What is a "religion"?

[emong]

To Susma:

First of all, do you really have to spue out everything that comes to you while doing insignificant chores?

I believe you are using this forum because you have either given up reading books entirely or you are an unfortunate who has no library near.

What is a religion? It's something that YOU are incapable of understanding!

I mean no offense. You are like a three year old who asks the same question over and over because he doesn't like what he hears.

I dread seeing your name on a thread - I guess I'll just stop coming here.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by emong

To Susma:

First of all, do you really have to spue out everything that comes to you while doing insignificant chores?

I believe you are using this forum because you have either given up reading books entirely or you are an unfortunate who has no library near.

What is a religion? It's something that YOU are incapable of understanding!

I mean no offense. You are like a three year old who asks the same question over and over because he doesn't like what he hears.

I dread seeing your name on a thread - I guess I'll just stop coming here.

I hope that others here in these boards will have the interest to exchange views with me on the idea of religion.

It is my intention, hopefully on the forbearance of the owner and moderators of this message board, to express my thinking on religion, and to again hopefully encounter some contributions or exceptions that can refine or modify or totally show how my thinking is all wrong or nonsensical.

I was talking about the motivations for the study of religion, mentioning apologetics, polemics, then also from occupational or financial or commercial or professional standpoint, on the understanding that the student is interested in studying religion in order to make a living and a career from it.

My motivation is purely academic, like studying the nature or physiognomy of mrror physics when I don't see any practical use to myself except curiosity in such study.

Now I will mention another motivation for the study of religion, to see how to employ one's knowledge of religion to govern a society.

I will be back. Family duty beckons.

Susma Rio Sep

[Susma Rio Sep]

Is my interest here purely academic as in the search for knowledge?

Please help me then in my self-examination, fellow seekers of knowlodge here, to fathom into my heart and mind to find out exactly what my motivation might be in studying religion.

Let me put things which belong to the basket we call religion.

They are all around us as we live and move in this world.

Let us use this enumeration itemlist as a basis for picking up items: quis, quid, ubi, quibus auxiliis, cur, quomodo, quando.

So: priests, monks, popes, etc., altar, church, ciborium, etc., Jerusalem, Rome, Lourdes, etc. and etc.

Susma Rio Sep

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Susma,

i know you've directed this to emong, however, i hope that i can respond adequately.


Susma Rio Sep writes: There are all kinds of monumental structures, buildings and statues, and art works associated to say the least with Buddha if not depicting Buddha himself. He must be someone special.

i respond:

no, he was just like you and i. he accomplished something special, however, and that is why there are monuments for rememberance and that sort of thing. Buddhist hold the historical Buddha in a special place in their hearts since he first turned the Wheel of Dharma in our age, however, that is not in a spiritualized-worshipping sense.

Susma writes:

If you were not now Buddhists or practitioners of Buddhism, when you die wll you get to where you are going to as Buddhism adherents?

to which i respond:

hmm... well... it depends. because one practices Buddhism does not mean that one is enlightened yet. so.. generally speaking, yes, a non-Buddhist will be reborn in the same place as a Buddhist, depending on the inclinations of their karmic influences.

remember... one need not call themselves a "Buddhist" to be a Buddhist.


Susma continues:

If your being Buddhists is not to achieve anything that's not achievable in not being Buddhists, why bother being converted or being enthusiasts of Buddhism.

to which i respond:

i'm not entirely sure what you are asking... though i think i get the general gist of it. as i stated, you do not need to convert or even consider yourself a Buddhist to actually be a Buddhist. we are enthusiastic practiconers because we have verified the 4 Noble Truths for ourselves and found them to be correct. we practice so that we can relieve the suffering that is characteristic of life, in the Mahayana tradition, this is done with the idea of alleviating the suffering of all beings.

Susam writes:

"Buddha Bless You."

I believe I have heard that invocation uttered by Buddhists.

