|
Wow.
I'm at the coal mine. Izzit work safe?!?
It's a cartoonnetwork/adultswim game. It's incredibly sacrilegious, but relatively "safe".
|
Wow.I'm at the coal mine. Izzit work safe?!?It's a cartoonnetwork/adultswim game. It's incredibly sacrilegious, but relatively "safe".
I'd say it's work safe: my boss was the one who told me about it. As a matter of fact, his name is Heath. Strange coincidences...
Kirth -- I really don't know that much about Buddhism. I was wondering if you could help clarify a few things for me or explain how the different "sects" of Buddhism differ in the following ways...
Suffering -- It sounds kind of like Buddhists believe that should/needs to withdraw from the world somehow in order to aleviate suffering. Before I ask too many things about something I don't know about, I was wondering if you could clarify a bit.
Enlightenment -- I have heard that Buddhists kind of believe that everything in this world is basically an elaborate illusion of some kind and that the ultimate point is to leave the illusion and gain enlightenment. I'm sure that I have something wrong here but just wanted to try and get a feel for it and was wondering what happens if enlightenment isn't achieved.
Thanks ahead of time for any insight...
More or less. The Buddha preached what he called the "Four Noble Truths," essentially: 1. there is suffering in life; 2. this suffering has a cause (grasping, failing to accept that "we" are not separate from everything else); 3. the cause of suffering can be ameliorated or removed (and, therefore, suffering itself will be lessened or removed); and 4. there is at least one known means of removing suffering (the Buddha's "eightfold noble path"). So, the goal is to remove suffering. You don't withdraw from the world; you just try and stop craving. To do that, you do 8 things, which are basically the "be excellent to each other" stuff we've discussed before, but more clear-cut. Supposedly, by following this path, you will begin to perceive that the "separateness" between you and the rest of existence is just a matter of perception, and you achieve enlightenment: a state in which you perceive reality clearly and no longer suffer. Enlightenmnet isn't achieved right away in any case. You just keep practicing until it is. Also, once you're enlightened, you still need to keep practicing or it can lessen/fade (especially for more shallow enlightenment experiences, in which suffering is lessened but not totally removed).
I present all this from the standpoint of the Buddha's core teachings as recorded in the Sutras; various sects "add on" various things that aren't really germane to the core teachings, and that I tend to ignore as distractions in most cases.
|
|
The Buddha preached what he called the "Four Noble Truths," essentially: 1. there is suffering in life; 2. this suffering has a cause (grasping, failing to accept that "we" are not separate from everything else); 3. the cause of suffering can be ameliorated or removed (and, therefore, suffering itself will be lessened or removed); and 4. there is at least one known means of removing suffering (the Buddha's "eightfold noble path"). So, the goal is to remove suffering. You don't withdraw from the world; you just try and stop craving. To do that, you do 8 things, which are basically the "be excellent to each other" stuff we've discussed before, but more clear-cut. Supposedly, by following this path, you will begin to perceive that the "separateness" between you and the rest of existence is just a matter of perception, and you achieve enlightenment: a state in which you perceive reality clearly and no longer suffer. Enlightenmnet isn't achieved right away in any case. You just keep practicing until it is...
Thanks for the info. A couple more questions. It sounds like craving = suffering (in some way or another). I realize that is kind of an oversimplification, but I was wondering if you could elaborate a bit on that. Also, I was under the impression that enlightenment happens at death or close to it. If that isn't the case, what do Buddhists believe happens to you after you die -- whether Buddhist or otherwise?
Thanks again for your insights...
Um...String theory invalidates Evolution on the grounds that evolution is dependant on generational change over time but stringtheory tells us thst time is purely a consequence of change in your string entanglement (the possibility entanglement that generates your whole existance over all the possibilities open to you) Unfortunately life is the only thing capable of manipulating your string entanglement so life is capable of existing outside the boundaries defined by time.
a change in string entanglement causes what it created to cease to exist leaving entanglement debris (matter).
We actually exchange string entanglement information just so we can have this conversation, genetic differences amount to differenced in possibility. Unfortunately this knocks religion on the head. We are one organism, separated by event horizon and singularity.
An interesting idea, but like Kirth said -- we have no proof of any of this, nor can it be observed with our current technology/state of awareness and thus not "falsified".
We probably are not even human beyond our need to be.
This is slightly off topic (though I regard it as a pseudo-religious belief), but I personally would say that we are not truly human very often.
Thanks for the info. A couple more questions. It sounds like craving = suffering (in some way or another). I realize that is kind of an oversimplification, but I was wondering if you could elaborate a bit on that.
Craving causes suffering. If you are a heroin addict, and you go "cold turkey," you suffer. In a sense, most of us are "addicts" of many things: our careers, maybe, or our spouses, would be the two most obvious; our egoes would be the most important. Stop clinging to ego and you can stop most suffering right there.
Also, I was under the impression that enlightenment happens at death or close to it.
It can happen any time, but for most of us it's hard, so it may take a while. In theory, an 8-year old could achieve enlightenment and live to be 108, however.
If that isn't the case, what do Buddhists believe happens to you after you die -- whether Buddhist or otherwise?
