 May 2011 10:28 AM
The mind habitually thinks harmful things. The mind habitually ruminates on things that precipitate behavior that destroys peace of mind, making itself unhappy and eclipsing creative potential. Is it possible to watch the mind doing this?
Yes, it’s always possible, although some (such as myself) may also wish to make a concerted effort to do this by taking up a meditation practice, which may be more conducive to this than is the case in general, everyday waking life.
unsmoked - 05 May 2011 10:28 AM
Is it possible to nip negative or self-destructive thought in the bud, to stop detrimental thinking as soon as it sprouts?
This one’s a bit trickier. I don’t think it’s possible to “stop detrimental thinking” per se, but we can allow it to subside by becoming consciously aware of it; neither blindly succumbing to those detrimental thoughts nor actively attempting to suppress them.
unsmoked - 05 May 2011 10:28 AM
Is that religion?
No. (I must add, however, that this is an entirely different question than that phrased in the thread’s title, i.e. “Is Buddhism religion?”. To that question I would respond that for some it clearly is, for others it clearly isn’t.)
The mind habitually thinks harmful things. The mind habitually ruminates on things that precipitate behavior that destroys peace of mind, making itself unhappy and eclipsing creative potential. Is it possible to watch the mind doing this? Is it possible to nip negative or self-destructive thought in the bud, to stop detrimental thinking as soon as it sprouts? Is that religion?
Based on your formulation of the questions I suspect you’ve already answered them for yourself, so I’m not quite sure what your stake is in posing them, however here’s my take on them.
unsmoked - 05 May 2011 10:28 AM
The mind habitually thinks harmful things. The mind habitually ruminates on things that precipitate behavior that destroys peace of mind, making itself unhappy and eclipsing creative potential. Is it possible to watch the mind doing this?
Yes, it’s always possible, although some (such as myself) may also wish to make a concerted effort to do this by taking up a meditation practice, which may be more conducive to this than is the case in general, everyday waking life.
unsmoked - 05 May 2011 10:28 AM
Is it possible to nip negative or self-destructive thought in the bud, to stop detrimental thinking as soon as it sprouts?
This one’s a bit trickier. I don’t think it’s possible to “stop detrimental thinking” per se, but we can allow it to subside by becoming consciously aware of it; neither blindly succumbing to those detrimental thoughts nor actively attempting to suppress them.
unsmoked - 05 May 2011 10:28 AM
Is that religion?
No. (I must add, however, that this is an entirely different question than that phrased in the thread’s title, i.e. “Is Buddhism religion?”. To that question I would respond that for some it clearly is, for others it clearly isn’t.)
religionn1 a (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance 2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices (Webster)
sciencen1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding 2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study (eg. the science of the mind) (Webster)
However, as you and GAD just pointed out, to most people Buddhism is a religion. The science of looking at our own mental habits, observing what we are doing to make ourselves and others unhappy or downright miserable, to watch ourselves shooting ourselves in the foot, - to find out for ourselves if deleterious habits of mind and body can end . . .
deleteriousadj : harmful often in a subtle or unexpected way (eg. deleterious to health) PERNICIOUS (Webster)
Agreed. As are the Tibetan religions, which are essentially Bon and animist superstitions sprinkled over lightly with a smattering of Buddhist teachings.
So, some forms of Buddhism are religious, and some aren’t. Just like some forms of Christianity aren’t really religious, like Unitarian/Universalists, or Christian Humanists. To avoid the True Scotsman fallacy, once can’t say that Mahayanas aren’t Buddhists, or that UU’s aren’t Christian.
When writing on this Forum about Zen, I often quote from a small book called ‘ZEN ESSENCE - The Science of Freedom’ - translated and edited by Thomas Cleary.
Notice that Cleary’s subtitle is ‘The Science of Freedom’ not ‘The Religion of Freedom’. I’m interested in Zen as a science of the mind.
