1. Comment #98349 by wendelin on December 13, 2007 at 1:55 pm

I don't know anything about Buddhism but I was brought as a Hindu and the major way in which it is different from the big 3 monotheistic faiths is UTTER INCOHERENCE. You could make practically any statement about Hinduism and it would be true. Hinduism teaches reincarnation, but not really. Hinduism has a million gods and goddesses, but they are all contained in a holy trinity - no, wait, it's all just one God - no, wait, there is just one god and there is ONLY god and everything from that pebble to the tapeworm in your belly is just various manifestations of the One Holy One.

The best I can say is that it's truly a free-for-all... you can believe whatever you wish and call yourself a Hindu. I have openly been an atheist since I was 10, and I've always been told that's Hinduism, too - at the "highest level" of Hinduism, there's no god belief at all. When Christian missionaries try to convert Hindus, they're often baffled to see Hindus listen interestedly to stories of Jesus and then cheerfully add a picture of Jesus to their list of Gods to worship.

I once challenged my father - who is very into Hindu philosophy - to make a single moral statement that would contradict Hinduism without a doubt. But a very popular interpretation of Hinduism is to believe that everybody, even murderers, thieves, rapists and lawyers, are here to do follow their Dharma (occupational principle) and do their Karma (ordained task), so they're never held *personally* responsible for their misdeeds. Hey, I'm a thief, this is what I do for a living! There are judges and gaolers and policemen whose job it is to throw thieves in jail, sure, but it's all as impersonal as can be, and ideally, nobody is supposed to harbour ill feelings towards anybody else.

It's very frustrating. It's also the reason why it's impossible to debate a Hindu.

Other Comments by wendelin

2. Comment #98379 by zbob on December 13, 2007 at 2:34 pm

As a practitioner of Zen, I am glad that this website is approaching the eastern philosophies/psychologies to discuss the similarities and differences with modern western philosophies and science. The middle way of Buddhism is a fantastic way to live everyday life and to eventually discover that this shore is the other shore. (All concepts contain within them their opposites). If more people could realize the interdependent nature of all life and things in the universe (Thich Nhat Hanh calls it "interbeing"), and overcome the illusory independent self, then many of the world's egocentric caused problems would cease. Also, of course, "god" is irrelevant to this philosophy of life.

The practice of zazen allows us to explore the functioning of our mind consciousness and find the peace and joy that exists in every moment that we actually realize that our ego selves are ultimately illusory. Zen master Dogen also theorized that ultimately time is also an illusion which is very similar to Einstein's theories of absolute space-time where ultimately the distinction between past, present and future is an illusion.

I urge any person interested in this form of meditation and consciousness study to explore the teachings of Thich Nhat Hanh, D.T. Suzuki, and Shunryu Suzuki.(amongst others)
In my experience, this type of consciousness practice creates an excellent way to live everyday life in peace and happiness,

Other Comments by zbob

3. Comment #98382 by USA_Limey on December 13, 2007 at 2:37 pm

I hate these stupid 'debating points' so much I am going to be childish and petulant.

They completely mess up the 'lates visitor comments' section which helps us keep track of responses to the latest articles posted.

So there.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

4. Comment #98444 by Blue Lithium on December 13, 2007 at 3:46 pm

Still no damn evidence though, is there?

Other Comments by Blue Lithium

5. Comment #98450 by Not the Messiah on December 13, 2007 at 3:55 pm

The fault in this argument comes from equating the word worldview (or philosophy) with religion. Worldviews are often unique to an individual, and can be open to change. When a worldview gets written down and shared by enough people it's called a religion, and certain problems become all but inevitable. Even the most seemingly benign philosophy can justify the most evil acts once it makes the leap to Dogma.

Any religion, along with many political ideologies, can lead to barbarism because they enshrine certain concepts as being more important than the life and well-being of a single individual.

All religions (including Buddhism) share at least some common traits that can have negative social consequences, including: the rise of a privileged priest-class, the demand for large amounts of people's time and money with little social benefit, and the proscribing of genuinely beneficial social activities because they contradict some article of faith.

Adherence to a religion also creates one more group-label whereby people can indulge the natural human tendency towards tribalism. Creating divisions between neighbours who otherwise have everything in common.

In short, it is almost irrelevant how noble or innocuous the central tenets of a religion are. By implicitly rejecting the yardsticks of rationality and utilitarian ethics, believers can quickly turn them into weapons of oppression.

Other Comments by Not the Messiah

6. Comment #98462 by EmilFremy on December 13, 2007 at 4:34 pm

Hinduism and Buddhism offer much more sophisticated worldviews (or philosophies)
and I see nothing wrong with these religions.

I know a bit about hinduism and a lot about buddhism,
and its true, both offer much more sophisticated worldviews.
And as everywhere there has been much diversity in views and practices,
which is not bad by itself, competition is always good for the business.

Just consider Buddhism:

1. Tibetan Buddhismus which is very mystic and its large
pantheon of gods, godesses, bodhisattvas and the like, (almost catholic)
but also with its lofty Madyamika philosophy and the Bodhisattva ethics.

2. Zen Buddhism with its rigorous mind training, shunning intellectual
training or mystical speculation at all.

3. Theravada Buddhism which is very rational and practical but also
with sophisticated training in meditation and psychologie.

