Nonbelievers and Buddhism

[Schrodinger's Cat]

I am not a Buddhist, but I am very interested in it. I have read a lot about it and try and follow some of it's core philosophies like the concept of mindfulness. I also do Buddhist meditation with a Buddhist monk who works in pastoral care at my hospital. I don't really know a whole lot about how Buddhism works when practiced as a religion. I've only ever approached it from a philosophical standpoint.

coming from Catholicism, there were things about Buddhism that instantly appealed to me. In Catholicism we basically were taught that desire is a bad thing, that feeling desire is sinful. This seemed completely contradictory with the fact that humans have built in sex drives. I like the Buddhist approach that desire and temptation, that's just part of human nature. The key is to not be so attached to your desires that they control you.

The idea of Heaven and Hell always bothered me. Now I was raised in a liberal Catholic community. My church never taught us that you had to be a Christian to go to Heaven, just basically be a good person. But even so, I always thought it just didn't make sense that you got sentenced for ETERNITY based on your actions in one measly tiny little lifetime. Reincarnation just seems much more reasonable. If I had to make bets on the afterlife (if it exists), it'd be reincarnation.

I found Buddhist philosophical teachings much more applicable to every day life than Catholic teachings I had been exposed to. I found myself able to utilize teachings I had learned from Buddhism to change my mentality and make situations better in a way Catholicism had never allowed me to.

I also liked that Buddhist writings I have read stress that you shouldn't believe in something just because the Buddha or Buddhist figure said it. You should try and think things out for yourself, question things, always search for truth. Very different from the Catholic teachings I was exposed to.


I do think that a lot of Westerners become religious Buddhism because it's "religion lite..." but I don't really think there's anything wrong with that. I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting some form of morals, philosophies, and traditions to help guide you...but without things like the bowing and scraping, blind obedience, and guilt of worship that goes along with the desert religious.

 

[AlBell]

And then I look at the 8 fold path, which gives me a list of "rights."

There are 8 rights to correct the main universal wrong.

I've not seen the 8 Fold Path described in those terms, in that the arbiter of 'rights' is you. Well, you and the feedback the universe provides to your selections.

What list of "rights" did you find?

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

..

Guys, Buddhism is at base /a religion/. If you don't believe me, you can look at the current Japanese pantheon, over half of those gods are Buddhist in origin. (And there are seriously over 10 hells and heavens each.)

Western Buddhism tends to be almost only philosophical due to the lack of sutras making it's way out of China (Burnt or hid - banned books in China.)

Anyway, the problem is this. The central goal of Buddhism is to escape Samsara, the Wheel of Life and Rebirth and the cause of all suffering. This is done by various methods but when you do, you reach Nirvana - the state of no attachment and the knowledge that all are the same or different. (...essentially)

ALso, re anatta:

[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]o, instead of answering "no" to the question of whether or not there is a self -- interconnected or separate, eternal or not -- the Buddha felt that the question was misguided to begin with. Why? No matter how you define the line between "self" and "other," the notion of self involves an element of self-identification and clinging, and thus suffering and stress
[/FONT]

[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]
[/FONT]

 

[Trent Wray]

I've not seen the 8 Fold Path described in those terms, in that the arbiter of 'rights' is you. Well, you and the feedback the universe provides to your selections.

What list of "rights" did you find?

From the gospel of wikipedia:

1. Right view
2. Right intention
3. Right speech
4. Right action
5. Right livelihood
6. Right effort
7. Right mindfulness
8. Right concentration

I see it multiple ways: "right" in terms of "the correct version", which also implies there is an incorrect version.

And I'm not attacking it or defending it in any way shape or form .... I promise!

I'm examining it and trying to understand based off the posts of those who know about. I preferred to hear the song of the choir before studying the lyrics and music on paper, so to speak.

I can see it not so much as "laws" but guidelines. But I wonder if the Buddha considered trying to let go of ideas of right/wrong, correct/incorrect, while still clinging to the self? Or if he discovered that the self was the key instead after examining the idea of trying to "rid" ourselves of good/evil concepts?