Death is an illusion, because "you" are really part of everything else. The religion of a person dying makes no difference at all.
|
|
Craving causes suffering. If you are a heroin addict, and you go "cold turkey," you suffer. In a sense, most of us are "addicts" of many things: our careers, maybe, or our spouses, would be the two most obvious; our egoes would be the most important. Stop clinging to ego and you can stop most suffering right there.
Does "love" = "craving"? I love my wife and my children. I hate to think that I would need to eliminate love from my life to alleviate suffering. (I mention that since you mentioned "spouses". I imagine that families fall in that as well.)
Death is an illusion, because "you" are really part of everything else. The religion of a person dying makes no difference at all.
I'm not sure that I am getting the illusion part of this. Who put the illusion there in the first place and/or what is the purpose of the illusion? If everything is all part of the same "entity" (for lack of a better word), then it really seems like anything we do in this illusion -- love, hate, peace, war, birth, death, enlightenment, etc. -- truly is meaningless.
I'm sorry, this is coming across a bit harsh and I really don't mean it to be. I just really feel like I am missing some major part of the Buddhist beliefs. Thanks for being patient with me. :-)
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Craving causes suffering. If you are a heroin addict, and you go "cold turkey," you suffer. In a sense, most of us are "addicts" of many things: our careers, maybe, or our spouses, would be the two most obvious; our egoes would be the most important. Stop clinging to ego and you can stop most suffering right there.Does "love" = "craving"? I love my wife and my children. I hate to think that I would need to eliminate love from my life to alleviate suffering. (I mention that since you mentioned "spouses". I imagine that families fall in that as well.)
I am officially the biggest, dorkiest, lamest wanker for posting song lyrics in response to something like this, but I particularly like this snippit from I Will Follow You Into the Dark by Death Cab for Cutie.
In Catholic school as vicious as Roman rule
I got my knuckles bruised by a lady in black
And I held my tongue as she told me
"Son fear is the heart of love"
So I never went back
Does "love" = "craving"? I love my wife and my children. I hate to think that I would need to eliminate love from my life to alleviate suffering. (I mention that since you mentioned "spouses". I imagine that families fall in that as well.)
No. Love is good. But possessiveness, now that's craving. If your spouse were to leave you, that would cause suffering. A Buddhist would seek to put that suffering into the perspective of, "I am suffering because I feel entitled to having that person be married to me. Instead, I should be grateful for the time we had together." NOTE: This does NOT mean that it would be OK for that spouse to just up and leave in the first place, because such an action obviously causes suffering. Evil actions always hurt the one who performs them.
I'm not sure that I am getting the illusion part of this. Who put the illusion there in the first place and/or what is the purpose of the illusion?
"You" put it there by seeing yourself as a separate, unique, "special" being. Its subconscious purpose is to allow you to continue thinking that, like a proverbial ostritch putting its head in the sand.
If everything is all part of the same "entity" (for lack of a better word), then it really seems like anything we do in this illusion -- love, hate, peace, war, birth, death, enlightenment, etc. -- truly is meaningless.
The conclusion seems to me to be quite the opposite. If we're all one, then by making war I hurt myself and everyone else. I hurt all of existence. Conversely, by demonstrating love I can alleviate suffering for everyone. We have MUCH more responsibility for our actions with this viewpoint, not less!
I'm sorry, this is coming across a bit harsh and I really don't mean it to be. I just really feel like I am missing some major part of the Buddhist beliefs. Thanks for being patient with me. :-)
Not harsh at all. This stuff is counterintuitive in a lot of ways.
We are one organismEmotionally, I agree with you. As a Buddhist I agree. But scientifically, I can't demonstrate this, so I won't attempt to put it up against, say, the theory of evolution by natural selection.
The universe is everything that exists. We know something exists because it affects us and we affect it. Everything is made of the same fundamental quanta. Seems to me like science has proven that we are "one with the universe". (Our "self" is really only an emergent property.)
However, I'm not sure that "enlightenment" is really possible. A person can intellectualize the enormity of it all, but our perceptions are asymptotic and localized. How can we escape the self, when our only means of perceiving reality (however indirectly) is through the self?
However, I'm not sure that "enlightenment" is really possible. A person can intellectualize the enormity of it all, but our perceptions are asymptotic and localized. How can we escape the self, when our only means of perceiving reality (however indirectly) is through the self?
You raise an excellent, well-phrased, and obviously well-thought-out point. As with all religious questions, though, I can only answer in a non-scientific manner. It is exactly correct that our surface perceptions are both asymptotic and localized. Enlightenment refers to a deeper awareness of the connections, one that is automatic rather than merely intellectual. As an example, when my neighbor cuts his lawn, it hurts me on some level because I empathize with the blades of grass. I know intellectually that NOT cutting it might be worse, but the reaction has gradually become automatic. I'm aware that lawn-cuttings (and worse) are going on everywhere, all the time. The emotional static would be debilitating except that, thankfully, practice of Zen has expanded my concentration along with my empathy. As a youngster I had precious little of either. Is that enlightenment? No, but it seems like a step in the right direction. Even if, as you surmise, the end point is impossible, the journey is not without benefit.
If everything is all part of the same "entity" (for lack of a better word), then it really seems like anything we do in this illusion -- love, hate, peace, war, birth, death, enlightenment, etc. -- truly is meaningless.The conclusion seems to me to be quite the opposite. If we're all one, then by making war I hurt myself and everyone else. I hurt all of existence. Conversely, by demonstrating love I can alleviate suffering for everyone. We have MUCH more responsibility for our actions with this viewpoint, not less!
