Cafeteria Christians? Cafeteria Buddhists?

[Thomas]

Hi all –

I think the question depends on the premise upon which one questions one's beliefs.

The over-arching premise of the West today is founded on Philosophical Rationalism, something that all the traditional disciplines have refuted by their very nature.

Philosophical Relativism, the inevitable outcome of rationalism, places the self at the centre of the cosmos, in place of the 'Other' (however that is defined).

'Liberal Christianity' in that sense is just another mode of fundamentalism ... it is its polar opposite.

In like manner Relativism refutes the Second Noble Truth of Buddhism, because it insists that truth is determined according to 'me'.

Personally, I think 'cafe culture' will be a condemnation laid at the doors of western civilisation.

The Cartesian-Kantian thinking that governed the Enlightenment, was once all-pervading, but now is viewed as belonging to the Anglo-American school, whereas the Continental School is a mode of thinking that is in accord with the world's traditional disciplines.

So what I'm saying is that people enjoy the right to question their faith, but never bother to question where the questions are coming from, and thus assume that they have an absolute right to do so.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Sorry if the above is a bit spikey, but dashed off in 5 minutes (I'm at work).

One thing I would like to throw into the ring:

The Catholic/Orthodox Churches argue they have taught the same message consistently throughout history, the same message that was given to them by the Apostles, and hence the Faith today is the Faith of the Apostles...

The reason why Christianity, and indeed any religin, might appear contentious is because people insist on a doctrine that is other than the Apostolic teaching.

... so we would argue that what is contentious is those who do not like the discipline of the sacra doctrina, and who would change it to suit themselves ...

There is a world of difference, for example, between a theological discussion on the Holy Spirit in the light of an Augustine or a Palamas (who argue from within the deposit of Faith) – and that of, say, A Catholic and a Calvinist.

And then there are those, whom the faithful can only view as someone standing outside the communion, throwing stones...

+++

Thomas

[Prober]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Prober,

You said,

"...my personal relationship with G-d comes before my religion."

--> It sounds like you are distinguishing your religious belief system from your set of moral standards. Is that correct?

I'm not sure that's true. I'm saying my spiritual beliefs support my religious beliefs. If your spiritual beliefs are your moral standard, then I guess that could be said to be true.

Man creates religion.

[earl]

Well, Thomas, I guess I'd have to disagree with you that the Age of Reason necessarily puts the self on center stage, though it most certainly has seemingly eliminated uncritical, "blind" faith. Though, as I believe humans always will "see through a glass darkly," we can only know so much and as a result faith will always have its role. But we are aware of too many things now that don't neatly fit into traditional boxes and cannot ignore some "reason." To give you an example of why "cafeteria" appoaches sometimes legitimately appeal, I'll use myself as an example-I've spoken of my beliefs elsewhere. First my "Budhist" half- to me the Buddhists are right that when one gains a certain degree of insight into the mind and/or reaches a certain meditative point, one sees that one cannot be defined/delimited by anything we typically take to be "ourselves-" our thoughts, feelings, roles, etc. In that awareness we then tend to drop any self-referentiality which Buddhists take to mean "no self." Though Buddhists themselves confuse and debate what that may imply tending at times toward nihilism implying that what's left at the center of the onion is literally "nothing," when what's left is simply an open conscious awareness which seems all pervasive and co-extensive with the Big Picture, resulting in "less me" with more interweaving connection with all that is. Important realization and therefore to me all the practices associated with achieving that awarenees also important. Also, of course, I don't believe anyone's life ends at death-too much research to suggest things like reincarnation exist which doesn't tend to fit the traditional theistic traditions. Now I'd probably be OK with being "all Buddhist" except again research into NDE's suggests that for many folk they've experienced a sense of an all pervasive, loving Presence beyond death that many would interpret through their Christian lens as "God," though that does not have to imply God is a being. Further, in terms of spiritual practices, I find prayers of the heart associated with theistic tradiitons important, profound ways of opening the spiritual heart just as I find mindfulness and some other Buddhist meditations profound ways of opening the mind. Further as to prayers of the heart-I find a devotional sense of prayer and gratitude a natural response to an Other. Buddhists also "pray" and express gratitude, though typically to ill-defined others of importance to them such as various bodhisattvas & to the Buddha himself or Amida, (which is why I've suggested that even non-theisits have a tendency toward devotionalism to an "Other" however they define that). Of course, my theism is apophatic-that God to me is no more definable than what we are in essence (Thomas I consider that unbounded consiousness we have at essence to be the very root of what we are as "persons"). The essence of "person" or "God" that we are talking about is an indefinable, unbounded relationship more than a "thing." So that's why I can't browse at just 1 table. earl