 

[Ryokan]

Guys, Buddhism is at base /a religion/. If you don't believe me, you can look at the current Japanese pantheon, over half of those gods are Buddhist in origin. (And there are seriously over 10 hells and heavens each.)

And what about the pantheon of gods in the Theravada Buddhism of Thailand, Burma, Sri Lanka? There is none. As has been said, there are a myriad of different forms of Buddhism, and the Japanese form is a mix of different Mahayana forms (mostly Zen and Pure Land) and the local Shinto religion. Chinese (Mahayana) Buddhism does have a few variants that include gods, and most of the time these gods predates Buddhism in China, but were adopted into Buddhism.

Western Buddhism tends to be almost only philosophical due to the lack of sutras making it's way out of China (Burnt or hid - banned books in China.)

Burned, hidden or banned in China, maybe - but there are other Buddhist countries that didn't go through the cultural revolution or having been suppressed by communism.

The best example is the Pali Canon of Theravada, the oldest Buddhist texts we know. These are certainly not lost in any way, and have been translated into many languages. And the funny thing is, it's these oldest texts that include the least amount of supernatural elements.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm familiar only with very basic concepts about Buddhism (VERY basic). But I do see it referenced quite a bit, directly, throughout this forum.

Is there a draw to Buddhism for the atheist, non-believer, etc ? If so, specifically why? What is it about Buddhism that speaks to you (regardless of your belief status)?

Thanx in advance for any responses ...

There was an in depth program on Buddhism on PBS the other day (Independent Lens, The Unmistaken Child). It was clearly just as full of magical thinking as the rest of the major religions. Seems to me some skeptics like to imagine they can adopt some kind of magical thinking and compartmentalize it, claiming it occupies a different space than rational thinking does.

I find this is just as much a skeptical blind spot as other god beliefs no matter how you label it. If it meets your needs, fine, have at it. But claiming there are 2 universes, the rational one and some faith based one is not compatible with rational thinking without hypocrisy about why some magical thinking is OK while other magical thinking is not.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

And what about the pantheon of gods in the Theravada Buddhism of Thailand, Burma, Sri Lanka? There is none. As has been said, there are a myriad of different forms of Buddhism, and the Japanese form is a mix of different Mahayana forms (mostly Zen and Pure Land) and the local Shinto religion. Chinese (Mahayana) Buddhism does have a few variants that include gods, and most of the time these gods predates Buddhism in China, but were adopted into Buddhism.



Burned, hidden or banned in China, maybe - but there are other Buddhist countries that didn't go through the cultural revolution or having been suppressed by communism.

The best example is the Pali Canon of Theravada, the oldest Buddhist texts we know. These are certainly not lost in any way, and have been translated into many languages. And the funny thing is, it's these oldest texts that include the least amount of supernatural elements.

uh.. no. I had to spend a lot of time figuring it out - but it's *really* hard to find a named deity in the Japanese pantheon that's actually Shinto and not Buddhist.


Also, while I admit Theravada has none..

While the contemplative elite may deny the real existence of gods and demons together with the rest of phenomenal existence, the majority of Buddhists from the earliest times in India, and in other countries where Buddhism has spread, have never neglected indigenous religious beliefs. {8}

It doesnt' really matter if it incomporates gods. Honestly, if you want to follow the philosophy, say so, just don't pretend it's not a religion.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

There was an in depth program on Buddhism on PBS the other day (Independent Lens, The Unmistaken Child). It was clearly just as full of magical thinking as the rest of the major religions. Seems to me some skeptics like to imagine they can adopt some kind of magical thinking and compartmentalize it, claiming it occupies a different space than rational thinking does.

I find this is just as much a skeptical blind spot as other god beliefs no matter how you label it. If it meets your needs, fine, have at it. But claiming there are 2 universes, the rational one and some faith based one is not compatible with rational thinking without hypocrisy about why some magical thinking is OK while other magical thinking is not.

At risk of starting a flame war, that's because unless you are a strict materalist, religious beliefs are untestable unless they make material claims. (Of course, I know where I'm posting this and who I'm responding to, but it's a pet peeve of mine.)

