Scars of War - Creating Game Religions

[JemyM]

I'd just add a bit: The so-called "magical thinking", a special way of thinking, of perceiving the enviromnent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking
It's a concept people often overlook, and in a recent article I read that this might be in our brains, perhaps even genetically.

And it's one I should have remembered as well as it was introduced in the course I took on the subject.

 

[Squeek]

Now it's starting to become clear why I got out of this thread. Without a seeking spirit there's not much chance of anyone ever getting a grasp of Buddhism, no matter how well the facts are laid out for them.

I've been keeping up with this thread (all of it) and have to admit I'm fairly shocked at how well PJ understands it. I've had this discussion with folks who have never practiced many times, and his grasp of it is certainly the best I've ever seen.

Still, there's tons more to know, and according to Buddhism, studying it will only get you so far. That's why Buddhism is a practice, after all.

Here is an interesting link that does a fair job of compairing Buddhism to science. Not to seem uppity, it really is only so-so. For instance, when the author refers to modern Bhuddhism, he is clearly only making an intelligent guess. But it is pretty good and does pertain to this discussion.

 

[Naked Ninja]

@ Benedict.

At what point does the flavour become so different that the underlying template is essentially different?

I'm talking about the structure of a religion from a narrative or design point of view. From that point of view, I'm sure Satanism fits the template, even though the flavour is diametrically opposed to Christianity. Buddhism just got thrown out as an example, and now it's become A THING. Sigh.

It's like saying all cars on the planet, no matter how different they look, have a pretty basic structure in common. Tyres, Engine, Steering Device. They are a different pattern to ships. Which is different from the basic house pattern.

From my point of view, people are arguing about the colour of the curtains where I'm saying "yes, but when you design a house you'd put in some area for the preparation of food". This is a basic, common pattern I've observed in most (if not all) real world "houses".

The ways in which ideologies encourage people to react to that view, and the suggested position on the spectrum of independent thought vs blind acceptance varies massively between different ideologies though, and in my mind is significantly more than mere flavour.

Fair enough. But I'm still saying that the basic, observable pattern for philosophical religions is for there to be a sort of head/primary mystic somewhere in their lore, who teaches and leads the way. Which is a pattern you'd emulate when creating an artificial one for a story. That pattern is the basic structure, the writer then layers flavour on top of those to create interesting lore.

I feel that people are forgetting I'm talking about writing a game story here. As a writer, I observe the commonalities in real world religions, attempt to distill useful patterns, then use them to build my own narrative structures to which I add "flavour".

But reincarnation isn't central to Buddhism. It's present in it, yes, but it's not the *point.* And in any case, it has nothing to do with the point under contention -- the position of Gautama Buddha in Buddhism.

Yes, it does. What is a Buddha? It is someone who becomes enlightened and escapes the cycle of rebirth that everyone who isn't enlightened is stuck in, right? If you remove the concept of reincarnation, and you remove the concept of any kind of existence after death, what exactly is a Buddha? You're talking about achieving a state of enlightenment, please list the differences that would occur between someone in that state and someone not.

Understanding of those differences is core to understanding the position of a Buddha and why it is a desirable state to attain.

Reincarnation is certainly a supernatural belief, but karma is a good deal more complex than that. Trust me, NN -- you *are* misunderstanding this, and you're misunderstanding it because you're applying your Christian conceptual framework to Buddhism, where it isn't applicable.

So all the effects of Karma are measurable by scientific observation are they? No? Then they get lumped in the supernatural category. It annoys me when people say "oh, you just don't get it. And I can't tell you it. And I can't even begin to give a basic overview. Just trust me, you're wrong."

Put it in layman's terms. How do Buddhists explain it to potential Buddhists, to help them understand why they'd want to apply Buddhist principles to their lives.

Precisely: Buddhism is a set of physical principles -- a discipline, a practice, if you will -- wrapped in mysticism. Like karate.

