Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 91

Thread: Waking Up Sam Harris

  1. #1

    Waking Up Sam Harris

    Hello dear Treeleafers,

    I am not so great at using my mum's borrowed iPad, so excuse the clumsy typing.

    Sam Harris just published his new book "Waking Up" a few days ago. Since I have to work a lot at the moment I haven't read more than the first two chapters...but it sure makes interesting reading IMHO.

    The first chapter has been published on his website www.samharris.org , so maybe it's worth looking at that before considering a purchase.

    Gassho and all the best,

    Hans Chudo Mongen

  2. #2
    Thanks, Hans!

    I really like Sam. I'll see if I can buy the book soon.

    Gassho,

    Kyonin
    Hondō Kyōnin
    奔道 協忍

  3. #3
    Kyotai
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Hans View Post
    Hello dear Treeleafers,

    I am not so great at using my mum's borrowed iPad, so excuse the clumsy typing.

    Sam Harris just published his new book "Waking Up" a few days ago. Since I have to work a lot at the moment I haven't read more than the first two chapters...but it sure makes interesting reading IMHO.

    The first chapter has been published on his website www.samharris.org , so maybe it's worth looking at that before considering a purchase.

    Gassho and all the best,

    Hans Chudo Mongen
    I recently listened to Joe Rogan interview sam harris via podcast. I highly recommend it for those who like Sam Harris. ...and perhaps joe rogan, and have 3 hours to spare.

    Thanks for the book recommendation Hans.

    Gassho, Shawn

  4. #4
    Mp
    Guest
    Thanks Hans,

    I will have a gander at it. =)

    Gassho
    Shingen

  5. #5
    Hello,

    Thank you for the link.

    Sam Harris seems sincere in working to help. The last sentence of the chapter -

    ". . .the realistic goal to be attained through spiritual practice is not some permanent state of enlightenment that admits of no further efforts but a capacity to be free in this moment, in the midst of whatever is happening."

    That is a good summary of what he's selling.

    Goalless-goals work as well.^^


    Gassho,
    Myosha
    Last edited by Myosha; 06-14-2015 at 02:10 PM.
    "Recognize suffering, remove suffering." - Shakyamuni Buddha when asked, "Uhm . . .what?"

  6. #6
    I haven't heard or read before about this man.

    I'll take a look.

    Thanks, Hans.

    Gassho,
    Walter
    Gassho,Walter

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by walter View Post
    I haven't heard or read before about this man.
    What is most notable about Mr. Harris is that, while being quite smitten with Buddhist Practice and meditation, he is simultaneously considered one of the top spokespersons for the atheists movement right up there with Richard Dawkins!

    http://www.samharris.org/site/full_t...about-atheism1

    This just goes to show that one can Practice Buddhism and be many other things too, in my view: I sometimes say that one can practice Zen Buddhism while also a Republican, Democrat or apolitical, Catholic, Jewish or Muslim, Atheist or Agnostic. I would say that, so long as it is a belief system that avoids hate, violence, excess greed and such (e.g., a "Zen Buddhist Nazi" will go a dark way), all can mix.

    Gassho, J
    Last edited by Jundo; 09-16-2014 at 04:05 AM.
    ALL OF LIFE IS OUR TEMPLE

  8. #8
    I do not understand how someone can practice Buddhism and be a committed theist or atheist. Aren't those the kind of ultimate positions that are undermined by sitting in openness?

    It makes sense to speak from a theistic angle in one context, and an atheistic angle in another context. If I'm talking with a Christian friend it might feel right to use the language of God and Grace. If talking to a friend who is science minded, or an atheist, a different language makes sense. It makes sense to have an honest view or perspective and have passion around it, but how could that view become fixed in the mind? Staking out an absolute position might be effective politics, but is it really held absolutely?

    I don't get it.


    Gassho
    Daizan
    Last edited by RichardH; 09-16-2014 at 01:16 PM.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Daizan View Post
    I do not understand how someone can practice Buddhism and be a committed theist or atheist. Aren't those the kind of ultimate positions that are undermined by sitting in openness?

    It makes sense to speak from a theistic angle in one context, and an atheistic angle in another context. If I'm talking with a Christian friend it might feel right to use the language of God and Grace. If talking to a friend who is science minded, or an atheist, a different language makes sense. It makes sense to have an honest view or perspective and have passion around it, but how could that view become fixed in the mind? Staking out an absolute position might be effective politics, but is it really held absolutely?

    I don't get it.


    Gassho
    Daizan
    Can one Practice Zen with a firm belief that there is life on other planets? Can one Practice Zen with a firm belief that we are alone in the universe? Can one Practice Zen with a firm belief that Buddha actually lived on this planet. Can one Practice Zen with a firm belief that Buddha was a largely made up story by people long after his lifetime? Can one Practice with a deep belief in post-this life Rebirth? Without such a belief?

