[Snuddyentaine]

Interesting article arguing that the meditation methods and other "secular" Buddhist teachings should remain intact while the rest of the religion should go by the wayside.

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_t...ing-the-buddha

[CaseyFronczek]

One man's meat is another man's poison...

[DoctorDulitlBest]

Could you elaborate plwk? Thanks.

[VottCetaVeivE]

Interesting. I think he makes some good points when it comes to the point about viewing Buddhism as a religion hinders its ability to connect with some people. Thanks for the link.

[agiopwer]

Hes-just-expressing-whata-lot-of-the-sanga-know-already-humans-can-be-very-ignorant-and-i-am-not-exempt-hopefully-i-am-getting-there-the-original-message-has-been-very-misconstrued-and-turned-into-fairystories-in-parts-buddha-was-a-very-pragmatic-man-

[sykanaxer]

An interesting article made my a leaning mind. I think theres lots literature out there that talks about living in the now and other buddhist practices but not quoting or hinting of its buddhist roots. But I think lots of people aren't interested or drawn to it.

On the points he made about violence in religion. My views used to be close to his, thinking its religion that caused the violence. But since I got into buddhism I now think its the persons violence they bring to religion. In a clockwork orange(the book) the main character is a very violent teen who gets sent to prison. In prison he finds joy in the bible but not from the hope and love people normally get from religion, he found it in the violent acts within the bible.(hope that was still on topic)

Thanks for sharing the article with us Trilaksana

[TouccuraLar]

I think religion can be a cause for violence. But it by no means the only cause. The "New Atheists" often over simplify issues involving violence and religion by blaming religion as the sole cause. I think religion is often the justification but not the original cause. Sometimes I do think it's at least the large part of the cause. There's never just one cause to complicated things like wars.

[opelonafqe]

Thanks Trilaksana,

A very good article.

2 cents:

We can not blame religions as the unique source of violence. The source of violence is to be found in the mind that hates, ignores and clings.

The same problems that are found in religious beliefs are found in politics and economy.

The violence found in religion is also found in politics, in economy or in any kind of ideology.

Also science can be caught by ideology when it is worshiped and can end in violent results like weaponry.

Science should not be a sort of modern god.

Science is just a tool and a way mind is educated so to understand things. A tool to know HOW things work, but not "why".

The "why" is left for religions and for philosophy and the "why" arises because existential angst.

I do not agree that Buddhism is presented to people as a religion.

On the contrary.

It is people who has made a religious belief -for some a blind one- out of what Gautama Buddha taught.

The idea or the believe in a metaphysical Buddha is because the need of people to found some existential solace seemingly because the original teaching left by Gotama Buddha was -or is- not well addressed.

I have never felt any interest in religions so I am not an expert in religious grounds, but it looks like that the case of Gautama's Buddha doctrine, transformed into religious belief, is not unique.

This happens because the way human beings blend things into culture. The way culture adopts and adapts. The way human beings establishes relationships with environment.

Gotama's Buddhadhamma asks to develop confidence as a special kind of belief.

A belief born as an inner faith because the validation and the tangible experience through practice and not because a sort of metaphysical belief in ideas like the continuum of life, intelligent designs, storehouse of seeds or the like.

So belief is born as a confidence that further practice and further steps are a guarantee of success in quenching dukkha; the only and ultimate goal of Gotama's teaching...

But the wandering mind always craves for more.

[JoesBro]

Hi Esho,

I recognize that religion is not the unique source of violence. I agree that "the source of violence is to be found in the mind that hates, ignores and clings." I think Sam Harris does as well but I don't know this for sure. However the Abrahamic religions often actively and somewhat knowingly teach and celebrate ignorance with what they call faith. It's blind faith. It encourages people to suspend their intellect and their nature of questioning in order to believe that which has no evidence. Also these religions have traditionally taught that non-believers are essentially evil. I recognize that not all believers in any of the Abrahamic religions practice those teachings. Most do not but they exist and it's extremely harmful.

I suppose science can become harmful but I don't think Sam Harris is advocating that it be given a divine status. As a neuroscientist I'm sure Harris realizes science is just a tool.

[RG3rGWcA]

I recognize that religion is not the unique source of violence. I agree that "the source of violence is to be found in the mind that hates, ignores and clings." I think Sam Harris does as well but I don't know this for sure. However the Abrahamic religions often actively and somewhat knowingly teach and celebrate ignorance with what they call faith. It's blind faith. It encourages people to suspend their intellect and their nature of questioning in order to believe that which has no evidence. Also these religions have traditionally taught that non-believers are essentially evil. I recognize that not all believers in any of the Abrahamic religions practice those teachings. Most do not but they exist and it's extremely harmful.

To believe blindly is another human trait and it can be found in any religion. Not just the Abrahamic.

We can found people worshiping metaphysical entities, or universal consiousness as people worshiping saints, god, or Capitalism and those who do not blindly believe in Capitalism -or Communism- are considered evil, too.

I don't know about religions but I prefer not to point fingers just to "Abrahamic" ones but to blind belief that can be found in any sort of religion as in other fields of human activity.

It can be surprising how many hard core scientists at some moments can be driven by blind believes mostly in the field of physics where the ghost of a god haunt their minds often.

