Why Buddhism Is True (by Robert Wright)

[Robban]

A good and prosperous new year to all you happy campers in CWR.

 

[jacknife]

I'm not sure it's either of those two things in this particular instance, since whereas incarnational theology has a long history in the East, I'm not familiar with anything similar in the West aside from Christianity. It doesn't seem to be the result of a psychological or spiritual process in the Abrahamic tradition--people just suddenly started saying that it had happened. I'm fond of the idea that other traditions, rather than just Judaism, prefigured and foresaw what would become historical instead of just mythological in Christianity. I think it's a form of pluralism that makes orthodox Christian beliefs more interesting and plausible, rather than less.

But yeah, there's a lot more overlap than people usually realize. And a lot of ideas that repeat and repeat over time as well, always coming back. There are differences between the Western and Eastern conception of God, but they're not nearly as distinct as most people assume.

Happy New Years, guys.

I'm not sure what you mean. By pluralism but happy new years.

 

[Robban]

Abrahams gifts to the east (India)
Over time they were drawn down many wrong paths by that wisdom.


"And to the sons of abrahams concubines, Abraham gave gifts,
and he sent them away from his son Isaac while he (Abraham) was still alive, eastward to the land of the east."
(Genesis 25:6)

There is a need to be on guard.

A little taste of what is meant,

From the teachings of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai,
primary author of the Zohar.


Rabbi Abba,
"One day, as I was travelling, I was in a particular city and met some people from India.
They told me some of the ancient knowledge that is found in their books of widom (based on the names of the unholy side that were sent to them by Abraham in an attempt to help them overcome their tendency to idolworship)"

 

[Silmarien]

I'm not sure what you mean. By pluralism but happy new years.

Pluralism is the idea that all religions are in some sense correct.

 

[jacknife]

Pluralism is the idea that all religions are in some sense correct.

Oh intresting I always thought that had a different name like pantheism I thought it was.

 

[Silmarien]

Oh intresting I always thought that had a different name like pantheism I thought it was.

No, pantheism is the belief that everything is God.

 

[Eyes wide Open]

Avatar of Shiva, not incarnate God, as far as I can tell. But the avatar system is a pretty well established aspect of Hinduism, so it's not terribly surprising to see stuff like this. Claims of divinity, direction connection, and miracles are also really nothing outside of the ordinary in Hinduism, given its monistic concept of God. I would be careful trying to fit it too closely to Christian claims, since there are significant differences between the.

Autobiography of a yogi was ultimately written in reference (although it was a detail of Paramahansa Yoganandas life of which Hinduism was a part) to a spiritual practice called Kriya Yoga, which has a lineage back to Babaji who was the man to introduce the practice of Kriya Yoga as a meditation technique. Paramahansa Yogananda brought that teaching to the west because is was deviod of effective spirtual practice and its fully inclusive, anybody from any faith can practice and there are no real teachings about Hinduism. It doesn't ask you to believe anything. Paramahansa Yogananda started the self Realization Fellowship and the practice of Kriya Yoga is to bring about self realization. Jesus is viewed within this movement as a fully realized master.
The practice brings about a reconnective process and the dogma of Hinduism and Christianity which make them distinctly different faiths begin to merge because both faiths are a reconnective process from a mystic perspective, or can be. Mostly today and throughout history we see the dogma from both faiths, thus the divide.

 

[Silmarien]

Autobiography of a yogi was ultimately written in reference (although it was a detail of Paramahansa Yoganandas life of which Hinduism was a part) to a spiritual practice called Kriya Yoga, which has a lineage back to Babaji who was the man to introduce the practice of Kriya Yoga as a meditation technique. Paramahansa Yogananda brought that teaching to the west because is was deviod of effective spirtual practice and its fully inclusive, anybody from any faith can practice and there are no real teachings about Hinduism. It doesn't ask you to believe anything. Paramahansa Yogananda started the self Realization Fellowship and the practice of Kriya Yoga is to bring about self realization. Jesus is viewed within this movement as a fully realized master.
The practice brings about a reconnective process and the dogma of Hinduism and Christianity which make them distinctly different faiths begin to merge because both faiths are a reconnective process from a mystic perspective, or can be. Mostly today and throughout history we see the dogma from both faiths, thus the divide.

Oh, I don't think this is a matter of the two faiths merging. I agree that the different Hindu traditions can incorporate Jesus into their systems without significant difficulties, but this doesn't mean that the divide is illusory and the two religions are really saying the same thing. It means that it's possible for Christianity to get subsumed into Hinduism. If Jesus is a fully realized master, then we're approaching things squarely from a Hindu perspective. If he is an Avatar, then we are still within the realm of Hinduism.

