"Just as a candle cannot burn without fire, men cannot live without a spiritual life"

[superluminal]

Do you have data for this time? The answer is: "of course not." Speculation is all that exists. But one would expect if Eastern philosophies were any better at "preventing" stress, depression, etc, then there would be some measure of success. Somebody would still be using the practices. After all, governments can regulate how people behave, but they're much less successful in regulating how they think.

Face it: while Eastern philosophy is interesting and certainly not to be discounted as worthless, it proves to be no better than Western when viewed overall.

Science does a much better job at offering mental health advice, prevention and treatment. Period.

Amen.

 

[S.A.M.]

Sounds like you, sam, when you talk about the west.

One of the very first lessons I learned here.

When in Rome. etc.

Of course it does. Why should it not? Those can be the greatest challenges. Polite debate is one thing, but when Jon Stewart pokes really well-crafted fun at the establishment, it goes much deeper.

The whole concept of "descration" is just pure crap when it's applied only to abstractions rather than physical artifacts that are the result of physical labor and materials. If you destroy a temple or a statue you are destroying the tangible wealth of a civilization. You are destroying a product of the surplus that is one of the defining measures of civilization... a product of the economy of scale and division of labor that qualitatively elevates civilization above village or nomadic life. That is why you can literally "bomb a society back into the Stone Age."

But you can't mock or insult a society back into the Stone Age. The labor and capital required to create and support a belief system is trivial. Some teaching, some writing, some time off to get together. You can't do substantive damage to a civilization by poking fun at its institutions or inventing clever new profanity.

Disdain is a basic human right. It's the right of refusal. If you keep badgering me to join your church, your fraternity, your political party, or your social movement, and you just won't get the hell out of my face, I have a perfect right to get back in your face. And the definition of "getting in one's face" is way too subjective to try to apply a principle of parity to it. The worst of the Christians claim that just having to share the planet with gay people, adulterers, and others who defy orthodoxy is just so painful to them that they have a perfect right to go on an aggressive crusade to convert those people to their way of life. If I feel exactly the same way about Christians (and frankly I more or less do feel that way some times these days) then I have exactly the same right to go on an aggressive crusade to push them back into the margins of society--so long as I don't resort to violence or violate the other laws of the nation I choose to live in, which in our case offers substantial protection of privacy and peace of mind. If they can go on talk shows and publish op-eds applying really nasty epithets to people who don't believe in the teachings of their church (which have diverged mightily from the teachings of Jesus), then I can certainly print a few cartoons depicting them as nasty people.

No major contemporary movement uses as vile, hateful, and frightening a rhetoric in describing people they disagree with as the fringe of Islam. As long as they restrict themselves to speech and print (and don't violate pesky national laws about inciting riots or consipiring to commit crimes), they're free to be as nasty as they want. And we have exactly the same freedom.

 

[superluminal]

One of the very first lessons I learned here.

When in Rome. etc.

Sam, you are a model of restraint and good will to mankind. Well, some of mankind.

 

[SkinWalker]

He had no disagreements with Hinduism, he merely sought a way to end his own suffering. There was no desire or attempt to reform.

I disagree. I think it was very clearly a reform of the Hindu influence provided by Hindu cults he encountered. Otherwise, why invent a new philosophy? If the Hindu cults worked, why the change? I don't believe, based on the resulting philosophy, that Gautama's new philosophy was to allow him to control/dominate the masses as was the case when Muhammad invented the Koran or when early Christians sat around drinking wine and voting on what would be "canon" in their mythology. Even the early Jewish authors and editors who picked and chose through Sumerian, Canaanite, Egyptian, etc. myths and oral traditions to formulate the Pentateuch had domination of their land in mind as they transformed themselves from Canaanites to 'Israelites.'

Each of these is a reform of earlier religious mythology of earlier religious cults, but Buddhism is an outlier. It's highest goal was for adherents to achieve a state of nirvana with a complete lack of personal desire. Not exactly a virtue of a cult that seeks political domination of a populace in the manner achieved by Judaism, Islam, Christianity, and Hinduism. Clearly, Buddha/Gautama was moved by the religious dominance of Hindu cults and their materialist nature.

