aupmanyav

Neti, Neti. When one does not really know (Brahman), it is no shame to admit it, rather than claiming that there is a sky-daddy.

gurugeorge

Hmm, well there isn't really an "essential" Buddhism, there are just Buddhist traditions that are all slightly different, some of which are almost like different religions entirely.

But on the whole, most traditions do believe in some supernatural elements - for example upon Buddha's enlightenment, he was said to have attained, as a sort of by-product, several "psi"-like powers. Gods, even a "boss" God, Brahman, are also admitted (but not considered all that important - a curious echo of Epicureanism here). Even in Theravada Buddhism, one of the most austere forms, there are bhikkhus said to be such experienced meditators that they have clairvoyant powers, and are consulted by other bhikkhus, or by local villagers.

And some forms of Buddhism (e.g. Tibetan) go the whole enchilada wrt to a spirit realm, etc.

However, having said all that, the supernatural element is not really part of the core teaching of the 4 Noble Truths, or the 8-fold Noble Way. Or rather, one can hold to the 4 Noble Truths/8-fold Path without having to believe any supernatural element, so in that sense yes Buddhism is compatible with Humanism. Ch'an (Zen) and Theravada, being the simplest forms, based on empirical inquiry into one's own condition, are probably most compatible.

When one speaks of Buddhism, it's not really the doctrine that's important, it's the meditation, the performance of psycho-physical experiments/exercises, the taking of vows, the self-discipline, the transformation, and ultimately the enlightenment.

The true constants of Buddhism are the 4NT/N8-FP, the Vinaya (this as the practical carrier of the Buddhist virus through time and history), and the twofold shamatha/vipashyana meditation practice (which is an aspect of the N8-FP). Everything else is just drapery.

veganatheist

Dan, I applaud you for daring to think "outside the box" and exploring Hinduism, Buddhism, and the Tao/Daoism! I did the same, to make a long story short - although never in my life was I a theist.

I question how much of the "living with compassion" aspect Humanism actually promotes, however. It is given lip service in Corliss Lamont's book, "The Philosophy of Humanism" and other Humanist publications. But those that I've interacted with for years here in the U.S. are centred on church/state separation (a good and much needed focus) but they generally come across as bitter and unrelentingly sarcastic on the subject of religion. Any ethic that their ego-encapsulated intellect might identify as even remotely religious (although it may not be) is subject to unrelenting attack. My being a vegan, for example when word got around, gave them license to approach me with crass jokes and criticisms before I even opened my mouth at social events and at meetings. They didn't even know who I was. They also didn't seem so genuine about equal rights for gay citizens either, despite all the rhetoric. I became so tired of their own form of bigotry in the name of "reason" that I chose not to be in their company after 2 decades of trying to "fit in". What a pitiful waste of time and effort.

Humanism look marvelous in the philosophy books; the behaviour of so called Humanists can be quite another story. I'd venture to say that most of those I've met are just angry ex-christians who need to work out their issues with a qualified therapist, rather than act them out in the name of a noteworthy philosophy call "Humanism".

As for "how to live this life, making this a good life, alleviating suffering, living with compassion, etc, rather than worrying about being saved from eternal torment after your're dead" - the Noble Eightfold Path and the Four Noble Truths are noble starting points, but not the only ones. Don't become confused or aliented by the various lineages and their excessive cultural baggage. I think that any enlightened being would disapprove of furthering particular cultures and their preservation over the Dharma.

abaddon

http://atheism.about.com/od/abouthum...pernatural.htm

What is "supernatural" depends on the premises of your own philosophy/religion; on how we take life and squeeze it into the square and round holes in our mental pegboards. But, as noted by a few persons in this thread, the supernatural isn't central to the "core teachings" of Buddhism. What secular humanists might call "supernatural" are considered matters of experience for the Buddhists who speak of them -- the so-called "spirit realms" in Tibetan Buddhism for example. In Buddhism there are not two realms of nature and supernature, but one realm of Mind; so liminal states of fantastical experiences, called in Tibetan Buddhism "bardos," are description and not articles of faith regarding "unseen" or "unknowable" dimensions somewhere "out there." Of course, when you try to render experience into dualistic language, it all sure sounds like talk of "spirits out there" or talk of the "incomprehensible."

Lógos Sokratikós

Yes, I pretty much agree that humanism in the US has pretty much lost itself. And it has for a reason: Fundamentalism's open war against truth and liberty. It's gory and dirty and humaism got caught in the middle. It's a state of events that demands you to take sides. Very sad.

I don't hate theism, but fundamentalism scares me deep down to the bone. The world was so ok with wishy-washy cafeteria-Catholicism, etc. But now both camps are demanding that we all take sides in a match that truly is one to the finish.

I was happy the cold war was over. A new one has taken its place.

aupmanyav

Buddhism does not even acknowledge human beings, what to talk of beignets. The first of 4 NT's is to frighten people to Buddhism. The world is not so dark. Leave attachments is nothing new to Eastern religions and the way to happy life is to live a balanced life, everyone knows that.

abaddon

Huh? I guess that we are processual (anatta, no thing called soul or self) and embedded within a context including the perceiver (sunyata, no "thingness" at all) and are not continuous, discrete things (souls, or "selves" if you prefer) is too much beignet for some to swallow.

The Four Noble Truths say that a joyful and authentic life exists and everyone can wake to it.

There is no First Noble Truth without the other three. No single one of them says anything worth considering without the other three considered at the same time.

Context. Everything has its context; nothing can be separated out, and trying to separate a "thing" out makes it into something else. In this case, the first NT looks pessimistic when, in context, it's the opposite.

If that were true and knowing it was enough, then everyone would be happy.

It's not true; Buddhism was a remedy to excessive (imbalanced) methods for non-attachment. And knowing an idea isn't enough to change a life. And, obviously, there are many unhappy people in the world. So, going back to my theme about context, the existence of unhappiness makes life less than fully satisfactory for everyone who doesn't deny their connection with, and their dependence on, others.

perfectbite

Prajna (spirit) can equal self but soul and self are not the same thing.

There is nothing intrinsically abhorrent about self and self is less of a product of imagination than the soul.

aupmanyav

Knowing a thing and putting it in practice are two different things. I bet not even all buddhists have managed to do it.

Lógos Sokratikós

Wise words. You are enlightened.