Do we still need religion?

[Kokuu]

Dear all

It is often a matter of opinion whether Buddhism and Zen are religions or not. Much depends on how you define religion but we do have priests, monasteries, liturgies and scripture which is probably a bit of a clue!

Regardless, many people come to Zen not looking for religion but practice. For many, the 'religious' aspects such as a robes, chanting and talk of mystical beings such as bodhisattvas and hungry ghosts is a a turn-off and obstacle to 'real practice'.

I found the following article from today's Guardian newspaper interesting in terms of outlining some of the benefits of religion in terms of increasing a sense of wellbeing, improving both mental and physical health, and easing the dying process. Although these are not the goal of our goalless practice, creating community and support is a notable by-product of practicing together and there is a reason that many of us consider Treeleaf to be family (even if, like regular families, we can have our niggles and falling outs now and again) and why sangha is one of the three jewels.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/mar/28/the-big-idea-do-we-still-need-religion

I imagine that almost everyone here knows the traditional Buddhist quotation about spiritual friendship, but it always bears repeating:

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was living among the Sakyans. Now there is a Sakyan town named Sakkara. There Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to the Blessed One, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "This is half of the holy life, lord: admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie."

"Don't say that, Ananda. Don't say that. Admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life. When a monk has admirable people as friends, companions, & comrades, he can be expected to develop & pursue the noble eightfold path.

-- Upaddha Sutta (translation by Thanissaro Bhikkhu)

Apologies for length.

Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday-

[Nengei]

I am a complete novice with no qualifications for teaching, so these are only my unsupported thoughts. Please forgive the length of my reply.

Thank you for these thoughts, Kokuu. For my part, I do not believe the trappings or benefits of religion infer religious practice, but as you intimated, it matters whether we are speaking of the practice of faith, the practice of ministry, obsession with a topic, or--in a Western sense--congregating for the purposes of inspiration. I do agree that sangha is beyond price.

There is a lovely article in the current Tricycle in their Buddhism for Beginners section about the Three Jewels. The author accurately and poignantly describes the Buddha as the exemplar, the Dharma as the teachings, and the Sangha as the community of practictioners. A meaningful point made in the article, to my mind, was although our practice is our individual responsibility, the importance of our community in practice is invaluable. I agree wholeheartedly. If there are doctrines in Buddhism, this is surely one of them.

Gassho,
Nengei
Sat today. LAH.

[Prashanth]

Colored glasses, all.
Wear red glasses, the world looks red.
Wear yellow, the world looks yellow.
Most religions inherently tell us to leave aside the glasses, but humanity is enamoured by the factions that colors give birth to and defends them with words, sweat and blood through history.

Nobody wants the real lesson of any religion, because the real lesson is often complex, yet simple, but takes time to follow.

Treeleaf tells us to sit, we sit.

Sorry for going long.

Gassho.

Stlah.




Sent from my GS190 using Tapatalk

[Tomás ESP]

"Admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life."

What a powerful sharing Kokuu, thank you for that. In my own path I no longer care if Buddhism is a religion or not. When I drop the labels I feel more free to practice what my heart is in alignment with.

Gassho, Tomás
Sat&LaH

[Onkai]

"Admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life."

What a powerful sharing Kokuu, thank you for that. In my own path I no longer care if Buddhism is a religion or not. When I drop the labels I feel more free to practice what my heart is in alignment with.

Gassho, Tomás
Sat&LaH

I agree that the labels are not important, but I do find I turn to Buddhist teachings, practice, and community when others would turn to their religions, so it is a religion in the sense that it fits the description of the benefits of religion described in the article. At the same time, not defining Zen as a religion allows me to explore other approaches and cultures. Thank you, Kokuu, for sharing that article.

Gassho,
Onkai
Sat/lah

[Jundo]

I could not practice Buddhism if I made a distinction between religion and philosophy. Master Nishijima did not either, and held that a "religion" is any philosophy ... even Marxism, Atheism, Humanism and the like ... which attempts to interpret the human place in reality and how we are supposed to act based on that vision.

I could not believe in Kannon and the other Bodhisattvas if I saw them as unseen forces in unseen mystical realms (I do not believe in such realms anywhere apart from within the human heart), but I can believe in them as symbols for the very real acts of Compassion and insights of Wisdom that can be concretely realized in this life by human beings.

I have no trouble with a few ceremonies, because ceremonies are lovely dances, practices, and even atheists have their ceremonies ... graduations, weddings, awards ceremonies ... and who does not love to dance, losing oneself and finding oneself again in the pure motion?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/ritesrituals/introduction.shtml

We do not chant Dharani in our Treeleaf Sangha because, fundamentally, they were thought of and treated for centuries as magical "abracadabra" incantations for good weather, better health and riches. They represent superstition in religion, so we do not chant them here (even though, granted, they can be lovely from a musical point of view, and perhaps modern people can find some other meanings there too.) It is time to leave much of the religious silliness, fantasy confused with fact, false claims and extreme beliefs out of Buddhism.

