Thoughts on Buddhism

[Angrboda]

Scientists would be hard-pressed to find and interview feral children who've been reared in a cultural vacuum to probe for aspects of quasi-religious thinking. In reality, the closest we may ever get to conducting this type of thought experiment is to study the few accounts of deaf-mutes who, allegedly at least, spontaneously invented their own cosmologies during their prelinguistic childhoods. In his book The Child's Religion (1928), the Swiss educator Pierre Bovet recounted that even Helen Keller, who went deaf and blind at nineteen months of age from an undiagnosed illness, was said to have instinctively asked herself, "Who made the sky, the sea, everything?"

Such rare accounts of deaf-mute children pontificating about Creation through some sort of internal monologue of nonverbal thought-thought far removed from any known cultural iterations or socially communicated tales of Genesis - are useful to us because they represent the unadulterated mind at work on the problem of origins. If we take these accounts at face value, the basic existential problem of reasoning about our purpose and origins would appear not to be the mental poison of religion, society, or education, but rather an insuppressible eruption of our innate human minds. We're preoccupied with why things are. Unlike most people, these deaf-mute children - most of whom grew up before the invention of a standardized symbolic communication system of gestures, such as American Sign Language (ASL) - had no access to the typical explanatory balms of science and religion in calming these bothersome riddles. Without language, one can't easily share the idea of a purposeful, monotheistic God with a naive child. And the theory of natural selection is difficult enough to convey to a normal speaking and hearing child, let alone one who can do neither. These special children were therefore left to their own devices in making sense of how the world came to be and, more intriguingly, in weaving their own existence into the narrative fabric of this grand cosmology.

In an 1892 issue of The Philosophical Review, William James, brother to the novelist Henry James and himself arguably the world's most famous psychologist of his era (some years later, he would write the classic Varieties of Religious Experience), penned an introduction to the autobiographical account of one such deaf-mute, Theophilus Hope D'Estrella. "I have Mr. d'Estrella's permission," James tells us, "to lay before the readers of The Philosophical Review a new document which is most interesting by its intrinsic content.” For uncertain reasons (perhaps literary), D'Estrella writes of his early childhood in the third person, but it's indeed a remarkably eloquent and beautifully composed piece of work. Born in 1851 in San Francisco to a French-Swiss father he never met and a Mexican mother who died when he was five years old, D'Estrella grew up as an orphan raised by his mother's short-tempered best friend -another Mexican woman who, judging by her fondness for whipping him over the slightest misdeeds, apparently felt burdened by his frustratingly incommunicative presence. With no one to talk to otherwise, and only wordless observations and inborn powers of discernment to guide his naive theories of the world, D'Estrella retreated into his own imagination to make sense of what must have been a very confusing existential situation. For example, he developed an animistic theory of the moon that hints at the egocentric nature of children's minds, particularly with respect to morality:

He wondered why the moon appeared so regularly. So he thought that she must have come out to see him alone. Then he talked to her in gestures, and fancied that he saw her smile or frown. [He] found out that he had been whipped oftener when the moon was visible. It was as though she were watching him and telling his guardian (he being an orphan boy) all about his bad capers.

D'Estrella writes also about his notions of the origins of natural objects and events in the world-namely, the sun, the stars, the wind, and the ocean. In these observations we see something like a natural creationist bent, one that reflexively imbues objects in the world with pragmatic functions and clear purposes:

One night he happened to see some boys throwing and catching burning oil-soaked balls of yarn. He turned his mind to the sun, and thought that it must have been thrown up and caught just the same - but by what force? So he supposed that there was a great and strong man, somehow hiding himself behind the hills (San Francisco being a hilly city). The sun was his ball of fire as a toy, and he amused himself in throwing it very high in the sky every morning and catching it every evening.

He supposed that the god lit the stars for his own use as we do gas-lights in the street. When there was wind, he supposed that it was the indication of his passions. A cold gale bespoke his anger, and a cool breeze his happy temper. Why? Because he had sometimes felt the breath bursting out from the mouth of angry people in the act of quarreling or scolding.

Let me add as to the origin of the ocean. One day he went with some boys to the ocean. They went bathing. He first went into the ocean, not knowing how it tasted and how strong the waves rolled. So he was knocked around, with his eyes and mouth open. He came near to being drowned. He could not swim. He went to the bottom and instinctively crawled up on sand. He spit the water out of his mouth, and wondered why the water was so salty. He thought that it was the urine of that mighty god.

