rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (03/13/85)
> Laura tipped me off that there was a debate on the Nature of God (or maybe > the God of Nature, eh, Tom?) I don't intend to get into it. Much. > However, the (semantic and mostly content-free) argument about what is a > religion sounded a little more amusing. ...and both completely off the topic AND superfluous to the discussion at hand. > Rich Rosen posted something long ago that used the definition of a religion > that required a belief in a deity of deities, mentioning Webster's New > Collegiate Dictionary. I didn't mention Webster's, since I use American Heritage, because I find it a much more accurate and less biased dictionary (compare the two dictionaries' definitions of scientism). (Actually the reason I use it is because I find it on my desk.) > This is real handy, since it means that we CAN still talk about Buddhism as a > religion. Which I think it is. However, classical Buddhism DOES NOT !! > insist on belief in a god or deity of any sort. In fact, when pressed on the > question, Buddha said something to the effect of "don't bother your pretty > little head about it, you've got troubles enough here and now." Why you'd want to refer (and insist upon referring) to a philosophy that has no direct concept of god as a "religion" is beyond me. Isn't there a better word, or can't one be conceived? > Note these things that the Buddhist religion just does not have: > 1) A creation myth -- it instead claims that creation IS a myth; the universe > simply universes, always has and always will. (Don't try to drag in > First Cause arguments here, buddhism is pretty weak on cause and effect > too. All maya...) > 2) A God. Buddha made a big point of saying to anybody who tried to treat > him as a god that he was just another fella -- maybe had a good idea, but > fundamentally the same as everyone else. (I admit that many Buddhists > either treat Gautauma as a god, or worship various Bodhisattvas -- I even > occasionally think worship-like thoughts about Kuan Yin myself -- but these > are strictly superstition. It's just that Buddha also said that > superstition was OK too.) > 3) Rules by which you SHOULD live your life. The Eightfold Path is stated > basically as an implication: IF you do these things, THEN you will > probably be happier much of the time (well, really, that should be "THEN > you will be able to free yourself from the frustration of transient > causation (*dukkha*)"). But if you don't, that's OK too. > > So don't tar Buddhism with your deist brush. With some people, you just can't win, can you? When I claim that the definition of religion implies worshipping a deity, I get yelled at because certain people WANT to have Buddhism called a religion and it doesn't fit that definition. But, in their very next breath, these same people cry out "Don't tar Buddhism with your deist brush!" If you don't want it tarred, don't call it a religion. Call it something else. Something more descriptive that doesn't imply deity worship. The common usage of the general term religion does imply that. > Now, the second point. I am a Buddhist (rinzai Zen, with occasional > wanderings into Shingon, Tantra, and Taoism) and I also believe in some sort > of God. I believe in this thing because I have perceived the existance of > this thing during some meditations. This thing is NOT a personal > anthropomorphic god, but rather the Universe ``grokking together in oneness.'' > I suspect that anyone who performs the same series of exercises as I did will > eventually come to perceive this same thing. Therefore, I claim that this > thing is in some way a ``real'' thing. Since it only can be perceived by > someone who makes these exercises or otherwise apporaches the same state of > mind, it could be claimed that this is only subjective. I might direct you to article <660@pyuxd.UUCP>. (Imagine if I had posted it six articles later... ) [THAT'S FIVE MINUTES IN REAL TIME FOR ROSEN! -ED.] :-) -- "Right now it's only a notion, but I'm hoping to turn it into an idea, and if I get enough money I can make it into a concept." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr