05.29.11

More on Harris on buddhism

Posted in Uncategorized at 9:58 am

http://darwiniana.com/2011/05/29/more-on-harris-on-buddhism/

05.27.11

Links to Darwiniana discussion of rebirth issues

Posted in Uncategorized at 12:49 pm

From Darwiniana today:

We have had a huge number of posts on the ‘rebirth’ issue in Buddhism: here is a set of links to most of them.
We can take a partial breather for a day or so, and then put the discussion in context, with a summary. The new material suggested from Sean Carroll’s remarks can also be brought in.
We need a day or so to reflect on the discussion. The comment series at ‘a secular buddhist’ is a one of the best in a long time.

http://darwiniana.com/2011/05/26/religions-reincarnating/
http://darwiniana.com/2011/05/26/harris-goofy-misuse-of-the-killing-the-buddha-theme/
http://darwiniana.com/2011/05/26/rajneesh-book-with-reincarnation-details/
http://darwiniana.com/2011/05/26/comments-from-a-secular-buddhist/
http://darwiniana.com/2011/05/25/the-revolution-of-buddhism-and-the-mystery-of-secularism/
http://darwiniana.com/2011/05/25/the-question-of-anti-science-flipping-the-bird-at-big-science/
http://darwiniana.com/2011/05/25/harris-killing-the-buddha-and-the-new-slaughter-of-buddhists/
http://darwiniana.com/2011/05/25/the-harm-done-by-sam-harris-et-al-time-for-some-plain-anti-science/
http://darwiniana.com/2011/05/25/more-comments/

http://darwiniana.com/2011/05/25/booknotes-review-of-confession-of-a-buddhist-atheist/
http://darwiniana.com/2011/05/25/rebirth-doctrines-in-buddhism/
http://darwiniana.com/2011/05/25/buddhism-and-the-rebirth-question/
http://darwiniana.com/2011/05/25/comments-on-secular-buddhism/
http://darwiniana.com/2011/05/24/more-on-secular-buddhism/
http://darwiniana.com/2011/05/23/question-about-transitions-and-regression/
http://darwiniana.com/2011/05/23/self-representation-and-thing-in-itself/
http://darwiniana.com/2011/05/22/sam-harris-wilful-obtuseness/
http://darwiniana.com/2011/05/22/distorting-buddhism/
http://darwiniana.com/2011/05/22/a-secular-buddhist/
http://darwiniana.com/2011/05/21/duking-it-out/
http://darwiniana.com/2011/05/20/big-history-vs-the-evolution-of-freedom/
http://darwiniana.com/2011/05/20/the-muddle-of-the-new-atheists/
http://darwiniana.com/2011/05/18/hawking-pontifications-on-heaven/

05.25.11

Discussion of secularism and buddhism continues at Darwiniana

Posted in Uncategorized at 11:51 am

http://darwiniana.com/2011/05/25/rebirth-doctrines-in-buddhism/

05.24.11

More on ‘secular buddhism’

Posted in Uncategorized at 7:32 am

http://darwiniana.com/2011/05/24/more-on-secular-buddhism/

05.23.11

The anatta question

Posted in Uncategorized at 11:47 am

http://darwiniana.com/2011/05/23/the-anatta-question/

05.22.11

A secular buddhist?

Posted in Uncategorized at 11:56 am

http://darwiniana.com/2011/05/22/a-secular-buddhist/

The attempt to reduce Buddhism to a kind of branch of scientism is underway. Let’s not be fooled.

05.18.11

Bennett’s curious crypto-atheism

Posted in Uncategorized at 12:34 pm

The question of theism and atheism haunts Gurdjieffianity? Was Gurdjieff really a theist? I am suspcious, but don’t really know. The curious blend of Samkhya in disguise and seeming theistic commentary makes the question obscure.

What about Bennett? Again, I can’t be sure, but his statements in DU make clear that he was not a standard theist. His Samkhya cascade yields the primordial triad at its basis, before the six, twelve, etc, laws, and the ‘one’ behind that ‘triad’ is unknowable, as he says. Which sounds agnostic, de facto theistic, and de facto atheistic. But then in his discussion, he redefines ‘god’ around his triadic categories, relating ‘god’ to the third reconciling triad in the cascade of ‘freedom’ triads. Anyone who does that, like Kant, is redefining ‘god’ from a stance of disbelieving passage from dogmatic theism.