Maybe it's because I'm not a Buddhist myself, but I thought the point was that it IS all meaningless. That's what we have to realize in order to transcend suffering. And while Love with a capital L is good to an extent, love is not. That's why members of the sangha must be celibate. Lay people can have spouses and children etc but all they are doing is putting off the inevitable. They are lay Buddhists so that in their next life or two thay will be born with enough understanding of non-attachment to become members of the sangha and renounce the world. That's why I'm always a bit bemused by white Buddhists I have met who claim not to believe in reincarnation. The whole thing pretty much falls down if we only have one life.
I mean once you are enlightened, you display loving kindness for all beings by being a Bodhisattva (for those not so familiar with Buddhism: A being who could attain nirvana but chooses to remain in the world helping others do so). But even then, to achieve the ultimate aim, you have to let that go. You have to physically die in a state of complete non-attachment to reach nirvana, as nirvana is release from the cycle of rebirth and attachment to the big illusion is what causes us to be reborn. That's why it seems counter-intuitive to people raised in an environment where their main experience of religion is Abrahamic, which when you get right down to it is all about living forever.
The thing I find hopeful about Buddhism is that is has a sense of inevitability. The whole universe is an illusion created by sentient beings, and so it will continue to cycle through until every sentient being has achieved nirvana. None of us can fail, not even the tiniest amoeba. We will all keep being reborn until the very last beings (the Bodhisattvas) accept nirvana. Everyone who is a Christian or whatever now will keep being reborn until they learn to be a Buddhist. It's a "last one to leave the universe turn out the lights" kind of deal, and if you believe the basic ideas (rebirth, anatman) then it all flows like clockwork.
But probably I'm just getting caught up in the philosophy of it all again and have lost sight of the real purpose... To make life more pleasant maybe?
Maybe it's because I'm not a Buddhist myself, but I thought the point was that it IS all meaningless. That's what we have to realize in order to transcend suffering. And while Love with a capital L is good to an extent, love is not. That's why members of the sangha must be celibate. Lay people can have spouses and children etc but all they are doing is putting off the inevitable.
Certainly, being a lay Buddhist makes enlightenment a more distant goal, but as I've posted earler, the journey counts for something, too. I'm willing to accept a small amount of suffering for now; although in my later years I may go the full route, non-attachment does make it hard to eat, and I currently have others who depend on me to feed them as well. And even enlightened monks do not view everything as meaningless: witness those in Vietnam who set themselves afire to protest the war there. Suffering exists, and its alleviation is the whole point of the religion.
Your other comments make it clear that you have a good intellectual foundation in Buddhism's foundations and cultural setting, probably as part of some Eastern Religions coursework at university. As you've already stated, I think some of the spiritual/emotional ramifications are elusive from that standpoint. I'll respond to some of those points individually.
They are lay Buddhists so that in their next life or two thay will be born with enough understanding of non-attachment to become members of the sangha and renounce the world. That's why I'm always a bit bemused by white Buddhists I have met who claim not to believe in reincarnation. The whole thing pretty much falls down if we only have one life.
Because Buddhism arose in a Hindu culture, in which reincarnation is an integral belief, it's a common misconception that reincarnation is an essential Buddhist belief. The Buddha's teachings do not stress it (in fact, he denied the existence of the soul), and I see nothing at all that requires it (see below). The fact that I am white has nothing to do with it; there are any number of Chinese, for example, who agree. (I am wondering, too: do you also make fun of all Christians and Jews who aren't from the Middle East?)
I mean once you are enlightened, you display loving kindness for all beings by being a Bodhisattva (for those not so familiar with Buddhism: A being who could attain nirvana but chooses to remain in the world helping others do so). But even then, to achieve the ultimate aim, you have to let that go. You have to physically die in a state of complete non-attachment to reach nirvana, as nirvana is release from the cycle of rebirth and attachment to the big illusion is what causes us to be reborn.
From a reincarnation-cultural standpoint, what you've said is correct, and if I were teaching Buddhism to people raised in an all-Hindu culture, I might pitch it in just that way as well. However, one could just as easily interpret Nirvana as the final stage of enlightenment: complete non-attachment, in this "life." If, on a deep level, self is an illusion, then so ultimately the idea of reincarnation must be an illusion as well: how can you be reincarnated as something different if there really is no "you"? An extention of this is that death is also illusory.
That's why it seems counter-intuitive to people raised in an environment where their main experience of religion is Abrahamic, which when you get right down to it is all about living forever.
No arguments there, but from a slightly different viewpoint: the Abrahamic ideal is a perpetual "self," rather than a relinquishing of the same.
Lay Buddhist? I laid a Buddhist. Just thought I'd share. Boy, did she understand suffering after that.
Ooofa!
Wait, that wasn't civil, was it? Sorry.
Wait, that wasn't civil, was it? Sorry.
Terrible!
Huh. I don't think so. (just finishing the song)
Actually I'm a thuggee this week so I'll be going back to Kali, to Kali, to Kali...
The odd thing was that I was going to make the same joke until you beat me to it.
And we both have experienced strange bio-electricity phenomena. And live in NY. And are completely bonkers. Brother... brother is that you?