It's worth cautioning that D'Estrella would have been about forty years old when he wrote about these early childhood experiences - experiences that were retrospectively given voice by a mind that had since learned language. In fact, by the time he authored these personal accounts, D'Estrella had become an accomplished artist and was employed as the drawing instructor at the unfortunately named California Institution for the Deaf and Dumb.

The Belief Instinct, Jesse Bering

[Carnavon]

I would like to reply to that first statement before I state my views on the other issue.
I can't help but feel if this God cared about whether who he was killing was evil or not he wouldn't kill "Egypts first born". Little bit near the knuckle don't you think? Its not even the only example of its kind. Do you honestly think thats "righteous wrath"? Take away the divine powers and its just Kim Jong-Il on Red Bull.

In the first instance the question is then : What is the basis for judgement of what is evil? Is there an absolute truth of good and evil and how is it arrived at? If there is no “truth”, then discussion is “I like vanilla and you like chocolate”. With this information, we can then proceed and evaluate “killing the first borns” etc.
The second issue is also the degree of "punishment" for evil. It is hopefully agreed that wrongs should be punished in some way. My personal opinion is that death in itself is no punishment as that is the way of nature. The real issue is what happens to a person after death - as that is eternal. Mar 8:37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
To me the question is then: Am I ready to die today - by whatever means - car accident, heart attack or whatever.

As for Abrahamic religions renouncing anyone who doesn't agree entirely, I think those religions just take their holy book literally to the nth term and refuse to cover it up. Its not like it isn't authorized by The Bible if you read it, infact being renounced is getting off lightly if you go by those standards.
Take it literally then Fred Phelps was well within his rights to do what he did. In his distorted view he was saving people from going to hell and there was nothing in there to say otherwise. On the contrary, he found plenty to support him. Of course most of us know he was a deeply vile individual but its not hard to see where he got his ideas from.

I would be happy if you could substantiate the claims made by evidence and not mere speculation. Again, I wish to remind you that it is not what individuals (or groups of individuals) do, but an orientation “prescribed” in the Bible. That God acts against his enemies is not disputed, as I have said before. The issue at stake here is how are supposed to treat others of different persuasions.(Abrahamic religions that renounce anyone who refuses to climb on board as being a 'worthless heathen' unworthy of respect)

Let us consider what the Bible for instance says (and I did not “handpick these for a specific orientation and used “enemy” as a "party strongly opposed")
Exo 23:4 If thou meet thine enemy's ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again.
Exo 23:5 If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him.
Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Rom 12:20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
Rom 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
Coming down to the essence of the issue, it is not to claim a higher moral ground or “superior lifestyle”. I initially responded because “clichés” develop which is totally false and misrepresent the message of the Bible and is often accepted without question.

This thread is actually about Buddhism and maybe we should continue this discussion under another thread.

[The Grand Nudger]

You forgot to add "for surely thy enemy shall get his in the next life, and god can imagine more gruesome revenge than you ever could" to the end of each of those passages. I can argue single lines of Mein Kampf all day long.

[Carnavon]

I'll be the first to agree with you that "Christianity" appears to be about grace first and foremost. The only problem is that the scriptures themselves are grossly self-contradicting on that very point.

You say, "The Christian perspective is exactly this : Thankful that God in his mercy, and not because of my "goodness (superiority?)" looked kindly upon me and saved me as I am no better than anyone else."

But that's a contradiction right there. Ultimately neither God nor Jesus decides to 'save' anyone. It must be their choice to "repent their sins", and ask for forgiveness, and to accept Jesus as their LORD.

That is of course something debated in Christian circles – those that believe in “predestination” and the “Arminian” school of thought. Of course we must repent and ask for forgiveness, but it is eventually God’s counsel that stands.

In my view the Arminian position (as you seem to reflect here) is a view that gives preference to what we think God should do versus what the Bible clearly teaches – especially Romans- and also wanting to be in control.
Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

But also
Joh 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
Joh 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
Joh 6:45 It is written in the Prophets, 'And they will all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me—
Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love
Eph 1:5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
Eph 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,
Eph 2:4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us,
Eph 2:5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved—
Psa 33:12 Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD, the people whom he has chosen as his heritage!