 

[Zephyr]

Not really, all religions in the East have a large component of spirituality which seems entirely absent in religious practices in the West.

When you say the West, I assume you mean modern developed countries rather than geography? Because native American shamanism probably had more in common with eastern religions than monotheism. European paganism (Wicca, Asatru etc.) ditto. What you think of as 'Western' religion now is really a combination of middle-eastern religion and modern philosophy and science.

One might say the rise in mental disorders in society is directed related to the decrease in spiritual and mental health.

I remember reading somewhere that traditional shamanic training (only given by the shaman to 'gifted' candidates) is in fact a way of dealing with types of mind that today might be considered disordered.

There is no real Western counterpart

Two things you could look into:
Autogenics - Soviet relaxation method based partly on eastern practices, but understood to be entirely physiological.
Alexander technique: physical mindfulness method discovered independently by an Australian, not a scientist, but taking a fairly scientific approach. Royal School of Music in UK has recently started teaching all instrumental students Alexander technique and it's reduced the number of soft-tissue injuries to almost nothing.

 

[S.A.M.]

I disagree. I think it was very clearly a reform of the Hindu influence provided by Hindu cults he encountered. Otherwise, why invent a new philosophy? If the Hindu cults worked, why the change?

Same reason that Asoka turned to Buddhism.

Don't you know the story of Gautama?

 

[S.A.M.]

When you say the West, I assume you mean modern developed countries rather than geography? Because native American shamanism probably had more in common with eastern religions than monotheism. European paganism (Wicca, Asatru etc.) ditto. What you think of as 'Western' religion now is really a combination of middle-eastern religion and modern philosophy and science.

Its interesting you should say that because the shamans were the scientists of their time, using drugs and investigating techniques for curing mental and physical problems

I remember reading somewhere that traditional shamanic training (only given by the shaman to 'gifted' candidates) is in fact a way of dealing with types of mind that today might be considered disordered.

Yes and they dabbled in a lot of hallucinogenic compounds (which they maintained as sacred and thus only avaialble or to be used by them)

Two things you could look into:
Autogenics - Soviet relaxation method based partly on eastern practices, but understood to be entirely physiological.
Alexander technique: physical mindfulness method discovered independently by an Australian, not a scientist, but taking a fairly scientific approach. Royal School of Music in UK has recently started teaching all instrumental students Alexander technique and it's reduced the number of soft-tissue injuries to almost nothing.

Do you have a reference?

 

[Zephyr]

Do you have a reference?

I've read a few books, but Wikipedia is a decent place to start (check the links at the bottom of the articles):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Technique#Basic_Premises (One of Alexander's key ideas is not to "end gain", i.e. seek the end without caring about the means. I think this idea applies to many of the problems in Western culture; e.g. learning for exams instead of learning for understanding.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogenics (seems it was German, not Soviet )

 

[S.A.M.]

Sam, you are a model of restraint and good will to mankind. Well, some of mankind.

Frankly, I disagree with Fraggle. While poking fun is all very well between friends, in a real discussion it is counter productive. I did try it out (though only with some people) but my own ideas are that giving healthy respect to contrary views is more beneficial in the long run, it encourages debate and gives a person the freedom to really explore his views and ideas if he/she can be certain of a reception where everyone is not going into hysterics at the perceived nonsensical nature of it. With assumptions like that to begin with, there is never going to be an understanding of what the issues are and both sides are left the poorer for it.

But it seems that unless you make derogatory remarks and demean people, you are unlikely to be taken seriously here. Which is a shame.

 

[S.A.M.]

I've read a few books, but Wikipedia is a decent place to start (check the links at the bottom of the articles):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Technique#Basic_Premises (One of Alexander's key ideas is not to "end gain", i.e. seek the end without caring about the means. I think this idea applies to many of the problems in Western culture; e.g. learning for exams instead of learning for understanding.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogenics (seems it was German, not Soviet )

Interesting. The Alexander technique incorporates several aspects of yogic posture and focusing, especially what is said about habit and focusing on each separate part of the motion for its own sake rather than looking forward to the ultimate aim of the exercise.