Certainly, being a lay Buddhist makes enlightenment a more distant goal, but as I've posted earler, the journey counts for something, too. I'm willing to accept a small amount of suffering for now; although in my later years I may go the full route, non-attachment does make it hard to eat, and I currently have others who depend on me to feed them as well. And even enlightened monks do not view everything as meaningless: witness those in Vietnam who set themselves afire to protest the war there. Suffering exists, and its alleviation is the whole point of the religion.
Good point. I didn't think of that. I suppose most modern Buddhists (except those in SE Asia) are Mahayana so you're right, the whole point of that tradition is to alleviate suffering in the world. The Theravadins are the ones concerned with personal salvation, more like the Buddha's original teachings.
Because Buddhism arose in a Hindu culture, in which reincarnation is an integral belief, it's a common misconception that reincarnation is an essential Buddhist belief. The Buddha's teachings do not stress it (in fact, he denied the existence of the soul), and I see nothing at all that requires it (see below). The fact that I am white has nothing to do with it; there are any number of Chinese, for example, who agree. (I am wondering, too: do you also make fun of all Christians and Jews who aren't from the Middle East?)
Kirth I’m really sorry about that comment. I regretted it later and wanted to go back and change “white” to “western” or something, but it was too late.
I’ll tell you why I said that: My sister in law is from a large Laotian family. They are traditionally Theravadin Buddhist, and she is constantly encountering white Australians who say “oh, I’m a Buddhist too” and who have virtually no understanding of the actual tenets of the religion. She was raised with the Buddha’s nativity story the same way I was raised with Jesus’. To her Buddhism means family, ritual, weddings, funerals, prayer, clergy and definitely it means particular ideas and doctrines. In other words Buddhism is to her and her family what Christianity is to countless westerners. It upsets her when she meets people who don’t treat her religion like a religion. Instead they treat it like something they can pick and choose from and interpret how they want and when she disagrees with them they say “oh, but I think that part’s metaphorical” or worse, “huh?”
Imagine what it would be like for someone like Moff Rimmer to meet a Laotian man who said “hey buddy I’m a Christian too! Except I don’t think God’s real and I don’t believe in the Bible or the authority of the church. I just have a picture of Jesus in my room and I light some incense sometimes. It’s like, so much better than the evil oppressive Buddhism I was raised in, with all its pointless rituals! Christians rule!”
Because of her I have little tolerance for people who give up the religion they were raised with in favour of an incomplete understanding of another faith. They are like children rebelling against their parents and are showing great disrespect to a beautiful and ancient tradition.
I was not implying that you have an incomplete understanding. It’s true there are many sects of Buddhism. My sister in law can be intolerant also, and as we have seen so can I! She was raised Theravadin and regards other forms of Buddhism as incorrect. Your understanding of Buddhism is clearly rooted in an analysis of the Buddha’s words and a deep contemplation, rather than a pack of incense and a distaste for Christianity. I am sorry I offended you.
By the way I don’t make fun, but I do think it’s quite strange that westerners of European descent ended up with a religion from a completely different cultural background dominating their history…
No arguments there, but from a slightly different viewpoint: the Abrahamic ideal is a perpetual "self," rather than a relinquishing of the same.
That's why it seems counter-intuitive to people raised in an environment where their main experience of religion is Abrahamic, which when you get right down to it is all about living forever.
That’s a better way to put it.
Good point. I didn't think of that. I suppose most modern Buddhists (except those in SE Asia) are Mahayana so you're right, the whole point of that tradition is to alleviate suffering in the world. The Theravadins are the ones concerned with personal salvation, more like the Buddha's original teachings.
True enough. But Buddhism's been around so long that even some of the Theravadin sects have added so much baggage to the Pali Canon that they are just barely recognizable as the same religion. Whenever I hear about a pantheon of "Buddhist gods" being worshipped in some village, I shake my head in mild disbelief.
Kirth I’m really sorry about that comment.
No apologies are needed when you speak your mind. Your example makes it clear why you'd feel that way, and I'll admit I sometimes have less patience than I should with modern-day hippies who tell me, "I think Zen is like, mystical, dude!" and then light a bong or something to feed one of their cravings.
To her Buddhism means family, ritual, weddings, funerals, prayer, clergy and definitely it means particular ideas and doctrines. In other words Buddhism is to her and her family what Christianity is to countless westerners. It upsets her when she meets people who don’t treat her religion like a religion. Instead they treat it like something they can pick and choose from and interpret how they want and when she disagrees with them they say “oh, but I think that part’s metaphorical” or worse, “huh?”
I'm of mixed feelings here. Certainly one should understand that context and make a serious study of any religious tradition one approaches. But on the other hand, there's the example of Thich Nhat Hanh, who was approached before giving his talk at an interfaith meeting and told something like, "I hope we don't have to sit through any more of your fruit salad nonsense. You're either a Christian or a Jew or a Hindu or a Buddhist: pick one!" To which he relied, "Fruit salad can be delicious!"