Schopenhauer admitted once, though knowing only very little about it,
that his world view is quite close to the buddhist views.

To mention the major points which can attract even some atheists:
1. there is no thing as a permanent soul, just a process going on . . .
2. there is no creator god, the origins of the world cannot be found . .
3. life is suffering, because the world is transitory . . .
4. only personal excertion can bring salvation (Nirvana)
5. meditation, psychological and intellectual training as method.
6. Freedom of thought, invitation by the Buddha: "come and see, decide yourself ..."
7. Lofty ideals, refined ethics, sophisticated philosophy.

It would be to extrem to say: "I see nothing wrong . ."
But as with all sophisticated views, its difficult to define
what is wrong and what is right. It is the same as with science:
If you have two professors, you have three views!

To mention the major points which would chase away pure atheists:
1. old fashioned cosmology with gods, demons, hells and heavens
2. different cultural background (India, Japan, China)
3. pessimistic wolrdviews in different shades
4. rigorous training required, ascetic monks religion
5. special way of thinking/acting

Thats all for now

Other Comments by EmilFremy

7. Comment #98464 by aDude on December 13, 2007 at 4:52 pm

To Wendelin and to answer the original post specifically about Hinduism- there is one powerful, and in my opinion unassailable argument against Hinduism, and that is casteism. I too was raised as a Hindu, an Untouchable and I could not begin to summarise or to enumerate the discrimination and pain.

Letting aside the whole "what is god? Does god exist?" point, I cannot believe that anyone respectful of sentient life would find there nothing to reproach in Hinduism.

Other Comments by aDude

8. Comment #98495 by Conrad on December 13, 2007 at 6:59 pm

Adherence to unthinking dogma is not restricted to the main Abrahamic religion and that is the main reason why religion is dangerous. Once you believe propositions based on no evidence to be true then you can be lead down many vile paths even from "sophisticated" systems. For example two men recently cut off and stole a hindu holy man's leg because they believed his claims that it held healing powers.

Irrationality is still dangerous no matter how pretentious the packaging.

Other Comments by Conrad

9. Comment #98757 by God of Eng's World on December 14, 2007 at 8:09 am

Some of the hells in Buddhism could certainly challenge the Abrahamic faiths on extremity. It's not as bad as the eternal Christian hell, but still some Buddhist hells go on for a very long time, and sound quite painful.

Take a look at this little extract from "The Sutra Of Bodhisattva Ksitigarbha's Fundamental Vows" for a little preview -

http://www.buddhistdoor.com/OldWeb/resources/sutras/Ksitigarbha/sources/ksitig3.htm

Not so nice.

Other Comments by God of Eng's World

10. Comment #99018 by Acitta on December 15, 2007 at 8:34 am

Like other religions, Buddhism has both good and bad points. I think that any thinking person can only benefit by understanding the sophisticated philosophy of Nagarjuna's Madhyamika (Middle Way) school of Buddhism. Buddhism began as a criticism of the prevailing religions extent in India at the time. Sakyamuni Buddha instructed that nothing that he teaches should be accepted on his word alone but that everything should be questioned, and that each individual is responsible for discovering the truth on his or her own. It seems to me that the central doctrines of Buddhism, anatta (soullessness), impermanence, dependent origination and non-attachment are compatible with a modern rational world view.


On the other hand, the way Buddhism is practiced by the masses in many countries involves a lot of superstition and syncretism with other religions with a multiplicity of Buddhas, Bodhisattva's and other celestial beings that are prayed to and propitiated in similar ways to deistic religions. I don't think that the majority of cultural Buddhists would want to engage in the religion of renunciation taught by Sakyamuni.

Other Comments by Acitta

11. Comment #99038 by viswanathan on December 15, 2007 at 9:59 am

"Hinduism and Buddhism offer much more sophisticated worldviews (or philosophies) and I see nothing wrong with these religions."
My present comment is only about the allusion that the worldviews of Hinduism and Buddhism are identical or at least compatible with each other. This, I feel, is a major error.
The most authentic and most revered scriptures of Hinduism are the Vedas, also known as 'shruthi's ('revealed texts').
Much of the bulk of Vedas is concerned with sacrificial rites (yajna) where various objects (including ceremonially killed animals) were offered to sacrificial fire for pleasing Vedic godheads. For those unfamiliar with Vedic sacrificial rites, photographs in this page would be useful:
http://www.ignca.nic.in/asp/all.asp?projectid=agni
According to the ancient Indian law giver, Manu (some time between 200 BC and 200 CE) ; "..He, the Lord, ….from fire, wind, and the sun he drew forth the threefold eternal Veda, called Rik, Yagus, and Saman" . Manu declared that any person of high caste who treats Vedas with contempt "must be cast out by the virtuous, as an atheist and a scorner of the Veda". He further insisted that Vedas should not be recited in the presence of Shudras ('impure' people of 'low' caste). Women were also excluded from the study of Vedas.
In some 20 centuries that followed, Hindus' reverence towards Vedas has only deepened. Words of Vivekananda (1863-1902), the 19th century champion of Hinduism, would attest this: " You will remember that in India these Vedas are regarded in a much higher light than even the Christians regard their bible. Your idea of revelation is that a man is inspired by god; but in India the idea is that things exist because they are in the Vedas. In and through the Vedas the whole creation has come. All that is called knowledge is in the Vedas. Every word is sacred and eternal, eternal as the soul, without beginning and without end. The whole of creator's mind is in this book, as it were".