Do you disown such an invocation?

to which i respond:

invocation seems to connot something mystical or magical in nature. i have spent many years amongst Buddhists of various flavors and there are some that use phrases such as this.

i would suggest, however, that instead of trying to find a nice lable to place on the box wherein you're trying to put Buddhism, you actually investigate the teachings for yourself and see if they make sense to you.

i am but a student and my postings are to sustain my own understanding. i have no conception that they will be of benefit to others, if they are, it is due to the readers own good karma ripening.

please visit www.buddhanet.net for some basic primers on Buddhism.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Dear Vaj:

Thanks for your courteous interaction with me.

I am like the child who asked Confucius why at noon when the sun is so small and faraway it is so hot; whereas at dawn and at dusk it is so huge and near, yet not hot. Anyone less possessed of Buddha's mind would dismiss the child's question as foolery.

You have plenty of materials here on religion, your own insights as well as information accepted from others. It might be good for both of us to exchange notes on our insights and information, specially the insights.

The search function of this message board is very helpful to locate materials and post-authors. I will have to look up your posts to learn more from you and benefit from your exposition of religious matters and other topics as you understand them.

You have given me a good answer to the question what Buddhists expect to achieve in the practice of Buddhism, scil.:

...we practice so that we can relieve the suffering that is characteristic of life, in the Mahayana tradition, this is done with the idea of alleviating the suffering of all beings.

Do I understand from the quote above that you not only intend the relief of your own personal suffering but also of others, even of all beings; so that you are doing mankind a good deed, even the whole world of living things?

This intention seems to resemble some aspect of Christianity, do you see it?

May I commend you on your noble mind and heart in your words:

...i am but a student and my postings are to sustain my own understanding. i have no conception that they will be of benefit to others, if they are, it is due to the readers own good karma ripening.

Sometimes I wished I had your kind of disposition, but I am more like the laughing Buddha or the mirth-some Buddha. Buddhists of this board, please don’t take offense for my identifying myself with Buddha.

Do you know anything about the fat Buddha, with kids crawling all over him, and with a hilarious laugh in his face. He is supposed to be good luck to homes displaying this statue.

Thanks for your contributions to my enlightenment.

Susma Rio Sep

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Susma,

my pleasure

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

Do I understand from the quote above that you not only intend the relief of your own personal suffering but also of others, even of all beings; so that you are doing mankind a good deed, even the whole world of living things?

This intention seems to resemble some aspect of Christianity, do you see it?
***********************
i respond:

correct. that is the main thrust of the Mahayana teachings, the path of the Bodhisattva. a being that works tirelessly for the liberation of all other sentient beings.

it is similar to the 'Grace' concept of Christianity with some notable differences... namely, that each one of us has the ability to do this.. not just one unique individual.
*************************


Sometimes I wished I had your kind of disposition, but I am more like the laughing Buddha or the mirth-some Buddha. Buddhists of this board, please don’t take offense for my identifying myself with Buddha.

Do you know anything about the fat Buddha, with kids crawling all over him, and with a hilarious laugh in his face. He is supposed to be good luck to homes displaying this statue.

Thanks for your contributions to my enlightenment.

Susma Rio Sep

not at all... in fact, that is exactly correct... you ARE a Buddha... we all are... it is not something that we "gain" or "find"... more accurately, it's something already within us that we've obscured.

hmm... well... let me put it this way. 90% of the statues and so forth are not, actually, Guatama Buddha for instance... you're reference of the "fat Buddha" is quite a common misconception in the West. this figure is actually Ho-Ti, a Bodhisattva, not Guatama Shakyamuni the historical Buddha.

in my tradition of Buddhism (Vajrayana) for instance, the 84 Mahasiddhas are often dipicted in paintings (Thangkas) along with the various embodiments of the enlightened aspects of mind... compassion, altrusim, equanimity, wisdom and so forth.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Thanks for your illuminating information and your avowal of what others might not feel disposed to admit, namely, that Buddhism is also into and maybe chiefly into the endeavor to relieve mankind and all life forms of suffering.