No, it isn't. Karate is a set of physical principles because it manipulates scientifically measurable principles : Force, momentum, human anatomy, balance.

What scientifically measurable principle does Buddhism wrap? You avoided answering my question about Karma. What is it's atomic structure please? Is it energy, matter, what? How is it transferred between people?

It's pure mysticism.

Dharma means "practice." You're clearly confusing it with something else. Karma, perhaps? In any case, it has nothing to do with the topic under discussion -- the position of Gautama Buddha in Buddhism.

Understanding Karma is important to understanding this state of perfect enlightenment, not so? Which helps us understand if he is a divine mystic equivalent or not.

Which has nothing to do with the topic under discussion -- the position of Gautama Buddha in Buddhism.
...repeated ad infinitum...

Yes, it does. You want to imply that Buddhism, with it's belief of attaining a perfect state, would survive without any actual examples of such a state, that people would just shrug and continue to believe the same principles. I say : Doubtful.

Not without *anyone* achieving that enlightenment, I'm sure. But there are those 27 others, plus a whole bunch of people currently alive who are considered to be well on their way to that state. Point being: the person of Gautama Buddha is not central to Buddhism the same way the person of Jesus Christ is to Christianity or Mohammed is to Islam.

Good, so we've gotten to the point where you admit you need some figurehead. Could I have avoided this whole discussion if I'd said "your philosophical religions generally have 1 or more holy/divine/enlightened/super awesome figureheads"? Oh, for a time travel machine.

What for?

To repeat :

I feel that people are forgetting I'm talking about writing a game story here. As a writer, I observe the commonalities in real world religions, attempt to distill useful patterns, then use them to build my own narrative structures.

So show me some real world examples of how the patterns I've observed are wrong please.

He is interchangeable with any of those 27 other Buddhas -- which is the point I'm arguing.

If I'd known the thing that was bothering you was 1 vs many holy figureheads, dude, I would have amended my sentence in a heartbeat. I don't care about the number, it can be the Thousand Strong Host of Breakdancing Holy Men for all I care. But there is generally at least one in any philosophical religion, not so?

But the mystical insight is still the sole province of Christ. It is not achievable by any other Christian in this lifetime, since only Christ is regarded as the son of God. Buddhists believe that the state of enlightenment -- the same insight Gautama Buddha achieved -- is in principle available to anyone. That's not a trivial difference.

You're making a mistake, I didn't say mystical insight for Christians, I said state of Grace. Which is something any human can attain, it simply means being of the state to get into heaven. Attaining that state of Grace is the Christian theme, and the equivalent of the Buddhist attaining enlightenment, not actually being Christ.

Not supernatural. Mystical, certainly, but the mystical is not the same as supernatural. You can't write down the feeling of being in love either, and have someone read it and experience it the same way.

No, supernatural. Love is a testable thing, hook someone up to some scanners and you can measure the brain impulses in real time.

Actually, that's pretty much what he did. Buddha's teaching consists of pretty much "this is what worked for me; try it out and see if it works for you too." It's not a closed set; if anyone discovers a new, better way to get there, it gets included in the system. That's what Bodhidharma did, as a matter of fact, when he founded Zen.

It's still ridiculous. You're supposed to read his book to help understand zen buddhism, but not use your mind to find Buddha...except the part of your mind that is responsible for reading comprehension, I take it.

But I'm not saying that what Bodhidharma says is true. I am saying that what Bodhidharma says describes how Buddhists regard Gautama Buddha./QUOTE]

I don't care how Buddhists look at it, from the perspective of a writer writing lore, Buddhism fits my statement of how philosophical religions need one (or more) holy figureheads.

Question: why are you so upset about this? I'm picking up a very strong aggressive affect from you -- you're violently rejecting our attempts to explain what Buddhism is about to you, and instead you're clinging to your instinctive interpretation of it -- despite your own admission that you don't know much about the religion.

