Above us only sky

[Taboo]

Has anyone here read or heard of Don Cupitt?

I've just discovered him and Steven Batchelor. Was curious to hear any opinions...

[monster_gardener]

I've just discovered him and Steven Batchelor. Was curious to hear any opinions...

Thank You Very Much for your post, Taboo.

Has anyone here read or heard of Don Cupitt?

In his writings Cupitt sometimes describes himself as Christian non-realist, by which he means that he follows certain spiritual practices and attempts to live by ethical standards traditionally associated with Christianity but without believing in the actual existence of the underlying metaphysical entities (such as "Christ" and "God"). He calls this way of being a non-realist Christian "solar living".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Cupitt

Sounds somewhat like Reconstructionist Judaism/Kaplanites..........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstructionist_Judaism

Steven Batchelor.

Seems to be a non-Theistic Buddhist equivalent........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Ba ... 8author%29

Note: read the article closely to see if you can find a Bachelor having Buddhist Wedding in the Buff.....

Above us only sky

The sky is pretty but with modern science it is almost as scary with high kinetic energy space rocks, supernovas etc., it was with thunderbolt throwing deities.......

[manolo]

Taboo,

'Buddhism without Beliefs' (Batchelor) is a good read for those timid about the supernatural.

Alex.

[Demon of Undoing]

In his writings Cupitt sometimes describes himself as Christian non-realist, by which he means that he follows certain spiritual practices and attempts to live by ethical standards traditionally associated with Christianity but without believing in the actual existence of the underlying metaphysical entities (such as "Christ" and "God"). He calls this way of being a non-realist Christian "solar living".

2 Timothy 3

1But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come.2For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy,3unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good,4treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,5holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these.6For among them are those who enter into households and captivate weak women weighed down with sins, led on by various impulses,7always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth

I'm not sayin' nothin', I'm just sayin'...

[Parodite]

2 Timothy 3

1But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come.2For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy,3unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good,4treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,5holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these.6For among them are those who enter into households and captivate weak women weighed down with sins, led on by various impulses,7always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth

I'm not sayin' nothin', I'm just sayin'...

It looks like "the last days" will never end...

Paul has always been a lil' judgemental.

It also matters what type of God "is denied" by the whoever religious disbeliever (who enters homes where sinful women are ready to sin even more.. hohoho.. ) Many people have come to reject certain notions about a certain type of God that were spoon-fed into them... for very good reasons! Probably God created atheists to not only screw loose and desperate women, but also to have all that clutter removed from his face after eons of religious day dreaming and divine body painting.

[Ibrahim]

Taboo,

'Buddhism without Beliefs' (Batchelor) is a good read for those timid about the supernatural.

Alex.

My time in Asia has given me the impression that Western conceptions of Buddhism are mostly selective and flawed. Its really a subset of the New Age movement, for the most part.

Though at this point I strongly prefer new agers to "New Atheists," even with all the healing crystals and whatnot.

[Azrael]

Taboo,

'Buddhism without Beliefs' (Batchelor) is a good read for those timid about the supernatural.

Alex.

My time in Asia has given me the impression that Western conceptions of Buddhism are mostly selective and flawed. Its really a subset of the New Age movement, for the most part.

I agree with you. Zizek discusses "Western Buddhism" here

Though at this point I strongly prefer new agers to "New Atheists," even with all the healing crystals and whatnot.

There appear to be six types of atheist.

"New Atheists" (who seem like the type "anti-theist") can be annoying, like Richard Dawkins can be.

[Ibrahim]

I'm never sure how seriously to take him, but I like Zizek. He cracks me up.

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

My time in Asia has given me the impression that Western conceptions of Buddhism are mostly selective and flawed. Its really a subset of the New Age movement, for the most part.

I never know quite how I feel about this. On one hand the fake little ersatz eastern religiosity touted by New Age popularizers is annoying as lavender, but on the other hand, no culture ever really imports a foreign tradition lock, stock, and barrel, but instead reappropriates it and grafts it onto their own traditions to suit their particular needs. And ideally to enrich their own traditions and fill certain holes. Still, I can't help but look at the a la cart spirituality out there today and want to retch.

[Azrael]

I'm never sure how seriously to take him, but I like Zizek. He cracks me up.

Same here.

[Torchwood]

My time in Asia has given me the impression that Western conceptions of Buddhism are mostly selective and flawed. Its really a subset of the New Age movement, for the most part.

I never know quite how I feel about this. On one hand the fake little ersatz eastern religiosity touted by New Age popularizers is annoying as lavender, but on the other hand, no culture ever really imports a foreign tradition lock, stock, and barrel, but instead reappropriates it and grafts it onto their own traditions to suit their particular needs. And ideally to enrich their own traditions and fill certain holes. Still, I can't help but look at the a la cart spirituality out there today and want to retch.