I will try and find more stuff on this.

 

[superluminal]

Frankly, I disagree with Fraggle. While poking fun is all very well between friends, in a real discussion it is counter productive. I did try it out (though only with some people) but my own ideas are that giving healthy respect to contrary views is more beneficial in the long run, it encourages debate and gives a person the freedom to really explore his views and ideas if he/she can be certain of a reception where everyone is not going into hysterics at the perceived nonsensical nature of it. With assumptions like that to begin with, there is never going to be an understanding of what the issues are and both sides are left the poorer for it.

But it seems that unless you make derogatory remarks and demean people, you are unlikely to be taken seriously here. Which is a shame.

Well sam, you need to see the difference between healthy respect and foolish naievte. You have a very strong bias against "the west". Is your constant presentation of the failings of the west to be regarded as healthy respect?

And when does healthy respect, after long thought and debate, turn into decisive action for or against a non-neutral phenomenon? Like radical islamic terrorism against "the west"?

I don't give a shit about the causes of it any more. I want it stopped by any means necessary. Are western policies to blame? 100%? I suspect not. You'll argue however that without the west, all of islam and the middle east would be an eden of peace and cooperation. This is utter foolishness given the history of any religion that fragments. I don't hate shiites or sunnis. They hate each other (in many places) and have since long before the west was ever involved.

Ultimately, if the result of all of this in, say, a few hundred years, is the complete eradication of islam as a concept, I wouldn't shed a tear. And if the opposite happens? Will all of you muslims shed a tear at the loss of the west? No. You will not. You will dance in celebration of the final victory of allah over the infidels.

Explain to me why this is not true.

 

[spidergoat]

How do Atheists feel about this Quote by The Buddha

"Just as a candle cannot burn without fire, men cannot live without a spiritual life."

How is life without a spiritual life? No real spiritual motivation to do anything. No mysteries in life, no wondering, etc...

I agree with the quote but not your inference that atheism and spirituality are mutually exclusive.

You also seem to be saying that theists appreciate mystery more than atheists. I think it's the opposite, theism - as represented in the mainstream religions, objects to mystery in favor of dogmatic clarity. Atheism is just the rejection of one kind of approach to spirituality.

 

[VitalOne]

I've read a fair amount of Buddhist scripture and history. Gautama, later to be known as Buddha, arrived at a religious reform because of his disagreement with the nature of the Hindu cults that dominated his society.

Much like Muhammad's method of taking what he liked of other religious cults and adding what he thought was appropriate, Gautama invented his philosophy to replace religion and offer a common-sense approach to living. One that I have much difficulty in finding fault with.

Buddha rejected the usual aspects of religion: authority (people in a priestly class), ritual, speculation, tradition, grace, and mystery (avoidance of the supernatural).

This isn't true. The Buddha had Supernormal powers like flying, walking on water, etc... but they were not considered mysterious if you understood them. He stated that reincarnation was an undeniable truth, that there is an unphysical mind (cittam), and the result of good and bad deeds.

The evidence of Buddha's rejection of gods and the supernatural comes in the form of The Four Noble Truths, which includes the Eight-Fold path:

The Buddha never rejected gods, instead in some of his sermons he mentioned gods or devas. However they did not provide the end of all suffering. He also believed in things like hell and heaven, just check Buddhist cosmology.

I. Life is suffering (dukkha), meaning life is 'out of joint.' Dukkha would accurately describe bones without sockets or wheels without axles.

II. The cause of dukkha is tanha. Tanha is the 'desire for private gain.'

III. Overcoming desire (tanha) is the way to overcome dukkha.

IV. The way to overcome tanha is to follow the Eight-Fold Path:

1) Right views
2) Right intent (dedication; persistence)
3) Right speech
4) Right conduct (the 'five precepts')

i. do not kill
ii. do not steal
iii. do not lie
iv. do not be unchaste
v. do not drink alcohol​

5) Right livelihood
6) Right Effort (be industrious)
7) Right mindfulness (be aware of every action; be in control of senses and impulses; have thoughts of kindness).
8) Right concentration - involving techniques of raja yoga​

How does this show that The Buddha rejects the supernatural? Things like these were not uncommon in other earlier Hindu texts.