    In no case have you any proof of their existence, or personal experience, only suspicions and beliefs learned from others. Yet if you do believe ... NO PROBLEM! One can still Practice Zen just the same!

    Zen is no more impacted by whether there is a "God" or no "God" than it is impacted by whether there is a table or no table in the same room where you sit Zazen. In either case ... table/no table or God/No God ... the sitting is the same. That is because we always sit as "what is" ... and if there is a table, that is "what is. If there is no table, that is "what is".

    I often say ...

    f there is a "God" ... whether in the Judeo-Christian way or some other, whether named "Allah" "Jehovah" "Thor" "Brahma" or "Stanley" ... I will fetch water and chop wood, seeking to live in a gentle way, avoiding harm to self and others (not two, by the way).

    If there is no "God" "Allah" or "Stanley", or any source or creator or point to the universe at all, I will fetch water and chop wood, seeking to live in a gentle way, avoiding harm to self and others (not two, by the way).

    I do not know if, in the next life, that "gentle way, avoiding harm" will buy me a ticket to heaven and keep me out of hell ... but I know for a fact that it will go far to do so in this life, today, where I see people create all manner of "heavens and hells" for themselves and those around them by their harmful words, thoughts and acts in this life.

    And if there is a "heaven and hell" in the next life, or other effects of Karma now ... well, my actions now have effects then too, and might be the ticket to heaven or good rebirth.

    In other words, whatever the case ... today, now ... live in a gentle way, avoiding harm to self and others (not two, by the way) ... seeking to avoid harm now and in the future too.
    Gassho, J
    Last edited by Jundo; 09-16-2014 at 01:33 PM.
    ALL OF LIFE IS OUR TEMPLE

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Daizan View Post
    I do not understand how someone can practice Buddhism and be a committed theist or atheist. Aren't those the kind of ultimate positions that are undermined by sitting in openness?

    It makes sense to speak from a theistic angle in one context, and an atheistic angle in another context. If I'm talking with a Christian friend it might feel right to use the language of God and Grace. If talking to a friend who is science minded, or an atheist, a different language makes sense. It makes sense to have an honest view or perspective and have passion around it, but how could that view becomes fixed in the mind? Staking out an absolute position might be effective politics, but is it really held absolutely?

    I don't get it.


    Gassho
    Daizan
    Hi Daizan,

    I see absolutely no conflict between engaging in Buddhist practice and holding what would bee seen by most as being an atheistic position.

    I don't see atheism as being an 'absolute' position at all; it can merely be a position one takes given all the available evidence (or in this case perhaps the lack of evidence) at a given time. Most atheists I know would be very willing to change their minds should evidence be made available to them.

    Further, it doesn't even have to be a position taken (i.e. doesn't need to be a 'decision' to not believe). Atheism is surely a default position (?). For example, from birth, up until one is imbued with some sort of religious belief, would one not be an atheist?

    I have been a Buddhist for over 30 years, but I don't subscribe to a divine agency or a supernatural realm. We can only know what we know, and can only speculate about what we don't. There is likely more than we know, but it seems to me that there is no need to believe on insufficient evidence in things about which we really don't know. This in no way precludes a search for the truth of things. In fact it leans well towards the importance of that search. Further knowledge can only come from that search. So, off I go to sit...

    Theism? There seems to be a bit of that around, but, again, I don't subscribe...

    Gassho,

    Bryson

  11. #11
    Hmm... I may want to read this, but I have reservations about his description.

    I have been waiting for more than a decade to write Waking Up. Long before I saw any reason to criticize religion (The End of Faith, Letter to a Christian Nation), or to connect moral and scientific truths (The Moral Landscape, Free Will, Lying), I was interested in the nature of human consciousness and the possibility of “spiritual” experience. In Waking Up, I do my best show that a certain form of spirituality is integral to understanding the nature of our minds.

    There is no discrete self or ego living like a minotaur in the labyrinth of the brain. And the feeling that there is—the sense of being perched somewhere behind your eyes, looking out at a world that is separate from yourself—can be altered or entirely extinguished. Although such experiences of “self-transcendence” are generally thought about in religious terms, there is nothing, in principle, irrational about them. From both a scientific and a philosophical point of view, they represent a clearer understanding of the way things are.

    My hope is that Waking Up will help readers see the nature of their own minds in a new light. A rational approach to spirituality seems to be what is missing from secularism and from the lives of most of the people I meet. The purpose of this book is to offer readers a clear view of the problem, along with some tools to help them solve it for themselves.
    First, I think the use of the words "spiritual" and "spirituality" is problematic. It's a word derived from religion, and which is used in too many ways.

    Second, why does he think that anything is "missing from secularity?" That's another religious point of view. Is he, therefor, saying that all non-religious people have something missing in their lives? And that religious people don't have anything missing? If he's just highlighting the basic existential angst that we all feel, that has nothing to do with religion or atheism, it's just part of being human.