The question then remains: how can God hold me responsible and damn me to eternal hell whilst it was his decision? That is not an easy question to answer, but Paul addresses the issue (v 19,20).
From my perspective, I daily have an option to follow Jesus. I know that I deserve eternal damnation but I trust only on the finished work of Jesus. We all trust in something. Many people trust in the assumption that there is no hell, and this life is all there is to it. I trust in Jesus Christ and his work on the cross – as an atonement for sin.
Jesus' claims are either that of an outright liar, a lunatic or he was speaking the truth (I think it was CS Lewis that said that). Historical facts contradict that he was either of the first two mentioned.
The trustworthiness of the Bible (as far as can be verified) add to my confidence.

So in a very real sense they must 'earn' this grace via their own choice to repent their sins, ask for forgiveness, and make a commitment to obey Jesus as their LORD.

So they can indeed lay claim to a special "goodness (superiority)", over those who refuse to chose goodness over evil (i.e. over sin).

But the whole story is grossly riddled with contradictions concerning this very ideal.

Even Jesus supposedly asked of the Father, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".

This is an oxymoron in many ways.

First off, it suggests that people who are doing bad things "know not what they do". And that this is sufficient reason for bestowing them with forgiveness and grace.

Well, if that's true then all non-believers would automatically be eligible for this kind of "Jesus Grace" because, if they don't even believe in the religion and 'sin', then clearly "they know not what they do".

So a mere disbelief in the religion, and a disbelieve that Jesus was the son of God, would be an automatic pardon based on Jesus' own request to the Father that people be forgiven if "they know not what they do".

The second oxymoron is to ask, "Why should Jesus even need to suggest this to a supposedly all-wise God?" Shouldn't the Father already be wise enough on his own to recognize that people who "know not what they do" should be pardoned if righteousness is to have any meaning at all?