With Buddha's rejection of the supernatural -nirvana is the goal, which is the achievement of fully rejecting personal desires- there is no need for a god or gods; no need for the supernatural in one's life. Buddhism, therefore, isn't a religion in the sense that adherents seek to appeal to or appease a supernatural agent, but rather a philosophy or lifeway.
[/indent]

He doesn't reject the supernatural at all. Some of what you call the "supernatural" he considers the truth, so it is not at all magical to him. Also, it depends how you define religion. Also, Nirvana is being "unconditioned" to material nature, it really has nothing to do with personal desire. According to The Buddha the only reason there is eternal bliss is because there is an unmade, uncreate, unborn. Many gods are mentioned in pali canons, though there is no worship, there is still a belief.

 

[S.A.M.]

Well sam, you need to see the difference between healthy respect and foolish naievte. You have a very strong bias against "the west". Is your constant presentation of the failings of the west to be regarded as healthy respect?

And when does healthy respect, after long thought and debate, turn into decisive action for or against a non-neutral phenomenon? Like radical islamic terrorism against "the west"?

Well I do exaggerate some on the forum but I think most people in the West (and there are quite a few of the opposite persuasion) have ideas about the East based on view points from heavily biased sources. I've lived in the ME for 5 years, travelled and spoken to the people there, had friends in the workers, drivers, admin, women who were Saudis who were teachers, nurses, doctors, etc.

I don't recognise any of the caricatures I see here. Not because they are false, but because they are seen through a Western compass. A person from Peshawar or Riyadh is not the same as a person from Darfur or New York, even if they are all Muslims. If I came here from India, should I despise the West for their higher rates of divorce, the teenagers I see puking and groping each other on weekends, the apparent racism I encounter, or should I recognise that it is a cultural difference that reflects the natural offside of a liberal society with a multicultural mix of people?

When I see/hear comments about other cultures, there is always an undertone of arrogance regarding the state of people, culture, education, status of women, etc that I encounter. There is a fascination for the exotic, of course (like the Hindu guy who wears a dot of vermilion on his forehead, until he realises that the looks he gets from other people are of disbelief or disdain and he is considered as underdeveloped due to his beliefs) but there is also overwhelming prejudice associated with people who desire to maintain their own identity as well as integrate. There's a Mohammed here who has become Mo so as to be less associated with is religion and more with his abilities.

I was just indicating here what it feels like. Everyone has a feeling for their culture and identity and no culture has a perfect history. To demean anyone ( women in hijab? Fucking morons?) simply because their choices are incomprehensible to you, to make them ashamed of their choices, which they may not be ready to change, is no excuse.

I don't give a shit about the causes of it any more. I want it stopped by any means necessary.

Probably what the people of Palestine feel every minute of every day. Feel like a suicide bomber yet? Nope? Then you haven't been pushed hard enough or far enough. Give it a few years, a few bombings close to home, a few dead relatives and you'll get there. Feel religious about it yet? Thinking of 72 succulent virgins waiting in the afterlife? Or the pieces of your family you put together in a sack last night? What is more probable? See how ridiculous all the BS sounds to those who are affected? What effect the derision and dark humor may have? Its unbelievable to me that people can be so completely blind to reality. Oh yeah, they want a fast ticket to heaven.

Are you so certain of your idea of what they MUST believe that you don't even want to really take a look at their situation and try to see beneath the media hype ?

Are western policies to blame? 100%? I suspect not. You'll argue however that without the west, all of islam and the middle east would be an eden of peace and cooperation. This is utter foolishness given the history of any religion that fragments. I don't hate shiites or sunnis. They hate each other (in many places) and have since long before the west was ever involved.