    Third, he says that the self/ego can be "altered or entirely extinguished." I'm not sure of the latter. I think we all agree here that according to Zen, this isn't the case; I know some schools of Buddhism may think that, but has anyone ever experienced it?

    Skeptical me may read it, but I hesitate...

    Gassho,

    Kirk
    流文

    I know nothing.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Daizan View Post
    I do not understand how someone can practice Buddhism and be a committed theist or atheist. Aren't those the kind of ultimate positions that are undermined by sitting in openness?

    I don't get it.


    Gassho
    Daizan
    It's because the argument is more nuanced in philosophy. There are agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist, weak atheism, strong atheism, agnostic theist, gnostic theist, weak theism, and strong theism. There is also ignosticism. All are making different claims about the existence of a god or gods and our ability to know about this existence.

    Sam Harris as far as I know is an agnostic atheist. His position is that there is no evidence for any of the claimed theistic gods. It is not a knowledge position on the possibility of a god. Ignostics take it a step further and say that god is a gibberish word that means nothing philosophically making all the arguments about this word silly. I would probably consider myself an atheistic/pantheistic buddhist if pushed for some philosophical position, but I don't really worry about it too much, I have dishes to wash and zazens to sit.

    Gassho,
    Nengyo
    If I'm already enlightened why the hell is this so hard?

  13. #13
    I guess what I am referring to is when , in course of sitting, views ..thoughts cease or pause, and questions no long arise. Everything is forgotten in immediate presence, and the forgetting is forgotten. I don't mean to sound fancy but that's about it, and it just happens from time to time by itself. The question of my own being is settled beyond doubt or no-doubt. When thinking/views return they have a different aspect, and it makes no difference how subtle or nuanced philosophical views are. They can't reach what has been directly realized. There are still questions and views about this-and-that, but only this-and-that. So when I hear about atheism, agnosticism, theism, it just sounds like trying to grasp the ungraspable.

    Gassho
    Daizan
    Last edited by RichardH; 09-16-2014 at 03:07 PM.

  14. #14
    Kyotai
    Guest
    Thanks for sharing your perspective Daizan.

    Sitting in openness, and having an opinion, or a fixed one from one perspective may in a way seem not very open. But, many, like myself, sit with a fixed perspective that no god exists, (that is my real fixed opinion!) and yet sit with openness putting aside opinion and "just sit" with no thought of god or no god. That question, as well as "why is the sky blue?" Are not relevant during zazen.

    And I think one with a belief in god can do that as well.

    In my view, Harris strives to point out that one can be both atheist, while still reaping the benefits of living presently by maintaining a meditation practice. He seems to pull from Buddhism a lot. But one does not need to be a buddhist or label things as zen, god or whatnot to find peace and happiness in this moment.

    Then again, what do I know. Lol

    Gassho, Shawn

  15. #15
    But what do you mean by God, Shawn? are you talking about Thor? I don't believe Thor sends thunder (though never say never), but that is totally different than views about being or non-being, or "what is this?". If we are just knocking around talking about old men in beards parting seas then I'm an atheist too (though never say never)

    Gassho D


    Got to get to work. Interesting thread. Thank you.
    Last edited by RichardH; 09-16-2014 at 03:20 PM.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Daizan View Post
    I guess what I am referring to is when , in course of sitting, views ..thoughts cease or pause, and questions no long arise. Everything is forgotten in immediate presence, and the forgetting is forgotten. I don't mean to sound fancy but that's about it, and it just happens from time to time by itself. The question of my own being is settled beyond doubt or no-doubt. When thinking/views return they have a different aspect, and it makes no difference how subtle or nuanced philosophical views are. They can't reach what has been directly realized. There are still questions and views about this-and-that, but only this-and-that. So when I hear about atheism, agnosticism, theism, it just sounds like trying to grasp the ungraspable.

    Gassho
    Daizan
    Hi Daizan,

    I understand what you're saying, and I don't agree or disagree, but just to play devil's advocate: isn't there something absolute about your position here? That it is impossible/contradictory (not sure which you're implying) to sit with an absolute concept (atheism in this case) because it is grasping/defining - isn't that also an absolute concept about what sitting should be? Or do you really "not understand"? Just questions, gentle ones.

    I think there could easily be an open fluidity to a term like "atheist" or a term like "god," and that one just has to use words sometimes, but perhaps these words mean something beyond to the user, just as there must necessarily be an openness and something beyond to a term like "immediate presence." At the same time, I don't know Sam Harris at all.

    Just some thoughts, already gone.

    Gassho
    Shōmon

  17. #17
    Kyotai
    Guest
    All of the man made ones!

    Gassho, Shawn

  18. #18
    Hello,

    ". . .he says that the self/ego can be "altered or entirely extinguished." I'm not sure of the latter. . . I know some schools of Buddhism may think that, but has anyone ever experienced it?

    Gassho,

    Kirk"

    A quote describes a long-ago personal experience -

    "A perception, sudden as blinking, that subject and object are one, will lead to a deeply mysterious wordless understanding." – Zen Master Huang-po

    Could be Sam Harris's reference(?)


    Gassho,
    Myosha
    "Recognize suffering, remove suffering." - Shakyamuni Buddha when asked, "Uhm . . .what?"

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by kirkmc View Post
    Third, he says that the self/ego can be "altered or entirely extinguished." I'm not sure of the latter. I think we all agree here that according to Zen, this isn't the case; I know some schools of Buddhism may think that, but has anyone ever experienced it?
    I would guess our selves would be extinguished when we die. lol Seriously, if our "self" were extinguished, how could our "self" experience it? To me it sounds like a specious statement.

    Daizan, I sit zen and I believe in God; although my view of God isn't some person with a beard sitting on a throne. I doubt many people believe in that mythos.

    Gassho,

    Risho

  20. #20
    Kyotai
    Guest
    Did not mean any disrespect in my above comment to those who have a strong belief in god. I certainly respect everyone's belief system and I love that we can have a healthy discussion in this sangha.

    Gassho, Shawn

  21. #21
    Shawn,

    Although I believe in God... I don't really take offense at people who do not. I don't really care about defending my beliefs or trying to push my beliefs on others. Beliefs are beliefs; you can't logically refute or prove them. Actually, differing beliefs interest me quite a bit.

    I've never understood holding so tightly onto beliefs that you'd get angry at someone for believing something contrary. Or you might think my beliefs are silly.. but who cares? I mean that's what makes this Sangha great.. I really think that's what makes Zen practice great.... just keeping an open mind.

    I don't really know how to articulate my belief in God. It's just something that I have. I am certainly not a traditionalist by any means, which I'm sure offends people too. hahahaha

    Gassho,

    Risho

  22. #22
    Kyotai
    Guest
    Thanks Risho. My comment ""all of the man made ones" after reflecting, kinda sounded as if I was saying those who believe in god, are believing in made up nonsense. And that wasn't my intention.

    I wasn't suggesting you would take offence to those who don't believe in what you do.

    Thanks Risho

    Gassho, Shawn

  23. #23
    Kyotai
    Guest
    Risho, your inbox is full. Can't Reply lol.

  24. #24
    Ack -- I'll have to fix that. hahaha

    I just responded:

    Ha I was about to send you an email too! I understand what you are saying; I was just trying to say you didn't offend me. lol

    Going back to belief... To tell you the truth I don't always fully understand my beliefs. A lot of my beliefs are due to what I was taught when I was younger. So I'm a skeptical believer if that makes sense. At the same time (and it could probably just be from my learning during my formative years) I just believe. Ah man, the craziness of belief and of being human

    Now I'm going to add... although I believe in Jesus, I've never really cared too much about the miracles. I've always thought that miracle stories were sort of like sales pitches to get someone to join a religion, and I really have no interest in selling anyone on any of my beliefs or rejecting anyone's beliefs, unless those beliefs are harmful.

    I believe that the message and the action is where the true strength of faith lies, which is why I actually also believe that Zen practice strengthens my life and the understanding of my own beliefs. No matter who we are, we have a set of beliefs that we've taken on voluntarily or involuntarily. If you are an atheist, that is a belief; if you are not, that is a belief. Belief is the center of what makes us human.

    If we think that belief is non-existent in Zen that is a fallacy because unless we have fully experienced anuttara samyak sambodhi we are practicing wholeheartedly with faith in the Buddha's and all of the Buddha ancestors teachings that it is possible to live a life like that.. a full life of compassion, etc.

    So belief is central to being human. We believed the planet was flat, we believed the earth was the center of the universe. We have a lot of beliefs now that will be shattered (I hope if we don't annihilate each other over differing beliefs).

    So while I do believe in God, I also believe in letting other people have their beliefs, and I actually really like listening to how other people view things. I really find it fascinating. I work with a lot of people who are Hindu and believe in multiple Gods. I really have respect for their religion. I don't find any contention with that. In fact, some of the nicest people I know follow Hinduism, and they are great people.

    People are people. We have all been raised and our beliefs most certainly reflect the culture that we've come out of. There's no escaping that.

    I think we just need to always remain open and not restrict people based on belief. I do not follow any religion that would call a certain people less than another people. I don't believe that it is my place to judge anyone, when I have my own shit to deal with. In fact, I don't think those are authentic faiths anyway; I think those are just egoistic power systems that try to elevate the "in-group" over the "out-group"... another very human trait that all of us do. You are stupid because you believe in God; you are stupid because you don't believe in God.

    Man, this universe is so incredible, I think if we'd all just shut up and appreciate this life, we could stop fighting over shit that we can't prove or disprove.

    Anyway, short answer, no offense taken. lol

    Gassho,

    Risho

  25. #25
    Hi Daizan,

    I'm a 100% atheist Buddhist. In my many years practicing I have never had the need to rely on any kind of gods at all.

    Now perhaps what you mean is that atheist tend to be pretty hardcore religious about not believing in a god. That is not my case.

