Buddhism For Dummies ??????

[Tsukasa Buddha]

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?

Well not the Tibetans .

If you look at the suttas, the Buddha refused to answer question like whether the universe was eternal or not, infinite or finite. He thought that such questions were largely irrelevant. He also viewed the existence of a creator to be irrelevant.

There was one sutta where there was a cosmology set up, but it didn't have a creation per se, it said that the world was cyclical.

 

[jimtron]

From the Wikipedia article, "Buddhism and Evolution:"

Because the Buddha seems to present a model of cosmology wherein the universe expands and contracts over extremely long periods of time, this description has been found by some to be consistent with the expanding universe model and Big Bang. The Buddha seems to be saying here that the universe expands outward, reaches a stabilising point, and then reverts its motion back toward a central point resulting in its destruction, this process again to be repeated infinitely. Throughout this expanding and contracting process, the objects found within the universe undergo periods of development and change over a long stretch of time, according to the environment in which they find themselves. Following this passage above, the Buddha goes on to say that the "beings" he described in this paragraph become attached to an earthlike planet, get reborn there, and remain there for the duration of the life. As a consequence of this, physical characteristics change and evolutionary changes takes place. This is often interpreted as a very rough theory of evolution. Furthermore, the Aggañña Sutta presents water as pre-existent to earthlike planets, with the planet forming with water and the life moving from the water onto the earth. Buddha does not talk about a specific earth, but about earthlike planets in general.
The Aggañña Sutta is often regarded with great reverence for an apparent theory about cosmology which predated similar theories in western science by well over two thousand years.

[edit] Additional views

It would be rash to conclude that what the Buddha is saying in the Aggañña Sutta is in complete agreement with scientific evolution. The Buddha also says that the reason beings are attracted to the earth is because it tasted good to them and they enjoyed eating the substance. This should be seen as attachment to likes and dislikes in former lives which result in the rebirth at specific locations according to the impressions mind has gathered in the past lives.
Because of some rather strange details found in the sutta, and more importantly because the sutta is quite long and overall is not about the creation of the world at all, some have interpreted this account to not be a literal description of the creation of the world and the process of life. Some scholars and practitioners believe that the Buddha is speaking metaphorically about the nature of attachment, and is thus giving a teaching about how the mind forms attachments to material things and objects of awareness, thus causing suffering. On the other hand, some scholars, such as Richard Gombrich, argue that the entire sutra was intended as a parody of contemporary Hindu metaphysics, and therefore it should not be interpreted literally.

How did the Buddha come up with his cosmological ideas?

 

[Nosaj]

jimtron,

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?

I would first like to begin by stressing how unreliable I find a lot of the information about Buddhism from online sources such as Wikipedia to be, and I would highly suggest that you gather the majority of your information about the Pali Canon directly from reputable practitioners and translators, e.g., Bhikkhu Bodhi, Nyanaponika Thera, Thanissaro Bhikkhu, et cetera, and academic scholars, e.g., Lance Cousins, Rupert Gethin, Richard Gombrich, et cetera, than through sources such as Wikipedia.

How did the Buddha come up with his cosmological ideas?

Although in the Aganna Sutta the Buddha tells a story about the beginning of life on this world, in the end, the story was used to illustrate how Dhamma is best in this world and the next, and that the way to liberation is beyond caste and lineage. In addition, while some people take the story quite literally, others like Professor Gombrich believe that this Sutta is a lively and ingenious parody that was actually meant to make fun of the very need for a cosmology as a foundation for religious development.

Jason

 

[jimtron]

...I would highly suggest that you gather the majority of your information about the Pali Canon directly from reputable practitioners and translators, e.g., Bhikkhu Bodhi, Nyanaponika Thera, Thanissaro Bhikkhu, et cetera, and academic scholars, e.g., Lance Cousins, Rupert Gethin, Richard Gombrich, et cetera, than through sources such as Wikipedia.

Thanks, I'll check those out.

In addition, while some people take the story quite literally, others like Professor Gombrich believe that this Sutta is a lively and ingenious parody that was actually meant to make fun of the very need for a cosmology as a foundation for religious development.

On the topic of the reliability of Wikipedia--the Wikipedia quote I cited in my previous post also mentioned that Gombrich believed this might be a parody.

 

[Dancing David]

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?

Ah, the alleged historical buddha said to rely on your own judgement.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

There's the story told of the person walking in the forest, who is suddenly struck in the eye by an arrow. Now if you were there, what would you do first? What would be your priority? See where the arrow has come from or try to remove it or relieve the suffering? The analogy is with what the Buddha actually addresses in his teaching, an immediate real problem etc rather than abstract comsmological speculations, though many have indulged in them.

 

[Nosaj]

jimtron,

On the topic of the reliability of Wikipedia--the Wikipedia quote I cited in my previous post also mentioned that Gombrich believed this might be a parody.

Yes, that is true, but that still does not negate the fact that I find the information about Buddhism generally unreliable and filled with common miconceptions.