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Hi all –

I think the question depends on the premise upon which one questions one's beliefs.

The over-arching premise of the West today is founded on Philosophical Rationalism, something that all the traditional disciplines have refuted by their very nature.

Philosophical Relativism, the inevitable outcome of rationalism, places the self at the centre of the cosmos, in place of the 'Other' (however that is defined).

'Liberal Christianity' in that sense is just another mode of fundamentalism ... it is its polar opposite.

In like manner Relativism refutes the Second Noble Truth of Buddhism, because it insists that truth is determined according to 'me'.

Personally, I think 'cafe culture' will be a condemnation laid at the doors of western civilisation.

The Cartesian-Kantian thinking that governed the Enlightenment, was once all-pervading, but now is viewed as belonging to the Anglo-American school, whereas the Continental School is a mode of thinking that is in accord with the world's traditional disciplines.

So what I'm saying is that people enjoy the right to question their faith, but never bother to question where the questions are coming from, and thus assume that they have an absolute right to do so.

Thomas

I think you're making an excellent point, Thomas. I would just add a couple of observations:

There has to be a mechanism by which one's religious assumptions can be tested, otherwise objectivity is impossible. I think that's the impetus, and value of enlightenment philosophy. But that sort of questioning should always be considered a means rather than an end. It's a valuable tool to help one get outside the box far enough to look back with objectivity and appreciation. It's a way to shed superstition and evolve toward a more mature appreciation of religion. It's a a manfestation of a global coming of age, philosophically speaking, which absolutely needed to happen.

Philosophy is like starlight. By the time it reaches mass consciousness it's already long dead at the source. Even postmodernism is talking about something that's a contemporary relic.

Chris

[Snoopy]

Hi,

I’m thinking that on the macro level, this process of “accepting and rejecting” lies behind the development (to some extent) of religions generally (schisms, new schools, new religions) so as individuals we are only doing the same thing.

A couple of examples might be the Anglican church's liberal and conservative wings “accepting” or “rejecting” homosexuality (who knows where this will lead) and the Buddha accepting the tool of meditation but rejecting the concept of an eternal unchanging soul (which of course was one distinctive accepting and rejecting that led ultimately to a new "religion")

s.

[Caimanson]

Originally Posted by Thomas

In like manner Relativism refutes the Second Noble Truth of Buddhism, because it insists that truth is determined according to 'me'.

Personally, I think 'cafe culture' will be a condemnation laid at the doors of western civilisation.......

So what I'm saying is that people enjoy the right to question their faith, but never bother to question where the questions are coming from, and thus assume that they have an absolute right to do so.
Thomas

The problem is where do these traditional/orthodox beliefs come from?
Were they handed down directly from the hand of god, unadulterated and uncorrupted?
Regarding the second noble truth of buddhism, any orthodoxy no matter how ancient, was conceived by one or more 'I' or 'me'.
So why should I place unquestioning faith in a system made by bunch of prophets and scholars that are as limited and blind as I am.
You may say that they were indeed more enlightened than I am, I'm sure they were, and I am also sure they were not less fallible than me either.
The alternative is that the revelation was transmitted unblemished regardless of the humanity of the bearers, but that I am afraid is a big dogma.