'Twas ever thus, Christianity is a Graeco-Roman version of Judaism. Zen is a long long way from an Indian religion. Western Buddhism is a quasi-Protestant form of self improvement, instead of self overcoming.

As regards the six varieties of atheism, the core distinction is between belief (faith) and practice. In regards to the former, there is a clear distinction between atheism and agnosticism, but there may not be in practice; on the other hand, one can indeed envisage a Christian Zen which focusses on the practice and shunts metaphysics and its offshoot, faith, to one side. Greek and Indian civilisations, unlike the Chinese, brought us science, logic and mathematics, but also the curse of metaphysics. The Buddha seemed to have railed against it, but back it came in India, it was too strongly embedded in the culture.

[Ibrahim]

My time in Asia has given me the impression that Western conceptions of Buddhism are mostly selective and flawed. Its really a subset of the New Age movement, for the most part.

I never know quite how I feel about this. On one hand the fake little ersatz eastern religiosity touted by New Age popularizers is annoying as lavender, but on the other hand, no culture ever really imports a foreign tradition lock, stock, and barrel, but instead reappropriates it and grafts it onto their own traditions to suit their particular needs. And ideally to enrich their own traditions and fill certain holes. Still, I can't help but look at the a la cart spirituality out there today and want to retch.

'Twas ever thus, Christianity is a Graeco-Roman version of Judaism. Zen is a long long way from an Indian religion. Western Buddhism is a quasi-Protestant form of self improvement, instead of self overcoming.

As regards the six varieties of atheism, the core distinction is between belief (faith) and practice. In regards to the former, there is a clear distinction between atheism and agnosticism, but there may not be in practice; on the other hand, one can indeed envisage a Christian Zen which focusses on the practice and shunts metaphysics and its offshoot, faith, to one side. Greek and Indian civilisations, unlike the Chinese, brought us science, logic and mathematics, but also the curse of metaphysics. The Buddha seemed to have railed against it, but back it came in India, it was too strongly embedded in the culture.

Ok, before I go off on a rant like you're Alph, what do you mean by "quasi-Protestant?"

The main thing that Western Buddhism does, again in my totally amateur opinion as I'm no expert on Buddhism, is turn it from an essentially pessimistic religion into an optimistic one. The trappings of e.g. traditional Tibetan demons and Hindu gods turned into Buddhist figures isn't essential to Buddhist metaphysics, but the understanding of karma and nirvana as it is commonly expressed in Asian Buddhism seems totally absent from Western practice. Its too morbid for the average modern Westerner, and frankly too morbid for me. Life is suffering, and everything causes suffering, and the ultimate goal is to end your own existence? That's, like, a total bummer, maaaaaan.


Quick test I just thought of: are Western Buddhists really saying anything you couldn't just as easily hear from a Wiccan?

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

My time in Asia has given me the impression that Western conceptions of Buddhism are mostly selective and flawed. Its really a subset of the New Age movement, for the most part.

I never know quite how I feel about this. On one hand the fake little ersatz eastern religiosity touted by New Age popularizers is annoying as lavender, but on the other hand, no culture ever really imports a foreign tradition lock, stock, and barrel, but instead reappropriates it and grafts it onto their own traditions to suit their particular needs. And ideally to enrich their own traditions and fill certain holes. Still, I can't help but look at the a la cart spirituality out there today and want to retch.

'Twas ever thus, Christianity is a Graeco-Roman version of Judaism. Zen is a long long way from an Indian religion. Western Buddhism is a quasi-Protestant form of self improvement, instead of self overcoming.

As regards the six varieties of atheism, the core distinction is between belief (faith) and practice. In regards to the former, there is a clear distinction between atheism and agnosticism, but there may not be in practice; on the other hand, one can indeed envisage a Christian Zen which focusses on the practice and shunts metaphysics and its offshoot, faith, to one side. Greek and Indian civilisations, unlike the Chinese, brought us science, logic and mathematics, but also the curse of metaphysics. The Buddha seemed to have railed against it, but back it came in India, it was too strongly embedded in the culture.

Ok, before I go off on a rant like you're Alph, what do you mean by "quasi-Protestant?"

The main thing that Western Buddhism does, again in my totally amateur opinion as I'm no expert on Buddhism, is turn it from an essentially pessimistic religion into an optimistic one.

This was accomplished, at least to an extent, with Mahayana Buddhism. To be sure, westerners don't really understand or appreciate even Mahayana understanding of karma, but they are big fans of the nice idea that nirvana and samsara are one and that, upon reaching the yonder shore of enlightenment, one turns around to see from where one has come to realize that one was enlightened, and in nirvana, all along, and that the work of Buddhism was to learn this truth. The New Agers positively titillate when they find syncretistic readings of passages like the one in the gnostic gospel of Thomas, in which Jesus says that "the kingdom of God is spread upon the earth, but men do not see it."