Jason

 

[Stout]

With others, I recommend reading the Dhammapata. I also strongly recommend Herman Hesse's "Sidhartha."

Thanks for your input. I've put Sidhartha on my "list", the list of books which is slowly growing. What I was hoping to do was take out what I could from the library in an effort to "preview" the material before actually buying it. Alas, we're in the middle of a labour dispute here with the result of all libraries being closed indefinitely.

I've started reading the Dhammapata online at the access to insight site, but I really would like hardcopy as I feel I already spend too much time staring at this screen as it it and I'd like to redevelop a relationship with my sofa

Moochie...I tried reading the Zen link you posted...I almost went crazy doing so and only made it half way through the page. I think, at this stage I'd just better focus on Pali Canon stuff. I'm having a hard time with the language as it is.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Buddhism is for dummies. Anyway, buddhism is just metaphysical hogwash. Most of the ideas are primitive, like reincarnation and enlightenment. Enlightenment for example just seems like woo and meditation is overrated.

Truly, Buddhism is philosophical child's play next to your doctrine of Nothing is real and thoughts are meaningless.

We're all in awe of your metaphysical wisdom

 

[Dancing David]

There's the story told of the person walking in the forest, who is suddenly struck in the eye by an arrow. Now if you were there, what would you do first? What would be your priority? See where the arrow has come from or try to remove it or relieve the suffering? The analogy is with what the Buddha actually addresses in his teaching, an immediate real problem etc rather than abstract comsmological speculations, though many have indulged in them.

I think, I will stand around, whine, wail and ask "Why Did God Chose Me to Have an Arrow?"

 

[Moochie]

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.

And I wholeheartedly agree, except that I don't consider Buddhism a religion, in spite of what Google and "religious" Buddhists say. I think if you look at what the Buddha actually said, there's no religion to be found in it. What people have done with Buddhism is what many people always do. You need to remember that at the time of the Buddha, people were worshiping just about anything, were extremely superstitious, and were influenced by the many religions in vogue at the time.

Stripped of all the dross heaped on it, Buddhism remains a fountain of great wisdom, and can be practiced in the comfort of one's own home because there's no church to join or fees to pay or god to worship.

Buddhism doesn't seek to explain the origins of the universe -- we have science for that, and Buddhism has absolutely no argument with science -- but what it might do is help you live more rationally within the context of the universe. In a great many ways, it is a radical departure from our typical ways of thinking.

And please, I'm not trying to win converts here -- conversion to what? If you're sufficiently interested in the subject you'll investigate further. Most if not all of Buddhist texts are available free on the bet (Elohim has linked to some great sources), or can be purchased just like any books from bookstores. Most countries have organizations of the various persuasions of Buddhism that can be approached for assistance. In the main they're generally very friendly, rational people who will not try to wash your brain or any other part of your anatomy.


All the preceding is my own opinion. I don't profess to be a Buddhist (yet, and my understanding may be somewhat deficient) and I don't belong to any Buddhist organizations, although I receive a monthly newsletter from a Tibetan Buddhist organization here. The newsletter is free, and there is no obligation to join.

http://www.tibetanbuddhistsociety.org/

It is one of many Buddhist societies here in Australia, albeit the most senior and perhaps largest of the Tibetan variety, and is visited by the Dalai Lama whenever he's in the country.


M.

 

[Moochie]

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?

I think what the Buddha might say about the religious trappings that have arisen around his teaching is that it is like putting legs on a snake.


M.

 

[Moochie]

With others, I recommend reading the Dhammapata. I also strongly recommend Herman Hesse's "Sidhartha."

Thanks for your input. I've put Sidhartha on my "list", the list of books which is slowly growing. What I was hoping to do was take out what I could from the library in an effort to "preview" the material before actually buying it. Alas, we're in the middle of a labour dispute here with the result of all libraries being closed indefinitely.

I've started reading the Dhammapata online at the access to insight site, but I really would like hardcopy as I feel I already spend too much time staring at this screen as it it and I'd like to redevelop a relationship with my sofa

Moochie...I tried reading the Zen link you posted...I almost went crazy doing so and only made it half way through the page. I think, at this stage I'd just better focus on Pali Canon stuff. I'm having a hard time with the language as it is.

A very good idea! I'm actually taking my own first "baby steps" into understanding Buddhism (been doing that off and on since the 60s ), so I wholeheartedly agree.

All the best,

M.

 

[nosho]

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.

The straightforward answer to this is yes, rebirth does require a leap of faith, and it is an important part of what most Buddhists regard as Buddhism. This essay is an example of that point of view.

... one does not have to fully subscribe to concepts such as rebith, especially if they are more interested in the purely practical applications of Buddhism such as the fourth Noble Truth, i.e., the Noble Eightfold path, which consists of right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.

I agree that it's not necessary to fully subscribe to concepts such as rebirth to experience the value of these practices. In my opinion, it's pointless (and probably counterproductive) to try to force oneself to believe in something.