• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Buddhism For Dummies ??????

So, rebirth and the other supernatural stuff--does that require a leap of faith? I don't think reincarnation will hold up well to critical thinking.

Yes it sure does, and no it won't survive critical thinking.

But....

It appears ( I'm using all these qualifiers because I don't really know what I'm talking about ) that Buddhism isn't demanding that I make that leap of faith and it seems OK with the idea that I might reject the woo component altogether.
 
Faith isn't a dirty word. The essentials of Buddhism don't require faith, but it might be helpful to have some. The human mind is a tricky beast. :)

M.
 
Moochie..i agree somewhat.

Warning!!! subjective opinion ahead.

It all depends on the type of, and to what degree one subscribes to faith. In some endeavours, faith is necessary e.g. my parachute *will* open, but for the purposes of this discussion, can we agree that we're talking about faith in paranormal phenomena ?

I always thought ( believed ) that Buddhism was all about faith, much in the way Christianity is, and it's only recently, that I've come to think ( believe ) that might not be true. I'm not really interested in becoming a Buddhist, no more than I'm interested in becoming a Christian, but if Buddhism is telling me that faith is not is important when taking it's doctrines and ideals into consideration, then I find myself more able to relate to it as a philosophy than a religion.
 
Now as someone who was accused by Yrreg of being a buddhist dupe, i would like to point out that there are huge areas of buddhism that are totaly and completely woo^n degree.

But the buddha and his followers as presented in the Pali Canon are less so.
 
Last edited:
Dancing David...woo too the nth degree has been part of my experience too. So far I haven't gotten past Theravada Buddhism, I know the other schools exist, but I haven't gotten to them yet.

I used to know this woman who practiced some sort of (Japanese ?) Buddhism that had her chanting and ringing a bell five times a day.
 
Moochie..i agree somewhat.

Warning!!! subjective opinion ahead.

It all depends on the type of, and to what degree one subscribes to faith. In some endeavours, faith is necessary e.g. my parachute *will* open, but for the purposes of this discussion, can we agree that we're talking about faith in paranormal phenomena ?

I always thought ( believed ) that Buddhism was all about faith, much in the way Christianity is, and it's only recently, that I've come to think ( believe ) that might not be true. I'm not really interested in becoming a Buddhist, no more than I'm interested in becoming a Christian, but if Buddhism is telling me that faith is not is important when taking it's doctrines and ideals into consideration, then I find myself more able to relate to it as a philosophy than a religion.


Sorry -- didn't realize you were a dilettante.

I was just meaning that you'd need faith that Buddhism wasn't leading you up the proverbial garden path, were you to choose to follow the 4+8 path.

Sorry.


M.
 
Moochie..i agree somewhat.

Warning!!! subjective opinion ahead.

It all depends on the type of, and to what degree one subscribes to faith. In some endeavours, faith is necessary e.g. my parachute *will* open, but for the purposes of this discussion, can we agree that we're talking about faith in paranormal phenomena ?

I always thought ( believed ) that Buddhism was all about faith, much in the way Christianity is, and it's only recently, that I've come to think ( believe ) that might not be true. I'm not really interested in becoming a Buddhist, no more than I'm interested in becoming a Christian, but if Buddhism is telling me that faith is not is important when taking it's doctrines and ideals into consideration, then I find myself more able to relate to it as a philosophy than a religion.

There is a "faith" in Buddhism, but it is different from the Christian view.

Buddhism does not demand blind faith from its followers and it teaches us to cultivate "saddha" (confidence) but not "bhakti" (mere faith). "Bhakti may lead us to the blindness of knowledge. "Saddha" is two-fold: amulika saddha (blind faith) and akarawati saddha (confidence based on knowledge and inquiry). Buddhists are advised to cultivate akarawati saddha whereas amulika saddha is to be abandoned.

Linky.

In Buddhism, faith is seen as a means, not an end in and of itself. It is supposed to help motivate you at first, but then once you gain insight it is no longer required.
 
Yep...Jack of all trades, master of none.:D

Mookie, I wasn't sure where you were coming from. Upthread, in post #18 Elohim, addressed the issue of faith in Buddhism, and it was the same as Tsukasa Buddha says. It's faith in the teachings having value.

I'm sort of going at this backwards. I read the 4/8 and thought, "well this makes sense" I don't need to embrace Buddhism as a lifestyle, but the teachings have, so far, taught me that I'm not alone in some of the philosophical/lifestyle outlooks I have.

For instance, I've been exercising right intention for years now, not because I'm a wussie, but because it's not really constructive. At times I find this a very challenging mindset to maintain, and i do allow myself the "luxury" of occasionally loosing it in the face stupidity when it rears it's ugly head... One day, I'll relate my experiences with Scientology, and how I tossed right intention out the window in favour of a screaming rant.
 