Belief systems are human creations like languages, they grow, they diminish, they crosspolinate, they are born and they die. As long as your pick is useful, what is the problem?

[Thomas]

What I would like to point out is that Catholics, Buddhists, Daoists, Jews, Moslems, any faithful, often question their faith, deeply and profoundly, and are usually better equipped to do so, 'from within' rather than from without.

The Christian Philosophical Tradition (for example) incorporates true theosophy but it transcends it, absolutely ... that is why Christian theology can legitimately argue its case from a Socratic, Platonic, Aristotelian, Stoic (etc) principle, and it has done, for the passed two thousand years... it can argue itself from any philosophical position, because philosophy, including theosophy, is a second principle.

Aristotle said as much. 'Metaphysics is the First Science' – but it is a science of the Way ... it is not the Way itself.

Not until you do it, will you get it.

And when you do ... you do ... but not in the way 'thinking' expects. "Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall SEE God." (Matthew 5:8)

The true point is that Christianity is a 'Way' (of the heart, not the mind) and through that way lies Truth, and through Truth lies Life (Salvation, Deliverance, whatever...)

Like Buddhism, like all religions, Christianity is something you do.

You can't talk it.

You can't think it.

"IT" cannot be spoken, nor can "IT" be thought.

But IT can be known.

That is why the Zen master said, "enough talk. Let's sit."

Descartes, as philosophy itself has now proven, got it fatally wrong when he said "I think, therefore I am." Philosophy now agrees "I am, therefore I think."

Religion is concerned with the being of man first, and why he thinks as he does. What is being discussed here is faith in thinking, not faith in being.

It's not enough to think it. You have to do it. Not until you do it, will you know about it, that's what the lives of the mystics show us.

Everything else, as a good friend of mine used to say, is toothpaste.

Thomas

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,

You said,

“…people enjoy the right to question their faith, but never bother to question where the questions are coming from, and thus assume that they have an absolute right to do so.”

--> Which brings up my main question — is it good for people to question their religious beliefs?

“The Catholic/Orthodox Churches argue they have taught the same message consistently throughout history, the same message that was given to them by the Apostles, and hence the Faith today is the Faith of the Apostles...”

--> I hope you appreciate that some of us see the exact opposite situation.

“The reason why Christianity, and indeed any religion, might appear contentious is because people insist on a doctrine that is other than the Apostolic teaching.”

--> The same here.

“And then there are those, whom the faithful can only view as someone standing outside the communion, throwing stones...”

--> Which, again, brings me to my point. Yes, some people only what to throw stones. But I wonder if the Christian faithful view ALL of us (myself included) who stand “outside the communion” as stone-throwers.

[Nick the Pilot]

Prober,

You said,

"I'm saying my spiritual beliefs support my religious beliefs."

--> I have heard this before, but I disagree. To me, the two are the same — one does not "support" the other.

[Thomas]

Hi Nick –

Which brings up my main question — is it good for people to question their religious beliefs?
The question really is what they determine as the benchmark against twhich they are tested.

Too often and too easily its personal opinion, which is the least reliable method, and in philosophy an unacceptable methodology.

I question mine all the time ... I want to go deeper, always ...

If people accept that questions come from what we don't know, rather than what we know ... then when they get an answer they might think about it a bit more, rather than just react because it's not necessarily what they want to hear.

I think the answer to your questions follow from this.

Thomas

[Nick the Pilot]

Earl,

You said,

"... the Buddhists are right that when one gains a certain degree of insight into the mind and/or reaches a certain meditative point, one sees that one cannot be defined/delimited by anything we typically take to be "ourselves-" our thoughts, feelings, roles, etc."

--> I agree. The idea that our personality is not the true "us" is a key part of my (Theosophical) belief system, as it is in Buddhism too.

"In that awareness we then tend to drop any self-referentiality which Buddhists take to mean 'no self.' "

--> It has been said the day will come when all separateness betwee all of us will disappear. I am vey much looking forward to that day.