And we have the Buddha's message, "Gotami, the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered, not to being fettered; to shedding, not to accumulating; to modesty, not to self-aggrandizement; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, not to entanglement; to aroused persistence, not to laziness; to being unburdensome, not to being burdensome': You may definitely hold, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction.'" (Gotami Sutta)
So what, really, is Buddhism? I was raised by lapsed Catholic secular yankees, with essentially no religious tradition. I discovered Buddhism in an academic setting, and probably took up the practice as many do, to see if there was anything to it. Fourteen years later I still practice Zazen, and I walk up stairs rather than use the elevator at work because it allows me to be more mindful of where I'm going. The important thing is that I've gone from having little empathy, and a more or less savage distaste for most people and things, to become someone who kind of feels bad for the vegetables he eats. Some of that might be maturity, but the bulk of it is a direct result of the practice of Zen. And the rationalist tradition I grew up with (and still retain, to large extent) tells me not to argue with results.
So am I a "real" Buddhist? Your sister-in-law might not think so, because I don't visit a shrine weekly or make a big show out of it; most of my acquaintances have no idea (which would be unremarkable in England, but I live in Texas where everyone's religion is everyone else's business). My Vietnamese friends in grad school throught I was "kind of Asian" for a Westerner, but thought nothing more of it. And even my fellow Paizoans would never know except for this thread! Sometimes I wonder, too; in the intervening years I've forgotten a lot of the academic background that I once became so interested in. But by the definition in the Gotami Sutta, I think I'm pretty solid.
Keep well, mate!
No apologies are needed when you speak your mind.Mind if I quote you in the future?
My words of pseudo-wisdom might not apply outside the venue of a "Civil" discussion, so use them at your own risk. I expressly deny any guarantee, either stated or implied, now and forever hereafter and retroactively into the past, blah-de-blah, ad infitinitum.
|
|
My words of pseudo-wisdom might not apply outside the venue of a "Civil" discussion, so use them at your own risk. I expressly deny any guarantee, either stated or implied, now and forever hereafter and retroactively into the past, blah-de-blah, ad infitinitum.No apologies are needed when you speak your mind.Mind if I quote you in the future?
Awwww, you always ruin my fun... ;}
No apologies are needed when you speak your mind. Your example makes it clear why you'd feel that way, and I'll admit I sometimes have less patience than I should with modern-day hippies who tell me, "I think Zen is like, mystical, dude!" and then light a bong or something to feed one of their cravings.
Thanks. There were alot of fake hippie buddhists in my philosophy courses at uni too, but they all dropped out. I remember one of them arguing with my lecturer in an ethics class about abortion, saying that there was no problem because there was no such thing as a soul anyway. The lecturer just could not get the guy to even look at the problem from a non-buddhist point of view. He ended up having to just say: "Look mate. This, and all university level philosophy classes, assume that no particular religious tradition is correct. So if you are going to continue to preach at us, I will have to say "sez you!" and leave it at that. You can stop talking now."
I still think my apology was deserved though. I didn't mean to lump you in with them.
So am I a "real" Buddhist? Your sister-in-law might not think so, because I don't visit a shrine weekly or make a big show out of it; most of my acquaintances have no idea (which would be unremarkable in England, but I live in Texas where everyone's religion is everyone else's business). My Vietnamese friends in grad school throught I was "kind of Asian" for a Westerner, but thought nothing more of it. And even my fellow Paizoans would never know except for this thread! Sometimes I wonder, too; in the intervening years I've forgotten a lot of the academic background that I once became so interested in. But by the definition in the Gotami Sutta, I think I'm pretty solid.
I think so too. In a way it comes back to what I said earlier, that people from cultures where a religion has had time to become part of the social fabric have often lost track of the founder's intent, but people from places where that tradition is new can look at it with fresh eyes. While there will always be posers and people who don't bother to understand what they are preaching (especially prevalent with Buddhism for some reason), people like you I think are probably closer to the intent of Gotama himself than most people who are Buddhists because they come from a Buddhist culture. People like my sister in law understand where Gotama was coming from; people like you understand where he was trying to go.
Phew! If I may change the subject, something that was said earlier sparked a question in me. I know there are quite a few pagans or spouses/relatives of pagans here at Paizo. What do people think of reconstructed neo-paganisms like Wicca, Asatru, and Hellenism in Greece? Alot of people are hostile to them, as far as I can tell because they are new religious movements and/or the Abrahamic religions are monotheistic and have a bee in their bonnet about magical workings, which tend to be important in these faiths.
I for one think they are great. I think they allow people of European descent to connect with a mythology that springs from their own cultural background instead of a tacked on middle eastern mythos. If I were religious I would find it much easier to connect with Orpheus or Odin or (heh heh) Cuchulainn than with Moses or Jonah. The former are the stories of my ancestors. The latter are the stories of someone else's.
I know there are quite a few pagans or spouses/relatives of pagans here at Paizo. What do people think of reconstructed neo-paganisms like Wicca, Asatru, and Hellenism in Greece? Alot of people are hostile to them, as far as I can tell because they are new religious movements
My only gripe with them is that so many of them claim to be what they are not. I would have a lot more respect for those examples if they just admitted they were new. For some of them, the original traditions have been lost, and the "neo-" version is a re-imagining, using the same name as a previous religion for appeal (much like the endless Hollywood remakes of older movies?). Or Madonna's so-called "Kaballa," except that it conveniently lacks the intense (and difficult) scholarly base in the Talmud that was historically a prerequisite (much like your proverbial "Christian" from earlier who doesn't believe in God or Christ).
