Comment

Comment by Michael Hutchinson on June 14, 2010 at 8:05pm

James, let us use some sense here. If there is no self being reborn, then what does it take for a characteristic to be reborn? It has a quite natural explanation... If we do not extinguish certain negative characteristics, and spread them to others, it passes on to the next generation because they LEARN it. "Reincarnation" is a mistranslation. Rebirth is much more accurate, because it can be applied to naturalistic explanations.

Lisa, Batchelor also wrote a book before Confessions of the Buddhist Atheist called Buddhism Without Beliefs. You don't have to confine the books you buy to proclaimed naturalists either. I have found that books on Zen Buddhism contain a lot of gems of wisdom in them. Some of the authors will try to inject some supernatural nonsense. Just ignore it and utilize what is useful. A lot of what I learned came from people trying to push a little bit of supernatural nonsense, because the rest of their work was sound enough to have wisdom embedded in the pages. One such author that I'd recommend (but with a little caution) is Brad Warner. His book is called Hardcore Zen. He uses the term "God" a lot. I think he means this in a Naturalistic Pantheist sense, but he doesn't make that too clear.

I've got a few more that I'd recommend if you're interested, Lisa.

Comment by James M. Martin on June 14, 2010 at 5:30pm

I don't mean to be pedantic either, Colin, but Buddhists *do* believe in a form of reincarnation: the *skandas.* These are personality "aggregates." No eternal soul comes back, but some elements of the personalities of former lives. I think I've got that right.

Comment by John Loq on June 14, 2010 at 11:32am

Pleas pleas don't think I am trying to cover people to Buddhism. I am only discussing what it has done for me. Confucius said that humans need "Music & Ritual" in their life and I really believe this is true.

Comment by James M. Martin on May 28, 2010 at 7:37pm

@Colin Walker. I think I was a devotee of Aleister Crowley long enough to feel that you are bound up in Buddhist dogma at the sake of human experience. When l learned about the many kinds of yoga there are, including the yoga of works and the walking meditation of Thich Nat, I saw the many ways things can be done, but I dabbled both personally and by armchair with tantra, which mocks your disdain for certain substances. I have most of my insights on one substance or another and especially, when I can get it, ganja. I have experienced union with all humanity at times. OOBE'S and so forth. Much more important to avoid than the hindrances are the "Kleshas." Particular that mutually dependent two of them: desire and aversion.

Comment by John Loq on May 28, 2010 at 2:46pm

I am pleased to see there are at least a 107 others like my self.

Comment by Colin Walker on March 24, 2010 at 5:08am

James mentions that Buddhist ethics are founded in the concepts of kamma and reincarnation. (Just to be pedantic, Buddhists don't believe in reincarnation, which is the returning of the atman (the Hindu concept of a soul or essential essence) as there is nothing that is permanent that could return). But my real point was that although their are many concepts within Buddhism that support an ethical system what I have always been attracted to are the pragmatic reasons for following the 5 precepts ie. it is impossible to overcome the 5 hindrances and make any progress towards nibbana if the mind is distracted by the consequences of having killed living beings, stolen, gossiped about people or used harsh language, become intoxicated on drink or drugs or misbehaved sexually etc. Personally I have experienced many times the difference between meditating when I have broken one or more of the precepts and when I have managed to follow them to the best of my ability. If we follow the precepts and make progress in meditation (through the vipassana and samatha jhanas) our direct, empirical understanding and experience of concepts like kamma and rebirth naturally deepen and develop with no need of faith or belief.

Comment by Joshua D. Jones on March 23, 2010 at 11:19pm

So glad to find this group. I have practiced Vipassana meditation since leaving Christianity for good, and I've found Buddhist non-theist "spirituality" to be the most practical, rational system for living I can imagine. I don't know if I'll ever call myself a "Buddhist," but I'm pretty much sold on the ancient wisdom of Theravada. It's beautiful and doesn't require a belief in god, ancient mythology, or nonsensical supernatural explanations for anything.

Comment by James M. Martin on March 12, 2010 at 8:17pm

@T.A.: Buddhism is as much a system of ethics as a faith or religion. And it has no cop out revolving doors like sin and redemption, by which one simply does all manner of horrid things, apologizes to a cleric, and goes out to do worse things. As long as one may be forgiven, one should never steal anything small. Yes, I know, Buddhist ethics are grounded in the concepts of karma and reincarnation, but you don't have to believe in them to practice Buddhist ethics. :-)

Comment by James M. Martin on March 12, 2010 at 8:11pm

Newbie here, but got to thinking on the way home from work that Buddhism is the closest some of us get to being "religious." The religion doesn't even require us to believe in its own ontology, or anything for that matter, if only because their "prophet" died saying we should accept nothing on faith: make our own inquiries. But no wonder not only Sam Harris but other writers on failure of faith have singled out Buddhism as an exception to the monotheistic warlord religions and their misunderstood New Testamentary faith. Nagarjuna forever!

Comment by Goddess of the Vibes on January 25, 2010 at 3:10am

Buddhism is the only so-called "religion" that makes any degree of sense to me. I like the non-god aspect and the idea of non-attachment, and am dipping my toes in..

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• Next ›
• Page