More modern praises for Vedas are appropriately 'sophisticated'. Examples:

"Vedas are the most ancient literary works on Earth, at the same time with the profoundest and widest scope. They cover all fields of knowledge, material and spiritual. The real treasures of the East weren't jewels, spices or exotic perfumes - but the amazing treasure house of sacred and universal knowledge. This knowledge, increasingly validated by modern science, is now being embraced by leading corporations, professionals and leaders around the world. Our recent scientific and technological efforts can only to some extent approach the ancient Vedic material advancement while the Vedic spirituality is much more elevated than anything we can find in the West." http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/index.htm

"Reading the Vedic Literature in sequence is the procedure to spontaneously train the brain physiology and the whole physiology of speech to function in the most orderly way so that every thought, speech and action is spontaneously promoted in the evolutionary direction of Natural Law, and thereby spontaneously enjoys full support of the evolutionary quality of intelligence that upholds order and evolution in the entire universe." http://is1.mum.edu/vedicreserve/index.htm

However, ancient India was also home to many other philosophies that shared one common feature: Non-acceptance of the authority of Vedas, and opposition to the ritualism based on sacrifices to the gods of vedic pantheon .Buddhism was one of such philosophies. The thoughts of Nagasena, from the questions of king milinda- a Buddhist text (circa 100BCE ) – truly states the Buddhist attitude towards Vedas: "So the teacher made the boy repeat the hymns, urging him to get them by heart. And young Nâgasena, after one repetition of them, had learnt the three Vedas by heart, could intone them correctly, had understood their meaning, could fix the right place of each particular verse…….…. And he reviewed what he had learnt throughout from beginning to end, and found no value in it anywhere at all. And he exclaimed in bitterness of soul: 'Empty forsooth are these Vedas, and as chaff. There is in them neither reality, nor worth, nor essential truth!'…"

Other Comments by viswanathan

12. Comment #99524 by asnair on December 17, 2007 at 1:42 am

I was born and brought up a Hindu.

In my early years, I was exposed to Hindu mythology; as also to many stories from the Bible. I don't recall ever having believed that any of these were accounts of historical facts in a literal sense. My family was non-vegetarian -- I may add that most devout Hindus from my local community are traditionally non-vegetarians -- with no great taboo even towards beef.

Hinduism is not a religion in the normal sense. "Hindus" are not required to be initiated, or registered as members of any organized body. The exception to this is in case of the Brahmin males, who to this day, continue to undergo an initiation ceremony into the erstwhile priestly caste. But even here, I doubt that there is a process of registration as a member of any formal religious body. I suspect that many Brahmins go through these ancient rites merely as part of cultural baggage ...

As an early teenager, I did believe in a non-personal God -- but hardly that this God would interfere in our daily affairs. I vaguely believed in soul, heaven, rebirth and life after death -- not being clear regarding the details of any of these. I was not at all familiar with the Hindu concepts of Vedanta, including that of Atman ("Individual Self") and the Brahman ("the Universal Consciousness"). But I had heard people mentioning mysteriously and in awe that the material world is merely an illusion (or "maya").

I believe that my experience as above is that a of a typical Hindu, over the past hundreds of years.

As I advanced in my teens, I became familiar with the rationalist views of Bertrand Russel and Nehru -- and seriously started to doubt the existence of a super-natural God, and of life after death. Around the same time, I also read up on Vedanta which propounded the philosophy of advaita (non-dualism). But I found it difficult to accept the belief that the material world is illusory (maya), while the Brahman is the single monistic reality. By then, I was also aware of Darwinism -- though only at a basic level. By the age of 19, I was as much an agnostic as Russel or Nehru...

So what is the "Hindu World-view"? Is this more sophisticated than other religious views?

Yes, and no.

Yes, in the sense that there is no "Hindu World-view" that most Hindus (or even most Brahmins) are even vaguely aware of. Yes, in the limited sense that the philosophy of Vendata is non-dualistic -- though most Hindus are only vaguely, if at all, aware of this.

No, in the sense that the common beliefs (as actually held by most devout Hindus) are not significantly different from these of other religions -- beliefs in life after death, soul, heaven, hell, rebirth, divine retribution, miracles and so on.

Yes, in the sense that the Hindu religion has no "fundamentals" -- you can believe in a variety of things, adopt a variety of life styles, forms of worships, attitudes to God and food habits, and yet be generally accepted as a Hindu.

No, in the sense that Hindus have proved to be as amenable to fall into the trap of religio-political fundamentalism as are adherents of other religions. No, in the sense that social evils such as the caste system were amenable to be easily justified under the Vedantic monistic world view ...

Anand

Other Comments by asnair

13. Comment #100051 by rideforever on December 18, 2007 at 6:31 am

Buddhism offers guidance with how to understand our experience of life and consciouness. Somewhere between psychotherapy and philosophy - but practical.

When RD argues against religions - well I agree with him and I can follow his arguments because I am able to reason - it is part of my mind. But it is not the only part, if it were I would be a computer.

I am not a computer, I experience life directly I don't process everything I see or hear and run it through a reason machine. I just experience it and buddhism seems to offer insight here.


