Buddhism and war

Sorry about the multiple posts. As the post was being uploaded, I stopped it a couple of times to edit out little errors. If anyone knows how to dump the first two versions ....... PLEASE do so.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Asherman wrote:

What's in a name? Does a strawberry taste differently if called an onion?

It can if your expectations of the events change, yes.

I am not so sure. The straberry tastes the same. It is only how you are inclined to describe the experience that alters, as I see it.
But maybe that's just a matter of preference, but the way I see it, what we chose to call any given thing is not directly related to the thing itself, but to our metaphysical representation of it.

0 Replies

Asherman, I do not doubt your scholarly abilities but your understanding of Nichiren Buddhism is sorely lacking. Nichiren Buddhism is in no way related to Pure Land Buddhism. Nichiren Buddhism suggests that happiness is to be found in this world and this lifetime, not some distant land after we die.

0 Replies

Doesn't zen suggest the very same thing?

0 Replies

Nick,

I'm quite sure you are probably more knowlegable about your own Sect and School than I am. Naturally, my views tend to mirror those of Zen in particular and the overall history/structure of Buddhism. Go on and educate us all in your doctrines, just please don't make claims that aren't justified.

Theravada and its Pali texts are the oldest versions of Buddhism. Mahayana was a later development.

Buddhism came into China along two primary routes. The Chinese culture is dominant in Asia, and Buddhism (both North and South) absorbed local indigenous beliefs. Confucism and Taoism both made contributions to Buddhist doctrines, that made it more compatible with Chinese folk belief.

Nicheren and it's Sokka Gaikai sect are relative new Buddhist doctrines, though they hark back to earlier Buddhist texts ... such as the Lotus Sutra. Both the Diamond Sutra and the Great Heart Sutra are equally venerable, and are considered authorative to other Chinese/Japanese forms of Buddhism.

Zen, also a Mahayana group, is closer to the the Theravada writings than most other Mahayana Schools/Sects.

If you believe otherwise, then convince me if you can.

Cyracuz,

Zen does hold the belief that Enlightenment can be experienced now, and by most people. We have no problem with individuals achieving worldly success, but that is decidedly of secondary importance. We meditate and practice the Precepts with care that as few attachments as possible form. I rather expect that isn't too far off from the doctrines of most other Buddhist Schools and Sects. We do things differently and base our practices on different parts of the ancient teachings.

No editing tonight since I'm expecting a prolonged internet exchange with some folks in Asia momentarily.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

Chumly wrote:
Asherman wrote:
What's in a name? Does a strawberry taste differently if called an onion?
It can if your expectations of the events change, yes.

I am not so sure. The strawberry tastes the same. It is only how you are inclined to describe the experience that alters, as I see it.
But maybe that's just a matter of preference, but the way I see it, what we chose to call any given thing is not directly related to the thing itself, but to our metaphysical representation of it.

For one year, everyday, you are told for 12 houra, that you will be eating strawberry jam and during that 12 hours you are blindfolded and allowed to smell a mixture of at first all strawberries but gradually changing to all blueberries (over the course of the year).

Also, for a period of time after each of the 12 hour daily sessions, you are allowed to taste this (ever so slowly changing) jam.

After one year, I suggest you may well accept that blueberry jam is strawberry jam. Your perception been changed by "naming".

Sorry about being so off topic, I suppose you might improve the relevance by substituting strawberries / blueberries for good / evil or Buddhism / war or whatever tickles your fancy, I'll leave the question open as to how far this "naming" can be pushed.

0 Replies

Yes, my perception has been changed by naming. But the berries haven't changed. I might have confused them in my head, but they are what they were all along regardless of how I relate to them.

0 Replies

Very good Cyracuz!

Chumly has inadvertently demonstrated only how easily the Perceptual World can be fiddled, while "reality" remains a constant. The Tao that can be named is not the Tao.

0 Replies

The true test of any ohilosphie should be in the amount of benefit a person gais from it. I can assure anyone who tries Nichiren Buddhism, you will not be disappointed,

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

Chumly has inadvertently demonstrated only how easily the Perceptual World can be fiddled, while "reality" remains a constant. The Tao that can be named is not the Tao.

I (naturally enough) agree that perceptions are subjective and potentially malleable by various means however, but by the same token, I see no absolutes in "reality" and in fact science bear me out on this with quantum theory and also the random underlying nature of many scientifically observed common effects even before quantum theory.

If you have any definitive, concrete, unassailable, demonstrable absolutes in reference to realty you have yet to share them with evidence. Why would that be? I suggest because such claims of an absolute realty (from you or anyone else) are not provable.

0 Replies

Ultimate Reality is not objectively provable by any scientific means. Neither can anyone "prove" their experience to anyone else. Though unproven, we "know" what our direct experiences are. I can not prove that my experience of "blue" is the same as your experience of "blue", though we might agree that certain wavelengths of light can be called "blue". This is the old problem of Plato's Cave Analogy. We can "know" what we can't prove, and who is to say that our experiences are "real" or "illusory"?

We know without doubt that our perceptions can easily be warped and entirely wrong. We can not be so certain that certain individual experiences that seem to contradict Perceptive Reality are also illusory, or are genuine expressions of some greater Ultimate Reality.

As Nicky said a few posts ago, the proof is in the eating of the pudding. Does it fill the belly, or evaporate upon the spoon?

0 Replies

Brownian motion! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion

Quote:

The term Brownian motion (in honor of the botanist Robert Brown) refers either to the random movement of particles suspended in a fluid or to the mathematical model used to describe such random movements, often called a Wiener process.

The mathematical model of Brownian motion has several real-world applications. An often quoted example is stock market fluctuations. Another example is the evolution of physical characteristics in the fossil record.[citation needed]

Brownian motion is among the simplest continuous-time stochastic processes, and it is a limit of both simpler and more complicated stochastic processes (see random walk and Donsker's theorem). This universality is closely related to the universality of the normal distribution. In both cases, it is often mathematical convenience rather than the accuracy of the models that motivates their use.

0 Replies

I suggest absolute realty / ultimate realty is a subjective construct only, and an inevitable pillar of religious dogma. There is in fact much evidence to contradict this notion and no evidence to support it.

For better or worse there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the notion of some "greater Ultimate Reality" has merit, even as a hypothesis.

0 Replies

Everyone to their own belief. If it works for you, have at it. Buddhism works for me, and many others and the effects of our religion don't seem to do much harm. So thanks for you comment, but I think I'll probably just go on being a Buddhist.

0 Replies

Subjective reality: I exist

Ultimate reality: Existence

Smile

I am getting cheeky here Cool

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

Everyone to their own belief. If it works for you, have at it. Buddhism works for me, and many others and the effects of our religion don't seem to do much harm. So thanks for you comment, but I think I'll probably just go on being a Buddhist.

I appreciate your sense of humor, at least I exhume it was intended at least in part as humorous, given that it's pretty clear I try and exempt myself from the idealization of "Everyone to their own belief."

As to whether Buddhism does not "do much harm" is more to the heart of the thread. I don't know if you read my posts about Brian Victoria, the western Soto Zen priest and instructor at the University of Auckland. He has widely different views of Buddhism and harm than (I assume) yours. http://www.darkzen.com/Articles/zenholy.htm

Also I will add my view of harm in this context by saying that there is always the possibility for great harm when a dogmatic realty is chosen over naturalism. if you did read my posts about Brian Victoria you'll see that history is rife with Buddhism being used to great harm, alas.

Quote:

Naturalism (philosophy), any of several philosophical stances wherein all phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural are either false, unknowable, or not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism

0 Replies

That Japanese Buddhist priests of many sects actively supported the Japanese national war effort is not news. This has been known and commented on many times. Shucks, I've commented on it here numerous times myself. Buddhists have served honorably and with remarkable valor in the military organizations of many countries. The "Go For Broke" had many Buddhist soldiers and it was one of the most decorated of all WWII U.S. units. The Samurai were Buddhists, and they certainly weren't pacifists either. I doubt that Prof. Victoria has written anything that would shake my world and dedication to the advancement of Buddhism.

What is worth noting is that finding wars and conflicts fought by Buddhists for religious reasons is very difficult. Not impossible, just difficult.

Once one determines that a thought, word, or action that will certainly cause suffering is necessary to mitigate some greater suffering, it ceases to be counter-productive. Some Buddhist Masters were noted for their harsh treatment of monks, and sometimes even dumb animals, yet that made them no less Enlightened.

Buddhism can support very violent actions, but historically our religion has been far more involved in the mitigation of suffering, than otherwise.

I've been devote Buddhist been for over 45 years. During that time I've served in a metropolitan Police department, raised my oldest son to be a professional Army officer, and supported military actions that many of my fellow citizens have condemned. I see no contradiction, but don't expect that others will agree with me.

Why shouldn't everyone be free to follow their own beliefs?

"Naturalism" as a creed is just as dangerous as the Abrahamic faiths. It is after all, "natural" for the strong to dominate the weak. Brute force is "natural", though personally I prefer a little more thought and consideration be taken before jumping into things. Gluttony, greed, lust and other such behavior is as "natural" to the human animal as it is to the beasts of the field. No, you go your way and I'll go mine.

0 Replies

If we were to disregard every philosophy and religion that has ever contributed to bloodshed there would be none left.

But buddhism has never been a cause for bloodshed, even though buddhists have participated in it.

But look at christianity and islam. How many millions of people have had their lives abruptly ended because they stood in the way of some christian or muslim worldview?

How many have been killed because they didn't embrace buddhism?

If a buddhist taking lives is a testament to the inadequacy of buddhism, then what does that say about christianity and islam?

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

I've been devote Buddhist been for over 45 years. During that time I've served in a metropolitan Police department, raised my oldest son to be a professional Army officer, and supported military actions that many of my fellow citizens have condemned. I see no contradiction, but don't expect that others will agree with me.

I'll leave such contradictions (perceived, real or otherwise) in your life to your own devices, I'm not wanting to place value judgment on such a personal level.

Asherman wrote:

Why shouldn't everyone be free to follow their own beliefs?

I did not say (nor infer) that everyone shouldn't be free to follow their own beliefs, what I did say however was "there is always the possibility for great harm when a dogmatic realty is chosen over naturalism". You have shown no reason to alter that viewpoint within the confines of the definition of naturalism as I have quoted it.

Asherman wrote:

"Naturalism" as a creed is just as dangerous as the Abrahamic faiths. It is after all, "natural" for the strong to dominate the weak. Brute force is "natural", though personally I prefer a little more thought and consideration be taken before jumping into things. Gluttony, greed, lust and other such behavior is as "natural" to the human animal as it is to the beasts of the field. No, you go your way and I'll go mine.

Well, within the confines of the definition I have provided (thus I save a lot of headaches with this type of prefacing, I'll tell you what!) I wholeheartedly disagree with your condemnation of naturalism. In fact your critiques form no part of naturalism as I have defined it. At the risk of repetition, I'll re-quote my definition as applicable in this context. You critiques are not sustainable as per my definition of naturalism.

Chumly wrote:

Naturalism (philosophy), any of several philosophical stances wherein all phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural are either false, unknowable, or not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

If we were to disregard every philosophy and religion that has ever contributed to bloodshed there would be none left.

Cliché but fun: John Lennon - Imagine.

Though I will counter by asking you what precisely you mean by "contribute" as in fact neither philosophy nor religion can "contribute" anything at all per se, it is the man that does the absorbing and outputting through action to bloodshed.

0 Replies

Buddhism and war

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know