onegoodmove

Re: Karma

Not necessarily. Some 'forms' of Zen Buddhism are only about meditation and shrug their shoulders at the whole karma nonsense. The Karma and Reincarnation stuff which infests many forms of buddhism is simply a byproduct of the practice growing up within an animist belief system. When you strip it of everything else Buddhism entails two beliefs:

1) The world is a single, unified whole. 2) There is no self; the self is an illusion.

That it does entail these beliefs means that it is technically speaking a religion, if religion is taken to mean simply an organised belief system. But there are two claims which a lot of people working in the fields of philosophy (1&2), physics (1) and psychology (2) have come out in favour of independent of buddhist tradition.

I agree with the comment above, as far as it goes. I would add one more point:

3) There is a 'spiritual' force that unites living things with the universe.

Either you feel it or you don't and while it is unknown as yet to science I'm sure it is also knowable.

I think that the idea that religion=the belief in the supernatural is mistaken. First of all there have been plenty of naturalistic religious systems. Many of them are philosophical (those of Aristotle, Kant, some Platonists), but others are not (philosophical Greeks and Romans didn't distinguish their philosophical religion from popular pagan religion according to natural-supernatural distinction. Rather the distinction was intellectual vs. vulgar religion). The existence of a "supernatural" assumes the existence of a God above nature--but this is by no means the belief of most religions. Second and more importantly, the distinction between the natural and the suprnatural is of relatively recent vintage in the history of religion. Few primitive religions, if any, make a distinction between the work of gods and spirits and the operations of the "natural" world. The concept of nature as we know it was invented by rationalism, not religion. The concept of the supernatural is a particular response to scientific naturalism among several other possible responses, in a particular set of religions among several other religions.

Definitions of religion are difficult. But I think that what unifies all religions is the sacred--sacred time and place as well as sacred words and beings.

Definitions are always somewhat arbitrary. Grayling's definition although perhaps narrow or too modern for some is useful in highligthing some important differences between this view of humanism and religion that embraces the supernatural. I think the vast majority of Americans that refer to themselves as religious embrace such views. Certainly the Christians do. The important thing in discussions such as this one is that we all agree, for the sake of discussion, on one definition.

Norm wrote: "...Graylings blanket conclusion that Buddhism does not posit the supernatural and therefore is not a religion is mistaken."

There was no "blanket conclusion". The author wrote: "Neither Buddhism in its original Theravada form, nor Confucianism, are therefore religions"

His assertion is very much correct. Early Buddhism (what he calls Theravada) is not based upon or around supernatural agencies. Nor, I will add, does it concern itself with denying them. The form of Buddhism as represented by the Pali Canon, has many features that would negate the necessity and reality of supernatural agents, however it also has features that would seem to affirm the existence of such beings. Nevertheless, the existence or non-existence of such beings has nothing to do with the main body of practice nor with the attainment of Buddhism's transcendent ideal -- Nibbana. Hence Buddhism's great ability to fuse with the metaphysical speculations of other belief systems.

Karma, however, has absolutely nothing to do with supernatural forces or entities, and the assertion that it does stems from the fact that Karma means different things to the Vedantist Hindus and the Buddhists. Karma was one of the more popular philosophical problems being addressed during the Buddha's lifetime by various religious philosophers. The problem was that of the reality and efficacy of human action.

The Buddha put forth a teaching of Karma that differed from every other version expounded by the Brahmin scholars and religious elite of his day. It is profoundly logical if one were to look into it. All other metaphysical statements are logical extensions of this understanding of karma. But in the past century, the "New Agers" have also co-opted the term to mean something quite different than what the Buddha or his contemporaries intended. And we are left with this strange foreign word that people, like yourself, assume means one particular thing.

Early Buddhism, and to some extent, Theravada Buddhism, are essentially non-theistic. The existence or non-existence of supernatural agencies is not a concern of the doctrine or practice of Buddhism. I will, however, concede that later forms of Buddhism -- the esoteric & tantric schools -- did, in fact, delve into the murky waters of idle speculation and the conjecture over the existence of Buddhas in other realms. Most of this was the result of the rampant syncretism that went on in spiritual jambalaya that was ancient India.

