Are religions like road maps?

by **Daldianus** Mon Oct 26, 2009 5:25 pm

(quoting from "God's debris" by Scott Adams)

I felt like a one-legged man balanced on a high fence. I could keep hopping along looking for an easy way down, or I could just jump now and take my bruises. I decided to jump.

“What’s your belief, Mr. Avatar?”

The old man rocked a few times before responding. “Let’s say that you and I decide to travel separately to the same place. You have a map that is blue and I have a map that is green. Neither map shows all the possible routes, but both maps show an acceptable—yet different—route to the desti- nation. If we both take our trips and return safely, we would spread the word of our successful maps to others. I would say, with complete conviction, that my green map was per- fect, and I might warn people to avoid any other sort of map. You would feel the same conviction about your blue map.

“Religions are like different maps whose routes all lead to the collective good of society. Some maps take their fol- lowers over rugged terrain. Other maps have easier paths. Some of the travelers of each route will be assigned the job of being the protectors and interpreters of the map. They will teach the young to respect it and be suspicious of other maps.”

“Okay,” I said, “but who made the maps in the first place?”

“The maps were made by the people who went first and didn’t die. The maps that survive are the ones that work,” he said.

At last, he had presented a target for me to attack. “Are you saying that all the religions work? What about all the people who have been killed in religious wars?”

“You can’t judge the value of a thing by looking only at costs. In many countries, more people die from hospital errors than religious wars, but no one accuses hospitals of being evil. Religious people are happier, they live longer, have fewer accidents, and stay out of trouble compared to nonre- ligious people. From society’s viewpoint, religion works.”

Comments?

by DotNotInOz Mon Oct 26, 2009 6:41 pm

I think the concluding sentence is probably true.

I'm not so fond of the analogy of religions with maps. After all, we can compare a map's route(s) with the terrain and make better maps when necessary. Maps are often updated as routes change or errors in the maps are discovered.

With what can we compare a religion's tenets? And how many religions update beliefs to correspond with advances in human knowledge anywhere near as frequently as maps are updated? It took how many centuries for the Pope to issue a formal apology for the Catholic church's treatment of Galileo? [Answer: 3 and a half]

by **Gorm_Sionnach** Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:44 pm

I also reject the notion that all "maps" lead to the same place, sometimes you've got a map of North Dakota, sometimes one of Beijing.

by Sakhaiva Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:48 am

Likewise,I reject both notions that religions are *road maps* and that *all road maps lead to the same place*

Religion is more a matter of faith than rules; maps do not rely on faith. Faith is hope for what we do not "see". Rules are just ways for a particular society to work as a team. Consider: one can lose their faith, but not their morality.

by **Daldianus** Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:50 am

The point he was trying to make I think is that for the FIRST people who had drawn maps it was a matter of faith too. They didn't know where they were going.

And only those maps survived whose 'explorers' survived.

Same with religions. Only some survive over time.

by Sakhaiva Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:18 pm

Celsus wrote:The point he was trying to make I think is that for the FIRST people who had drawn maps it was a matter of faith too. They didn't know where they were going.

And only those maps survived whose 'explorers' survived.

Same with religions. Only some survive over time.

Change the word 'religion' with 'philosophy' and I'll agree with you. Are religions like road maps? Icon_wink

Scott Adams is being overly simplistic.

Consider: I love antiquarian maps (especially the one's that depict California as an island!) I've often located certain (authentic) antiquarian maps to mount and give as gifts to friends. I like to reflect on how these maps came to be, and what purpose they serve us now:

Maps have acted as versatile and essential
tools for visual thinking about the world at global, continental,
national, and local scales. They have shaped scientific hypotheses,
formed political and military strategies, formulated social policy, and
reflected cultural ideas about the landscape, and they have been agents
of social and political power. They have also communicated, explained,
and preserved information essential to the survival of cultures.

from David Woodward and G. Malcolm Lewis, "Introduction," in The History of Cartography, Volume 2, Book 3, 1998.

Philosophy, also, reflects cultural ideas and shapes scientific hypothesis. Philosophy, also, forms political and military strategies.

While religion can become enmeshed in such things, it is actually a different sort of animal.