    I don't think there is a god, but I'm open to be shown I'm wrong with the proper evidence.

    For me Buddhism is a philosophic framework where one learns how to be free of suffering and to help all sentient beings. Having no god is actually liberating because I can focus on service, learning live without attachments. Plus, I really like Buddhist philosophy.

    So being an atheist and a Buddhist is pretty compatible for me from my humanist point of view.

    I believe in us humans and what we can do as species (both good and bad). Gods are irrelevant.

    Gassho,

    Kyonin

    Quote Originally Posted by Daizan View Post
    I do not understand how someone can practice Buddhism and be a committed theist or atheist. Aren't those the kind of ultimate positions that are undermined by sitting in openness?

    It makes sense to speak from a theistic angle in one context, and an atheistic angle in another context. If I'm talking with a Christian friend it might feel right to use the language of God and Grace. If talking to a friend who is science minded, or an atheist, a different language makes sense. It makes sense to have an honest view or perspective and have passion around it, but how could that view become fixed in the mind? Staking out an absolute position might be effective politics, but is it really held absolutely?

    I don't get it.


    Gassho
    Daizan
    Hondō Kyōnin
    奔道 協忍

  26. #26
    Hi there,

    I see one problem that people add a lot of concepts when they hear the word "Atheism". Many people think it is a philosophy or a belief.
    However, Atheism does only state one thing: Not Theism.
    A Theist is someone who believes in a personal god who intervenes in his creation (someone who believes in a non-interfering god would be a Deist).
    Atheist simply means - "Not a Theist".
    If someone says Atheism is a belief then "Non-Skiing" would be sports or "Non-Smoking" would be an addiction.
    So as an Atheist one can follow all kinds of philosophies.

    Then of course it depends on how one defines the term "god".
    Every religion gives their god some attributes - otherwise the word god would not make sense.
    Mostly he is said to be omnipotent, omniscient, infinitely good, etc. However, if you ask a Catholic and a Protestant and then a Muslim, you will hear even more different attributes...
    So "god" could also mean Osiris, Thor or a god from the Greek mythology.

    In his latest book Brad Warner uses the term "god" as well, but I daresay many Christian believers would disagree vehemently with his definition, even saying it has nothing to do with god at all.

    Anyway, since I came to this practice I don't care anymore. I don't care how I should call myself - it's all just drawers anyway. Drawers cause separation. I don't want separation.
    If I had to use a category then yes, I'd be an agnostic atheist Zen Buddhist - but who cares?
    I prefer to call myself a human - loving, angry, balanced, unbalanced, humble, an arrogant asshole, sociable, shy, *fill in the blank*.

    Peace to all of you, however you call yourself (or not).

    Gassho,

    Daitetsu
    no thing needs to be added

  27. #27
    I'm totally with Kyonin here.

    I specifically sought out a Sangha that could accommodate my worldview.
    I get that in one sense we're all in it together and all the labels don't really matter.
    On the other hand that should not mean that you don't process the information presented to you and live according to what you find. While there's a fundamental irrevocable niceness about in being in the world in general rather than not being here and it's cool if we could just get along critical faculties are indeed very much needed. They can also be overused and misused. A a sense of proportion (as with much else) is the key.

    As a note on the original I can recommend Sam Harris. He's good at what he does. But whether you personally find his writing useful in your Practice is another matter. I did and his book "The End of Faith" helped me alot in reconciling atheism with Zen. But he's an academic and atheist first and foremost even though I would consider him the "softest" of the new atheist frontmen. Will read this new book in time. Thank you for the pointer.

    Gassho
    ~ Please remember that I am very fallible.

    Gassho
    Meikyo

  28. #28
    I'm a bit surprised by this thread. Buddhism is a non-theistic religion that leaves questions about Ultimate Truth to "Noble Silence" , while warning of the extremes of eternalism and nihilism. This is the A, B fricken C's right?

    There are conceptions of God or God Unmanifest as "unconditional presence", "the cloud of unknowing" and so forth that are very much like Zen conceptions of True Mind, The Absolute, Original Nature, Unconditioned , and so forth. in fact some non-Zen Buddhists say Zen has a streak pre-Buddhism Brahmanism (Theism) in its ideas.

    So I'll just say again I don't get it. and leave it at that. Different strokes for different folk, Daizan
    Last edited by RichardH; 09-17-2014 at 12:30 AM.

  29. #29
    Hi Daizan,

    I am surprised that you are surprised that some folk who practice a non-theistic religion happen to be non-theists...

    Gassho,

    Bryson

  30. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Bryson Keenan View Post
    Hi Daizan,

    I am surprised that you are surprised that some folk who practice a non-theistic religion happen to be non-theists...

    Gassho,

    Bryson
    I'm not surprised by non-theism , I'm a non-theist which means I can swing both ways . It's the atheism that surprises.. I mean.. Jeez.