In my own personal definition of religion, "A human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power, resulting in affection and action intended by the believer to influence the unknown power to react favorably to himslelf", I seem to notice that many religionists find it unacceptable: that in religion there is the concern for benefits or advantages or reliefs, as from suffering.

So they protest that in their religion they are not expecting any advantage from its practice -- which I find most unrealistic if not intellectually dishonest, or at least lacking in knowledge of one's self.

Now, I would like to ask you whether in your own self-examination, your profession of Buddhism is more like of a philosophy, as when people used to embrace communism, and of course still at present the opposite capitalism, or globalism, or libertinism, and not essentially as a religion like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or Baha'i.

Thanks a lot again, I am learning from your insights and information; and I must commend you on your honesty.

But I guess you do have difficulties with your philosophy/religion of Buddhism, questions which you in your innermost heart and mind have not been answered by yourself or others to your satisfaction?

Susma Rio Sep

[Susma Rio Sep]

Things which can be put in the big basket called religion:

Objects: crucifixes, altars, holy water, prayer wheels;

Concepts: nirvana, hell, heaven, sanctifying grace, sin;

Persons: popes, monks, Dalai Lama, nuns, pastors;

Places: church, chapel, monastery, temple, Mecca;

Times: Ramadan, Easter, Christmas, Sunday;

Actions: prayer, meditation, sacrifice, Mass, episcopal consecration.


These things above are properly contained in the basket called religion. They do not belong properly in the basket, say, called sports or business or politics.

Now we want to find out what is the ingredient in them that assigns them to the basket called religion.

I have a suspicion; but I would like to hear from others.

Susma Rio Sep

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

Thanks for your illuminating information and your avowal of what others might not feel disposed to admit, namely, that Buddhism is also into and maybe chiefly into the endeavor to relieve mankind and all life forms of suffering.

Namaste Susma,

remember... this is a view that is particular to the Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions. The Hinyana tradition, though it contains the Bodhisattva ideal, does not actively teach that path. They teach the path of the Arhat, a Foe Destroyer, that liberates themselves only.

In my own personal definition of religion, "A human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power, resulting in affection and action intended by the believer to influence the unknown power to react favorably to himslelf", I seem to notice that many religionists find it unacceptable: that in religion there is the concern for benefits or advantages or reliefs, as from suffering.

perhaps... it's a sematic difference. belief implies something unkown, whereas, most religious practiconers feel that they do, actually, know so they don't like the word belief. eh... just a thought...

So they protest that in their religion they are not expecting any advantage from its practice -- which I find most unrealistic if not intellectually dishonest, or at least lacking in knowledge of one's self.

Now, I would like to ask you whether in your own self-examination, your profession of Buddhism is more like of a philosophy, as when people used to embrace communism, and of course still at present the opposite capitalism, or globalism, or libertinism, and not essentially as a religion like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or Baha'i.

hmm.... well, yes... it is certainly that... though it doesn't stop there. it is also a scientific methology that one can use to produce the experience of enlightenment. the essential issue, in my opinion, is that Buddhism as a ligua franca, denies the expressibility of it's essential experience and that is difficult for many people to grasp.... especially in a religion.

Thanks a lot again, I am learning from your insights and information; and I must commend you on your honesty.

But I guess you do have difficulties with your philosophy/religion of Buddhism, questions which you in your innermost heart and mind have not been answered by yourself or others to your satisfaction?

Susma Rio Sep

hmm... well... i'm not sure that is the case. whilst it is true that there are questions that i do not have answers to, these questions are, essentially, meaningless and have no bearing on my actual practice. remember, Buddhism encourages people to apply their logic and reasoning to ascertain if the teachings are correct and worth accepting. each person is called to make this determination for themselves and not to rely upon any outside source for this determiniation.

my questions normally revolve around obscure Vinya rules and things of this nature as Buddhism is changing somewhat as it spreads in the West. Fortunately, Buddhism is a very adaptable system and has no problems changing exoteric aspects to allow the adherents easier access.