 

[Hokulele]

uh.. no. I had to spend a lot of time figuring it out - but it's *really* hard to find a named deity in the Japanese pantheon that's actually Shinto and not Buddhist.

Such as Amaterasu?

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

... Or Izanami, Izanagi, Susano (.. OK, this is definitely misspelled) , Futsu-Nushi - yes, I can name a few obviously Shinto deities. But a lot of the entries you'll find don't bother to split it apart unless you're reading a site that differentiates.

 

[ugot2bekidding]

And the funny thing is, it's these oldest texts that include the least amount of supernatural elements.

This can't be stressed enough, IMO.

As others have pointed out, there are many forms of Buddhism being practiced today, some of which have strayed far from the original. For me, Buddhism is defined as 'the teachings of Gautama Buddha' and nothing more. The cultural trappings that were added later are irrelevant, and therefore haven't deterred me from appreciating the original source material.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

..except it all still contains Samsara...

 

[Dancing David]

From the gospel of wikipedia:

1. Right view
2. Right intention
3. Right speech
4. Right action
5. Right livelihood
6. Right effort
7. Right mindfulness
8. Right concentration

I see it multiple ways: "right" in terms of "the correct version", which also implies there is an incorrect version.

And I'm not attacking it or defending it in any way shape or form .... I promise!

I'm examining it and trying to understand based off the posts of those who know about. I preferred to hear the song of the choir before studying the lyrics and music on paper, so to speak.

I can see it not so much as "laws" but guidelines. But I wonder if the Buddha considered trying to let go of ideas of right/wrong, correct/incorrect, while still clinging to the self? Or if he discovered that the self was the key instead after examining the idea of trying to "rid" ourselves of good/evil concepts?

Hi, I spent some time searching for the derivation of the pali samma and did not find any good answer.

There are varying derivation and then a lot of interpretive meanings, some say many differnt things about it.

So if I look for sanskit samyak it is not much better, I find entries like this

samyaJc * = mfn. (fr. %{sami} = 2. %{sam} + 2. %{aJc} cf. Pa1n2. 6-3, 93 ; nom. %{samya4n}, %{samIcI4}, or %{samI4cI}, %{samya4k}) going i, long with or together, turned together or in one direction, combined, united (acc. with %{dhA}, to unite or provide with "' [acc. or dat. of pers. and instr. or acc. of thing]), entire, whole, complete, all (%{samyaJcaH} %{sarve}, `" all together "') RV. Br. S3a1n3khS3r. ; turned towards each other, facing one another RV. VS. Br. ; lying in one direction, forming one line (as foot steps) S3Br. ; correct, accurate, proper, true, right BhP. ; uniform, same, identical W. ; pleasant, agreeable ib. ; (%{I4cI}) f. praise, eulogy L. ; a doe Un2. iv, 92 Sch. ; N. of a divine female TBr. ; of an Apsaras MBh. Hariv. ; (%{a4k}) ind. in one or the same direction, in the same way, at the same time, together (with %{sthA}, `" to associate with "') RV. MBh. ; in one line, straight (opp. to %{akSNayA}, `" obliquely "') S3Br. Ka1tyS3r. ; completely, wholly, thoroughly, by all means (with %{na}, by no means, not at all "') Mn. MBh. &c. ; correctly, truly, properly, fitly, in the right way or manner, well, duly (with %{kR}, `" to make good [a promise] "') Up. Mn. MBh. &c. ; distinctly, clearly MW.

samyak.h = proper

So it appears that there are multiple meanings that might be attributted to the use of the term samma or samyak.


But it looks as though 'correct' and 'proper' show up a lot.

So I am not sure that 'right' and 'wrong' are any more meaningfull that 'proper' and 'improper', 'correct' and 'incorrect'.

then there are meanings of 'whole' and 'unified' as well.

But it all comes down in relation to:
decrease in suffering, which you can chose or not chose, you can chose the AH buddha's teaching or not. there are many paths.

there is not just one path that leads to an end to suffering, there is teh path that the AH buddha described. there are many others.



