Buddhism Psychology or Religion

[rousseau]

To ask God for stuff you have to peer inwards and figure out what is important to you. That's the important bit. Asking God for it isn't the secret sauce. So I think that qualifies as a spiritual practice. While other forms might be better. This isn't worthless IMHO.

He does have a point, though.

In Abrahamic religions there is a tendency to push responsibility away from ones self, 'no matter what happens this is a part of God's plan'. So looking inward but then asking God for help implies a kind of delusion. Where, conversely, in something like Buddhism the person meditating is only looking to themselves for guidance.

Ah, the general Buddhist perspective is that self does not, in fact, exist.

I think there is a subtle distinction there. There is no self, as in no soul, but there is still a living entity who is personally responsible, just a transient and impermanent one.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Ah, the general Buddhist perspective is that self does not, in fact, exist.

I think there is a subtle distinction there. There is no self, as in no soul, but there is still a living entity who is personally responsible, just a transient and impermanent one.

I too find Buddhism a more productive spiritual practice than Christianity, but to call it more grounded in reality is a stretch. They're both filled to the rafters with woo

 

[rousseau]

Ah, the general Buddhist perspective is that self does not, in fact, exist.

I think there is a subtle distinction there. There is no self, as in no soul, but there is still a living entity who is personally responsible, just a transient and impermanent one.

I too find Buddhism a more productive spiritual practice than Christianity, but to call it more grounded in reality is a stretch. They're both filled to the rafters with woo

Yea, insofar as Buddhists literally believe in some of the more woo aspects, I agree with you. But if I was looking for anything resembling real guidance I'd definitely start with Eastern religions, before I'd start with Abrahamic ones.

 

[fromderinside]

It's really tough rousseau, having empathy systems in every neural domain for one to conclude otherwise - Empathy is about It's of us and we 'know' it's of us - so distinguishing between what one is inculcated with and what one sees as ideal has merit valence. How's that fit Speakpigeon.

A Little woo woo 4 U.

 

[DBT]

Perhaps there are some folks who need a woo factor as an attractor, without which they would not have accessed the benefits of Buddhist philosophy?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I too find Buddhism a more productive spiritual practice than Christianity, but to call it more grounded in reality is a stretch. They're both filled to the rafters with woo

Yea, insofar as Buddhists literally believe in some of the more woo aspects, I agree with you. But if I was looking for anything resembling real guidance I'd definitely start with Eastern religions, before I'd start with Abrahamic ones.

I know plenty of hippies. I'd argue that once you take any religion as a descriptor of reality instead of what it is, a system for spiritual growth, you'll quickly fall off the deep end. The Daoist and Confucian goal of creating harmony and that dark and light have to be in balance is an awful guide to life, since it means that ultimately nothing matters. Buddhism is a rejection of this world. They're all terrible. Simplistic as hell.

There's no rule against using them all as a guide to life. Certainly not for spiritual atheists. I'd argue that combining them can work as a method to keep you from taking any one of them too literally. My personally favourite religion as a guide to life is Greek, Roman and Norse paganism. You can't find better guides to life. Ovid's Metamophosis is a master-piece and has valuable advice to anyone no matter stage in life. It teaches us to embrace change and let go of the past. While we might fear change, change is inevitable.

 

[rousseau]

I too find Buddhism a more productive spiritual practice than Christianity, but to call it more grounded in reality is a stretch. They're both filled to the rafters with woo

Yea, insofar as Buddhists literally believe in some of the more woo aspects, I agree with you. But if I was looking for anything resembling real guidance I'd definitely start with Eastern religions, before I'd start with Abrahamic ones.

I know plenty of hippies. I'd argue that once you take any religion as a descriptor of reality instead of what it is, a system for spiritual growth, you'll quickly fall off the deep end. The Daoist and Confucian goal of creating harmony and that dark and light have to be in balance is an awful guide to life, since it means that ultimately nothing matters. Buddhism is a rejection of this world. They're all terrible. Simplistic as hell.

There's no rule against using them all as a guide to life. Certainly not for spiritual atheists. I'd argue that combining them can work as a method to keep you from taking any one of them too literally. My personally favourite religion as a guide to life is Greek, Roman and Norse paganism. You can't find better guides to life. Ovid's Metamophosis is a master-piece and has valuable advice to anyone no matter stage in life. It teaches us to embrace change and let go of the past. While we might fear change, change is inevitable.

That's how I look at it, too.

Buddhism identifying 'clinging to self' as the core source of our suffering is pretty much spot on as an analysis can get in a society that doesn't understand materialism yet. The further conclusion that knowing this can lead to Nirvana is where it turns away from philosophy and analysis, and into woo. But honestly? Fair enough, the alternative to psychological mechanisms like these are basically nil, so I can see the appeal of systems like this for people who were living harsh lives back then.

But a lot of the rules and ideas that were thought up during the Axial age did have a kind of truth to them. Even logic coming out of Judaism and Christianity could make sense in a certain light, even if come at in a roundabout way, and only verified by imagined authority.

In 2019, though, we're living in a completely different paradigm, where we're aware of natural laws and able to accumulate information to make better decisions to ease our suffering. Clearly relying on philosophies from the ancient period verbatim is stupid, but to completely throw away the ideology that was worked out over a huge number of centuries would be dumb too.

 

[fromderinside]

Awareness among humans is like froth of substances mixed. It's not what is mixed yet it can be seen so it is presumed to be something more than it's name. It is of course, It's full of hot air.