It appears ( I'm using all these qualifiers because I don't really know what I'm talking about ) that Buddhism isn't demanding that I make that leap of faith and it seems OK with the idea that I might reject the woo component altogether.

I think adherents of other religions would say the same about their respective faiths; I know Christians, Jews, and Muslims who would argue that you don't have to believe the supernatural stuff--just focus on the positive, rational stuff. But then we're talking about philosophy, not religion.

Religion can be tricky, because it's all in the eye of the beholder: there are Christians who believe homosexuality is evil and god will punish you for it; on the other hand, there is a gay Episcopal bishop. Some Christians believe that the Biblical story of Jesus is literally true; other Christians don't necessarily think anything in the Bible is literally true.

I believe Buddhism (especially when compared to other religions) can be useful and inspirational, but I don't buy it as a religion--I don't believe the supernatural stuff. I believe one can find inspiration from all kinds of sources, but I think religion can be a slippery slope toward further woodom.
 
I think adherents of other religions would say the same about their respective faiths; I know Christians, Jews, and Muslims who would argue that you don't have to believe the supernatural stuff--just focus on the positive, rational stuff. But then we're talking about philosophy, not religion.

Religion can be tricky, because it's all in the eye of the beholder: there are Christians who believe homosexuality is evil and god will punish you for it; on the other hand, there is a gay Episcopal bishop. Some Christians believe that the Biblical story of Jesus is literally true; other Christians don't necessarily think anything in the Bible is literally true.

I believe Buddhism (especially when compared to other religions) can be useful and inspirational, but I don't buy it as a religion--I don't believe the supernatural stuff. I believe one can find inspiration from all kinds of sources, but I think religion can be a slippery slope toward further woodom.

Yeah, I agree. You can practice Buddhism with zero belief in any woo elements that others have attached to it. To my mind, Buddhism is more a philosophy/psychology than a religion.

If faith comes into it at all, it is in whether "the way" will take you where you want to go. There is certainly no "ultimate supernatural being" that one is obliged to worship in Buddhism.


M.
 
jimtron...interesting point about other religions saying you don't have to subscribe to the superstition. I can't say I have any direct experience with this, but it has been 30 years since somebody actively tried to "convert" me. I was under the impression Buddhism was unique in this respect. I'll try and dig up some of the Christian perspective on the Jesus Myth Hypothesis and re read it.

I'm up for viewing Buddhism as inspiration without the woo, even though the woo seems to play a central role, most of the online reading I've done downplays the importance of the woo.

Moochie, psychology is pretty much what I think I'm reading when it comes to the 4/8. I know I don't have to adhere to "the path" in a strict sense, but it does provide an interesting perspective as to where thoughts, especially those that may lead to unhappiness, come from.
 
Suggested reading

OK...after smashing my head repeatedly against my keyboard while devoting just under two weeks to reading and trying to understand a thread here in R&P ( the Subjectivity and Science one ) I've decided that it's time to come to grips with, and try to develop a basic understanding of Buddhism.

With others, I recommend reading the Dhammapata. I also strongly recommend Herman Hesse's "Sidhartha." Particularly, I recommend the part in which Sidhartha elects not to be a follower of the Buddha. His point being, IMHO, that enlightenment must be discovered for oneself, and the path to it must be discovered by oneself. The example of the Buddha shows that it can be attained; his path, however, may not be yours or mine. Study behind the words. Hesse suggests, I believe, that adopting a set of beliefs established by someone else is meaningless. In my opinion, that's the problem with ALL religions.

As far as I know, no wars have been waged under the flag of the Buddha.
 
Last edited:
With others, I recommend reading the Dhammapata. I also strongly recommend Herman Hesse's "Sidhartha." Particularly, I recommend the part in which Sidhartha elects not to be a follower of the Buddha. His point being, IMHO, that enlightenment must be discovered for oneself, and the path to it must be discovered by oneself. The example of the Buddha shows that it can be attained; his path, however, may not be yours or mine. Study behind the words. Hesse suggests, I believe, that adopting a set of beliefs established by someone else is meaningless. In my opinion, that's the problem with ALL religions.

As far as I know, no wars have been waged under the flag of the Buddha.

I think you have misunderstood Buddhism, which is very easy to do, IMO. By utilizing the Buddhist path you are not asked to "buy" anything -- it is merely a path, a finger pointing the way if you like. You still need to do the hard work to reach any "enlightenment" that may or may not be found.

Why reinvent the wheel?

One more quibble, if I may -- those "musts" in your statement look ominous to me. Where do they come from?

All said, this is just my opinion, and may or may not be correct. :)

M.
 
Stout,

As far as I am concerned, biased as I may be, there is nothing "woo" about the practical aspect of Buddhism, the way of practice known as Noble Eightfold Path, which consists of right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.

Right view is defined as, "knowledge with regard to stress, knowledge with regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with regard to the cessation of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress" (DN 22).