I think the current atheist movement is of great benefit - anything to get rid of organised religions. But after that I think we need more than just reason - we are not computers.

I am not a computer.

Other Comments by rideforever

14. Comment #101835 by Jake Atkisson on December 21, 2007 at 2:38 am

"It's very frustrating. It's also the reason why it's impossible to debate a Hindu."

Conveniently, I've never seen hindus running around trying to convert people with the Big 3 monotheistic approach to such things.

However...all these things that wind up being blamed on religions are really people-issues. People invented religions; every last one of them.

If there were never humans on earth, I guarantee you that the birds and dogs wouldn't be worshiping anything any more or less than they do now, point in case.

Just the same, redressing a religion (even those as deplorable as monotheisms wind up being, in practice) is like blaming guns for gun-related violence.

Yeah, the gun is the vehicle in such instances, but the intention, the application, the direction and the motive were all provided by people.

Ditto with religions and all the harm that's been caused in their employ over the ages.

So on, so on, so forth...fiddle-dee-dee.

Other Comments by Jake Atkisson

15. Comment #104076 by timeby on December 27, 2007 at 7:31 pm

EmilFremy is quite correct as she describes a few of the organized Buddhist sects but, as I read the earliest descriptions of Siddhartha teachings, he would not consider these sects to be Buddhist!

Atheism is entirely consistent with the teachings of a gentleman named Siddhartha Gautama who, it is said, went on to obtain Buddahood (enlightenment). The very essence of Siddhartha's teachings is that he was a man, and nothing more, hence any man can attain enlightenment just as he had done. The only thing that matters is how you act (the eightfold path): no god or gods are required, thank you. However, should you prefer to have a god lying around it's OK but, if you are Buddhist, you do not let it interfere with anything, especially with anything important because the god you invented is, after all, irrelevant!

Other Comments by timeby

16. Comment #108109 by davidwelsh on January 6, 2008 at 3:36 am

I'm a Buddhist, and I personally see Hinduism as having much more in common with the monotheistic faiths than with Buddhism - aside of course from the many superficial similarities that arise from the fact that both religions have their origin in Indian culture. I think it's rather misleading to discuss them lumped together.

With regards to Buddhism though, there was almost nothing I found in "The God Delusion" that is incompatible with Buddhism. (The only thing I couldn't agree with was the wholly materialist view of consciousness - but as I understand it, that's still a point of significant debate amongst scientists anyway.)

The important thing about Buddhism which distinguishes it from other religions (and leads some not to want to label Buddhism a "religion" at all) is the basis on which Buddhists are supposed to believe things or not believe things. The Buddha said explicitly that people should not believe in anything because of tradition or because a religious teacher has said it to be so. The Buddhist criterion for deciding whether to believe in something or not is essentially consequentialist. If a belief makes you more greedy, hateful and deluded then you should abandon it, if a belief makes you less greedy, hateful and deluded, then you should embrace it. (The full text, called The Kalama Sutta, can be read here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wheel008.html )

Buddhism is, therefore, wholly compatible with science - in that when science proves a Buddhist belief to be false Buddhists will, in general, abandon it. The Buddha, for example, clearly believed that the world was flat - because that was the accepted cosmology of his time. No Buddhist today, I hope, maintains this belief. Similarly, although I do not share Dawkins' belief that consciousness can be explained entirely materially, if science proves that it is so, I will simply have to change my belief in the face of the evidence - just as I'm sure Dawkins will if the evidence goes the other way.

No less prominent a Buddhist than the Dalai Lama has said exactly the same thing - that if science proves the materialist view of consciousness, Buddhists will simply have to change their religion (abandoning, for example, belief in rebirth.)

This attitude to belief is absolutely central to the Buddhist way of thinking and makes Buddhism, I feel, one attractive option for those of us for whom faith in unprovable assertions is not an option, but who still yearn for a way of embracing beauty and finding meaning in our universe.

Other Comments by davidwelsh

17. Comment #113119 by RachelAB on January 18, 2008 at 3:44 pm

Hinduism: The caste system - talk to any Untouchable and they'll tell you what's wrong with Hinduism...

Buddhism is a bit tougher because many of those societies were closed and there are a lot of myths about the benign nature of this faith. Granted, they didn't have crusades but Buddhists have supported wars, have uttered double talk and double standards. (Please see Meera Nanda's article at http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=161 for more details...)

Plus, the premise of obtaining wisdom, reaching enlightenment, through contemplation appears utterly irrational to me. There is nothing in Buddhism that ensures that this "wisdom" is checked against reality or any other resemblance of a scientific method. Also, skepticism is only encouraged so far, "skeptical doubt [or] a suspicion that the practice doesn't work" is considered a hindrance to reaching enlightenment.

Why do so many atheists feel a need to defend Buddhism and Hinduism? There are a ton of beliefs in these religions that are just as evidence lacking as things in Christianity. For starters, if Jesus didn't live (see Brian Flemings' movie), do you really think a guy who lived about 500 years prior to that was real? What happens to Buddhism, if there was no Buddha?

If we want to pick and choose from Buddhism that which is consistent with our current worldview, we are doing the same as Christian apologists. We cannot ignore the parts of Buddhism that are mythical and consider it a religion consistent with rational thought. The ideas of karma and reincarnation are as central to Buddhism as Jesus' resurrection. And they are just as much without evidence as that...