In Japan I visited the main temple of the Soto Zen Sect and was completely put off by all the ritual, trappings, paraphernalia - the whole place annoyed me. I might as well have been at a papal ceremony. I might as well have been in Tibet immersed in all the religious hocus-pocus that Stuka mentioned above. The parking-lot of that temple seemed to be full of black, expensive cars. The priests were dressed in regalia that out-glittered the Pope’s finest.
In Japan I asked several lay people if they were interested in Zen. “Oh no! Too difficult! Too difficult!” It’s hard to look at oneself.
“Who am I? What am I? What is the mind doing? Is this painful jealousy (for example) inevitable?”
Walt Whitman’s line in ‘Leaves of Grass’ is ‘aplomb in the midst of irrational things!’ Buddha’s imagery, on this theme, is the lotus blooming fresh and unsullied in a muddy pond.
Is the freedom that Gotama talked about possible, or is it religious hokum?
So, some forms of Buddhism are religious, and some aren’t.
That’s going to depend on how you define “religion”.
Just like some forms of Christianity aren’t really religious, like Unitarian/Universalists, or Christian Humanists.
UUs are xtians…?
To avoid the True Scotsman fallacy, once can’t say that Mahayanas aren’t Buddhists, or that UU’s aren’t Christian.
I don’t recall anyone saying “no mahayanists are Buddhists”. There are a lot of sects with wildly varying beliefs and practices that call themselves “Buddhist”.
However, Tibetans worship deities and oracles and their national leaders. Calling them “Buddhist” is rather a stretch.
When writing on this Forum about Zen, I often quote from a small book called ‘ZEN ESSENCE - The Science of Freedom’ - translated and edited by Thomas Cleary.
Notice that Cleary’s subtitle is ‘The Science of Freedom’ not ‘The Religion of Freedom’. I’m interested in Zen as a science of the mind.
In Japan I visited the main temple of the Soto Zen Sect and was completely put off by all the ritual, trappings, paraphernalia - the whole place annoyed me. I might as well have been at a papal ceremony. I might as well have been in Tibet immersed in all the religious hocus-pocus that Stuka mentioned above. The parking-lot of that temple seemed to be full of black, expensive cars. The priests were dressed in regalia that out-glittered the Pope’s finest.
In Japan I asked several lay people if they were interested in Zen. “Oh no! Too difficult! Too difficult!” It’s hard to look at oneself.
“Who am I? What am I? What is the mind doing? Is this painful jealousy (for example) inevitable?”
Walt Whitman’s line in ‘Leaves of Grass’ is ‘aplomb in the midst of irrational things!’ Buddha’s imagery, on this theme, is the lotus blooming fresh and unsullied in a muddy pond.
Is the freedom that Gotama talked about possible, or is it religious hokum?
Well first people have to feel/believe they have a problem/deficiency and then they seek a cure and most all “cures” involve rites, ritual, trappings, paraphernalia etc in order (IMO) to trick oneself into accepting/believing the cure. This is even case for most self-help systems, I went to a 5 day 7 habits class and it had everything a Pentecostal sermon has just shy of rolling in the aisles and taking in tongues.
When writing on this Forum about Zen, I often quote from a small book called ‘ZEN ESSENCE - The Science of Freedom’ - translated and edited by Thomas Cleary.
Notice that Cleary’s subtitle is ‘The Science of Freedom’ not ‘The Religion of Freedom’. I’m interested in Zen as a science of the mind.
In Japan I visited the main temple of the Soto Zen Sect and was completely put off by all the ritual, trappings, paraphernalia - the whole place annoyed me. I might as well have been at a papal ceremony. I might as well have been in Tibet immersed in all the religious hocus-pocus that Stuka mentioned above. The parking-lot of that temple seemed to be full of black, expensive cars. The priests were dressed in regalia that out-glittered the Pope’s finest.
In Japan I asked several lay people if they were interested in Zen. “Oh no! Too difficult! Too difficult!” It’s hard to look at oneself.
“Who am I? What am I? What is the mind doing? Is this painful jealousy (for example) inevitable?”
