So, I'm a Buddhist now.

[Despanan]

[Despanan]

These might also help you understand what I'm talking about Dex:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81

[dexeron]

Ultimately, it just seems like slapping metaphysical labels on things that already have labels. It's claiming for religion things that were discovered by science (because, I'm sorry, before modern astrophysics, no Buddhists were saying karma was "historical cause and effect" or the oneness of the universe was taking about the Big Bang and heat death. They viewed that stuff literally: karma as a literal supernatural mechanism, oneness as a literal spiritual thing.)

Ultimately, this "we're talking about the same thing, but this is an alternative to rationalism " stuff is the same thing as Christians playing "God of the gaps" and pretending the Bible (or the Quran) was always talking about heliocentrism or a round earth or whatever thing no believers ever even conceived of until science discovered and proved it.

[Despanan]

It may be science is claiming for itself things already discovered by religion, Dex.

My point is that many material scientific concepts were already expressed via Buddhist metaphysical concepts. I understand this proposition is shocking, I was shocked too when I realized it.

Remember: religious thought and theology isn't always just making things up out of thin air, it's also form of inquiry interpreted through a metaphysical lens - so often times these philosophical concepts like Material History are already understood on the sub/unconscious level and expressed through metaphor and narrative.

This is what Buddhists talk about when they talk about "Expedient Means" for instance, there's a story where a rich man lies to his sons about a whole bunch of toys outside his house, in order to get them to quickly run outside the burning house, and once they get outside the house, there's no toys but in fact he's saved them from the burning house and gives them a bunch of better stuff that they never even imagined because he's super rich. That's a metaphor for enlightenment: the rich man being The Buddha, the House being our normal perception of the world and the fire being suffering and impermanence and the lie about the toys being "expedient means".

Thus, even if no Buddhist was talking about these things before science, that doesn't matter - Buddhism, unlike Christianity is not about these things factually happening, or the universe working the literal way Buddhist Sutra's describe it to. In the question of enlightenment it doesn't matter whether or not Shakyamuni Buddha ever even existed or if Siddhartha Gutama and the stories about him are entirely fabricated.

Christianity makes claims that it's teachings and histories are objective fact, and in a Christian context this matters, because if Jesus never rose from the Dead and wasn't the son of God then all of Christianity's religious and moral authority falls apart because the entire thing is founded on a miracle.

It's not the same thing with Buddhism. It doesn't matter for instance that The Lotus Sutra came 400 years after the death of Shakyamuni Buddha and obviously couldn't have been written by him - it's still his final, ultimate teaching, even if someone else wrote it and just attributed it to him - at least until a higher teaching comes along.

This is because Buddhism isn't concerned with the metaphysical and doesn't draw it's authority from metaphysical claims, it draws it's authority from the utility of it's method for the purpose of helping humans to become enlightened and lead full happy lives in this life and all that come after it.

This is why people say it's more of a philosophy than a religion, and why it doesn't matter if it's stories are literally true or not.

Which is why I get confused when you guys flip out if I say this method has the potential to work for everyone and think I'm evangelizing you. I'm not talking about my assumptions about reality being somehow more correct than yours, or that you have to see the world in the way I see it to become happy - I'm pointing out a practical method like an exercise that uses religious terminology and ritual and has a religious atmosphere to it because these things resonate so strongly with humans on a physical, psychological and spiritual level.

If Buddhism causes you to lead a fuller, happier life and make the world a better place for yourself and others who cares if it's literal magic, or just a magic feather? The result is still the same.

Which is why Nichiren will say that the only thing you need to do to become enlightened and activate your own Buddha nature is to chant "nam-myoho-renge-kyo" to the gohonzon. You don't have to believe in the Buddha or even know who/what Buddhism is - all you need is the practice.

[Agent]

OK so this whole thing relies on the magic chant. How does the magic chant work? Can you do something besides the magic chant to achieve the same exact effect? I think this is what I really want to know. Do you really have to do the incredibly stupid magic chant? Does the gohonzon have to be in Japanese? Could you replace it with something written in Japanese that's just nonsense words and get the same effect because you can't read Japanese because you're just in a poseur cult? This is coming off angrier than I wanted but that last part got me mad.

[Despanan]

[dexeron]

[Rip]

[Despanan]

[Rip]