Right intention is defined as, "being resolved on renunciation, on freedom from ill will, on harmlessness" (SN 45.8).

Right speech is defined as, "abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, and from idle chatter" (SN 45.8).

Right action is defined as, "abstaining from taking life, abstaining from stealing, abstaining from unchastity" (SN 45.8).

Right livelihood is defined as, "having abandoned dishonest livelihood, keeps his life going with right livelihood" (SN 45.8).

Right effort is defined as, "[when the meditator] (i) generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds and exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen, (ii) generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds and exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen, (iii) generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds and exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen, and (iv) generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds and exerts his intent for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, and culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen" (SN 45.8).

Right mindfulness is defined as, "[when the meditator] (i) remains focused on the body in and of itself... (ii) remains focused on feelings in and of themselves... (iii) the mind in and of itself... (iv) mental qualities in and of themselves — ardent, alert, and mindful — putting aside greed and distress with reference to the world" (DN 22).

Right concentration is defined as, "[where the meditator] (i) quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) qualities — enters and remains in the first jhana... (ii) with the stilling of directed thought and evaluation, he enters and remains in the second jhana... (iii) with the fading of rapture he remains in equanimity, mindful, and fully alert, and physically sensitive of pleasure, he enters and remains in the third jhana... (iv) with the abandoning of pleasure and pain, he enters and remains in the fourth jhana... " (SN 45.8).

In my opinion, this particular aspect of Buddhism makes an excellent foundation for creating a constructive and rigorous personal philosophy of (i) contemplative investigaton and (ii) wholesome living characterized by concern for others as well as oneself regardless of any belief in a form of life after death.

Jason
 
I'm up for viewing Buddhism as inspiration without the woo, even though the woo seems to play a central role, most of the online reading I've done downplays the importance of the woo.

Moochie, psychology is pretty much what I think I'm reading when it comes to the 4/8. I know I don't have to adhere to "the path" in a strict sense, but it does provide an interesting perspective as to where thoughts, especially those that may lead to unhappiness, come from.



A Japanese form of Buddhism -- Zen Buddhism -- might be of interest. In the past it has seen great popularity in Western countries.

http://www.geocities.com/upakaascetic/zen_intro.html

This site has an Intro to Zen Buddhism, written by D T Suzuki, a foremost proponent of Zen Buddhism.


Here's a paragraph from the book:

Is Zen a religion? It is not a religion in the sense that the term is popularly understood; for Zen has no God to worship, no ceremonial rites to observe, no future abode to which the dead are destined, and, last of all, Zen has no soul whose welfare is to be looked after by somebody else and whose immortality is a matter of intense concern with some people. Zen is free from all these dogmatic and "religious" encumbrances. When I say there is no God in Zen, the pious reader may be shocked, but this does not mean that Zen denies the existence of God; neither denial nor affirmation concerns Zen. When a thing is denied, the very denial involves something not denied. The same can be said of affirmation. This is inevitable in logic. Zen wants to rise above logic, Zen wants to find a higher affirmation where there is no antitheses. Therefore, in Zen, God is neither denied nor insisted upon; only there is in Zen no such God as has been conceived by Jewish and Christian minds. For the same reason that Zen is not a philosophy, Zen is not a religion.
[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]

If this piques your curiosity, there's much more at the site.

M.

[/FONT]
 
Is Buddhism a religion, or not? I asked Google, and here's one page I got:
[SIZE=-1]To the approximately 300 million practitioners worldwide, Buddhism is considered their religion. Like all major religions Buddhism contains an explantion of the origin of existence, a morality, and a specific set of rituals and behaviors.


A problem I have with religion, is that followers of religion make up their own versions. I think religion is supposed to explain the real world, but if you're religious you get to choose your own interpretation of whichever religion you prefer, regardless of evidence. That's why I think man created god; not the other way around.

And when it comes to explaining the origins of the universe, science seems to me to be more reliable than any religion, including Buddhism.


[/SIZE]
 
Buddhism doesn't have a creation myth so it, and the Buddha, doesn't attempt to "explain" the origins of the universe.
 
Is Buddhism a religion, or not? I asked Google, and here's one page I got:

A problem I have with religion, is that followers of religion make up their own versions. I think religion is supposed to explain the real world, but if you're religious you get to choose your own interpretation of whichever religion you prefer, regardless of evidence. That's why I think man created god; not the other way around.

And when it comes to explaining the origins of the universe, science seems to me to be more reliable than any religion, including Buddhism.


[/size][/font]

I don't get the "origin" part, Buddha didn't answer questions about creation. But Buddhism's "morality" is pretty wussy. If something helps you get to enlightenment, it is wholesome/skillful; if it keeps you in samsara, it is unwholesome/unskillful.
 
The link above said that Buddhism "contains an explanation of the origin of existence." Whom should I believe about Buddhism? Which sources are the most true or accurate or whatever?
 

Back
Top Bottom