"Though Buddhists themselves confuse and debate what that may imply tending at times toward nihilism implying that what's left at the center of the onion is literally 'nothing,'...."

--> I agree. However, the way I see it, only the lower aspects of our Individuality will be annihilated at the moment of Nirvana. I believe (and you too, I think) the Buddhist are worng when they say all aspects of us will be annihilated at the moment of Nirvana. (Theosophy teaches quite the opposite.)

"...what's left is simply an open conscious awareness which seems all pervasive and co-extensive with the Big Picture, resulting in "less me" with more interweaving connection with all that is."

--> This is the way I see it.

"...I'd probably be OK with being "all Buddhist" except again research into NDE's suggests that for many folk they've experienced a sense of an all pervasive, loving Presence beyond death that many would interpret through their Christian lens as "God," though that does not have to imply God is a being."

--> I believe Buddhism does not hold all the answers, as you are saying. And, certainly, Buddhism (and Theosophy) does not agree with the anthropomorphism of the Christian God.

"...I find prayers of the heart associated with theistic tradiitons important, profound ways of opening the spiritual heart just as I find mindfulness and some other Buddhist meditations profound ways of opening the mind."

--> Wouldn't you say that meditation is a way to bypass the mind?

"...I've suggested that even non-theisits have a tendency toward devotionalism to an 'Other' however they define that."

--> My Theosophical belief system teaches that there are different kinds of people, so we need different kinds of religions. Some people just naturally like to appeal to an Other-power, so we needs this kind of religion for this kind of people.

"The essence of 'person' or 'God' that we are talking about is an indefinable, unbounded relationship more than a 'thing.' "

--> Here is a quote I like on the undefineable Absolute.

"The [fundamental] unity of the ultimate essence of each constituent part of compounds in Nature -- from Star to mineral Atom, from the highest Dhyan Chohan*to the smallest infusoria, in the fullest acceptation of the term, and whether applied to the spiritual, intellectual, or physical worlds -- this is the one fundamental law in [hidden religious] Science. "The Deity is boundless and infinite expansion," says an [hidden] axiom...." p. 120

Link to quote — The Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky, Vol 1, bk 1, sec 5

(* The Dhyan Chohan are the "us" gods in Genesis 1:26, something which Thomas has already refuted.)

[Nick the Pilot]

China,

You said,

"Philosophy is like starlight. By the time it reaches mass consciousness it's already long dead at the source."

--> This is a key part of my Theosophical belief system. Theosophy teaches that all religions become ossified as the centuries go by. This is why we (Theosophists) consider the questioning of all religious teachings (especially institutionalized religious teachings) as something we must continue to do.

[Nick the Pilot]

Snoopy,

You said,

"I’m thinking that on the macro level, this process of 'accepting and rejecting' lies behind the development (to some extent) of religions generally (schisms, new schools, new religions) so as individuals we are only doing the same thing."

--> But isn't that our job as humans? I see our main job as developing critical thinking. It is the very key to the survival of our society.

"...the Buddha ... rejecting the concept of an eternal unchanging soul...."

--> As I have stated before in another thread, even the original Old Testament did not have the idea of anything being "eternal".

As for the idea of a soul being unchanging (Buddha actually referred to the Atman, not the soul), the whole idea that we can improve ourselves (and "change" in the process) was a key teaching of Buddha. (Modern Buddhism may not teach such an idea, but I put this up to the ossification of Buddhism over the centuries.)

It has also been said that Buddha did not reject the idea of an Atman. It has been said he merely did not acknowledge nor dispute the existence of the Atman. (This idea fits best into my belief system.)

[Nick the Pilot]

Caimanson,

You said,

"The problem is where do these traditional/orthodox beliefs come from?"

--> Exactly.

"So why should I place unquestioning faith in a system made by bunch of prophets and scholars that are as limited and blind as I am."

--> I do not see them as blind. I am more concerned that the original teachings get edited as the centuries go by.