In the case of so-called Asutru, I become especially annoyed because I've read Snurlusson's Prose Edda, I own a much-dog-eared copy of the Poetic Edda that I've read dozens of times (at one point I had the whole cycle memorized; people in college would buy me beers to recite Norse myths), and nowhere in them do I find an "Asutric" religion tailor-made for neo-Nazis. The Aesir and Vanir made peace in the versions I read, and the elves would fight alongside men at Ragnarok--and even the gods know that they are doomed, but fight savagely to save mankind, who are not their creations, nor are descended from them. I respect that idea a lot. But all the "Asutru" stuff I read about involves loyalty to one's own race above all else, and apparently some overwhelming % of Asutru adherents are prison inmates who belong to white supremacist gangs. They've done the same thing with the Eddas that the KKK did with the Bible, but very few people refer to the Klan as "true" Christians.
Sorry to rant there. I have no problem with Wiccans, etc. per se, but I naively feel that those people who are inventing new religions should be proud of that fact, rather than seeking legitimacy behind the names of older traditions. Those who have studied the older traditions and hold to them have my respect-- as do any who name their own path and walk it.
|
In the case of so-called Asutru, I become especially annoyed because I've read Snurlusson's Prose Edda, I own a much-dog-eared copy of the Poetic Edda that I've read dozens of times (at one point I had the whole cycle memorized; people in college would buy me beers to recite Norse myths), and nowhere in them do I find an "Asutric" religion tailor-made for neo-Nazis. The Aesir and Vanir made peace in the versions I read, and the elves would fight alongside men at Ragnarok--and even the gods know that they are doomed, but fight savagely to save mankind, who are not their creations, nor are descended from them. I respect that idea a lot. But all the "Asutru" crap I hear about involves loyalty to one's own race above all else, and apparently some overwhelming % of Asutru adherents are prison inmates who belong to white supremacist gangs. They've done the same thing with the Eddas that the KKK did with the Bible, but very few people refer to the Klan as "true" Christians.
Spot on. I looked into the "neo-Odinism" thing about 15 years ago, and rejected it for the exact same reasons you give. Unfortunately, it now seems that in Scandinavia, Asatru is synonymous with white supremacy thuggery.
Also, if I ever swing by Houston, I'll keep the beers comin' if you can keep the verses running. Deal?
Also, if I ever swing by Houston, I'll keep the beers comin' if you can keep the verses running. Deal?
Count on it! Give me a head-up on the boards when you're here, and I'll find an array of brews worthy of a great tradition!
But all the "Asutru" stuff I read about involves loyalty to one's own race above all else, and apparently some overwhelming % of Asutru adherents are prison inmates who belong to white supremacist gangs. They've done the same thing with the Eddas that the KKK did with the Bible, but very few people refer to the Klan as "true" Christians.
Hmm. I didn't know that about the neo-nazi connection. I guess Australia is a long way from Iceland...
I don't believe it would be controversial of me to say that white power is not cool, kids!
Sorry to rant there. I have no problem with Wiccans, etc. per se, but I naively feel that those people who are inventing new religions should be proud of that fact, rather than seeking legitimacy behind the names of older traditions. Those who have studied the older traditions and hold to them have my respect-- as do any who name their own path and walk it.
I agree. I don't think there's anything wrong with saying "hey, I've invented a new religion!" or even "my people's old religion died out but I'm re-imagining it to fill my own spiritual needs." People should take pride in their work dammit!
But I've heard many people say they disapprove of these faiths for these very reasons. Apparently many people think a religion has to be old or have nebulous roots to be considered valid. But all religions were new once.
I think it's kind of cool that Zeus etc. died out and now they are back. Dionysus is my kind of god.
EDIT: And there are few things I hold in as much contempt as Madonna's "Kabalah". I read the Zohar when I was at uni (in translation of course) and I can't see what it has to do with white jumpsuits and blessed tap water. Why are the super-rich always such credulous idiots?
What do people think of reconstructed neo-paganisms like Wicca, Asatru, and Hellenism in Greece? Alot of people are hostile to them, as far as I can tell because they are new religious movements and/or the Abrahamic religions are monotheistic and have a bee in their bonnet about magical workings, which tend to be important in these faiths.
I think they are just as wrong as any other religion that isn't Chrisitianity. I get why they (like every other religion) are attractive to some.
What I don't get is the great level of opposition they tend to attract from the "mainstream" religions. Especially from "mainstream" Christianity. It seems that people just don't like that which is different or "strange" and so automatically right it off.
Speaking for Christianity (one of the mentioned "Abrahamic Religions"), the problem with magic is that it comes from Satan and Demons, and so is obviously wrong.
Please don't hear me saying that all these neo-pagans are worshipping Satan. But what I am saying is that there are two options for where this "magic power"* comes from. Either it comes from Good (God) or Evil (Satan and Demons). The Bible tells us it doesn't come from God (He doesn't work that way), and so it must come from Satan and his demons.
What I don't understand is why Christians want to single these religions out in particualr as being from Satan, when I would want to say that ALL religions, except Christianity, are from Satan. In fact, at least paganism seems to be more upfront about it than most others. And so is actually LESS likely to draw people away from God, than somehting like materialism, which doesn't even claim to be a religion, or even look like a religion, but functions in most people's lives EXACTLY like a religion.
