Comment

Comment by Geraldo Cienmarcos on September 27, 2010 at 9:37am

I'm new on this board and mostly new to this subject, but I'll throw this out. ...

quote:
"Ask yourself this; 'Are you a human being having a spiritual experience, or a spiritual being having a human experience?"
-- Wayne Dyer, PhD

Having quoted that, how does one understand such a statement from a free-thought, atheist, humanist perspective? Personally, I'm very uncomfortable with the word spiritual, but I'm thinking the remark by Wayne Dyer speaks to personal integration and holistic psychology. And how would a Buddhist say the same for people engaged in life and not living in a sanctuary away from "the world"?
-- Gary

Comment by Alex Reesor on September 20, 2010 at 8:26am

Hi all. In the academic world I'm an atheist. But in my personal life I'm a zen Buddhist.

Comment by ramyunmori on June 19, 2010 at 8:35pm

Hi there. I'm a follower of Korean Zen. My dharma teacher is Hyongak Sunim. He frequently points to the godless nature of Buddhism as part of his teachings.

Comment by Rodney Turner on June 19, 2010 at 4:02pm

That is the interesting thing about the texts. They are not a complete and inerrant body of work (just imagine trying to read the whole of all the canons). We are free to stick to one sutra or draw from many. We are not bound to any dogmas or orthodoxies (no matter what the traditionalists may say).

Comment by James M. Martin on June 19, 2010 at 3:03pm

Nice comment, R.T. In a preface or introduction to a translation of the Garland-sutra, the writer recounts how an ancient empress who desired an understanding of the ideas of an outstanding teacher. When she asked if he could illustrate the interconnectedness (which you rightly find cognate to Indra's Net), she was invited into a great hall that was absolutely dark, had mirrors on all walls, the ceiling and floor, and had a candle in the middle, reflected off the mirrors beyond infinity. When the empress left the hall, she appeared to have had a satori. In any case, when presented with different ontological positions in the sutras and other Buddhist literature, I respond most sympathetically with the Hua-Yen. I think it is a great humanist work.

Comment by Rodney Turner on June 19, 2010 at 2:43pm

Hello James,

I don't think the Buddha is speaking of all potentialities existing, but rather what we do now matters more than what we can merely speculate about.

It's funny that you mention the Flower Garland and its hall of mirrors so soon after I watched Enter the Dragon for the umpteenth time. :)

I am more familiar with the idea as Indra's Net. Same basic idea, but a hall of mirrors is a little easier for me to visualize.

We don't have to go to QM to see that all is interconnected. It's right there in front of our faces, all we have to do is pay attention.

Comment by James M. Martin on June 19, 2010 at 9:49am

And, BTW, there is a Buddhist writing, the Hua Yen sutra, that is decidedly a work of a theoretical physicist. It imagines the universe as a hall of infinitely reflecting mirrors; the stars, as vastly interconnected (the Bohm-Krishnamurti hypothesis). (John Donne said the same thing in his meditation on an "emergent occasion," the one including the line, "No man is an island....")

Comment by James M. Martin on June 19, 2010 at 9:47am

That section of the Kalama-sutra sounds as if a quantum theorist wrote it. In parallel universes, all potentialities exist.

Comment by Rodney Turner on June 19, 2010 at 7:13am

Hey Michael,

Brad goes into a little more detail with his thoughts on "God" in his second book "Sit Down and Shut Up" (I think it's chapter 16).

To the incessant debate on literal or metaphorical rebirth, I find that the "Four Solaces" section of the Kalama Sutta settles it for me.

17. "The disciple of the Noble Ones, Kalamas, who has such a hate-free mind, such a malice-free mind, such an undefiled mind, and such a purified mind, is one by whom four solaces are found here and now.

"'Suppose there is a hereafter and there is a fruit, result, of deeds done well or ill. Then it is possible that at the dissolution of the body after death, I shall arise in the heavenly world, which is possessed of the state of bliss.' This is the first solace found by him.

"'Suppose there is no hereafter and there is no fruit, no result, of deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself.' This is the second solace found by him.

"'Suppose evil (results) befall an evil-doer. I, however, think of doing evil to no one. Then, how can ill (results) affect me who do no evil deed?' This is the third solace found by him.

"'Suppose evil (results) do not befall an evil-doer. Then I see myself purified in any case.' This is the fourth solace found by him.

~from: "Kalama Sutta: The Buddha's Charter of Free Inquiry", translated from the Pali by Soma Thera. Access to Insight, June 7, 2010, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wheel008.html.

In my thinking, this makes the argument moot since both positions essentially boil down to eliminating greed, hatred and ignorance through the practice of ethical discipline.

Comment by Tony G.III on June 19, 2010 at 1:04am

How cool. I had only heard the term "Atheist Buddhist" from the book title, not long ago.
Having left Christianity (which I was given a choice to participate in from a very young age...and I CHOSE to) at about 13, I considered myself nothing. Then I defined myself as agnostic. Then Atheist....but then I found meditation to help me ease my mind and body during some rough times. Buddhist teachings came with them. I became very involved in my little Buddhist center because of an understanding that "definitive" Buddhists don't judge others' beliefs, believe in a creator god, feel mind and perception "create" our world.
Many Buddhists I know believe in deities. And I use them in my practice of getting to know my mind. They are symbols related to certain thought processes in my head at this point. It took some time...2 years or so...to understand Buddhism enough to realize I CAN be Atheist and Buddhist by definition. And just reading ONE sentence in the below post now makes me feel...."not so alone"...LOL

Thanks Michael Hutchinson for unwittingly make me feel welcome here with your comment
"Rebirth is much more accurate, because it can be applied to naturalistic explanations."
That simple comment is something I've discusses that has lead to my further belief that science will someday define nature and it will all fall close to Buddhist philosophy.
I only found this site yesterday and was concerned that they would count "Atheist Buddhist" as theistic and "not let me in". I'm glad I'm here!

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• …
• 10
• Next ›
• Page