It is not about Abrahamic v.s Buddhist blind believes but about blind belief, particularly, as a means to quench dukkha.

For example, it is blind to believe that everlasting happiness will happen just and only just through the materialistic advance of science, as it is blind to believe that some mental shortcomings are about literal past lives karma or even that god do not play with dice.

Blind belief can show many faces. Persuasive argumentation is rooted in making people believe things like the case of political propaganda or marketing strategies. Also honest political propaganda can be rooted in an entanglement of blind beliefs.

I don't think Sam Harris is advocating that it be given a divine status. As a neuroscientist I'm sure Harris realizes science is just a tool. Of course. I was just expressing some ideas because of the article. I am not doing a criticism of Sam Harris.

[Preegovesem]

I do strongly disagree with the New Atheists that religion is the source of war. It's like the riots in Afghanistan over the Quran burning. Those riots weren't because U.S. troops burnt the Quran. They were because the people are angry and sick of U.S. forces in their country. That's why I get so frustrated when I hear some people say terrorists hate America because of its freedom or frame the ME conflicts as some kind of war between Islam and Christianity. Those people are missing the point. Religious fanaticalism does not arise in a vacuum, it is a (wrong) response to oppression. No one wakes up one day and says "I hate Americans, I'm going to blow myself up in hopes of killing them."

[CreativeSuiteDown]

I do strongly disagree with the New Atheists that religion is the source of war.

I didn't knew that there are "New Atheists".

But well, Theists and Atheists are stuck and deluded by the same issue: god.



I do strongly disagree with the New Atheists that religion is the source of war. Agree. War and violence are by far not a private parcel of religions.

[kimaddison]

I didn't mean to target just the Abrahamic religions as the proponents of blind faith. I recognize that it happens within many religions as well as outside of religion. However, the Abrahamic religions have a huge influence over the world and do spread the idea of blind faith as a virtue.

[DoniandaCoado]

the Abrahamic religions have a huge influence over the world and do spread the idea of blind faith as a virtue.

Blind believe is not an idea but a way mind works. It is a tangible human trait.

[Idorsearogele]

I didn't mean to target just the Abrahamic religions as the proponents of blind faith. I recognize that it happens within many religions as well as outside of religion. However, the Abrahamic religions have a huge influence over the world and do spread the idea of blind faith as a virtue.

Yeah I think Martin Luther summed up the Abrahamic viewpoint well when he said "Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding."

[BrianGoldsmith]

Just would like to clarify the second paragraph, it says - The ninth-century Buddhist Master Lin Chi is supposed to have said, “If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.”

The road does not mean the actual road or street in our cities or towns.
This road means the road of practice.
During our practice, if we meet the Buddha, kill him.

This is very advanced level teaching. It is about the last stage of practice, i.e. should be at Anagami level.
So, for us now, please do not try to kill the Buddha.
At our level, we need to attach with the Buddha and follow his teachings.

At Anagami level, he will not have carvings by materials (Rupa).
He will be very happy in mind, and therefore has last attachment in mind.
Some would feel that they see/reach the Buddha and truly become one with Buddha.

How to kill the Buddha?
To kill the Buddha means to "drop" the Buddha.
If the Anagami can drop the Buddha and attachment in mind,
then he will achieve enlightenment, and really become one with the Buddha.
If the Anagami still has attachment in Buddha or mind, he does not achieve the enlightenment.

In other words, as long as the Anagami has attachment in the Buddha, he does not become one with the Buddha. But once he drops attachment in the Buddha, he really becomes one with the Buddha.

It does not matter whether Buddhism is deemed a religious or not.
Practitioners do not mind whether other people may call Buddhism as religious, philosophy or science etc. It does matter whether we can study, understand and practice the Buddha's teachings and consequently end our sufferings.

[Allorneadesee]

Agree with the sentiments here, ngodngam. Language like kill the Buddha has never resonated well with me, and possibily will not ... that's ok - different strokes for different folks, and all that - as you say, it really doesn't matter.

[makemoneyonli]

Language like kill the Buddha has never resonated well with me, and possibily will not ...

Yes... there is no need to kill anybody, mostly, if we are at peace with things .

[7kitthuptarill]

I didn't knew that there are "New Atheists".

But well, Theists and Atheists are stuck and deluded by the same issue: god.

New Atheism refers to to the ideas of various 21st century thinkers who argue that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises." Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, Hitchens are among the most prominent of the New Atheists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_atheist

As to the issue of God, I'm agnostic and I don't really worry about it, but I will admit I tend to take a turn towards "New Atheism" when I encounter people advocating public policy based on their religious beliefs. I strongly oppose forcing their religion on others via the power of the State.

[ethigSmimbine]

New Atheism refers to to the ideas of various 21st century thinkers who argue that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises." Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, Hitchens are among the most prominent of the New Atheists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_atheist

Thanks for the information WW .

As to the issue of God, I'm agnostic and I don't really worry about it, but I will admit I tend to take a turn towards "New Atheism" when I encounter people advocating public policy based on their religious beliefs. I strongly oppose forcing their religion on others via the power of the State. Yes... I really have never felt interest in God, "God like" issues or metaphysical speculation.

And, of course, religions are always in the risk of getting into many different oppressive aspects. Some of them very subtle and others more evident.