Religion is not the same as Philosophy Religion.... faith.... will always be full of paradoxes than mankind will never be able to understand. While man might try to use philosophy to better understand faith, he will always fall short.

Explorers are to maps as philosophers are to philosophy.

Are religions like road maps? 20081024_ebay5%20001

Are religions like road maps? 20081024_ebay5%20001

by Kartari Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:13 pm

Sakhaiva wrote:Religion is not the same as Philosophy Religion.... faith.... will always be full of paradoxes than mankind will never be able to understand. While man might try to use philosophy to better understand faith, he will always fall short.

I suppose it depends on which religions we're talking about. Taoism and Buddhism are not concerned with faith so much as philosophy. In my personal experience and knowledge of Buddhism, that religion is definitely more concerned with logic than faith. The Buddha encouraged his students to see for themselves the wisdom of his teachings through their own testing and experimentation.

by Sakhaiva Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:10 pm

Kartari wrote:
Sakhaiva wrote:Religion is not the same as Philosophy Religion.... faith.... will always be full of paradoxes than mankind will never be able to understand. While man might try to use philosophy to better understand faith, he will always fall short.

I suppose it depends on which religions we're talking about. Taoism and Buddhism are not concerned with faith so much as philosophy.

We even need to break that down because there are several Buddhist sects; some Buddhists are theistic

And some Christians are not, I suppose.

by Kartari Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:41 pm

True. But faith in deities is still ancillary in theistic Buddhist traditions, whereas it is a critical factor in the Christian teachings. Unless you're speaking of those who come to Buddhism with theistic beliefs from their previous religion, but that is not reflective of Buddhism per se.

by Sakhaiva Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:11 pm

Katari: Unless you're speaking of those who come to Buddhism with theistic
beliefs from their previous religion, but that is not reflective of
Buddhism per se.

Agreed; much depends upon what religion Buddhism has shouldered up next to (Buddhist/Shinto blends come to mind... as does the more modern "Aikido")

I suppose the only thing that places modern (general) Buddhism under the title of 'religion' would be the metaphysical teachings.

by **TigersEyeDowsing** Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:26 pm

Oh, another antiquitarian map affectionado!

I too have given such maps as gifts- One of NYC (granted it was geographically correct for its time) to my friend who lives there.

by Sakhaiva Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:53 pm

TigersEyeDowsing wrote:Oh, another antiquitarian map affectionado!

I too have given such maps as gifts- One of NYC (granted it was geographically correct for its time) to my friend who lives there.

Cool gift TED Smile

by Metis Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:23 pm

Sakhaiva wrote:

We even need to break that down because there are several Buddhist sects; some Buddhists are theistic

It largely depends on how one may define "theistic". There is no belief in a creator-god, which is found in most religions of course, and even with the rafts that do believe in various deities, there's not the transcending deity that one finds, for example, in the Abrahamic religions. Nor are deities believed to be unchanging, and they tend to be viewed as not having much influence on world events. However, there's one thing that we can say about all Buddhists is that there's nothing that can be said about all Buddhists that's true. Are religions like road maps? Icon_wink

by Sakhaiva Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:50 pm

[quote="Metis"]

Sakhaiva wrote:

However, there's one thing that we can say about all Buddhists is that there's nothing that can be said about all Buddhists that's true.

Agreed Metis..... I'd say the same thing applies to Baptists too.

Smile

Teasing out the idea of a 'creator' ... there certainly are Buddhist sects that believe in and worship a "creator." However, as your post suggested, it is not the same notion of 'creator' as the Abrahamic faiths - it is more Hindu (which makes sense)

e.g.: Ame-no-minaka-nushi-no-kami which translates to: “Heavenly Centre-Ruling Deity”

(from: "The Essence of Aikido: Spiritual Teachings of Morihei Ueshiba")

Aikido is a sect of Mahayana Buddhism.

(For a time I taught Yoga at an Aikido Dojo that was founded by a guy who practiced 7 years in Japan under the late Morihiro Saito Sensei (Patrick Cassidy Sensei, now at Aikido Montreux in Switzerland.) The guy can literally throw energy.... pretty fun stuff.