Now as to the second part of the question, the alleged revelation/enlightenment that there is no atman came before the discourse upon all the rest, the four noble truths and the eightfold path.

You will find that all notions come back to one consistent theme, that certain behaviors lead to more suffering and avoidance of those behaviors decreases suffering, and that yes, notions such as 'right' and 'wrong' are considered hinderances under 'right view' and 'right understanding'.

 

[Careyp74]

I have read that many observers of religion have found that the western study of Buddhism is the closest form to the original teachings of Buddha. These teachings may not qualify as a religion depending on the definition that you give it.

 

[Dancing David]

There was an in depth program on Buddhism on PBS the other day (Independent Lens, The Unmistaken Child). It was clearly just as full of magical thinking as the rest of the major religions. Seems to me some skeptics like to imagine they can adopt some kind of magical thinking and compartmentalize it, claiming it occupies a different space than rational thinking does.

I find this is just as much a skeptical blind spot as other god beliefs no matter how you label it. If it meets your needs, fine, have at it. But claiming there are 2 universes, the rational one and some faith based one is not compatible with rational thinking without hypocrisy about why some magical thinking is OK while other magical thinking is not.

Hi, that is based upon what?

there are many schools of buddhism, just as there are of any organization 2500 years old.

You have not shown that there are not types of buddhism that are less lacking in woo than others, nor that they are distributed in a particular fashion.

the pali canon is very unwoo, it has some but less than the rest.

 

[Dancing David]

It doesnt' really matter if it incomporates gods. Honestly, if you want to follow the philosophy, say so, just don't pretend it's not a religion.

And again in anything 2500 years old there are difference,

Just as in judaism, you have secular jews, you have ethnic jews, you have all sorts of observant jews and varying levels of beleif and practice.

I have known many types, some who were very observant and very beleiving, others who were observant and not beleiving, to differentd egrees and levels.

So too in buddhism, there is the cultural buddhism, it involves many syncretic aspects some woo some just festival stuff, there is mythological buddhism, which is WOW on the woo scale, there is 'traditions' of buddhism, some woo, some not and so on.

You will find all sorts of people who practice, and varying levels of beleif.

It is a religion and a philosophy, both aspects, one can take or leave either.

And as Ryokan said, strangely the Pali canon and the older forms are less woo than others.

 

[Dancing David]

..except it all still contains Samsara...

yes.

And... another word from an old language that has multiple meanings and multiple interpretations, most woo, some not.

It is as I said earlier, I really like Thich Naht Hahn as a chosen teacher, but there are times where I wonder at what he says.

But then he wrote the Heart of the Buddha's Teaching which is almost free of woo. (Really almost none, I can't recall any.)

 

[Ryokan]

Honestly, if you want to follow the philosophy, say so, just don't pretend it's not a religion.

I'm not sure anyone here has denied that it's a religion. If asked what my religion is, I will most of the time reply I'm a Buddhist.

the pali canon is very unwoo, it has some but less than the rest.

And that is almost to be expected. I mean, it is 2500 years old. I bet people back then, including Gautama Buddha, believed a lot of really weird stuff. But he didn't include that weird stuff in his teachings, because that's not what they're about. Even Plato's writings include a lot of supernatural things, including reincarnation and gods. I see no one discarding all of Plato just because his writings contain these elements. You pick what works, and discard the rest.

 

[Dancing David]

Oh, you cafeteria buddhist!

 

[Erigena]

Dancing David "You have not shown that there are not types of buddhism that are less lacking in woo than others, nor that they are distributed in a particular fashion."

Does less lacking in woo mean no woo? Wouldn't the woo classify it as faith based therefore making it a religion?

Ryokan "I'm not sure anyone here has denied that it's a religion. If asked what my religion is, I will most of the time reply I'm a Buddhist."

Most atheists don't subscribe to a religion. I say most, because maybe it depends on how they define being an atheist. Religion is based on faith and faith doesn't require logic, reason or proof to be believed. If there is no denying that Buddhism is a religion than how can an atheist follow a faith based philosophy and still be an atheist? I'm asking because I think I have missed something.