Despite the unpalatable nature of the Buddhist rejection of life, it is the informing experience of all its iterations. I think there is a lot of wisdom in Buddhism, at least for certain people and certain applications, but it's also important to remember that the summary of the story is "A rich kid is spoiled his whole life. As a young adult, upon having his first experience of suffering, he leaves his wife and infant child to go be by himself and do his best to avoid having to suffer any more."

[Ibrahim]

My time in Asia has given me the impression that Western conceptions of Buddhism are mostly selective and flawed. Its really a subset of the New Age movement, for the most part.

I never know quite how I feel about this. On one hand the fake little ersatz eastern religiosity touted by New Age popularizers is annoying as lavender, but on the other hand, no culture ever really imports a foreign tradition lock, stock, and barrel, but instead reappropriates it and grafts it onto their own traditions to suit their particular needs. And ideally to enrich their own traditions and fill certain holes. Still, I can't help but look at the a la cart spirituality out there today and want to retch.

'Twas ever thus, Christianity is a Graeco-Roman version of Judaism. Zen is a long long way from an Indian religion. Western Buddhism is a quasi-Protestant form of self improvement, instead of self overcoming.

As regards the six varieties of atheism, the core distinction is between belief (faith) and practice. In regards to the former, there is a clear distinction between atheism and agnosticism, but there may not be in practice; on the other hand, one can indeed envisage a Christian Zen which focusses on the practice and shunts metaphysics and its offshoot, faith, to one side. Greek and Indian civilisations, unlike the Chinese, brought us science, logic and mathematics, but also the curse of metaphysics. The Buddha seemed to have railed against it, but back it came in India, it was too strongly embedded in the culture.

Ok, before I go off on a rant like you're Alph, what do you mean by "quasi-Protestant?"

The main thing that Western Buddhism does, again in my totally amateur opinion as I'm no expert on Buddhism, is turn it from an essentially pessimistic religion into an optimistic one.

This was accomplished, at least to an extent, with Mahayana Buddhism. To be sure, westerners don't really understand or appreciate even Mahayana understanding of karma, but they are big fans of the nice idea that nirvana and samsara are one and that, upon reaching the yonder shore of enlightenment, one turns around to see from where one has come to realize that one was enlightened, and in nirvana, all along, and that the work of Buddhism was to learn this truth.

But Mahayana Buddhism is, to my understanding, where you get all the demons and multi-layered hells and other ostensibly "superstitious" aspects of the religion, and yet Westerner Buddhists (or "Buddhists") have told me with a straight face that they admire Buddhism because it doesn't have any gods or superstitions.

But I will agree that there are schools of Mahayana Buddhism that appear to offer a kind of happy-ending salvation, in which the Maitreya Buddha shows up and basically hands out candy and immortality.

The New Agers positively titillate when they find syncretistic readings of passages like the one in the gnostic gospel of Thomas, in which Jesus says that "the kingdom of God is spread upon the earth, but men do not see it."

I blame the Theosophists for starting this trend.

Despite the unpalatable nature of the Buddhist rejection of life, it is the informing experience of all its iterations. I think there is a lot of wisdom in Buddhism, at least for certain people and certain applications, but it's also important to remember that the summary of the story is "A rich kid is spoiled his whole life. As a young adult, upon having his first experience of suffering, he leaves his wife and infant child to go be by himself and do his best to avoid having to suffer any more."

I'm told that this is a big rejection of Aryan values, in which becoming a contented householder is the highest aim. If Buddhism was an offshoot of Hinduism and an attempt to return to the Dravidian/Karmic metaphysics that had been mixed (or debased, depending on your view) with Aryan Vedic philosophy, then this part of the story serves an important theological function. But to the prevailing modern secular humanist mindset the rejection of life-as-good-in-itself is probably more shocking than abandoning your family out of self-interest.

[Apollonius]

I'm told that this is a big rejection of Aryan values, in which becoming a contented householder is the highest aim. ...

This is foreign to my admittedly cursory reading of Hindu philosophy and religion. Where do you find this attitude expressed?

[Ibrahim]

I'm told that this is a big rejection of Aryan values, in which becoming a contented householder is the highest aim. ...

This is foreign to my admittedly cursory reading of Hindu philosophy and religion. Where do you find this attitude expressed?

The Rg Veda and other early Sanskrit literature (in translation of course). Vedic hymns are mostly about propitiating gods with sacrifices in return for health/wealth/children, and Aryan culture is only one half of the two cultures than combined to create Hinduism proper. I think Doniger's Penguin translation of the Rig Veda makes this point in the introduction, as does Krishi Mohan Sen's classic introductory pamphlet on Hinduism.