Buddhism is flavored with a good deal of metaphysical beliefs.

by Metis Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:25 pm

[quote="Sakhaiva"]

Metis wrote:
Teasing out the idea of a 'creator' ... there certainly are Buddhist sects that believe in and worship a "creator." However, as your post suggested, it is not the same notion of 'creator' as the Abrahamic faiths - it is more Hindu (which makes sense)

e.g.: Ame-no-minaka-nushi-no-kami which translates to: “Heavenly Centre-Ruling Deity”

(from: "The Essence of Aikido: Spiritual Teachings of Morihei Ueshiba")

Aikido is a sect of Mahayana Buddhism.

I was no aware of this groups teachings, so thanks. What I do know is that the Canon and at least most rafts do not teach there is a creator-god, and let me supply a quote from Wikipedia, which normally I would not use as a source but I'm in a bit of a hurry:

Reflecting a common understanding of the Buddha's earliest teachings, Nyanaponika Thera asserts:

From a study of the discourses of the Buddha preserved in the Pali canon, it will be seen that the idea of a personal deity, a creator god conceived to be eternal and omnipotent, is incompatible with the Buddha's teachings. On the other hand, conceptions of an impersonal godhead of any description, such as world-soul, etc., are excluded by the Buddha's teachings on Anatta, non-self or unsubstantiality. ... In Buddhist literature, the belief in a creator god (issara-nimmana-vada) is frequently mentioned and rejected, along with other causes wrongly adduced to explain the origin of the world.

In addition, nowhere in the Pali Canon, are Buddhas ascribed powers of creation, salvation and judgement. In fact, Buddhism is critical of all theories on the origin of the universeand holds the belief in creation as a fetter binding one to samsara.

Buddhism is flavored with a good deal of metaphysical beliefs.

Let's use the word "teachings" instead of "belief" and then I'll agree with you. Are religions like road maps? Icon_wink

by Sakhaiva Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:55 pm

Metis: What I do know is that the Canon and at least most rafts do not teach there is a creator-god, and let me supply a quote from Wikipedia, which normally I would not use as a source but I'm in a bit of a hurry:

Reflecting a common understanding of the Buddha's earliest teachings, Nyanaponika Thera asserts:

From a study of the discourses of the Buddha preserved in the Pali canon, it will be seen that the idea of a personal deity, a creator god conceived to be eternal and omnipotent, is incompatible with the Buddha's teachings.

I think it's useful to back the Wiki quote up a bit to include the following line:

The Pāli Canon is the standard collection of scriptures in the Theravada Buddhist tradition, as preserved in the Pali language

I'm butting heads with you because I'm focuing on Mahayana Buddhism I believe they use Sutras that are not recognized by the Theravada Buddhist traditions. Perhaps Mahayana Buddhism might focus more on the Maha Brahma ... Maha Brahma = the Lord of the Brahama-lokas? ( To me, this title seems a bit creator God-like, at least in essence

[insert confession] I am no Buddhist Expert. [/confession]

Here is a link I was reading today that briefly talks about the Mahayana: http://www.patheos.com/Library/Mahayana-Buddhism.html

In addition, nowhere in the Pali Canon, are Buddhas ascribed powers of creation, salvation and judgement. In fact, Buddhism is critical of all theories on the origin of the universe and holds the belief in creation as a fetter binding one to samsara.

Thinking about the origin of the universe binds one to endless suffering? That sounds pretty harsh. I suppose if one is to obsess about the topic, it could lead to anxiety. In any case, I think the above is limited to Theravada Buddhism. Consider the following quote:

"The situation takes on a different complexion in Mahayana and
Tantric Buddhism. Here one encounters the notion of the Buddhas as
kinds of cosmic wizards or magicians, as the creators of, and rulers
over, “Buddha fields” (Buddha Paradises – whole world systems of
spiritual exaltation and instruction). Although there are countless
Buddhas, their essence is one - that of "Tathata" ("suchness" or
"that-ness") - , and it is in this sense that the Buddha proclaims
himself as "Tathagata" and exalts himself in theistic terms beyond all
other "gods" when he declares:

"I am the god above the gods, superior to all the gods; no god is like me - how could there be a higher?"
(Lalitavistara Sutra)"

(cited from: http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/God_in_Buddhism_-_Mahayana_and_Tantric_Mystical_Doctrines/id/1291271)

Are religions like road maps? Icon_sunny

Sakhaiva: Buddhism is flavored with a good deal of metaphysical teachings.