    Gassho
    Daizan

  31. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Daizan View Post
    I'm not surprised by non-theism , I'm a non-theist which means I can swing both ways . It's the atheism that surprises.. I mean.. Jeez.

    Gassho
    Daizan



    I'm hearing you Daizan, but I think maybe you are misreading the 'label'... 'Atheism' as a term actually isn't really very useful, or even indicative. There is no other form of non-belief that has a similar term. There is no word for people who don't believe in fairies (a-fairy-ism?) or leprechauns (a-leprechaunism?), for example. Atheism isn't a belief system, it is merely the lack of belief in divine agency, in a creator-God who answers our prayers, etc. (there is a distinct difference between a belief that there is no god and a lack of belief that there is one...). It also doesn't preclude feelings of kindredness and compassion to those who don't share those beliefs (sadly this is not always reciprocal...). Again, I see no conflict with Buddhist practice... As far as swinging both ways goes, to each their own...

    Gassho,

    Bryson

  32. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Bryson Keenan View Post



    I'm hearing you Daizan, but I think maybe you are misreading the 'label'... 'Atheism' as a term actually isn't really very useful, or even indicative. There is no other form of non-belief that has a similar term. There is no word for people who don't believe in fairies (a-fairy-ism?) or leprechauns (a-leprechaunism?), for example. Atheism isn't a belief system, it is merely the lack of belief in divine agency, in a creator-God who answers our prayers, etc. (there is a distinct difference between a belief that there is no god and a lack of belief that there is one...). It also doesn't preclude feelings of kindredness and compassion to those who don't share those beliefs (sadly this is not always reciprocal...). Again, I see no conflict with Buddhist practice... As far as swinging both ways goes, to each their own...

    Gassho,

    Bryson

    Hi Bryson. Atheism is certainly a belief system, a belief system mirroring Theism. They are two sides of one coin... and the most subtle forms of Atheism and Theism are none other than Nihilism and Eternalism. It is none other than clinging to a view of No-self or True-Self. They are skillful means and both good in context, but not an end.

    Maybe the term atheism means something different to different people.. that is what the it means to me.

    Gassho
    Daizan

  33. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Daizan View Post
    Hi Bryson. Atheism is certainly a belief system, a belief system mirroring Theism. They are two sides of one coin... and the most subtle forms of Atheism and Theism are none other than Nihilism and Eternalism. It is none other than clinging to a view of No-self or True-Self. They are skillful means and both good in context, but not an end.

    Maybe the term atheism means something different to different people.. that is what the it means to me.

    Gassho
    Daizan
    Hi Daizan,

    We'll have to agree to disagree...

    Gassho,

    Bryson

  34. #34
    Originally Posted by Daizan

    It makes sense to have an honest view or perspective and have passion around it, but how could that view become fixed in the mind? Staking out an absolute position might be effective politics, but is it really held absolutely?


    ...it makes no difference how subtle or nuanced philosophical views are. They can't reach what has been directly realized. There are still questions and views about this-and-that, but only this-and-that. So when I hear about atheism, agnosticism, theism, it just sounds like trying to grasp the ungraspable.


    Buddhism is a non-theistic religion that leaves questions about Ultimate Truth to "Noble Silence" , while warning of the extremes of eternalism and nihilism. This is the A, B fricken C's right?
    Yes. Any view or opinion, by definition, opposes other views and opinions, creating distinction and separation. Sitting in open awareness beyond thoughts, opinions, views, perceptions, formations and consciousness, one may directly realize Emptiness.


    Any preconceived opinion or belief seems to only allow a partial apprehension of (for lack of a better term) Ultimate Truth. I always think about the blind men describing the elephant: one feels the trunk and says it is like a snake, one feels the leg and says it is like a tree, etc. The “truth” is to be found in realizing not only the complete form of the elephant, but that the blind men themselves are the elephant, everything is the elephant, and the elephant is all, while at the same time -- of course there is no elephant! And the idea that you can know the nature of the elephant by feeling it with your hand, is like thinking you can know Reality through belief or atheism or any other -ism.


    And/but, even though there is no elephant, we feed the elephant, give him water, and try not to get stepped on. So the contradiction: in day-to-day life we have opinions, views and beliefs, and they drive our actions, hopefully for the “good”. We pick a side. If the side you pick enables you to live a good life, that’s great. And if it happens to be the “right” one ultimately, then maybe you win a prize! But I agree with Daizan (if I am understanding him correctly), that to grasp on to an absolute position, to have that view become fixed in the mind, and to come to the cushion holding it, seems to be an impediment to direct realization, and yes, to me that does seem like the A, B, fricken C’s.


    But of course this is, you know, just an opinion. A view. My belief! And I say it with all respect to anything anyone else believes, because I can’t judge what is in someone else’s heart. I have no enlightenment, I don’t know what’s True, and it’s all philosophy, and philosophy is not Zen. I guess the best we can do is come to the cushion with an open heart and an open mind, as much as possible.