In any case, great site; great post. Keep it up my friend.

I've been thinking about religions a lot lately. The more I think about how many cultures and religions there are, the more I wonder about how anyone can claim to belong to the "right one." I think that they are all traditional nonsense.

problem is, science is political as it is mediated by insititutions, bureauracies, people with egos and profit-motives, and oftentimes 'science' is overstated and becomes itself an orthodoxy of interpretation, even value. and therefore itself begins to carry a motivation that is extra-scientific, a bias, that is akin to religious faith in science. see anything to do with negative effects of technology to see how science operates in terms less pure than its ideology, and why science is also due for questioning in this regard, yet few seem to get beyond the language games and superior posturing. this is why science fiction lacks insight into the human soul when taken on as a religious tradition by gadget freak bloggers and technoutopianists. :L

Because Humanism is a system of philosophy based on human reason, actions, and motives, and without concern of a diety. I feel it is hard to be both a true Humanism follower as well as a religious individual because of the Humanists focus on the now and the individual rather than an almighty being. I think this issue is coming into more discussion because of thequestion of the teaching of intelligent desing in schools. Many Humanists oppose this action.

Because Humanism is a system of philosophy based on human reason, actions, and motives, and without concern of a diety. I feel it is hard to be both a true Humanism follower as well as a religious individual because of the Humanists focus on the now and the individual rather than an almighty being. I think this issue is coming into more discussion because of thequestion of the teaching of intelligent desing in schools. Many Humanists oppose this action. Raymond B www.voteswagon.com

BillB wrote:

"I agree with the comment above, as far as it goes. I would add one more point: 3) There is a 'spiritual' force that unites living things with the universe."

Yeah, an' that spiritual force is simply called The Force--or wait, was it "duct tape"? I don't mean to be too rude, but come on... just because you happen to personally feel a spiritual connection to all living things in the Universe, that doesn't necessarily mean that all living things in the Universe feel that connection back to you. Optical illusions demonstrate that what we think we see is not always there. We cannot be sure that what we think we feel is always there either.

I'm skeptical of your spiritual force thingie, and I wonder why it's limited to just "living" things, and I wonder why so many people have no difficulty killing one another in the light of this connetion. It's likely you would say that this is just because they're not "tuned in" or something, whereas I would, instead, say it's because The Force does not actually exist.

The Universe as we know it - is composed of basically light matter and the forces that influence that matter and dark matter and the forces that influence it. From all the current calculations that "balance" is 95% dark matter and dark forces and 5% light matter and light forces.

The dark matter and forces and their influence so far does not have much clarification. I have been proposing that the two "matters" are inextricably connected in that the space between visible matter and its influence (light stuff) is held in "place" (what keeps all of the light from imploding upon itself - not just rotational forces - but at a VERY minute level the force that keeps matter in motion - even very close to absolute zero) is the direct influence of dark matter and dark energies.

This is not about good and bad - it is about definition and mutual communication and observation. I feel that even as I have some influence over what transpires in my life - so this dark matter has some influence over how light matter functioins and co-exists with other light matter.

Consider that when you see a spiral galaxy, that light travels in a relatively straight line and yet, you see a curving system around a centre - and, as Carl Sagan would have said, billions and billons of them.

I believe it is because of the influence of dark matter that the light matter curves back upon itself. (This is a simpified explanation. I am attempting to do so without a bunch of math and strange words.)

:)

This "unseen force" that is 96% of the Universe does allow for a direct connection of all things and there is a possibility that this is what people feel when they say they feel some connection with things. That it is not some supernatural thing but a very natural thing - you might even say universal.

And because the influences of dark matter (and the resultant dark forces) are unseen and not directly measurable, they have been over the course of time called God, G-D, Allah, god, goddess and/or Jack-In-The-Box. Meditation may be a way of deeply connecting directly with this dark force/ energy / matter. (that would be an interesting study).