[Susma Rio Sep]

In examing what thing or things in the basket we call religion make the behavior of religion different from say sports, politics, or commerce, it is useful to make a distinction between simple behavior and complex ones.

Simple behavior is basically founded upon physiology and can end there and can be limited there, like eating and elimination. Of course it can be complex as in banquet and in toilet rituals, of which religion also enters in, for example Judaism and Islam.

Now, religion is a complex behavior, and very different from simple ones, so that in essence it might even be transcendental to simple behaviors; but the fact is that the same subject doing religion is also constrained or circumscribed indispensably in the performance of simple behaviors for his own survival and comfort.

Susma Rio Sep

[Susma Rio Sep]

I am thinking of a possibly different understanding of religion. But maybe I might be re-inventing the wheel.

If people did not continue to think of other ways and means of transportation, the airplane and the bullet train would not have been invented.

Right now I am working on physiology as the basis of all studies of religion.

Before anything else, there is physiology; and it is the foundation of all human behavior, whether it be on the purely muscular level, or even the affective and the intellective levels.

Without a physiology and a smooth operating one, how can any behavior on any level, even the affective and intellective levels be carried out properly?

Now, the assumption is that religion whatever it be is still within the three levels of human operations which are foundationally physiological:
muscular, affective, intellective.

Therefore, my investigation now is into these three levels as approach to the study of religion, and broadly the physiological aspects of religion.

Susma Rio Sep

[Susma Rio Sep]

The more I think about it the more I seem to see the certainty that religion should be studied from the standpoint of physiology.

Before anything else there is physiology. Proof of that? If your physiology is not working, you won't have anything going, not even religion.

Consider that when you are sick, do you think that you can function properly and productively or optimally in your affective and intellective life?

Now, religion is also a phenomenon of life, the organic life of physiology.

Religion belongs to the levels of affection and intellection, which are physiologically founded and circumscribed within the nervous and the brain components of man's physiology.

Consider this fact, when you are in a coma, or unconscious from anaesthesia, your affection and intellection functions are suspended at best if not crossed out. Where then is religion here.

Is this a case of matter over mind, the mind understood as the proper domain of religion. Or body over spirit?

How do we establish the bridge between the physiology and the religious sectors of the human entity; even though we can know from logic that without a physiology no one has ever founded any religion?

Susma Rio Sep

[Susma Rio Sep]

To repeat my already tedious definition of religion:

A human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power resulting in affection and action intended by the believer to influence the unknown power to react favorably toward the believer.

I have brought in physiology and now consider physiology as the basis of religion, and of course of all human behaviors and endeavors.

How to bridge physiology over into religion, as by a ladder to climb over to another plane of activity for the human entity?

But is it necessary to bridge over? Only if one thinks that religion is a level or sphere of activity or human behavior above and even transcendental to other human processes.

A new word, process. I am viewing all kinds of ideas and all kinds of observations on the phenomenon we call religion, and trying to formulate a definition that will contain every religion that anyone who thinks he knows religion and uses the word, religion, will label the phenomenon as religion; and I have to search for ideas and words, even fashion unfamiliar ideas and words.

Coming back to bridging over from physiology to religion: Why indeed bridge over? In order to justify the exemption of religion from all the rules whereby the human mind understands all human behavior, namely, and again, from the basis of physiology?

Let us then restrict ourselves to physiology in our attempts to fashion a definition of religion that will fit all religions whose adherents allow at least themselves to be adnumerated within a religion. For those who don’t allow themselves to be adnumerated within a religion, we will leave them to their disavowal; but it is still incumbent upon us as curious observers to analyze their behavior in their self-claimed non-religion, whether in fact it is religion.

“Boon or bane” is a phrase I have chanced upon to explain the physiology of religion, as with all human behaviors.

Every human action and act is susceptible to autopsy, indulging in the use of a very clinical term, to the query what is the boon or bane to his physiology.

So in every religious so-called action or act, it is very instructive to find the boon to access to or the bane to recess from, that is the end quest of the human entity. The boon or the bane can be all merely in the thought of the agent, but no less real insofar as the agent is concerned.