*I am NOT trying to be patronising here. I truly believe there is a real spiritual realm, with real demons, and so magic is a real power. It is just VERY hard to write "magic power" without it sounding patronising.
what I am saying is that there are two options for where this "magic power"* comes from. Either it comes from Good (God) or Evil (Satan and Demons). The Bible tells us it doesn't come from God (He doesn't work that way), and so it must come from Satan and his demons.
Poor Moses, he was in league with the Devil. Parting the Red Sea involves magic, as near as I can tell. And Jesus was resurrected. And he said, "Lazarus, step forth." The Bible makes it abundantly clear that God most certainly DOES work that way, if you believe that sort of thing.
I would want to say that ALL religions, except Christianity, are from Satan. In fact, at least paganism seems to be more upfront about it than most others. And so is actually LESS likely to draw people away from God, than somehting like materialism, which doesn't even claim to be a religion, or even look like a religion, but functions in most people's lives EXACTLY like a religion.
Many would say that any version of Christianity that promotes nothing but intolerance and superstition comes closer to serving the Devil than it does God. Can you honestly take a close look at Gandhi's life and believe that he was serving Satan because he was Hindu? (I might also note that Judaism was founded by Abraham some 4,000 years ago, whereas Hinduism has a tradition stretching back 9,000 years, so apparently Satan gets the Early Bird Award for religion.)
I won't even get into the argument that the U.S. was founded on the Rationalist ideals of the Age of Reason, because so much of the world does believe that the U.S. is in league with Satan--that certainly supports your argument, I guess.
Something I don't understand: when someone is sick, often a relative will send out mass emails telling everyone to "pray for their recovery." Does this mean you should actually implore God to intervene and cause that person to become well again? If so, how is that not magic? In this instance I'm not citing an illustrative point; I was just never really clear on the rationale. It seems like a LOT of people do this; is God supposed to be impressed by who has the most prayers for them, and make His decision on that basis? Certainly He doesn't need those prayers in order to make Him aware that a person is sick; He's omniscient, after all.
when I would want to say that ALL religions, except Christianity, are from Satan
Oh no you just didn't! :)
One man's magic is another man's miracle, as Kirth pointed out.
In the OT (Book of Joshua I think) Saul consults the Witch of Endor for a prediction on how a battle will go. Solomon summons Genies to build his palace and does other magic. In the Koran Jesus does magic, turning a bird made of clay into a live bird.
I'm fairly sure I don't think magic is real, but I do think it's a universal human thing, particularly in earlier cultures.
In the Koran Jesus does magic, turning a bird made of clay into a live bird.
I personally prefer the "water into wine" trick.
Demons don't control magic. WotC does. Duh.
Although the inhuman behaviour of David Blaine and David Copperfield do tend to bolster the argument. All magicians named David are evil. I think that's a fact cuz I read it in a book.
In the Koran Jesus does magic, turning a bird made of clay into a live bird.
If I could go back in time with a chia pet I'd be a god!
I personally prefer the "water into wine" trick.
Lead into gold any day, beyotch!
Ever see Newton's 'The Net' alchemical experiment? He took old Greco-Roman myth and translated certain gods to mean metals and made an alloy called The Net. I saw it duplicated modern day and it was a hunk of purple metal with a net-like surface. That wasn't alchemy, that was science, far different than the cons most people were running back in the day. BTW, he said we're all going to die in 2060 so don't oversubscribe to Pathfinder.
BTW, he said we're all going to die in 2060 so don't oversubscribe to Pathfinder.
By then, Paizo will have yanked WotC's license for Pathfinder and gone all-psionic ("no more of this archaic 'digital' stuff!").
Although the inhuman behaviour of David Blaine and David Copperfield do tend to bolster the argument. All magicians named David are evil. I think that's a fact cuz I read it in a book.
That's why the best magician is Kriss Angel Mindfreak. He drove Mandy Moore's car blindfolded and delibrately zapped himself with a Tesla coil just to see what would happen. Plus he's in a poor quality rock band. Every now and then I check his MySpace just to make sure he's still alive...
I thought my previous comments would get things going. Thanks for not letting me down guys :)
Anyway, first I'll make a few general points, and then i'll try to respond to specifics.
I didn't even think of the close relationship between miracles and magic, but (in my mind at least), I still se them as different.
Miracles are supernatural occurances that have now natural / scientific explanation.
Magic is using incantations, "spells", divinations and sacrifice to contact spirits and force (perhaps persuade?) them to do what you want.
Gad can and does definently work through miracles, but on His terms, and in His timing. There is nothing we can do to compel a miracle from God.
Whereas magic is about compelling the spirits to serve you.
I hope that I was clear this time.
Many would say that any version of Christianity that promotes nothing but intolerance and superstition comes closer to serving the Devil than it does God.
I would agree with you 100% here. Just becasue someone claims to be Christian, does not make them so. In fact I would even be stronger than you are, and say any form of "Christianity" that does not promote a full life sacrifice of everything you have and are to Christ is closer to serving Satan (or self) than God.
Can you honestly take a close look at Gandhi's life and believe that he was serving Satan because he was Hindu?
I will be quite upfront and state that I know very little of the details fo Ghandi's life, but from what I do know he seems to have been a very moral and principled man who did stacks of good things in his life, mostly for others.
Having said that, it is not about how much good you do (or don't do). It is about who you are serving. And Ghandi was not serving God, therefore he was serving Satan (probabaly not explicitly and directly, but there are only two choices, and He definently wasn't serving God, he was a Hindu).