Walt Whitman’s line in ‘Leaves of Grass’ is ‘aplomb in the midst of irrational things!’ Buddha’s imagery, on this theme, is the lotus blooming fresh and unsullied in a muddy pond.
Is the freedom that Gotama talked about possible, or is it religious hokum?
Well first people have to feel/believe they have a problem/deficiency and then they seek a cure and most all “cures” involve rites, ritual, trappings, paraphernalia etc in order (IMO) to trick oneself into accepting/believing the cure. This is even case for most self-help systems, I went to a 5 day 7 habits class and it had everything a Pentecostal sermon has just shy of rolling in the aisles and taking in tongues.
In most translations of Buddhist writing I’ve seen, the word ‘suffering’ is used. You used the words ‘problem/deficiency’, and I used as one example the problematic emotion . . . jealousy. It’s true that whatever the form of mental angst, we first have to recognize it as a form of pain, suffering, - - some kind of blight in our life - - not only causing aggravation and irritation, but probably damaging our relationships, our sense of creativity, our joie de vivre etc.
Once we acknowledge that we are ‘suffering’ from some kind of (usually habitual) mental activity, then some people look for a cure - just as we look for a cure for physical suffering. Buddha offers a cure, like a doctor. I’m suggesting that this cure isn’t religious - it doesn’t involve accepting or believing anything. You study the prescription and try it. It is effective or it isn’t. To me, this is science of the mind, not religion.
Would you agree that most who suffer from jealousy, (I mean really suffer), don’t have a clue that there’s a cure? Don’t have a clue that the suffering and damage to one’s life and relationships is unnecessary and can come to an end in an instant? I mean, imagine a person 500 years ago with a splitting headache who has no idea that a potion of willow bark (salicylic acid = aspirin) could relieve the pain.
Do you think there is a life-enhancing, non-chemical, psychological/scientific cure for jealousy, resentment, anger, craving, bickering and other mental blights?
When writing on this Forum about Zen, I often quote from a small book called ‘ZEN ESSENCE - The Science of Freedom’ - translated and edited by Thomas Cleary.
Notice that Cleary’s subtitle is ‘The Science of Freedom’ not ‘The Religion of Freedom’. I’m interested in Zen as a science of the mind.
Does Cleary speak for all of Zen? For the Buddha…?
I wonder if you have examined any of the Buddha’s own teachings, in the Nikjayas?
In Japan I visited the main temple of the Soto Zen Sect and was completely put off by all the ritual, trappings, paraphernalia - the whole place annoyed me. I might as well have been at a papal ceremony. I might as well have been in Tibet immersed in all the religious hocus-pocus that Stuka mentioned above. The parking-lot of that temple seemed to be full of black, expensive cars. The priests were dressed in regalia that out-glittered the Pope’s finest.
I can understand your reaction.
In Japan I asked several lay people if they were interested in Zen. “Oh no! Too difficult! Too difficult!” It’s hard to look at oneself.
“Who am I? What am I? What is the mind doing? Is this painful jealousy (for example) inevitable?”
The Buddha would not ask such questions. He would look at these things and say, “This is not me, this is not mine, this is not my self”.
Walt Whitman’s line in ‘Leaves of Grass’ is ‘aplomb in the midst of irrational things!’ Buddha’s imagery, on this theme, is the lotus blooming fresh and unsullied in a muddy pond.
Yoru source for the Buddha’s imagery, please?
Is the freedom that Gotama talked about possible, or is it religious hokum?
The mind habitually thinks harmful things. The mind habitually ruminates on things that precipitate behavior that destroys peace of mind, making itself unhappy and eclipsing creative potential. Is it possible to watch the mind doing this? Is it possible to nip negative or self-destructive thought in the bud, to stop detrimental thinking as soon as it sprouts? Is that religion?
The term religion should be exterminated. Strange, only in western culture uses this confused term.
If you see or hear the term religion on your path, KILL IT.
Then after, everything will be explained, for themselves.