Other Comments by RachelAB

18. Comment #114515 by The Crucified on January 22, 2008 at 10:51 am

I find Buddhism, Zen in particular, difficult to dispense with on the same grounds as the monotheistic travesties. However, a few points have recently come to mind that seem worthy of consideration:

1. I believe in the 4H chat Hitchens mentioned "surrendering the mind" as the danger par excellence inherent in religion. Buddhism doesn't escape this.

2. Buddhism, like the monos, is a "morbid practice" by which I mean the promised rewards can only be realized after death(s). Our current lives are denigrated, even if necessary. Of course this seems to follow naturally from the belief that "all life is suffering,' due to our being in a state that isn't much different than original sin, which isn't particularly sophisticated or healthy. The entire cyclical nature of existence can only be founded on faith.

Having said that I think you'd find many Zen practitioners would readily agree that there is no Zen, or God, or enlightenment, or suffering. :D

Other Comments by The Crucified

19. Comment #114985 by 82abhilash on January 23, 2008 at 11:25 am

I can speak more about Hinduism and a bit about Buddhism. Since I was raised a Hindu. Generally speaking Hinduism is less structured than Buddhism. There is no single dogma, no single creed. Hindu sects exist in an ocean of other mostly Hindu sects and everyone has a general understanding that they can believe whatever they want as long as their beliefs are compatible with us believing whatever we want. Even Muslims and Christians in India tend to have a tacit appreciation of this consensus. This of course creates an environment where criticizing dogma is the only taboo, which is very true of India today.

Buddhism though originating in India has had long ceased being part of Indian culture until recently where it has made a come back with low-caste and untouchable Hindus who find it an easy way to obtain upward mobility without abandoning their traditions, something which is very difficult if one embraces Islam or Christianity.

It is absolutely correct that, "Hinduism and Buddhism offer much more sophisticated worldviews." Indeed most Hindus and Buddhists are sophisticated thinkers, especially those Hindus and Buddhists who are in the habit of thinking a lot. And unlike Muslims or Christians, they try to accommodate new ideas and concepts into their world view. This makes them highly receptive not only to Christian and Islamic world views but to Communist and even Scientific worldviews.

However they suffer from the same weakness of other religions in that they do not have a rigorous and objective means to validate their world views through scientific experimentation. This lack of objectivity means that any attempts for validation tends to gravitate into some form of pseudoscience. Sophisticated worldviews and objective worldviews are not the same thing.

But like I said before Hindus and Buddhists are receptive to ideas outside their worldview. Hence in today's world there are extremely good at adapting and incorporating ideas from the scientific world into their living system. If you look at the world map for the most technologically adaptive countries, most of them are in Asia. But if you look at the most technologically innovative countries most of them are in the West (except Japan). And I claim this is no accident. The answer lies in the weakness of Eastern philosophies – while they are adaptive to change, they lack within them the potential to seize the initiative and be active in changing the world. Like the Abrahamic dogmas, they like to maintain existing power structures and the status quo that comes with it, so more time is wasted playing verbal gymnastics.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

20. Comment #117544 by middle miriam on January 29, 2008 at 4:48 am

Zbob; I think Einstein thought that time was relative, due to the fact that he came up with the theory of relativity not absoluteness. Plus that was the only way he could get rid of the concept of the ether. Technically this is off topic though so I shall end here.

Other Comments by middle miriam

21. Comment #123649 by RachelAB on February 7, 2008 at 12:50 pm

I am currently reading (parts of) Brian Victoria's "Zen at War." It is a rather disturbing read. If you think there's nothing wrong with Buddhism, please read that book.

Japanese Zen was an active participant, including furnishing the ideological underpinnings, for Japan's agressions against its neighbors. On top of that, it took until the 1990s for some of the Zen sects to apologize for their role in those wars (including WWII). This is a clear example of Buddhism not escaping the "surrendering the mind" charge that The Crucified mentioned above (and also that it's often a matter of timing, as Hitchens said in the same chat, when religions become dangerous).

It is also interesting to read in Victoria, how some of the famous Japanese Buddhists, such as D.T. Suzuki, practiced double talk: They would say one thing to their US American audiences and something entirely different to Japanese listeners. "Peace" in America and "war as a religious practice" in Japan.

Other Comments by RachelAB

22. Comment #133946 by Wendy M on February 27, 2008 at 3:43 am

My parents converted Tibetan Buddhism when I was in my teens. Meditation and Buddhist philosophy may have useful applications. However, I think the unreserved respect many Westerners hold for Buddhism is cause for concern.

My mum admits that she regards two of her Buddhist teachers as enlightened. She did say that this would not prevent her from questioning anything they said or did. However, she would never question their motivation. This does worry me.

Tibetan Buddhism does teach the concept of Hell. They teach that we can be reincarnated there at any time, and only Buddhism holds the key to avoiding it.

Other Comments by Wendy M

23. Comment #138407 by 4horsefins on March 4, 2008 at 9:16 am

True...but we must draw some distinctions. By calling these religions, you are in effect putting a metaphorical blanket over all religions, which causes the lay person to think of them in a stereotypical fashion. There must be a separation between religion and philosophy. No one says it better than Hitchens "We must learn to distinguish the numinous from the supernatural." Philosophy says the laws of physics are unbreakable, or they wouldn't be laws. Religion says the laws of physics are breakable. This is the key difference in my opinion between philosophy and religion. This is also why Buddhism is not a religion.