Metis: Let's use the word "teachings" instead of "belief" and then I'll agree with you.

ok, done

by Metis Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:06 pm

Sakhaiva wrote:
The Pāli Canon is the standard collection of scriptures in the Theravada Buddhist tradition, as preserved in the Pali language

I'm butting heads with you because I'm focuing on Mahayana Buddhism I believe they use Sutras that are not recognized by the Theravada Buddhist traditions. Perhaps Mahayana Buddhism might focus more on the Maha Brahma ... Maha Brahma = the Lord of the Brahama-lokas? ( To me, this title seems a bit creator God-like, at least in essence

That is correct, although the Canon predates the emergence of the Mahayana movement and is the oldest written scriptures now in possession, which is why I used it as a source. However, even in the Mahayana tradition there is no belief in a creator-god with any of the groups that I'm familiar with, which is why your statement about Aikido caught me off-guard.

And there are a multiplicity of deities that use the "Brahma" name in various forms, but they are not viewed as being unchanging or omnipotent deities.

"I am the god above the gods, superior to all the gods; no god is like me - how could there be a higher?"
(Lalitavistara Sutra)"

Yes, but the gods are not referring to a single creator-god, the concept of which would violate certain teachings such as dependence rising and inter-dependency whereas all that we seemingly experience relates to cause and effect. So, if there supposedly was a creator-god, what caused this? Who would have been there to tell us exactly what happened? If this creator-god existed, are we certain it still exists today? If so, has it changed? Is it still alive? This is quite possibly why, according to the Canon, when the Buddha when asked if there was a creator-god supposedly referred to the question as being irrelevant.

We have to remember that Buddhism is much more a process than a "religion" per se, even though it does have various mystical teachings as you mentioned.

by Chokmah Wed Nov 11, 2009 7:01 pm

Maps are man-made things. Maps are not the things themselves. Maps are guides... they are suggestions only... "this way worked for me".

Religions are but suggestions only and religions have given billions of people meaning and comfort over the millennium. All wars are political in nature.. big government causes big wars... not religion. Religion is just the excuse that politicians use...just look at the Holy Land, still fighting wars of genocide thousands of years later, but it is really about land.

So, yes, this analogy in the OP is spot on... thanks for the story, and I will use it as soon as a can.

by john5180 Sun Jan 17, 2010 10:30 am

I like to think of religion as a compass rather than a map. It's a moral compass, not one that directs us down the road. It won't necessarily tell us how to avoid the detours, or construction zones, but advises us how to overcome the obstacles we encounter.

Now, Celsus could very accurately point out that one need not have a religious belief in order to confront life's road blocks and hi-way hazards, not everyone has On-star in their auto, GPSs tracking devices or radar scanners, and they make the trip just fine. But having such equipment makes the trip, IMO easier, and less costly.

I think the point Celsus is trying to bring up is which is the best device (map). Well, which auto is best for taking the trip? Is it better to take the bus and leave the driving to the professional? Take a train or airplane? This question can bring out a varied response, and in fact when the answers are the same, they can be for widely different reasons. So IMO, there's no hard fast answer to be found. The answers are entirely unique because the answer is what best serves the need of the individual, and provides the best spiritual comfort.

by Chokmah Mon Jan 18, 2010 12:27 am

Comfort is important. Not everything can be based on efficiency. Some people like to use paper and pencil, some use typewriters and some use computers.. all of these vehicles work to communicate ideas and thoughts.

by Kartari Thu Jan 21, 2010 4:15 pm

Regarding the conversation about Buddhism, I have not read the Lalitavistara Sutra. It does appear that some Hindu ideas were imported into Nepal from what I've read, and in Tibet, the Bon shamanic tradition that preceded Buddhism has influenced the culture. But Metis is correct, the notion of a creator deity is not a part of any Buddhist school (as far as I am aware at least). The Tibetans do have many folktales, one of which I know of that tells the story of the world's creation (not by a God btw, but by primeval beings), but it is certainly not considered a required belief for Buddhism even in the Tibetan tradition. The following quote is from Sakhaiva's link:

“I am the core of all that exists. I am the seed of all that exists.
I am the cause of all that exists. I am the trunk of all that exists. I
am the foundation of all that exists. I am the root of existence. I am
‘the core’ because I contain all phenomena. I am ‘the seed’ because I
give birth to everything. I am ‘the cause’ because all comes from me. I
am ‘the trunk’ because the ramifications of every event sprout from me.
I am ‘the foundation’ because all abides in me. I am called ‘the root’
because I am everything.” (The Supreme Source, p. 157).

Thus Buddhism spans a grand arch from evident non-theism to mystically hued mentalist panentheism.

Mystical, yes. But it appears to me that this quote from the sutra is indicative not of panentheism or pantheism but of the deepest essence of the self, which is boundless awareness. The concept of anatta (Pali) or anatman (Sanskrit), translated as "no-soul", teaches that our true self is boundless, natural, perfect awareness (as opposed to the concept of atman ("soul") in Hinduism and the supernatural notion that it reincarnates as a separate spiritual entity until uniting with God in Nirvana). There is no theistic description given of this awareness, however, in all my readings (which are not complete but are not superficial either). Deities are rather regarded as even more fallible than humans in the Tibetan tradition in fact, which values a human birth above godly (and all other forms of) birth for its greater potential for enlightenment. The quote above is therefore consistent with non-theism, and the concluding sentence is not warranted by that quote alone.

I wanted to find this sutra in its entirety online (many are) but couldn't... if anyone finds a link, please share, thanks!

by ItIsSoSimple Sat Dec 15, 2012 1:17 pm

Any advice is a "map". To believe the map leads to a "treasure" makes it not to lead to the "treasure" you want to find.

If you are ready to call your reality into question, read something very new and very different: Alkuajatus, The Original Thought, The Little Manual of Life. Google for it.

It says that beliefs are seeds of lies. The truth is about to know, not to believe. It is very straight, it doesn't focus on pleasing your opinions, but it helps you to find what you want to find in a clear and simple way.

by Southern Hick Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:44 pm

Good evening everyone[smile].
I............think that in reading your post I may have missed something inportant that would have made your message make more sense to me, ItIsSoSimple.
I admit that I am tired and not thinking as clear as I was this afternoon, so...[shrugs shoulders]. How is "to know" different from "to believe"? Are the two concepts/actions not needed to help an individual define reality for one's self? Perhaps you have a different definition than I of what a 'belief' is.
When it comes to helping me define the basic nature of "reality" in the purely materialistic sense, I rely on the information of all of my senses as well as what the best scientists/researchers have to say. If by "reality" your talking about a person's 'personal' or 'spiritual' reality, it seems that the nature of reality would be subject to a great deal of personal insight, experiences, and subjective ideals, ever evolving into this magnificent multi-layered and complex "patch-work quilt" of a concept as the individual matures mentally and spiritually.....which seems like a pretty difficult kind of a thing for some other stranger to criticize as being incorrect without them both already agreeing in some way on a set definition of what said "reality" is/was.

What do YOU mean by "reality"? Popcorn

by Sponsored content

Are religions like road maps?

Are religions like road maps?

Re: Are religions like road maps?

Re: Are religions like road maps?

Re: Are religions like road maps?

Re: Are religions like road maps?

Re: Are religions like road maps?

Re: Are religions like road maps?

Re: Are religions like road maps?

Re: Are religions like road maps?

Re: Are religions like road maps?

Re: Are religions like road maps?

Re: Are religions like road maps?

Re: Are religions like road maps?

Re: Are religions like road maps?

Re: Are religions like road maps?

Re: Are religions like road maps?

Re: Are religions like road maps?

Re: Are religions like road maps?

Re: Are religions like road maps?

Re: Are religions like road maps?

Re: Are religions like road maps?

Re: Are religions like road maps?

Re: Are religions like road maps?

Re: Are religions like road maps?