Robes and Japanese chants are done out of respect for tradition, like wearing a tuxedo to the Royal Ball or a bride white at a wedding. Buddha statues (which need not even look like a "Buddha," by the way, and can be instead a flower, a stone, an empty space, an old tin can to the wise eye) are just artistic reminders of the wisdom and compassion we teach. There is no "power" in the statue apart from the power within the human heart to bring such teachings to life.

I am not opposed to "faith," but I am opposed to "faith" in things that have no possible basis. I prefer "trust" in teachings and practices which actually work, are what they claim to be.

If Zen Buddhism were, for me, any more of a "religion" than that, I could not practice and teach it.

Gassho, Jundo

STLah
Sorry to run long.

[Jundo]

FOOTNOTE:

By the way, I believe that Treeleaf, for the last 15 years, has been an experiment in the following claim, and seems to support the conclusion. Likewise for most Buddhist groups I know, including mega-churches in the other religions:

The only way to get around this is to build "micro-communities" (local parishes, mini-groups with special concerns and interests, etc.) within the larger body. We try to do that too, so as to allow members to build their own network of friends with whom they connect.

Our natural community size – the size of our personal social network, the number of friends we have on Facebook – is part of a relationship between group size and brain size in primates. Each species has a characteristic group size determined by the size of its brain. Ours is about 150. Not only is this the average size of personal social networks (the number of extended family and friends with whom you have meaningful relationships), but it also turns out to be the optimal size for religious congregations. If a congregation is smaller than about 100, it puts a heavy burden on the membership; if it is above about 200, it becomes increasingly prone to divisiveness. This seems to explain why big religions are so susceptible to fragmentation – constantly throwing up small sects (typically of a few hundred people at most) built round a charismatic leader whose wayward beliefs the hierarchy desperately tries to contain.

Also: https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...a-robin-dunbar

Footnote to the Footnote:

The Dunbar Number of 150 is not without some skeptics ... Apparently, Dr. Dunbar also has trouble making friends ....

Can You Have More Than 150 Friends?

A new study questions that figure, known as Dunbar’s number. [But] the Oxford professor for whom it is named, Robin Dunbar, dismissed the findings as “absolutely bonkers.”

In a 1993 study, Robin Dunbar, a British anthropologist, theorized that humans could have no more than about 150 meaningful relationships, a measure that became known as Dunbar’s number.

But researchers at Stockholm University published a paper last week calling that number into question, finding that people could have far more friends if they put in the effort.

“We can learn thousands of digits of pi, and if we engage with lots of people, then we will become better at having relationships with lots of people,” said Johan Lind, an author of the study and an associate professor at Stockholm University. The paper was published in the journal Biology Letters.

In his original research, Dr. Dunbar studied monkeys and apes and determined that the size of the neocortex, the part of the brain responsible for conscious thought, correlated with the size of the groups they lived among. The neocortex in humans is even larger, so he extrapolated that their ideal group size was, on average, 150.

In the new study, Dr. Lind said he and his team used updated data sets and statistical methods and found that the size of the neocortex did not limit the number of connections people could maintain. Dunbar’s number, he said, “has been criticized for quite a long time.” Dr. Lind’s team found that no maximum number of friendships could be established with any precision.

In an interview, Dr. Dunbar, a professor of evolutionary psychology at Oxford University, defended his research. The new analysis, he said, “is bonkers, absolutely bonkers,” adding that the Stockholm University researchers conducted a flawed statistical analysis and misunderstood both the nuances of his analyses and of human connections. “I marvel at their apparent failure to understand relationships.”

... At birth, it starts at one or two. Friendships peak in the late teens and early 20s. By their 30s, people tend to have about 150 connections, and that number remains flat until people reach their late 60s and early 70s, when their number of connections, Dr. Dunbar said, “starts to plummet.” “If you live long enough, it gets back to one or two.”

In his book “How Many Friends Does One Person Need,” Dr. Dunbar pointed to historical and modern-day examples to back up his research. Around 6000 B.C., the size of Neolithic villages from the Middle East was 120 to 150 people, judging by the number of dwellings. In 1086, the average size of most English villages recorded in the Domesday Book was 160 people. In modern armies, fighting units contain an average of 130 to 150 people, he said.

...

While it may be comforting to think that there is an optimal number of people with whom we should surround ourselves, in reality there is not one rule that applies to all of us, said Louise Barrett, a psychology professor at the University of Lethbridge in Canada. “Human life is really complicated,” she said.