    Gassho
    Lisa

  35. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Daitetsu View Post
    I see one problem that people add a lot of concepts when they hear the word "Atheism". Many people think it is a philosophy or a belief.
    However, Atheism does only state one thing: Not Theism.
    A Theist is someone who believes in a personal god who intervenes in his creation (someone who believes in a non-interfering god would be a Deist).
    Atheist simply means - "Not a Theist".
    If someone says Atheism is a belief then "Non-Skiing" would be sports or "Non-Smoking" would be an addiction.
    So as an Atheist one can follow all kinds of philosophies.
    What Daitetsu said...

  36. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Bryson Keenan View Post
    What Daitetsu said...
    Hi Bryson,

    I get that, but I think not-a-theist could be an impediment just as well as theist. I have no idea what Ultimate Reality is. If someday Supreme Enlightenment should arise, and if it should encompass something theistic or deistic, I want to be open to that and not miss it because I’ve already set my mind one way or the other.


    To be clear, this is an ideal. I don’t come to the cushion as an empty vessel; far from it! I have beliefs and opinions and stories about myself that inform and shape the way I move through the world. In fact I do identify variously as an atheist, pantheist, animist, and lots of other ists, but I hold all those identities with an open hand, and try to set all that aside when I come to the cushion.

    Gassho
    Lisa

  37. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by raindrop View Post
    Hi Bryson,

    I get that, but I think not-a-theist could be an impediment just as well as theist. I have no idea what Ultimate Reality is. If someday Supreme Enlightenment should arise, and if it should encompass something theistic or deistic, I want to be open to that and not miss it because I’ve already set my mind one way or the other.


    To be clear, this is an ideal. I don’t come to the cushion as an empty vessel; far from it! I have beliefs and opinions and stories about myself that inform and shape the way I move through the world. In fact I do identify variously as an atheist, pantheist, animist, and lots of other ists, but I hold all those identities with an open hand, and try to set all that aside when I come to the cushion.

    Gassho
    Lisa
    Hi Lisa,

    I think we are likely going in circles now, but I'll close with this. There is no reason to think that a non-theistic or atheistic view will 'set' ones mind one way or the other (i.e. be an 'absolute' position). Rational thinkers will always be open to a change of mind on the emergence of new evidence. As you've rightly pointed out, however, none of this thought process is necessary when we 'just sit'...

    Gassho,

    Bryson
    Last edited by Anshu Bryson; 09-17-2014 at 06:50 AM.

  38. #38
    Hi Bryson,

    Ah! Circled in on a good point, my friend, I can definitely meet you there. This is the crux of the thing; not to become too attached to one’s views or opinions, but to hold them as “working hypotheses.” Cheers to rational thinking and open minds in the world, and dropping it all on the cushion!

    Gassho
    Lisa

  39. #39
    Folks,
    This thread has left my head spinning

    Do we really need to analyse everything to the nth degree?

    Can we not just keep things simple - sit, be present, chop wood. carry water, follow the precepts?

    Gassho,

    David

  40. #40
    David,

    Yup, fell off the wagon again. On my way to Overthinkers Anonymous meeting right now!

    Gassho
    Lisa

  41. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by David W View Post
    Folks,
    This thread has left my head spinning

    Do we really need to analyse everything to the nth degree?

    Can we not just keep things simple - sit, be present, chop wood. carry water, follow the precepts?

    Gassho,

    David


    If there is a God, I am sure She would not mind. In fact, if there is a God or something so, I believe there is no better way to get close to Her.
    Last edited by Jundo; 09-17-2014 at 08:38 AM.
    ALL OF LIFE IS OUR TEMPLE

  42. #42
    Hi Daizan,

    Quote Originally Posted by Daizan View Post
    I'm not surprised by non-theism , I'm a non-theist which means I can swing both ways .
    You've just described how I define Atheism though. I don't distinguish between non-theism and atheism.

    Here is why:

    Let's say we have a cake.
    Person A takes a piece from it and eats it. He is a Cakist.
    Person B does not eat from it. He is an A-Cakist.
    Person C thinks "I am not sure. Maybe I eat it later."
    However, Person C has de facto not eaten from the cake either and is thus an A-Cakist, too.
    And if Person C later decides to have his piece of cake, he is a Cakist.
    So actually it is not necessary to give Person C a different category with regards to the Cake.

    The funny part comes, when one of these guys realizes that he IS the Cake (in fact everyone).


    OK, just wanted to add this as I'd like to end this on a funny note.
    As I said, it depends a lot on definitions.

    I had endless discussions like these in the past, but I am glad this time is over.
    My boundaries began to melt some years ago and it's so relaxing now. And funny, and tragic, and everything.

    I don't care (anymore) whether the glass of water is half empty or half full - I just drink it.