Because people are trying to turn this into a religious war, and it's becoming the shambles that all such forum religious wars become. It isn't supposed to be. It's about looking for patterns to the structure of real world religions so as to design artificial ones. I'm not trying to interpret the nuances of Buddhism, I'm looking at how it's laid out, the blueprint. Does it have a "kitchen"? Yes, it does, hence it fits the pattern I've observed and reinforces my belief that it is a useful pattern to keep in mind when creating a "house" later.

And yes, it's still a valid pattern if there exist houses with 3 "kitchens" instead of 1.

 

[Naked Ninja]

In fact, let me make the idea of what I mean by the common pattern as simple to understand as humanly possible.

Let's remove all connotations with existing religions, and hopefully cut the possibility of anyone getting their personal connection to a real religion all tangled up in the discussion. Let's replace the word "Holy/Divine/Enlightened/Whatever" with a completely new word : "Awesomitude"

Right, the template I've observed which would be used to design an artificial philosophical religion for a story, based on real world religions, is as follows :

1) There exists this higher state, Awesomitude. It cannot be proven by science, and it is the basis for all other points, hence we can say the whole thing is built around a foundation of faith. Faith in the existence of Awesomitude.

2) There is some methodology for attaining Awesomitude by the followers of Awesomitudism.

3) There existed or currently exists some exemplar(s) of Awesomitude. Either they were born with it or discovered how to attain it, doesn't really matter, their place in the pattern is the same : they embody the goal of achieving Awesomitude in the minds of the followers of the religion.

4) This exemplar(s) left behind or currently give guidance on how to attain Awesomitude, guidance which current day followers generally follow in their efforts to attain a similar state. Teachings, books, attend able seminars, whatever.

Right, can everyone now see the core template I'm talking about, stripped of all flavour and distinctness? And can you see how it is so broad and, lets be honest, simple as to apply to both Christianity and Buddhism and many others? Does this offend anyone? Could we please stop accusing me of not "getting" Buddhism because of my rigid Christian mindset. Please?


*Prays that there are no followers of Awesomitude in the audience to get offended by this post*

 

[JemyM]

1) There exists this higher state, Awesomitude.

Yes. That's me. Please worship me now. You need no evidence for doing so right?

 

[Squeek]

*Prays that there are no followers of Awesomitude in the audience to get offended by this post*

I'm guessing that was aimed at me. You're the one who suggested I was offended, Ninja, not me. Other than that, all I can say is I've read several of your posts before on this and other forums, and they all seem to go this same way.

Make your game any way you want. Really.

 

[JemyM]

Despite all your flaws, I'd like to have one hell of a drinking party with all of you once.

 

[Prime Junta]

Because people are trying to turn this into a religious war, and it's becoming the shambles that all such forum religious wars become. It isn't supposed to be.

Get bent, NN -- you're the only one here who's been frothing at the mouth about this. If you want to have a religious war, go and have it with someone else, 'cuz I'm done with this discussion.

 

[Naked Ninja]

Get bent, NN -- you're the only one here who's been frothing at the mouth about this. If you want to have a religious war, go and have it with someone else, 'cuz I'm done with this discussion.

If I seemed frothy, it's cause I got annoyed with how condescending you were being : "Trust me, you're just wrong", "I'm just here to educate you", etc etc.

So don't act wounded now, please.

I'm guessing that was aimed at me. You're the one who suggested I was offended, Ninja, not me.

You seemed offended, with your comments about leaving the thread and all. If you weren't, don't take the comment personally.

Other than that, all I can say is I've read several of your posts before on this and other forums, and they all seem to go this same way.

The Codex? I get into debates on the Codex. And you are going to use that as proof that I am "some way" in general? Well, ok then.

Despite all your flaws, I'd like to have one hell of a drinking party with all of you once.

Note to self, if in Sweden, avoid scary looking bearded Swedes offering drinks.