Ultimately, if the result of all of this in, say, a few hundred years, is the complete eradication of islam as a concept, I wouldn't shed a tear. And if the opposite happens? Will all of you muslims shed a tear at the loss of the west? No. You will not. You will dance in celebration of the final victory of allah over the infidels.

Explain to me why this is not true.

I answered this elsewhere for (Q):

Hence if a Muslim decides he is a progressive Hanafi, that is his choice, which is what most Asian Muslims brought up in a multicultural society lean towards. Those who have suffered under dictators or colonials in more restricted societies choose either to fight against submissive compliance or seek refuge in a plea for segregation by reverting to orthodox customs that convey to them a sense of identity denied them by those who insist on ridiculing their values or as a protest against perceived oppression. Still others do both, retreating into orthodox Islam and using passive aggressive tactics to fuel their sense of injustice. When you have a society with a mix of both kinds of reactionism ie. reaction against submissive compliance and reaction towards social segregation, this creates schisms in the society ordained more by culture (especially in those people with homogeneous cultures less exposed to diversity) than religion.

The solution of course is to initiate dialogue and aim for constructive criticism aiming for a sense of engagement and interaction rather than a defensive withdrawal with the setting up of barriers.

As a simple example, what do you think the ban on the burqa will result in?

Right now 30 out of 300,000 women in Holland wear a burqa. Do you predict the numbers will go up or down?

 

[VitalOne]

I agree with the quote but not your inference that atheism and spirituality are mutually exclusive.

You also seem to be saying that theists appreciate mystery more than atheists. I think it's the opposite, theism - as represented in the mainstream religions, objects to mystery in favor of dogmatic clarity. Atheism is just the rejection of one kind of approach to spirituality.

I disagree, atheists usually tend to say that science knows it all, the reason they reject religion is because of science. They do not wonder about if there is a soul, afterlife, God, etc....instead they just believe whatever science has concluded. Science hasn't found that there is a god, soul, or afterlife, so it must be true, thats the logic of an atheist.

Where as spiritual personalities wonder about the things beyond what we know.

 

[SkinWalker]

This isn't true. The Buddha had Supernormal powers like flying, walking on water, etc...

Complete and utter poppycock.

The Buddha never rejected gods, instead in some of his sermons he mentioned gods or devas.

I said as much in one of my previous posts.

How does this [the Four Noble Truths] show that The Buddha rejects the supernatural? Things like these were not uncommon in other earlier Hindu texts.

These are the basics for achieving Nirvana. None indicate anything supernatural.

 

[Cris]

Vitalone.

.. atheists usually tend to say that science knows it all..

NO they don't; that's what theists think they would say, it is the exact opposite. Science is very much about trying to discover the many things we don't know.

Now, theist religions OTOH DO state they know it all - GOD did it of course.

 

[candy]

I do not think that spirituality is an east versus west thing but as I have never been a great fan of Gautama's philosophy I will introduce a little of Kierkegaard's observations.
"You have freedom of choice, you say, and still you have not chosen God. Then you will grow ill, freedom of choice will become your 'idee fixe', till at last you will be like the rich man who imagines that he is poor, and will die of want"
I think that it is a similar train of thought to the Gautama quote in it's relevance to the needs of the soul. It is interesting to note that different cultures produce the same theme.

 

[spidergoat]

I disagree, atheists usually tend to say that science knows it all, the reason they reject religion is because of science. They do not wonder about if there is a soul, afterlife, God, etc....instead they just believe whatever science has concluded. Science hasn't found that there is a god, soul, or afterlife, so it must be true, thats the logic of an atheist.

Where as spiritual personalities wonder about the things beyond what we know.

Spirituality isn't limited to those concepts of Judeo/Christian theology. I do tend to believe the results of scientific inquiry, but they doesn't limit my curiosity.

 

[S.A.M.]

Spirituality isn't limited to those concepts of Judeo/Christian theology. I do tend to believe the results of scientific inquiry, but they doesn't limit my curiosity.

Well don't be too quick to believe all the results of scientific enquiry.

Religious or not, people are all the same, some good and some not so good.

http://www.nature.com/news/specials/hwang/index.html