Progressive Liberalism is a Mental Dissorder (merged)

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by u crank

My original thought here had nothing to do with Atheism, but rather with Buddhism and meditation and Atheism's view of them. Buddhism is a religion, granted one without a deity. Meditation and Zen are directly related to this religion. For Atheists to criticize other religions and give Buddhism a pass is kinda funny.

Again I stress that Buddhism is not a theistic belief but many of the things criticized in Theistic religions are present in Buddhism. Some examples

Many Buddhist authors woudl disagree with you, and like me would point out that the essence of Buddhism does not matchz the purpose to serve as a funda,mewnt for rtelgion. However, I admitted that nevertheless it was picked up by politicians and preists and distrorted and complemented with rites and riotuals and hierarchies and all that institutional stuff that indeed turned them then into relgious business like any other. But to me that is not the real essence of it.

I find the parallels b etween essential Buddhism and essential Jesus'
message stunning. I am not the first comparing Zen and Christian Mysticism therefore. The book I recommended also bases on that. And indeed, I would claim that Christian Mysticism also is no relgion.

Why should I believe this? Did he prove it or is it just his opinion? Billions of people would disagree.

You should believe nothing, not him, not me, not anybody. You should care for yourself. From the Kalamas Sutra which is famous for its encouragement of freed inquiry, the one passage that to me is one of the most important revelations about Buddhism there is:

Rely not on the teacher/person, but on the teaching. Rely not on the words of the teaching, but on the spirit of the words. Rely not on theory, but on experience. Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. Do not believe anything because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything because it is written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and the benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

-The Inequality of Women. Although in Western Buddhist practice this is not common in traditional practice and history, Buddhism is gender bias. Again this sounds familiar.

That is a cultural thing going beyond Buddhism. Today there are Buddhist female abbots both in Asia and the West. However, as I admitted two times now, Buddhism was hijacked by politicians indeed to serve as a tool for controling the crowd, securing priviliges and gaining power and authority. But that is not what Buddha taught, and not what Jesus taught. Until today I cannot get the church and the story of the cleansing of the temple under one hood. And whgile I do not want to defend the Chineses' actions over Tibet, one thning theya claim in defence, is correct: the ruling of the Tibrtan schools of Buddhism has had a very supressive effect on the ordinary population, secured priviliges and control for kind of an elite caste. To me, Tibetan Buddhism is a Buddhist parallel to the Catholic church.

-Divisions within Buddhism. Buddhist traditions all claim that through a long and accurate teacher-student lineage, their practices were those ordained by the Buddha. Yet major divisions exist between the branches of Buddhism as to what practices are good, what are bad, and what the beliefs of the religion are.

Test and check yourself, with reason and logic. Yes, much there is distportion, is esoteric hamsterwheeling- but you are free to choose. As I see it, the basic teachings of Chan are what it is about, and these teachings are such that they do not support the founding of a relgious circus and all that. they are empirically founded, they base on your own experience of explorating your mind, and are open to validation andf falsification. that quotre from the Kalamas Sutra has much, very much to do with it. You should not believe - no them, not me, not in anything - how often must I repeat this before you hear it?

There are many others but I think I've made my point. I realize that you are not a practising Buddhist but the relationship between Zen and meditation and Buddhism is quite plain. This has nothing to do with Atheism or belief in a deity. It is about practising something whose origins are just as questionable as any religion.

I tested it, and since a long time. From my yoluth on I got trained privately by a colleague of my father, a Japanese who trained me together with his son, for over ten years, in Zen, Bushido, swords, meditation - daily. He was like a second father to me. I then left Berlin for studying at university, and there learned students practicing Tibetan Buddhism, Nyigma lineage and Kagyu lineage. I lived in a Buddhist center for several months, trying to combine psychology and therapy with Buddhist psychology and meditation. But I have strong reservations over Tibetan practicing, see above. It is indeed religion and cult and showbiz and money-making, and that is why I don'T like it. Then came the years when I started to travel, North africa and the Middle East, my exploration into Islam, if you want, and at that time I was introduced to Wolfgang Kopp whom I recommend to you by his book. He heads a Tao-Chan centre here in Germany and is so-called dharma-successor of a well-known French Zen-master. He became my second mentor, and although I only met him some times, these meetings were incredibly intense, personal, and mutually intimate. He then threw me out, saying that he could not offer me any more than what I already had, and that I should start teaching myself. Which I did. I ran meditation classes in a "culture-free" setting for several years, every morning.

So you see, there was a time when I was young and stupid, and when I took risks on trips that I should have not taken, and when I took pride in claiming myself to be "Buddhist" - while all I did by doing so was illustrating what a fool I was. Today, I do not care for such labels, and that is why your description of whether you think I am a practicing Buddhist or not, is competely pointless to me - think what you want, its your pictures in your brain, not mine. If people ask me for a self-description today, I leave it to saying that I consider myself to be a spiritual atheist. I enjoy to see eyebrows frowning then, but it is the most precise description for sure that I can give. Not that any of that matters, not for me, not for anyone else.

If Zen and meditation have made your life better this is good. I am happy for you but it is not for me. I do not wish to replace my present reality of mind with another.

As long as you accept responsibility for your choice and realise that your choice is an active act by you and nothing that happened to you, that's fine for you. I did not approach you, and I never meant to missionise you. I explained some things (more or less...) after you stated some things and asked me over some things. What you make of that does not affect me, as I see it. I just claim the right to take you by your words - that'S why there was some head-banging in the past between the two of us.

To any Buddhist who may read this, I hope I have not offended you. The points made were for the sake of the discussion.

Heck, have people become sensible these days. Some quotes by House on my mind, but okay...