Examine now the simple act of going to church on a Sunday: What are the boons and banes involved on the Sunday church-goer? And can they be resolved to the levels of physiology: organs, nerves, and brain, and all their appurtenances: movements, operations, processes, emotions, passions, and mental functions. To put it in figurative terms: boons and banes to accede to or to recede from in regard to one’s [i][b]body, heart, and mind.[i][b]

Another example, the Buddhist in his meditation, what is the boon acceding to him and the bane precluded from him when he is in meditation? He is during meditation out of harm’s way in regard to his body and in a kind of rest and recuperation in regard to his heart and mind – and even expansion of the reaches of his heart and mind.

Susma Rio Sep

[Susma Rio Sep]

What are the benefits of going to Sunday worship?

Let us imagine that we are not acquainted with the doctrines and commandments and observances as put down in words of the church-goers, and try to see what are the advantages of people going to church on a Sunday, just with our eyes and mental view.

First, not in the order of importance, those with some new clothing to display, going to church is a good way and occasion to exhibit their latest fashion. Displaying one's new and better acquisitions is satisfying to human nature. Where else can you have the excuse to present your earthly worth to your neighbors: new cars, new couture, new jewels, and even a new girlfriend or wife, boyfriend or husband.

Second, one gets to meet with other people for the pleasure of social intercourse, which is also satisfying to human nature. Here you can sit back and observe people, get acquainted with new friends and revive old friendships.

Next, there is good music and singing in the church, which again is satisfying to human nature. There is a lot of arts in the church and in the service, a kind of religious pomp and circumstance.

I will just mention one more, if on a Sunday you find yourself with time on your hands, and nowhere to go and nothing to do; then go to church. As I said about Buddhist meditation, so also being in church is to be out of harm’s way.

There are also many advantages in going to church, in the world of words. Ask people going to church and they will tell you all kinds of benefits or blessings as words can describe which they have learned also through words from their religious mentors. But we are just limiting ourselves to boons which are visible even to one without skill of writing words and listening to them.

What about the banes of going to church on Sundays: loss of time which can be used to more absorbing pursuit, and the trouble and labor of getting there, and the patience and tedium of surviving the function to the last benediction. Look at the congregation and you will see all these banes in a good number of faces.

And if you will listen to the words of religious ministers, they will tell you all kinds of invisible and future harms that can come your way for not going to worship service on Sundays.

My point is that in religion there are all kinds of boons and banes to be attained and to be avoided.

Susma Rio Sep

[Susma Rio Sep]

Summing up so far and for the present about religion as a human behavior, we can say it is a system of activities where the boons and banes are clearly spelled out and the boons; and banes are an or the essential motivating scaffolding.

In other human behaviors such as sports, business, marriage, the boons are not dependent upon correlative or reciprocal banes.

In religion, if the subject does not intend and work for the boons he incurs the banes. For example, in the monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, if you don’t work for the approval of God and His boons, He will visit you with His banes. In Buddhism, if you don’t work for the liberation from suffering in accordance with Buddhistic teachings and methods, you will suffer. (However, with intellectual Buddhists, there is no God character dispensing boons and banes; unless you consider their whole system as their God.)

We are now in the sphere of fright and flight on the one hand, and zest and quest on the other, an essential inverse or contrarietal reciprocity in religion.

In there another kind of human behavior where such a contrarietal reciprocity is fundamental? What about law? It seems to be similar to religion in its boons and banes. But in law, the boon is too diffuse: the general well-being of society, but the banes are specific and defined with precision and inexorable. Then also in law the author-enforcer of the whole system is visible to the eye and can be felt in one’s skin from the say bludgeon of the policeman – but more on this aspect of religion later.

Let us go back to the boons and banes of going to church on Sundays, sparingly enumerated in the previous post. The boons which are factual have no direct bearing with religion, but are incidental. Now, notice however that the really advocated boons and banes are not factual but verbal or conceptual, all in the mind and heart of the subject.

Susma Rio Sep