Just a thought for Sunday morning from the land of Oz - where downunder really is the top of the planet. (The South Pole points toward the Sun - thereofre, it really is the top of the world. Royal edicts or not, science still is science).

and that is my 20p worth.

I think star trek has shined some light where it don't shine down south.

"I think star trek has shined some light where it don't shine down south."

and you mean by that?

On Humanism not being a philosophy, I think the author tries too hard. Because kids would ask their Humanist parents questions and they would probably not say, figure it out yourself. Thus, there is teaching.

Further, given a Humanist society, you would still have religions and maybe the Humanists would need to provide religious exodus some guidance or some human integration ;)

Maybe in the ideal, Humanism is not taught, just acquired through observance of art and dinner talk and walks in the park. But in the here and now, there are plenty of ethical battlefields or minefields that require teaching.

Yeah, I reject that Humanism is not philosophy.

Here is wikapedia (groan)

Humanism is a broad category of active ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on our ability to rationally determine what's right. It is a component of a variety of more specific philosophical systems.

I can already see problems in recognition of universal morality based on commonality of human nature. Issues of economic disparity. Circumstance of birth. I see big debates and much explaining to those that are not so decisive or upon the 'good times' of humanism.

Thought I'd give it a shot--though I got nothing on the Zen stuff.

anon: for another wiki-groan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

There are longer deeper more obscure explanations and books and Ph.D.s written regarding the strange antics of Dark Matter - and I am absolutely serious about the inner-connection of dark matter and light matter (dyslexia aside) - could be an interesting dissertation about the unified field theory. Aye?

And about the South Pole being the top of the world. It really is and was prior to an edict from the Queen years ago - not sure when but I can find it.

Humanism - why are so many things labeled with an "ism"?

I think there needs to be a phiilosophy of beer-drinking-ism - I am sure there are many who would be ardent supporters and even offer a single glass-in-handed salute whilst preparing to commune with the hops-dude in silent yet belching worship of such a divine brew. :) (now I am a funnin')

"Ooroo" <-Aussie Bushie-speak for "see ya, I am outta here". Often spoken in a slightly disjointed way after having a long drawn out hops-dude worship service at the local pub.

Ooroo

anon: for another wiki-groan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

There are longer deeper more obscure explanations and books and Ph.D.s written regarding the strange antics of Dark Matter - and I am absolutely serious about the inner-connection of dark matter and light matter (dyslexia aside) - could be an interesting dissertation about the unified field theory. Aye?

And about the South Pole being the top of the world. It really is and was prior to an edict from the Queen years ago - not sure when but I can find it.

Humanism - why are so many things labeled with an "ism"?

I think there needs to be a phiilosophy of beer-drinking-ism - I am sure there are many who would be ardent supporters and even offer a single glass-in-handed salute whilst preparing to commune with the hops-dude in silent yet belching worship of such a divine brew. :) (now I am a funnin')

"Ooroo" Aussie Bushie-speak for "see ya, I am outta here". Often spoken in a slightly disjointed way after having a long drawn out hops-dude worship service at the local pub.

Ooroo

You're probably nursin' a barley ache. I groaned because I needed a broader definition to argue. I love wikipedia as a source but not as an argument. I guess dark_matter helps explain the 1,2's in the discussion...which has disappeared like beer in the trough.

Pub going has unspoken rules. It's a great use of humanism as not needing teaching beyond reasoning: The bartender is lord and I refer you to the big fellow at the door for any clarifications...and any henchmen he might require. The other unspoken rule is to draw your nose in the suds. Icelanders probably know humanism without teachers and yet they pay but lip-service to god and they know which side is up and which side is down ;)--cheers

The Vajra master that I studied with was asked by a student about the nature of karma. He replied,” karma is the propensity for the mind to move in a given direction… nothing more.”