Think of it like this. There is a great Sailor. He is the best Sailor that ever lived. In fact, he is so good, that he can sail the ship all on his own. This frees the rest of the crew and the captain to persue other pursuits, and means the ship can be in active duty a very high percentage of the time.
Sounds like a great sailor right?
But there is a problem. Our theoretical sailor is a pirate. He doesn't seem so good now does he.
And this is the problem with Ghandi. He was sailing under the wrong flag. The Bible tells us that those who aren't for Jesus are against him. In effect either you are sailing on Jesus boat, or you are sailing a Pirate ship. The issue with Ghandi (and anyone for that matter) isn't his effectiveness as a sailor, it is about the flag he was sailing under. And for those who aren't sailing under the flag of Jesus, they are sailing under the skull and Cross bones.
I hope I didn't push that illustration too far, but it is great at making the point. The most important thing is who you are following, not how good you are.
when I would want to say that ALL religions, except Christianity, are from SatanOh no you just didn't! :)
I am afraid I did :) As I said, there are only two options, either from God, or from Satan. The Bible tells us the Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, there is no other way to the Father (God) except through him. Therefore, any other religion can not be from God, therefore must be from Satan. If I believed otherwise, I wouldn't be a Christian.
One man's magic is another man's miracle, as Kirth pointed out.
But there is a difference between the two. The miracles recorded in the Bible are fundamentally about God, whereas magic seems to be fundamentally about people. I think this is the fundamental difference.
In the OT (Book of Joshua I think) Saul consults the Witch of Endor for a prediction on how a battle will go.
It is the book of 1 Samuel, Chapter 28 and Saul summons the spirit of Samuel to speak to. And Samuel's spirit rebukes Saul for doing it. Saul shouldn't have done it, and he knew this. It is passages like this that indicate to me that magic is real. Sorry to be blunt, but what is your point? Just becasue something is recorded in the Bible doesn't automatically make it right for us to go out do the same thing.
Solomon summons Genies to build his palace and does other magic.
Can you give me a reference? I have never come across this account in he Bible. It doesn't sound like everyhting I have read about the construction of the Temple.
In the Koran Jesus does magic, turning a bird made of clay into a live bird.
That is the Koran, not the Bible, and doesn't accord with what we know about Jesus from the Bible. I very much doubt this account occured at all.
But there are numerous other references in the Bible to Jesus performing miracles (feeding the 5,000, calming the storm, miraculous healings, raising the dead), that could easily be classified as "magic". But look at who they point to. They all serve to show that Jesus is from God, and so we should listen to him. Whereas most magic seems to be about serving ourselves.
I'm fairly sure I don't think magic is real, but I do think it's a universal human thing, particularly in earlier cultures.
I would be interested to hear why you don't think magic is real. Do you not believe in the spirit or supernatural realm?
Something I don't understand: when someone is sick, often a relative will send out mass emails telling everyone to "pray for their recovery." Does this mean you should actually implore God to intervene and cause that person to become well again? If so, how is that not magic? In this instance I'm not citing an illustrative point; I was just never really clear on the rationale. It seems like a LOT of people do this; is God supposed to be impressed by who has the most prayers for them, and make His decision on that basis? Certainly He doesn't need those prayers in order to make Him aware that a person is sick; He's omniscient, after all.
I think the easiest answer to give is that Prayer acknowledges that God is in control of everything that happens. He controls the world. He controls who gets better. He controls what happens. And so if you want something, it makes sense to ask the person with the capability of making it happen.
As to whether our prayers "cause" God to intervene, I really don't know the answer to that. The Bible tells us that God wants to answer our prayers. The Bible tells us that the prayers of a righteous man are powerful and effective (James 5:16).
But I don't think our prayers cause God to change His mind, because as otherwise, as you said, it is very much like magic.
I think God uses our prayers to accomplish his purposes. He graciously works through our prayers to bring His plans to completion. Is he limited by our prayers? Of course not. Do our prayers change his course of action? I don't think so. But in his great wisdom, somehow He does work through our prayers.
But I think prayer is as much for us as it is for God. Becasue when we pray, we express to God (and ourselves), that we aren't in control, that God is, and what happens is up to Him, and Him alone.
It may help to think of a parent with kids. Do they want to give good things to their kids? Of course they do. But do they prefer their kids to actually ask for it, rather than just giving it to them? Probabaly most of the time. But are the capable of giving good things to their kids without their kids asking for it? Of course they are. Are the swayed by nagging kids? If they are good parents I would hope not. Do they love to fulfill the good requests of their kids? Of course they do.
Not sure if any of that is really all that helpful. The doctrine of prayer is somehting that I have in my head, and understand reasonably well for myself, but it is really hard to systematise it and right it down and explain it to someone else. There are a number of different things that need to be held in tension (like most Christian doctrines), and I don't have all the answers, but I am confident I have enough of a big picture to work with.
I'll end this rambling post with another example.
I pray that God will give me opportunities to share the gospel with my non-christian friends. When I am regularly praying for this, it is obviously in the front of my mind. Now, when I am praying it and thinking it, I tend to get more opportunities to share the gospel with my friends. Is that becasue God gave me more opportunities, or becasue I noticed and recognised the opportunities becasue I was praying and thinking about them.
One final point. It is very hard to hate someone when you are praying for them every day.