Other Comments by 4horsefins

24. Comment #152443 by eblonk on March 31, 2008 at 3:15 am

"However...all these things that wind up being blamed on religions are really people-issues. People invented religions; every last one of them."

And there you have it. Religion doesn't influence people, people influence (and create) religion. Insofar they connect to an existing religion (for social or other reasons) they adapt their interpretation to suit their personality.
Religion itself is neutral, it is what people do with it what matters.

"However, she would never question their motivation."

Oops. As a buddhist I feel this is the first thing to question in a teacher.

To get back to the original subject: hinduism, buddhism, islam, christianity, paganism or any other religion in and of themsleves offer nothing. People act upon them by either their own choice or through circumstances. It is the 'act upon' part that matters.

And even if there is a god, whenever you do what he tells you to, it is your decision to do so and they are your actions. I mean, I wouldn't offer my son just because a deity tells me to.

Other Comments by eblonk

25. Comment #161251 by jpollard on April 15, 2008 at 4:27 am

1. Buddhists do not have a GOD.
2. Buddhists do not have a FAITH.
3. Buddhists do not have a RELIGION.

Having just read TGD and thinking a little about my upbringing as a C of E child in Australia - including a short period as an alter boy. I find that my 'movement towards Buddhism' somewhat insightful. I initially started out with Zen, which was a bit like a thought experiment exercise - could I reach satori on my own, could I even understand it on my own - I was 14 or so. I know it moved me far from GOD, because there is no GOD to consider - if fact ZEN precludes the existance of GOD by precluding the existance of SELF. Over the next 30 years I finally managed to meet and 'converse' with Tibetan Buddhists in Tibet, and while I would never claim to be a Tibetan Buddhist I marvel at their 'joy in life'. These people have no GOD, there is no omnipotent being, there is only 'on-going reincarnation'. But the over-riding fact clear to me is that it is a way of life one must be born into. It is not something one can become - of course we can understand the basis of the belief, but we would not swap our lives would we??? I know little of Hindi, other than it has GODs and to me it falls into the same chasm as any other GOD based religion.

Other Comments by jpollard

26. Comment #175012 by Chato on May 4, 2008 at 5:51 am

I was an atheist until I discovered Reiki which led me to Buddhism. I still have enough of my atheist origins that I do not belong to any groups - my practise is completely personal, but I know Reiki is real. I have to say when reading what has been recorded of the Buddha's words I could never find anything he said that science has disproved and in fact science has since proved many things he said were true. For example he was once asked if the world had and would last forever? He categorically answered that the world had not always existed and that it would not exist forever. Ofcourse modern science has since proven him to be correct, but two and a half thousand years ago that was quite a statement. Actually I have found many insights in the Buddha's teachings that could only be backed up by science as late as the 20th century. We have proven some of the Buddha's ideas are true - in time science will no doubt prove more of them are true.

Other Comments by Chato

27. Comment #176781 by harishkumar09 on May 8, 2008 at 2:53 am

First of all , there is no religion called hinduism

In India there are the following five major systems or religions.

1.Vaishnavism
2.Shaivism
3.Tantrism
4.Ganapathyam
5.Kaumaram

apart from non-denominational advaita philosophy.

1. considers Vishnu is the omnipotent , omnipresent (GOD) 2.Shiva,3.Shakthi(feminine omnipotent , omnipresent principle)4.Ganesh 5.Karthikeya.

Then there is advaita which considers consciousness to be the only reality and everything else is maya , a "world-appearance".

Then in India (which is a country)there are atheists,businessmen,software professionals,iconoclausts,madmen,theives and all sorts of people.

When British first came to India they saw all these different people living the same neighbourhood together peacefully.Since their own experience of religion was one of intolerance, persecution and nurder and mayhem , and all the vaishnavites, shaivities, atheists were all living together peacefully , they cae to a conclsion they all belonged to the same religion which Britishers called Hinduism.

Hence anybody can be a hindu.You can worship Vishnu , Shiva, be a thief , break idols and travel by train as well and still be a hindu !!! How remarkable !!!

Only a brain damaged fool will use the words "Hindu" and "Hinduism".

And since most Indians (99%) have a colonial mindset , they parroted and continue to parrot what the Bristishers said. This includes accepting that a religion called hinduism exists and anybody can be a hindu.

Other Comments by harishkumar09

28. Comment #176791 by harishkumar09 on May 8, 2008 at 3:21 am

You need individually critique each of the religions I mentioned above if you want to make any sense.

Of course most people take hinduism as represented by advaita philosophy.If that is the case then I have no problems.But since this is a rational forum one must state explicitly the connection.

Clarity in thought is essential.

Other Comments by harishkumar09

29. Comment #177518 by CKava on May 9, 2008 at 8:15 am

I think that Buddhism and Hinduism have certain aspects that recommend them over the more commonly criticised monotheistic religions namely:

1. Generally they are less concerned with conversion.
2. The promotion of Holy/Righteous wars is not commonly emphasised.
3. There seems to be more tolerance of multiple viewpoints.