Note then that Xtianity could just as well absorb atheism into its perspectives, the more so since Xtian beliefs here have become infantile projections.
The way to do that is clear from Bennett. but in general the whole point of the ‘Son of God’ theme is the realization that ‘god’ is beyond man, man can at best approach the question via the manifestation of the ‘Son of God’ factor, which simply means that something emerges from the higher to the lower.
That might help to release Xtians from the ‘god’ obsession. A new language is needed, the triad of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost deserves paper airplane treatment at this point, but the issue is clear: a true secular post-Xtian religion based on the Xtian tradition can just as well talk to atheists as theists. The real issues are beyond the gibbersish served up on both sides.

Non-theism?

Posted in Uncategorized at 12:26 pm

Some useful comments on ‘non-theism’. I won’t endorse anything here, but agree with the effort to move beyond the atheism/theism deadlock.

Luke Rondinaro
dianoeidos.wordpress.com
141.149.86.86 2011/05/17 at 12:20 pm
Nontheism

http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8omaY_T5MU

At the risk of setting off a firestorm, let me point out the following third way out of the usual atheist-theist dialectic. There have been some people on Youtube considering and debating the notion of “nontheism” as an alternative to the other two perspectives … One of them – unfortunately I can’t find his post at present – referred to his own position on religion as being “nontheism” or “nontheistic.”

While it may be largely a word game going on here over what ‘atheism’ actually means versus whether people can actually be ‘nontheists’ or not, I do like the term for this reason. … The theist says: “god exists!” The atheist says “no!” And, that usually is where it ends, in endless back and forth regression. However, if the nontheistic perspective holds water, then there is this third way … to say, in fact, ‘but how does this state of affairs – there being god or no god in the world – actually affect life?’ … Nontheism, in other words, and it has its advantages, poses indifference towards religion, belief, and the god debates. That is to say, the Nontheist answers the god debate by a good, firm “so” or “so what” … I wonder if this is in fact the better way to handle the religion question than all this other banter over theism? …

If a deity does not exist, then why bother with all the fuss over that god’s non-existence? It makes greater sense to move-on and deal with the more important matters of life than to try and trumpet an anti-credo instead as many of the New Atheists are currently doing. Why even give ‘belief’ energy by acknowledging its argument to credulity? Why not just go one’s own way in life pursuing one’s life’s course as needed, letting believers or religionists go about theirs?

That’s the question that needs asking here. By the way, here is Stephen Batchelor on Fora TV discussing Buddhism as a “middle way” between theism and atheism. He may not, in fact be adding all that much more to the conversation. Still, it’s neat to see him deal with these issues as he does. … I think he’s nailed the predominant atheist fixation with the god idea right-on.

Take a look -> http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-VdStdzQxw.

Nontheism

http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8omaY_T5MU

At the risk of setting off a firestorm, let me point out the following third way out of the usual atheist-theist dialectic. There have been some people on Youtube considering and debating the notion of “nontheism” as an alternative to the other two perspectives … One of them – unfortunately I can’t find his post at present – referred to his own position on religion as being “nontheism” or “nontheistic.”

While it may be largely a word game going on here over what ‘atheism’ actually means versus whether people can actually be ‘nontheists’ or not, I do like the term for this reason. … The theist says: “god exists!” The atheist says “no!” And, that usually is where it ends, in endless back and forth regression. However, if the nontheistic perspective holds water, then there is this third way … to say, in fact, ‘but how does this state of affairs – there being god or no god in the world – actually affect life?’ … Nontheism, in other words, and it has its advantages, poses indifference towards religion, belief, and the god debates. That is to say, the Nontheist answers the god debate by a good, firm “so” or “so what” … I wonder if this is in fact the better way to handle the religion question than all this other banter over theism? …

If a deity does not exist, then why bother with all the fuss over that god’s non-existence? It makes greater sense to move-on and deal with the more important matters of life than to try and trumpet an anti-credo instead as many of the New Atheists are currently doing. Why even give ‘belief’ energy by acknowledging its argument to credulity? Why not just go one’s own way in life pursuing one’s life’s course as needed, letting believers or religionists go about theirs?