    Gassho,

    Daitetsu
    no thing needs to be added

  43. #43
    Being with God is JUST THIS. THIS is true God. You can call it Buddha nature, universal spirit, Allah, or anything that makes sense for you. IMHO

    Kind regards. /\
    _/_
    Rich
    MUHYO
    無 (MU, Emptiness) and 氷 (HYO, Ice) ... Emptiness Ice ...

    https://instagram.com/notmovingmind

  44. #44
    First to respond to David W. This was an immediate and desperate (no exaggeration) problem for me as a kid... cause?, causeless cause?, no cause?, Self?, Being? , God?, The Divine?, Theos?, Ain Soph?, Brahman?... by any name or namelessness?, ..or not. It was settled in practice in a clear Yes and No, without any ambiguity. Now, getting older and tired , this discussion is not heavy or involving overthinking, it is just normal, basic, stuff. It is actually nice to talk about this normal stuff, to not be alone with this normal stuff.

    So, maybe... this comes down to what “atheism” means. I would suggest that the narrow definition is out of touch with the world we live in today and the painful cultural divisions of today. The actual general and deeply held usage of the term is a rejection of much more than a certain narrow style of the Sacred, or Divine. If it is just about labels then, to declare oneself an Athiest Buddhist is to declare Buddhism as standing on one side. That is not helpful for the Dharma blooming in the west. It is narrowing. That's obviously just one opinion.

    Gassho
    Daizan
    Last edited by RichardH; 09-17-2014 at 11:51 AM.

  45. #45
    Kyotai
    Guest
    Well said Daizan,

    For me, if one is an atheist buddhist, one is an atheist buddhist. And that places buddhism no more on one side then a Catholic buddhist.

    But, I do see what your saying. I agree. The two do not necessarily go hand in hand and that may cause confusion for those new or newly interested in buddhism.

    And yes, the term atheist carries much more baggage culturally. In fact when I think of the word atheist I do think of the more aggressive atheists who have taken up a cause.

    I would very much agree with Daizan on my personal defining of atheism and non - theism being one in the same, except that one of those words is a firecracker where you and I call home. And even more so Due South.

    David, I agree sometimes it is best to end a discussion and go about your day. But, I too like to hear differing opinions sometimes.

    (Plus I heat my home with propane so I have some extra time on my hands lol)

    Gassho, Shawn
    Last edited by Kyotai; 09-17-2014 at 12:27 PM.

  46. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Daizan View Post

    So, maybe... this comes down to what “atheism” means. I would suggest that the narrow definition is out of touch with the world we live in today and the painful cultural divisions of today. The actual general and deeply held usage of the term is a rejection of much more than a certain narrow style of the Sacred, or Divine. If it is just about labels then, to declare oneself an Athiest Buddhist is to declare Buddhism as standing on one side. That is not helpful for the Dharma blooming in the west. It is narrowing. That's obviously just one opinion.

    Gassho
    Daizan
    I was going to weigh in again, not to argue with you, Daizan, but because I feel that somehow I haven't articulated myself well enough. But I have re-read the thread, and I'd only be repeating myself. Peace.

    Gassho,

    Bryson

  47. #47
    This is my last post on the thread (so I don't beat it to death. lol), but to follow up:

    Daitetsu -- I see where you are coming from; I haven't thought about it like that

    Daizan -- your questions always cut through to my heart; they are awesome

    I've put a request in to my local library to request this book; it is very popular; there are 11 requests ahead of mine but I have plenty of reading to keep me busy. lol

    Gassho,

    Risho
    Last edited by Risho; 09-17-2014 at 05:08 PM.

  48. #48
    Nindo
    Guest
    Ummm... to maybe get back to the book, I only read a short summary online, but when I hear "A rational approach to spirituality" I immediately think of Unitarian Universalism. And secular (non-devotional) Buddhism. I wonder whether the "tools" offered by the book are similar to what these established traditions offer?

    Unfortunately, both UU and Buddhism are minority congregations in the West. I truly believe that a) people are searching for spirituality that makes sense to them, but any religious references can be a barrier; and b) if the spiritual needs of more people were met with something other than consumerism, we could finally make progress on the pressing issues of the planet and our societies. Just my 2 pennies.

  49. #49
    Hello,

    the book does contain some useful information about the current status quo regarding the philosophy of consciousness, brain physiology etc., as well as a personal account of Mr. Harris's own journey, which was mainly influenced by many years of Theravada, Advaita Vedanta and Dzogchen practise. Steven Pinker is a friend if his, so although I am sure one can disagree with him, he does know how to research properly.

    Gassho,

    Hans Chudo Mongen

  50. #50
    Yugen
    Guest
    To be an atheist requires a theism or "God" to reject, which is not a recognition of the latter's existence? In other words, a dualistic relationship....

    I'm with Kyonin - I fall on the side of Buddhism as a philosophy and belief in other religions and spiritualities can inform this practice or not. This is an individual matter.

    To pick and choose dualistic frames limits the boundaries of our exploration (and blue smoke comes out of my ears).

    It's liberating for me to say "so what?"

    Deep bows
    Yugen


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •