DarrenBarefoot.com

As a budding Buddhist, I’d have to say +1 to Buddhism.

I recommended a few books in my last post. Since then I’ve found a few good podcasts, available free from the iTunes music store. I’ve only listend to one or two episodes from each, but they seem pretty good so far. The ones I subscribe to are Zencast, Audio Dharma, and 21st Century Buddhsim.

Approaching Buddhism from an intellectual angle is encouraged. The Buddha himself encouraged his students not to blindly swallow what he said, but instead chew it over, think about it, perhaps try some of the principles to see if they help. Part of what drew me to Buddhism is that one can approach Buddhism from a practical standpoint (a way to think about things, plan, and react to goings on), as opposed to a strict faith-based approach.

Although there are dogmatic “belief” elements of Buddhism (karma, reincarnation, etc.), acceptance of these tenets is by no means a pre-requisite for studying the teachings of Buddhism. This parallels the idea of interpreting the gospels as the chronicles of the works of a good man as opposed to the biography of a god.

[Reply]

Not to threadjack, but I’ll answer Derek’s question ;)

Buddha did believe in reincarnation and karma - though he wasn’t raised as a devout Hindu, that was the prevalent culture and mindset at the time. Buddhism inherits many concepts, including reincarnation and karma, from Hinduism.

As to whether or not Buddhism is a religion, that of course depends on your definition of a religion. A quick google search of “define religion” gives me this:

a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny

With this definition, one could argue either way for Buddhism’s inclusion as a religion. There is a Buddhist belief that karma “controls” human destiny, but at the same time it is understood that one controls one’s own karma - it’s a simple cause and effect, albeit on a broad scale.

You are right about Buddhism being about seeing clearly - it encourages one to see the world as it is, free of ego, self-delusion, bias, preference, or expectation.

[Reply]

Greetings! Found you via Technrati…

You might be surprised to find (from non-Muslim sources) that Islam, which began about 600 years AD, incorporates much of Judaism and Catholicism. For example:

- One God
- Submission/obediance
- Care for Poor
- Sin
- Paradise/heaven
- Fasting

Apparently, Mohammed had the opportunity to hear and/or study Judaism and Christianity as both faiths had active communities in his town.

The reknowned Hillaire Belloc made the case about 100 years ago that Islam could be considered a Christian heresy, if only Muslims were baptised.

The Great and Enduring Heresy of Mohammed
By Hilaire Belloc
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0305clas.asp

May God guide you in your search for the true faith…

- Timothy

[Reply]

In my case, it’s a boy who grew up with his soul(PEOS) soaked in Catholicism, was a true believer until about the age of 17, and despite masses of evidence suggesting that gods belong in the human history junk drawer is not quite capable of entirely shaking it off.

I mean, what evidence is there that our gods belong anywhere but on the same scrapheap as the Olympian gods, the Roman emporers, or the various gods of the various “pagans”?

But somewhere inside is an eight-year-old still fighting the fear of the Great Beard In The Sky.

[Reply]

Chris, assuming that meaning or understanding is satisfied by only addressing that which is unfalsifiable is also a particular philosophy - metaphysical or ontological naturalism, depending on how you take it. I am not a theist, and I love science. I am a methodological naturalist.

However, I do not ask science to confront all parts of human experience or for every aspect of my experience to be able to undergo rigorous falsification, because some experience is ultimately subjective and we can only agree on normative benchmarks which may not be universal. God or the supernatural may be such a thing. The “soft” sciences often provide not but phenomenological return and statistical analysis from the sloppy subject of human experience. Some things do depend on the outliers when speaking of humans. (EG: A random sampling of the population cannot prove or disprove the existance of Newton because it’s quite possible you had no mathmatical genius of that stripe in your sample. You’ll probably have geniuses, but likely no one who independently invented calculus. And if you DID have someone who independently invented calculus, do you think you could replicate with a different sample?)

It bothers me that ontological or metaphysical naturalists seem to miss the fact that that statement - “unprovable and unfalsifiable” - as having meaning OUTSIDE of the scope of what science admits to cover is *also* an article of faith. In my view, it cheapens science.

Darren: I trackbacked to this article and that trackback is not showing up. More research will need to be done.

[Reply]

That one is, though.

[Reply]

Darren, thanks for the update. Well done.

[Reply]