And if we go in the opposite direction and call the Vedic tradition with its Avatars a symbol, a marker towards a truth that would eventually be fulfilled in Christ, then we are subsuming Hinduism into Christianity.

I think both approaches make sense, but I don't think a genuine merging of the two religions is possible. One will always be fit into the other's framework.

 

[Eyes wide Open]

Oh, I don't think this is a matter of the two faiths merging. I agree that the different Hindu traditions can incorporate Jesus into their systems without significant difficulties, but this doesn't mean that the divide is illusory and the two religions are really saying the same thing. It means that it's possible for Christianity to get subsumed into Hinduism. If Jesus is a fully realized master, then we're approaching things squarely from a Hindu perspective. If he is an Avatar, then we are still within the realm of Hinduism.

And if we go in the opposite direction and call the Vedic tradition with its Avatars a symbol, a marker towards a truth that would eventually be fulfilled in Christ, then we are subsuming Hinduism into Christianity.

I think both approaches make sense, but I don't think a genuine merging of the two religions is possible. One will always be fit into the other's framework.

Of course yes kriya yoga and Paramahansa Yogananda fit within the hindu framework, but i suppose my laboured point was that its about a reconnective process, not Hinduism per-se and that the wider complex elements regarding Hinduism and the Vedic scrptures, which are largly irrelevant to the practice.

 

[Silmarien]

Of course yes kriya yoga and Paramahansa Yogananda fit within the hindu framework, but i suppose my laboroured point was that its about a reconnective process, not Hinduism per-se and that the wider complex elements regarding Hinduism and the Vedic scrptures, which are largly irrelevant to the practice.

Oh, I was responding directly to the idea that Babaji was God incarnate, that there were Christian style miracles, and so forth and so on. That bit is all more devotional, so we shouldn't try to conflate the two traditions. There are differences in the way they look at these things.

I can't speak to the practices themselves. I just spent a decent amount of time on the fence between classical theism and Advaita, and there's a significant enough distinction between the two that which way you fall is going to make a difference. They're similar, but not quite two ways to say the same thing.

 

[dlamberth]

I think both approaches make sense, but I don't think a genuine merging of the two religions is possible. One will always be fit into the other's framework.

It is possible. But only if a person is able to step out of the "framework" and is able to move towards the spiritual aspect in the exploration of the experience of Oneness with God.

 

[Silmarien]

It is possible. But only if a person is able to step out of the "framework" and is able to move towards the spiritual aspect in the exploration of the experience of Oneness with God.

That's not a merging. If you step outside of the framework, you've abandoned it. You haven't merged it with something else. Even mysticism doesn't require the abandonment of frameworks--a mystic can be a perfectly orthodox follower of a religion.

 

[dlamberth]

That's not a merging. Even mysticism doesn't require the abandonment of frameworks--a mystic can be a perfectly orthodox follower of a religion.

True it's not a requirement. But it is done. A lot more so today than in the past. As the world has gotten smaller there's been a lot more opportunity for cross platform incorporation into the Mystics spirituality.

 

[Zoness]

Of course, we have to keep in mind that in Hinduism, even a god like Vishnu is really more of a manifestation of Ultimate Reality than being that Ultimate Reality itself. Which is where things get really fun, since if Vishnu is a culturally informed way of relating to God and can have incarnate avatars, then Christianity is actually very easily fit into the Hindu system--Jesus is the avatar of the Hebrew aspect of God, and not exactly unique. Have fun, apologists.

Honestly the avatar system makes more sense to me than other systems of single incarnation. Assuming one is interested in incarnations at all. Hinduism is cool.

 

[Silmarien]

Honestly the avatar system makes more sense to me than other systems of single incarnation. Assuming one is interested in incarnations at all. Hinduism is cool.

Oh, Hinduism is very interesting! I still have to get around to reading some of the major gurus, but I have so much on my plate right now, I need to figure out how many books I can read simultaneously without ending up reading nothing at all.

Are you still looking into panpsychism?

 

[Zoness]

Oh, Hinduism is very interesting! I still have to get around to reading some of the major gurus, but I have so much on my plate right now, I need to figure out how many books I can read simultaneously without ending up reading nothing at all.

Are you still looking into panpsychism?

Yeah my book list is all over the place and there's a point where I don't read anything!

I'm interested in Panpsychism, yeah but I've been in a bit of mental burnout lately. Not sure where to go next after my casual interest. I'm down for more books.

 

[the iconoclast]

I agree that Dharmic paths seem to more readily mesh with testable reality than Abrahamic paths do.

Hey hey you

How do dharmic paths more readily mesh with testable reality than abrahamic paths?

What have you got for us to examine?

Cheers, you are diamond

 

[the iconoclast]

Yeah my book list is all over the place and there's a point where I don't read anything!

I'm interested in Panpsychism, yeah but I've been in a bit of mental burnout lately. Not sure where to go next after my casual interest. I'm down for more books.

Hey hey zoness

How was your trip? We never got to finish our discussion.

 

[FireDragon76]

I recently read the book "Why Buddhism Is True" by Robert Wright. In the book, he outlines why and how various ideas in Buddhism align very well with modern psychology and neurology. As we learn more about how the brain functions, it seems that science regularly confirms some basic notions of Buddhism:

1) The world our brains construct is illusory, incomplete, and tends to delude us;
2) These illusions and delusions lead us to make decisions that cause suffering;
3) By letting go of these illusions, we get a clearer picture of reality and we are happier because of it.

One simple example he offers is that our brains over-inflate the joy we will experience upon indulging in some short term pleasure like eating ice cream and this is the root cause of many addictions. Scientific studies consistently show that people think they will enjoy something more than they actually do. Hence, in some sense, this is considered a "delusion". This results in some small amount of suffering and disappointment and, in the example of ice cream, perhaps a sense of guilt about being unhealthy or, in worse case scenarios, physical health issues from over-eating. From a Buddhist perspective, the goal is then to recognize this illusion and train our minds to no longer desire these illusory and temporary things in life. Instead, the goal is to seek the real, timeless and unchanging parts of the universe.

What is the Christian response to this?

It seems to me that, at its core, Christianity is founded on historical facts (e.g. the resurrection) rather than testable ideas (e.g. do our brains construct illusory narratives?). So there is no similar book that a Christian could write as a counter-point to Wright's book. Would a Christian response to the ice cream overeater would be to pray to Jesus? It seems shallow and simplistic compared to the detailed psychology laid out by Wright backed up by scientific experiment.

It feels like Buddhism and Christianity occupy different spaces entirely. When I read the writings of Buddhists it seems like they are talking about a whole different set of ideas that, while not necessarily contradictory to Christian theology, are simply ideas which Christians don't bother to discuss.

Does Christianity propose any testable ideas? One testable idea I could think of is "Following Jesus will improve your life and/or make you more moral". There aren't many scientific studies on this so all we have to go on is mostly anecdotes for which you can find both good and bad examples. Some studies suggest that there is very little correlation with religiosity and morality. Are religious people more moral?

There is no doubt that Siddartha Gauthama had some powerful insights into the human condition but Right radically reinterprets Buddhism, as do many westerners to fit within the therapeutic mindset of western culture. Buddhism is about ending the cycle of rebirth, not about achieving stress reduction so you can be a more effective Silicon Valley entrepreneur. A cognate for that already exists in the West in Stoicism, and it had significant influence on the Christian tradition.

Does Christianity propose any testable ideas?

One testable idea I could think of is "Following Jesus will improve your life and/or make you more moral". There aren't many scientific studies on this so all we have to go on is mostly anecdotes for which you can find both good and bad examples. Some studies suggest that there is very little correlation with religiosity and morality. Are religious people more moral?

This notion is dangerous and often untrue. Christianity is a religion grounded in a narrative of the world and it is not testable in such crude terms (as there is no divine promise like that in the Bible for a Christian). That may grate with modern sensibilities but we should not lie or deceive people about what the substance of our religion is.

There is Eastern Christianity which has a more mystical side. I don't know much about Buddhism so I can not comment that much.

They are similar in their religious ethos but also quite different. The mysticism of Orthodoxy is closer to western Christian pietism. Meditation is actually not a salient feature of many sects of Buddhism, and even those that practice it, it is contextualized within a wider religious culture.

 

[TheOldWays]

Buddhism is about ending the cycle of rebirth, not about achieving stress reduction so you can be a more effective Silicon Valley entrepreneur.

I do zazen so I can be more effective in life (family, work, money, leisure). i could care less if that's buddhism or not. i care more about effectiveness then labels. but hey, if the side effect of all my meditation is ending the cycle of rebirth, that's cool too, but it's not my primary motivation for Buddhist practice.

but i do think the primary purpose of Buddhism is to end suffering. cosmically that could be the rebirth stuff, but in our current situation, it's all about chilling out.