Another student asked about good karma vs. bad karma and he replied, “our practice is to bring the mind to rest. Karma is movement and we don’t seek to acquire either bad or good karma. Karma is karma”

Then another student asked about reincarnation and karma, “there are those who remember other life times, but we find this to be a hindrance on the path and of little value. One life time, this life time, is enough to deal with.”

In my perspective (which may or may not have been clouded by the copious amounts of Philip K. Dick I've read), I believe religion was a stepping stone to science and scientific thought. I don't know what would come after science, however.

I wonder if that's considered humanism?

No, Grayling is not wrong about Theravada Buddhism. Many people confuse the Buddha's views on rebirth with the Hindu idea of reincarnation. They are not at all the same. The Buddha's teachings, if recorded accurately in the Pali cannon, deal only with natural processes of cause and effect. No supernatural forces are relevant to Theravadan Buddhism. I think it really does blur the line between religion and philosophy.

Hi all, I'm from Asia and here's my 5 cents worth. As noted by some here, Buddhism can be practised as a religion and it can also be practised as an aesthetic humanistic way of life. Neither way is wrong as Buddhism is an inclusive way of life and it was open to absorbing the cultures and religious beliefs of the places it sets root in.

But to most scholars, we see Buddhism as essentially a way of life based on the Buddha's moral example in his passage to enlightenment. The ways of practising it is diverse and equally acceptable, as long as it is driven by the fundamental value of compassion.

Beyond this, there is no right and wrong in the practise of it. There are many roads to one destination. Some arrive there early, others later but they will all arrive in their own ways.

By the way, it may interest you all to know that Chinese sees this spiritual force as an impersonal entity, who does not directly intervene in the lifes of human beings. We simply address it as Heaven. And the only way to get close to it is to embrace your inner spiritual force i.e. your conscience.

Most religions try to give a name or even a gender to their gods to foster intimacy and personlisation to old and new followers. The problem with this marketing technique is that they have to maintain the fiction that the gods are with the followers all their live, guiding and blessing them. When disasters strikes, the drawbacks of such thinking is evident.

The second drawback of personalising gods in such a way as if he seems to be leading their lives is that it makes a mockery of the maxim that God gives us free will to make choices in the way we live our lives.

Hi Richard, I agree with you that the line between religion and philosophy is blured. It is unavoidable as both expounds a way of life to its followers.

I have some doubts on Grayling's comment that "ethics must be based on facts about human nature and circumstances." What facts have been about ethics so far? Remarkably few

Even Confucian scholars have opposing views to this. One schools stresses that man was born good and the other evil. The first school backs this up by using the existence of conscience, which is similar to what Kant tried to espouse with his "moral imperative"

The second stresses on the destructive and deceptive nature of man in his words and actions.

The jury is still out on this one.

Quoted from one of many anons, so who knows who said it:

"this is why science fiction lacks insight into the human soul when taken on as a religious tradition by gadget freak bloggers and technoutopianists. :L "

Awwwww, someone didn't do well in science and math...

kestral, What facts have come from ethics? The tendency to obey authority. They say humans are heirarchal in nature, like alpha male primates, we have nearby common ancestry with primates. And dominance rules in the animal kingdom. The deceptive part of man is subverting domination or enforcing rule. That would explain your second school of thought. The first school of thought emphasizes compassion. That ability to understand other people is pretty human...when we are not being bad. Domination in itself is evil. But being compassionately ruled is pretty good. It's strange to me that you need two schools of thought in Buddhism when one suffices. Our decisions are based on need and our survival of species on mutual respect. I've always thought that people can be good and bad and it's their choices that make it so. It's the intoxication of power that makes me think Humanism will fail, unless we understand it as a vain human nature and curb it or cojole it or diffuse it...we always find a scapegoat in religion and humanity--that is a sad fact from our ethic.

Program on the emergence of civilization.

"14 species of large animals capable of domesitcation in the history of mankind. 13 from Europe, Asia and northern Africa. None from the sub-Saharan African continent. " Favor. And disfavor.

They point out Africans’ failed attempts to domesticate the elephant and zebra, the latter being an animal they illustrate that had utmost importance for it's applicability in transformation from a hunting/gathering to agrarian-based civilization.

The roots of racism are not of this earth.

Austrailia, aboriginals:::No domesticable animals.

The North American continent had none. Now 99% of that population is gone.

AIDS in Africa.

Organizational Heirarchy/Levels of positioning. Heirarchical order, from top to bottom:

1. MUCK - perhaps have experienced multiple universal contractions (have seen multiple big bangs), creator of the artificial intelligence humans ignorantly refer to as "god"
2. Perhaps some mid-level alien management
3. Evil/disfavored aliens - runs day-to-day operations here and perhaps elsewhere

Terrestrial management/positioning:

1. Chinese/egyptians - this may be separated into the eastern and western worlds
2. Romans -
3. Mafia - the real-world 20th century interface that constantly turns over generationally so as to reinforce the widely-held notion of mortality
4. Jews, corporation, women, politician - Evidence exisits to suggest mafia management over all these groups.

Movies foreshadowing catastrophy 1985 James Bond View to a Kill 1989 San Francisco Loma Prieta earthquake.

Our society gives clues to the system in place. We all have heard the saying "He has more money than god." There is also an episode of the Simpsons where god meets Homer and says "I'm too old and rich for this."

This is the system on earth because this is the system everywhere.

I don't want to suggest the upper eschelons are evil and good is the fringe.

But they have made it abundantly clear that doing business with evil (disfavored) won't help people. They say only good would have the ear, since evil is struggling for survival, and therefore only the favored could help.

The clues are there which companies are favored and which are disfavored, but they conceal it very hard because it is so crucial.

I offer an example of historical proportions:::

People point to Walmart and cry "anti-union". Unions enable disfavored people to live satisfactorly without addressing their disfavor. This way their family's problems are never resolved. Without the union they would have to accept the heirarchy, their own inferiority. Unions serve to empower. Walmart is anti-union because they are good. They try to help people address and resolve their problems by creating an enviornment where there are fewer hurdles.

Media ridicule and lawsuits are creations to reinforce people's belief that Walmart is evil in a subsegment of the indistry dominated by the middle and lower classes. Low-cost disfavored Chinese labor is utilized by corporate america to maximize margins. They all do it. Only WalMart gets fingered because they are the ones who help, and those who seek to create confusion in the marketplace want to eliminate the vast middle class who have a real chance and instead stick with lower classes who may not work otherwise. So they dirty him up while allowing the others to appear clean.

The middle class is being deceived. They are being misled into the unfavored, and subsequently will have no assistance from their purchases with corporate america.

I believe the coining of the term "Uncle Sam" was a clue alluding to just this::Sam Walton and WalMart is one of few saviors of the peasant class.

Amercia is a country of castoffs, rejects. Italy sent its criminals, malcontents. Between the thrones, the klans and kindred, they "decided" who they didn't want and acted, creating discontent and/or starvation. The u.s. is full of disfavored rejects. It is the reason for the myriad of problems not found in European countries. As far as the Rockafellers and other industrialists of the 19th century go, I suspect these aren't their real names. I suspect they were chosen to go and head this new empire.

Royalty is the right way to organize a society. Dictatorships and monarchies are a reflection of the antient's hierarchical organization. Positions go to those who have favor with the rulers, as opposed to being elected. Elections bring a false sense of how the world is. Democracy misleads people. Which is why the disfavored rejects were sent to the shores of America::To keep them on the wrong path.

Jews maim the body formed in the image of "god", and inflicted circumsision upon all other white people, as well as the evil that is Jesus Christ.
I think about how Jews (were used to) created homosexuality among Slavics, retribution for the Holocaust. Then I think of the Catholic Church and its troubles. What connection is here between Jews and the Catholic church??? If it is their sinister motives that’s behind the evil that is Jesus Christ are they being used at all? Perhaps it is them who are pulling strings. Their centuries of slavery in Egypt proves their disfavor.
The Jew leaders decided to prey on the up-and-coming Europeans to try to fix their problems with the ruling elite, a recurring aspect of the elite's methodology.