That’s the question that needs asking here. By the way, here is Stephen Batchelor on Fora TV discussing Buddhism as a “middle way” between theism and atheism. He may not, in fact be adding all that much more to the conversation. Still, it’s neat to see him deal with these issues as he does. … I think he’s nailed the predominant atheist fixation with the god idea right-on.

Take a look -> http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-VdStdzQxw.
LRondial@gmail.com
Luke Rondinaro
http://dianoeidos.wordpress.com
1
ApproveUnapprove | Reply | Quick Edit | Edit | Spam | Trash
Luke Rondinaro
dianoeidos.wordpress.com
LRondial@gmail.com
141.149.86.86 2011/05/17 at 12:15 pm
While Harris (and Hitchens’) brand of atheism leaves much to be desired, I still find some of their work to be quite fascinating, and overall that makes them worth looking into in terms of their ideas as public intellectuals. Their positions, in fact, are quite intriguing when it comes to Hitchens considering the nourmenous aspects of the world and Harris considering his own proclivity to certain aspects of Buddism (i.e., the meditation bit). I really wish they’d concentrate more on this material, and let that better inform their atheism rather than the other way around, but still they’re to be admired for this.

Here they are discussing these positions (together with Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennet) in the Four Horsemen program as archived on Youtube.

http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuyUz2XLp1E.

While Harris (and Hitchens’) brand of atheism leaves much to be desired, I still find some of their work to be quite fascinating, and overall that makes them worth looking into in terms of their ideas as public intellectuals. Their positions, in fact, are quite intriguing when it comes to Hitchens considering the nourmenous aspects of the world and Harris considering his own proclivity to certain aspects of Buddism (i.e., the meditation bit). I really wish they’d concentrate more on this material, and let that better inform their atheism rather than the other way around, but still they’re to be admired for this.

Here they are discussing these positions (together with Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennet) in the Four Horsemen program as archived on Youtube.

http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuyUz2XLp1E.
Luke Rondinaro
http://dianoeidos.wordpress.com
1

05.17.11

Sex scandal alert/IMF chief arrested

Posted in Uncategorized at 1:16 pm

IMF Head Arrested On Sexual Assault Charges

this news on the IMF chief, who is a socialist, of sorts, should sound an alert. I don’t have any idea what is what here, but we have explored here, and warned, that the sex scandals in the guru world of the last generation are probably not due to chance: the Crowlean style attack syndrome is part of the world of the guru wars.
The complete odd case of something like this to sink a leftist (if he could be called that) should automatically sound an alert. It is a strangely improbable situation, and one should be suspicious.
( as it happens, Kuttner has an interesting article on these limousine socialists this week: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/strauss-kahn-socialist-france_b_862246.html)
In general the left must be wary, and amend its ideology, which it also could never do. But the existence of black magic techniques seeping into the right, with the intelligence agencies frantically trying to figure it out, has been a theme on this blog (in a slightly different perspective: the emergence of far-right nazism and the occult). We can’t figure this one out, left simply to wonder. But in general ‘sex scandal’ red alerts are important these days as our culture sinks into the demonic cesspool of magician wannabes that people like gurdjieff must be hoping willl destroy modern culture.

More on ‘common ground’

Posted in Uncategorized at 9:55 am

http://darwiniana.com/2011/05/17/re-repost-and-commentary-common-ground/

05.16.11

Neolithic and religion

Posted in Uncategorized at 10:04 am

Neolithic Beginnings
The previous post about ‘early Xtianity’ should be seen in terms of the significance of the Neolithic.
It is clear that Indian religion still shows signs of that period.

Proto-Xtianity

Posted in Uncategorized at 9:57 am

Comment on ‘common ground’

Gurdjieff claim about early pre-sand Egypt is interesting, but as usual undocumented and mixed by other writers like Ouspensky with all sorts of other nonsense.
Danielou is a little better here: he points to the antiquity of Indian tradition. The same might be true in the West, but we have much less evidence.

Paul bains
222.153.45.123 2011/05/15 at 9:56 pm
So at least we keep a bit of mystery: ‘a mysterious movement of religions…’
I remember gurdjieff alluding to xtianity before xtianity. The temple of Karnak etc….
‘The ultimate gift of a conscious life is a sense of the mystery that encompasses it.’ – Lewis Mumford.
Anway always learn something here!!!

So at least we keep a bit of mystery: ‘a mysterious movement of religions…’
I remember gurdjieff alluding to xtianity before xtianity. The temple of Karnak etc….
‘The ultimate gift of a conscious life is a sense of the mystery that encompasses it.’ – Lewis Mumford.
Anway always learn something here!!!
Paul bains

1

The Tibet enigma

Posted in Uncategorized at 9:55 am

Comment on ‘common ground’.

Richard
207.138.47.153 2011/05/15 at 7:41 am
“I had a ‘Tibetan buddhist’ staying here recently offering magic powder to shorten my number of reincarnations…”

Its current representatives don’t necessarily give an accurate representation of the tradition. In my mind, that includes the Dalai Lama…an interesting historical figure, but nonetheless a Buddhist amateur (he’s good for middle-class types that want a little bit of pop Buddhism to add to their lives). Tibetan Buddhism is a strange animal anyway…it absorbed huge amounts of the most outlandish Hindu beliefs during a time of degeneration.

“I had a ‘Tibetan buddhist’ staying here recently offering magic powder to shorten my number of reincarnations…”

Its current representatives don’t necessarily give an accurate representation of the tradition. In my mind, that includes the Dalai Lama…an interesting historical figure, but nonetheless a Buddhist amateur (he’s good for middle-class types that want a little bit of pop Buddhism to add to their lives). Tibetan Buddhism is a strange animal anyway…it absorbed huge amounts of the most outlandish Hindu beliefs during a time of degeneration.
1

The Tibetan tradition is hard to understand, and the key is simple: after Buddhists were driven out of India they were desperate in their effort to preserve their tradition. The result in Tibet does not correspond to the simple wonders of early Buddhism.

More on ‘common ground’: Mahayana and Xtianity

Posted in Uncategorized at 9:52 am

http://darwiniana.com/2011/05/16/repost-and-update-common-ground/

05.14.11

Common ground?

Posted in Uncategorized at 11:48 am

The last three months have shown little activity here by me, but the statistics have barely declined, about twenty percent down. So the archives are still thriving.
But a new set of projects might be due.
Plenty of junk at
Huffpost religion page
Those who seek common ground between Buddhism and Xtian beliefs in god are the menace of the future that will destroy Buddhism (for the fifth time) and turn it into semi-sufistic puke-equivalents.

And the Dalai Lama has started to peddle this theme.

The stance of the great tradition from which Buddhism springs was not monotheist, remained agnostic about god, but was aware, and wary, of the dangerous reality of polytheistic deep realities that could easily enslave man. The ‘path’, which in Hinduism is visibly braided with polytheistic issues, anciently was not invovled in god worship.
Now you might argue that the common ground here lies in the sense of early monotheists that appeal to a higher power beyond the realm of polytheism, gods, was a mainline connection with that Indic line. But the sad reality is that ‘divinity’ as the One is unknowable and too remote to protect man from the dangers being turned into cattle by the ‘gods’. Well, who knows. I think that we have discovered the real flaw in the Xtian muddle: it is field invaded by the demonology of ‘divinities’ of all types, a spirit madhouse that ‘god’, whatever that is, has nothing to do with.
So I would suggest that Buddhists stand in reserve as to ‘god’, and ‘gods’, and find the path in their classic vein, keeping their distance from the Xtian demons licking them chops near the takeover of Buddhism and its neutralization in the monotheistic devil’s paradise.

Better start meditating. The encounter with demons will be a rite of passage, to leave behind screaming Xtians praying to Jesus to save them. I fear, Jesus Christ is not your personal savior. Better luck with Buddhism, while it lasts.

Lewis Richmond
Lewis Richmond: Do Buddhists Believe in God?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lewis-richmond/do-buddhists-believe-in-g_b_859658.html
Buddhist writer and teacher

My Zen colleagues may object that it is a stretch to call Zen meditation “prayer,” or to describe it as a method “to reach our divine nature.” But we must never stop trying to find common ground.