Dr. Barrett, a biological anthropologist who was not involved in the new study and who previously studied under Dr. Dunbar, said the analysis looked robust. “We need to rethink and adjust our interpretation and hypotheses in light of this new data,” she said.

The debate over relationships comes as people are rethinking which friendships they want to recultivate after the pandemic shrank social circles and as businesses are designing post-pandemic work spaces.

Dr. Dunbar posited his theory decades ago, in the early days of the internet and long before social media sites changed how people communicate. “This number would make sense if we still relied on a Rolodex and talking to people, but that’s not the world we live in,” said Angela Lee, a professor at Columbia Business School.

Networking tools like LinkedIn have made it possible to increase the number of connections we can maintain, and this is important because research shows that people on the outer edge of our networks are often the ones who end up being the most helpful for career advancement or generating creative ideas, she said.

Dr. Dunbar contended that his theory is still viable, even in today’s hyper-connected world, since the quality of connections on social networks is often low. “These are not personalized relationships,” he said.

...



https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/11/s...gtype=Homepage

[Ryumon]

There’s a big difference between “friends” and connections.

Fourier thought that the ideal size for a community was 1620, and Michael the architect thought it was 322.


Gassho,
Ryūmon (Kirk)
Sat

[JohnS]

Then, of I see Zen Buddhism as a religion, which I do, do I have a place at Treeleaf?

Gassho

John
Sattoday

[Jundo]

Then, of I see Zen Buddhism as a religion, which I do, do I have a place at Treeleaf?

Gassho

John
Sattoday

Yes, of course. You find your own meaning.

For example, I said that I do not see Kannon as an unseen being living in an unseen realm but, for example, if there was someone who believed so ... well, I do not claim to be the final word on the matter. I speak my own supposition and belief.

Gassho, Jundo

STLah

[Bion]

Then, of I see Zen Buddhism as a religion, which I do, do I have a place at Treeleaf?

Gassho

John
Sattoday

Trust me John, I VERY MUCH believe Zen and Buddhism to be a religion. I do understand there is the eternal subjective aspect to every concept, so while my approach conditions absolutely everything in my life, I limit my demands and expectations to myself only, accepting that everyone else’s practice is rightfully theirs and I have no business judging or validating it. Needless to say, I feel AT HOME at Treeleaf.

[emoji1374] Sat Today

[Tairin]

Don’t get too wrapped up in trying to decide if Zen Buddhism is a religion, a philosophy, a practice, or something else. These are just words.


Tairin
Sat today and lah

[Jundo]

If I may add one more point, I actually consider myself a "mystic," in that (as anyone who has heard anything I say or write around here knows) I don't quite believe in time, space, birth or death, and I experience that all things are all things and then some. Please listen to my little talk here, at the 46:00 mark if you have any doubts about that:

https://youtu.be/KnepjJ9BYJ8

Yes, I do not quite believe in death (or birth either), and I believe that everything in the world is everything else in other form.

I also do not believe that science has all the answers: No scientific formula can capture the simple beauty of a flower.

But I just think that Zen beliefs and interpretations must have some basis, and cannot be just any crazy thing that somebody thinks up! Religion is filled with all kinds of ridiculous nonsense that somebody dreamed up, then persuaded a bunch of other gullible folks to believe in. That includes Buddhism, even Zen Buddhism. I think that we can be rid of the nonsense, but keep the truly fantastic parts.

Gassho, J

STLah

[Guest]

If I may add one more point, I actually consider myself a "mystic," in that (as anyone who has heard anything I say or write around here knows) I don't quite believe in time, space, birth or death, and I experience that all things are all things and then some. Please listen to my little talk here, at the 46:00 mark if you have any doubts about that:

https://youtu.be/KnepjJ9BYJ8

Yes, I do not quite believe in death (or birth either), and I believe that everything in the world is everything else in other form.

I also do not believe that science has all the answers: No scientific formula can capture the simple beauty of a flower.

But I just think that Zen beliefs and interpretations must have some basis, and cannot be just any crazy thing that somebody thinks up! Religion is filled with all kinds of ridiculous nonsense that somebody dreamed up, then persuaded a bunch of other gullible folks to believe in. That includes Buddhism, even Zen Buddhism. I think that we can be rid of the nonsense, but keep the truly fantastic parts.

Gassho, J

STLah

[emoji120][emoji120][emoji120]

Gassho
Bobby
SatTodayLAH


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnS]

Perhaps this is the most genuine of religions... cutting through the fluff and experiencing the essential truth directly? I like the thought of that indeed.

Gassho

John

SatTodayLAH