 

[Prime Junta]

If I seemed frothy, it's cause I got annoyed with how condescending you were being : "Trust me, you're just wrong", "I'm just here to educate you", etc etc.

So don't act wounded now, please.

I sincerely apologize for condescending to you. That was not my intention.

But you're still mistaken about Buddhism. I'm afraid I can't think of a way to say so that *doesn't* come across as a bit condescending, if you're determined to read it that way. I'm just not used to people who admit they don't know much about something, and then throw a hissy fit when someone who does know something about it attempts to explain it to them. I'll try not to make that mistake with you in the future.

 

[JemyM]

Could we please stop accusing me of not "getting" Buddhism because of my rigid Christian mindset. Please?

Interestingly, you are the one who's perspective comes from within a monotheistic religion around this thread. I do not know how much you believe in the gospels, but if one is prepared to go as far as call themselves "Christian", it does mean believing in at least some things that normally belongs in fantasy novels. One without such beliefs will analyse the stories like litterature, legends and philosophy. With that perspective, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammed and Mao end up as the same kind of human leader, only that they had different ideas. But if you belong to one of the supporters you would probably want to add more to them than men with ideas and then end up focusing on the magic before the ideas.

 

[Benedict]

I'm talking about the structure of a religion from a narrative or design point of view. From that point of view, I'm sure Satanism fits the template, even though the flavour is diametrically opposed to Christianity. Buddhism just got thrown out as an example, and now it's become A THING. Sigh.

It's like saying all cars on the planet, no matter how different they look, have a pretty basic structure in common. Tyres, Engine, Steering Device.

I realise that's where you're coming from, but the extent of the differences between buddhism & other mainstream religions mean that the narratives they produce are completely different.

And I do feel that ultimately the flavour becomes so materially different that the narrative shifts. Take science for example, you said earlier:

It still firmly posits the idea of a higher state of being with little scientific proof. To work towards achieving it, you have to at least have faith in the core supernatural concepts actually existing.

Science makes some assumptions. It assumes that there is an objective underlying reality that performs according to rational and consistent laws (even if those laws are of such incomprehensible complexity that they appear quasi-mystical at present) and that application of scientific method allows one to understand that hypothesised "true" reality. Same as buddhism postulates an underlying reality and assumes that application of buddhist thought patterns and meditative techniques allow one to understand that hypothesised "true" reality.

Science has key historical figureheads whose uncanny insights have not only influenced teaching significantly but also left them as influential figureheads, Newton, Hawking, Einstein, all have had scientific though bent to fit their theories at times and are hugely revered, even if scientific thought leave scope for the canon of their work to be expanded with new thoughts. Same with the buddhas.

It's not a "mystical" or "scientific" absolute gap. It's a spectrum of required faith vs experimentation and varying experimental methods.

 

[Amoebe]

In fact, let me make the idea of what I mean by the common pattern as simple to understand as humanly possible.

...

*Prays that there are no followers of Awesomitude in the audience to get offended by this post*

Here's a trap, from wikipedia:
'Religion has been defined in a wide variety of ways. Most definitions attempt to find a balance somewhere between overly sharp definition and meaningless generalities.'

You're tending towards that meaningless generalities which wil get you nowhere if you want to use religins or religious culture in stories in games. Instead of trying to generalizing religions into one concept (which no doubt can be done since all religions originate from the same kind of human thinking) you should indulge yourself in all those rich details that accumulate from a lot of different cultural layers that religions tend to gather in the course of ages. There's your source of inspiration, not in some meaningless abstract concept of religion. That kinds of reductionism will get you nowhere.

 

[Amoebe]

Science () assumes that there is an objective underlying reality that performs according to rational and consistent laws

I just have to object to that. That's a concept that's outdated since the middle ages. There is no concept of underlying reality or underlying anything in schience. The basis of science is there is only reality and reality can be described through laws.

 

[Prime Junta]

I think that's what Benedict meant. You do realize that the concept of an objective reality is not an entirely unproblematic one?