However the notion that they are completely compatible with science and are not pray to the kind of issues found in monotheistic religions is completely false. Looking at Buddhism in particular the idea that it is a rational, scientific and atheistic philosophy is almost entirely a result of the way it was marketed to the 'West' at the start of the twentieth century. The Zen promoted in the West for instance bears little resemblance to how Zen/Ch'an has been actually practiced throughout history or indeed how it is practiced today in the societies it originates from.

Most people from non-Buddhist countries are only familiar with the various exported 'brands' of Buddhism and the image they promote for themselves in the West. The most popular by far are Japanese Zen, Tibetan Buddhism and to a
lesser extent various Theravada schools and New Buddhist movements like Soka Gakkai. The progression of these specific types of Buddhism are not a random phenomena either and often largely rely on the efforts of certain popular missionary type figures. D. T. Suzuki is one prevalent example...

All in all the Buddhist groups prominent in the West tend to reflect only a small proportion of Buddhist schools and how they are practiced and taught and presented in their European and Western contexts is often radically different from how they are taught/practiced in their original contexts. Buddhism like every religion has been adaptated in each new cultural context it has developed in however the issue I take with this in terms of 'Western' Buddhism is that many of the characteristics of 'Western' or 'modern' Buddhism are portrayed as being characteristics of some eternal or 'real' Buddhism when in many cases they are clearly modern interpretations.

Looking at the replies on this thread alone one can see clearly that many self-identified Buddhists who I would hazard a guess are mostly from non-Buddhist countries appeal to Siddhartha Gautama as an example of a purely rational figure
who would not approve of the superstitutions that surround Buddhist practice in Buddhist countries. What this convienantly ignores is that A) what the Buddha 'said' is a matter of debate as he wrote nothing down himself and the authenticity of
texts is a matter of heated debate and B) even accepting the texts most commonly identified as the early teachings as the Buddhas teachings they are rife with supernatural components. One can make an argument that these are not the core
component of the texts however to me that very much seems like picking and choosing what to regard as authentic. Whats more there is a lot of evidence that even the early Buddhist community was involved in many things which today would be regarded by most as superstitious but yet according to the early texts they were approved by the Buddha. One example would be the various protective chants or parittas. Early texts are also rife with supernatural figures and settings which are often dismissed away today as metaphors for pyschological states which seems to bear a strong similarity with Christians attempts to dismiss outlandish aspects of the Bible as just metaphors.

I'm not arguing that one cannot practice a kind of modified Buddhism that is entirely compatible with science but it is simply false to try and assert that 'real' Buddhism is scientific and non-supernatural. Core components of most forms of Buddhism include notions of karma and reincarnation and often include very complex but scientifically dubious concepts of the mind as something entirely distinct from the physical body. There are also numerous claims in Buddhist literature about the various super powers of old Buddhist masters and discussions of the powers that are developed from certain sorts of practice. And the list could go on and on...

The point at the end is that Buddhism and Hinduism suffer from the same kind of drawbacks and dubious claims that all religions I'm aware of do. The rebranding of both (and Buddhism in particular) as a philosophy is also a quite apparently the legacy of how they were promoted to Western society and how they are now continue to appeal to modern secular audience. There is also often more than a pinch of exoticism in how people perceive and comment on these specific religions.

Lastly and to highlight the above points in response to the comments of jpollard & :

Buddhists do not have a GOD.
- The Buddha functions much like a God in every Buddhist country and even disregarding that the early texts make no attempt to deny the existence of Gods (Buddha in fact meets with several).
Buddhists do not have a FAITH.
- Depends on the Buddhists. Again most Buddhist countries have elements that certainly look like faith and if one looks into the massively popular Pure Land schools of Buddhism it's very hard to argue that faith is not a part of Buddhism.
Buddhists do not have a RELIGION.
- Yes they do- Buddhism. The fact that some Buddhists mainly in Europe and North America chose to regard Buddhism as a philosophy does not make Buddhism any less a religion. Taking Christianity as a moral philosophy wouldn't stop it being a religion.

Oh and agree with harishkumar about Hinduism being a British invention but still I think the term is useful for simplifying and due to the fact that there are actually quite a lot of shared beliefs in the different religious groups termed under Hinduism.

Other Comments by CKava

30. Comment #179435 by cpiasminc on May 13, 2008 at 8:44 am

A phrase I've often used to describe Hinduism is that it is not an organized religion. It is fundamentally a disorganized religion. It doesn't have any sort of fundamental rules unto itself insofar as "this encompasses all of the forms of Hinduism." Sure, the words like Dharma and Karma and so on exist everywhere, but they aren't very explicitly defined in any sort of universal way. Because it's an introspective and reflective type of approach, it really opens itself up to just about anything from the mild to the completely insane. And there are communities who form all sorts of new sects and new castes based on the philosophies of some particular leader/philosopher simply because they don't want to have to sort it out for themselves. There is indeed less likelihood of finding a Hindu for whom The God Delusion was highly offensive as there is to find a Hindu who agrees with every word in the book. Well, I suppose if the book had come out 50 years ago or so, the story would be quite the opposite.