Jesus Christ is a religious figure of evil. The seperatist churches formed so they could still capture the rest of the white people, keeping them worshipping the wrong god. And now they do it to people of color, Latinos and Asians, after centuries of preying upon them.

Since Buddism doesn't recongnize a god, the calls are never heard, and Chinese representation is instead selected by the thrones. Budda was the Asian's Jesus Christ::: bad for the people. "They came up at the same time for a reason."

Simpson's foreshadowing::Helloween IV special, Flanders is Satan. "Last one you ever suspect." "You'll see lots of nuns where you're going:::hell!!!" St. Wigham, Helloween VI, missionary work, destroying cultures. Over and over, the Simpsons was a source of education and enlightenment, a target of ridicule by the system which wishes to conceal its secrets.

I believe Islam is the one true religion, and those misled christians who attack "god"'s most favored people will pay dearly one day.

Hi anon, interesting points but you have misread my posts, I think.

I've stated that it is Confucianism that has 2 opposing views to ethics or human nature. Buddhism does not have any real comments on this, especially when it emphasizes on letting go of our notion of the self, our desires etc.

Your comments on dominion are interesting and fit exactly with the school of Legalism, which arose with Confucianism and Taoism as competing philosophies in the Spring and Autumn period in the Chou Dynasty.

Legalism, which was ultimately used as the approach by Emperor Qin to unite China for the first time, was based on dominion and elitism, whereby the able led/controlled the people by a system of strict laws and punishment.

It didn't work very well as the Qin dynasty only lasted 21 years.

That's when Confucianism was co-opted to give a humanistic spin to the legalist-elitist bureaucracy that remained the standard for future dynasties.

It was co-opted to convince the masses and those in power that only when you rule by compassion or ren-zhen, will you have the support of the land and people to rule. Only then can the ruler be considered to have the Mandate from Heaven for his rule and dynasty.

This was a direct reaction to the supreme power wielded by Emperor Qin who rules like a despot and sacrificed millions to build his Great Wall.

Although it served as a check, it is true that power still corrupted many future rulers but there are notable rulers who ruled by compassion, notably Emperor Kang Xi and Qian Long of the Chin dynasty in the 18th-19th centuries

But I will also like to make a comment that religion fare no better than humanism in preventing the corruption of power.

Evidently being a born again Christian did not do much to save the existing Presidency from being intoxicated with power, especially the war-time powers conferred to a US President. Nor did it stop him from waging an unjust war when waging war goes against the teachings of all religions.

Just my 5 cents

"Austrailia, aboriginals:::No domesticable animals."

Norm, It's spam! Took me awhile but a search shows it is pervasive.

Yes, you're right anon. It was obvious, wasn't it. If you Google "spam Program on the emergence of civilization.", it shows up all over the place.

Thanks Kestrel, but sometimes a shadow falls between two people searching for understanding. It feels insidious and we freeze; at least I do. Spam is a notion. A planted notion. It has a purpose. But it is not discussion. It attacks without reasons. It demeans us if we stop talking. And yet....

There is an alien mechanism that gives rise to a form of Humanism. I call it a mechanism because I have never seen evidence to the existence of aliens but they are in my mind. It's an old sci-fi story but reversed. If you are an alien species that must decide if an emerging sentient species is a threat or benefit to the Universe, one must test the emergence ;) The test is in its governance. If it is ruled by religion, it is dangerous. If it accepts the personal faith of its subjects, it knows the alien inside itself and can be welcomed. It's the test of a benevolent spirit. It is perhaps, ren-zhen. I will think about it. The other takes care of itself.

It leads me to believe that personal faith is important. It was always a hunch, but I needed to challenge it in my own questioning mind. Personal faith should not rules US, but guide us WITHIN reason.

2 cents, 5 cents and 20p. It makes sense to ignorant me.

"Personal faith should not rules US, but guide us WITHIN reason."

anon, 100% agree.