Why should Jesus need to suggest to God-the-Father what should be considered to be 'righteous judgment'? Was the Father not already wise and righteous to begin with?

~~~~

I mean, seriously. If a person honestly sees no reason to believe in the ancient Hebrew tales, then even if those tales were true, that non-believer would qualify as "knowing not what they are doing" with respect to rejecting "God's word", because they honestly see no reason to believe in it.

Therefore people who don't believe in the religion would necessarily need to be automatically saved through the "Grace of Jesus", because Jesus himself proclaims that people who "Know not what they do" should be forgiven.

So the whole religion breaks down right there. Especially the idea that a person would need to do anything "special" on their own free will choice (like accepting Jesus as their LORD and savior) in order to earn the "Grace" of forgiveness, etc.

The whole religion is just a Pandora's box of one contradiction after another.

The whole argument is based on the interpretation that ignorance (or indeed rejection) of the law is reason for God to “turn a blind eye” and extend His grace to all. This is contrary to the whole Bible (see judgment).

The question is then how to interpret the words of Jesus and even Steven . From a purely personal perspective, one would pray for the soul of people that you come across, even if you knew that many of them will not be saved. It is a condition of the heart to express this love towards another even if it is not determined what will be the end result. In this remark, Jesus not only did what He said we should do (pray for our enemies), but confirms that those that “see” would not have acted as they did.

One could also ask: What were they ignorant of? That He was innocent? No they knew that. Even Pilate recognised that. That they were killing Jesus? No, that they knew that is obvious. So what were they ignorant of? It seems to me they were ignorant of the Gospel of salvation though belief in Jesus Christ as Lord.

Consider for instance the song by John Newton, in which he says “I once was blind but now I see”. This is exactly the position – we are all blind and ignorant until through the work of the Holy Spirit we are “made to see”. So we cannot claim ignorance or rebellion as justification for God’s grace. (Neither can we claim our goodness, works etc)

One also has to consider that Jesus’ prayer was answered as 3000 came to Christ on the day of Pentecost as an act of mercy and not because they were ignorant.

[Abracadabra]

I trust in Jesus Christ and his work on the cross – as an atonement for sin.

If that's true, then why appeal to the words of Paul or others?

Why not go with things that were attributed direct to Jesus, or to the authors of the Gospels who claim to be quoting him directly all the time?

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God

Here John is making a pretty straight-forward claim. If you are to believe that you can trust John to speak for God and that Jesus was "The Word Made Flesh", then why should you doubt the words of John or go off using the words of Paul or others to contradict these words?

Jesus' claims are either that of an outright liar, a lunatic or he was speaking the truth (I think it was CS Lewis that said that). Historical facts contradict that he was either of the first two mentioned.
The trustworthiness of the Bible (as far as can be verified) add to my confidence

Yes, you're right it was CS Lewis who said that, but CS Lewis assumes that the New Testament represents the word of Jesus verbatim. There's no reason to assume that unless you have already accepted that these rumors represent the undeniable "word of God". And if you have already done that then there's nothing more to consider.

In fact, if you take CS Lewis' position that you need to 'justify' every word of the Bible verbatim, then you're stuck with having no choice to believe that it's all the sacred word of God. Because in these tales they claim that God himself spoke to the people from a cloud stating that Jesus is his son and that we should hear him.

Matt.17:5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

Mark.9:7 And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.

Luke.9:35 And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.


If you believe that, then it's a done deal. There's nothing more to question.

On the other hand if you believe, like me, that these rumors are most likely fibs made up in an attempt to give these absurd rumors clout, then you should simultaneously recognize that this is indeed a huge red flag that clearly demonstrates that nothing these rumors claim should be taken seriously or trusted to be genuine.

I make no secret about the fact that I completely dismiss the entire Hebrew rumors as nothing more than extremely biased superstitions.

In fact, just look around you today. Look at how many people argue and try to support these stupid rumors when in fact, they weren't there and could have absolutely no knowledge of whether any of this stuff ever took place.

Apparently it's human nature to support fibs and rumors that they like.

Why should we believe that the authors of these ancient fables were any different?

In fact, most scholars recognize that Matthew and Luke were both just retelling Mark's fables.

So basically these gospels are just one rumor being retold by different authors. None of them saw the events that they are reporting. It's all just hearsay rumors being passed along from one idiot to another.

[Bgood]

Let's hear what the great Zen Buddhist ALAN WATTS has to say about Jesus..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...-NaaKE1xtw

---

I love Alan Watts. He sounds so smart with that british accent! LOL

[KichigaiNeko]

What a load of crock!!

[Abracadabra]

Let's hear what the great Zen Buddhist ALAN WATTS has to say about Jesus..

Well, he certainly hit the nail on the head there.

Jesus most likely isn't anything at all like the Christians who have turned him into a freak.

Jesus tried to teach us who we truly are.

The Christians attempt to use Jesus to rape us of who we truly are.

And they vilify themselves in the process.

Such poor lost souls. Lost in precisely the way that Jesus said. They have no clue who they are. They can only think in terms of external 'gods'. They have no spirit of their own. They are like zombies. Empty shells of flesh walking around making a demon out of Jesus himself simply because they have no clue what he was talking about.

I totally agree with Allen Watts on that point.

[Bgood]

The more I read and hear Alan Watts speak the more I fall in love with the man. WATT a great intellect! I read an essay called "Alchemy' that addressed his experimentation with LSD in the 60's. I have some experience with psychadelics and with entering the mind into transcendenatal mysticism. the drug actually strips away layers of conditioning and bio-defenses that allow for more "real" vision. I was wondering if anybody tried DMT? I haven't but I hope to someday.

Human consciousness is a mysterious thing. Even if "god" exists or not, the human mind and body combination is a miracle I don't care what all the naysayers and cynical atheists say. I don't think many of them have a very good imagination. They think too literally. I am sure they are good people, but they may restrict themselves to logic and computation too much, which is a relatively new social condition. Buddhism is counter-cultural just like John Lennon and Yoko Ono was. They said "Screw the government, Bring down the establishment!" WHY? because it is all an illusion.

---

What a load of crock!!

Hmm What? I'm kind of surprised by that response. But I have to say that I do like your new avatar.

[Whateverist]

The more I read and hear Alan Watts speak the more I fall in love with the man. WATT a great intellect!

Here we may have to agree to agree. There are bits he has written that seemed overly pretentious and cheezily suggestive to me but one of my all time favorite books is one he wrote called "The Wisdom of Insecurity".

Human consciousness is a mysterious thing. Even if "god" exists or not, the human mind and body combination is a miracle I don't care what all the naysayers and cynical atheists say.

Damn I've got to agree once again. It truly is an amazing thing and so poorly understood by science at this time that philosophy actually has things of relevance to say about consciousness. By the time a thing becomes better understood it will have gravitated over to science completely.

I'm too not too keen about separating mind and consciousness from body however. Dualism is flawed. Outside of the movies no one has managed to separate a mind from a body without ending consciousness. We scarcely understand how consciousness emerges from the workings of a living brain so any speculation about an after life for disembodied consciousness seem ridiculous at best.

For me, atheism does not necessitate a stance of "nothing but .." toward any question. For my money, any understanding of human nature that can be reduced to rationalism is incomplete.