Now if we were to get into the specifics of Vaishnavam, Shaivam, etc... Now you start getting into a little bit more uniformity. Now when you get down even further and look at specific castes under these, it really gets to that point. When you get down to the subcaste level, there's fundamentalism like any other religion. I have an aunt who would qualify as a pretty extreme example of a Vaishnavite fundamentalist. And things like "God of the gaps" arguments are old hat for her. It's actually quite funny how she can concede things like how rainfall works on a scientific level, but then ultimately fall on "oh, but somebody had to make the water molecule such that it is a highly self-cohesive solvent!" But one thing that you do find in there is also a certain underlying prejudice. And it's the condescending kind of "oh, you worship Vinayak! You're one of those lost and confused people!" type of prejudice. The sad part is, that I can't completely argue that she would be the worst among people I've seen. Depending on the generation from which people come, you can find some who are much worse. When you get down to that level of Hindu philosophies, I find that the argument that it presents a more sophisticated world view falls apart.

Where you might see it is at a broad overview of the populace. The thing is that most people aren't really super-religious and they sort of practice the stuff they grew up on as a sort of identify themselves with their prior culture. The sciences and mathematics (and the teachers) are things we revere as a sort of general rule of thumb. For most people, their religion contains only certain rules of life that they happen to agree with and the rest are kind of unimportant. One point that Prof. Dawkins made was that the moderate and not-too-deeply religious people are statistically insignificant. If we were talking strictly about raw populations, I don't think I'd totally agree with him on that. But if we were talking about (at least in the Western world) political power, wealth, etc., and even more importantly, the people who actually have a voice of sorts and actually talk about things which relate in some way to morals, then there's little doubting where it all comes from. But then, that's the big difference in India, where almost everybody is politically active, and almost everybody puts their opinions on paper, and so it ends up looking like the religions themselves are inherently moderate and non-intrusive because the rhetoric reflects something closer to the voices of the masses, and also, we see the effects of this. Look at how long it took the US to get to even the possibility of a female president as opposed to India. We see schools like IIT producing some of the top engineers in the land. We see things like the caste system slowly crumbling because of the modern generation of youngsters who largely don't care about it anymore. We see that science and mathematics are huge deals in the education system in India, and the religious are highly supportive of that. An odd sort of joke about Hinduism in general is that where the Western religions face up to scientific discoveries with an attitude of "That's blasphemy! You're going to Hell!", Hinduism faces up to them with an attitude of "See? I told you so! We knew it centuries before you did!" Sure, this gives you a positive overall picture, but then the brighter the image, the darker the negative, and that's where things like the dropping babies onto a sheet thing come up.

Although, I'm certainly less qualified to talk as explicitly on Buddhism, I would add I wouldn't completely agree with the notion that Buddhism isn't as "missionary" as the Abrahamic religions. It just spread in a direction which the the Western world had no contact with for so long. People have fought wars and killed in the name of Buddha, and it did spread rather forcefully at one time. Today, people try to spread it in a more seemingly gentle way through all sorts of lofty spiritual discussions and speeches wafting in all sorts of artful poetry and metaphors making the listener see it with an air of profundity. But in the end, the goal is still to spread it.

Other Comments by cpiasminc

31. Comment #192559 by yinyangnature on June 13, 2008 at 11:35 am

Why does Professor Dawkins claim Hinduism and Buddhism offer much more sophisticated world-views? I believe it is due to the fundamental differences that are found when comparing Western religions with those of Asia.

The Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) model the cosmos on the politics of the ancient Middle East. God is viewed as a monarch who rules and controls everything. Just as a tyrant king of this period, God is able to severely punish or reward his subjects as he sees fit.

The Dharmic religions (Buddhism, Zen, Taoism and Hinduism) don't see the cosmos as something that is responding to a ruler or controller. They believe the Universe is a self perpetuating unity.

The Western faiths also repel and distance themselves from Nature. Whereas the Asian philosophies are firmly rooted in the natural world and see all of Nature as divine.

Unquestioning faith is paramount in the Abrahamic religions and everything else is seen as secondary to the holy dogma. Yet in the Asian religions the very opposite is true. Acts of compassion are always foremost and adherents are free to believe whatever they choose. Buddha is quoted as saying "Do not believe anything unless it agrees with your own experiences and common sense; even if it is said to have come from me."

Atheists usually find the idea of reincarnation very disconcerting. Nevertheless on one level reincarnation is very factual. The atoms that makeup our body are the disregarded molecules of everything that lived on this planet before us. Statistically every person on earth has atoms of William Shakespeare within their body.

Another common misconception is that karma is some kind of cosmic retribution. Yet for many adherents positive karma is simply the guiltless sleep that comes from altruism. Negative karma manifests as stress and regret.

The basic assertion of all the Asian philosophies is that on another level everything is unified. This may seem very difficult to believe, however Quantum Physicists tell us that everything is actually a manifestation of the same energy field; they call "M theory".

The major advantage of the Dharmic religions is their unique perspective on life. It is from this new understanding of reality that one often finds comfort from suffering. Of course life isn't just suffering, but we aren't usually haunted by the things that go well for us. Our darkest hells are always reserved for loss and grief.

I'll finish this post with some beautiful dialogue from the Dalai Lama's biographical movie "Kundun". I think these words accurately portray the Buddhist perspective and it should likewise appeal to many Atheists.

"The Buddhas neither wash ill deeds away with water, nor remove being's suffering with their hands, nor transfer their realisations to others. Beings are released through the teachings of the truth; the final reality."

Other Comments by yinyangnature