Nonbelievers and Buddhism

[Complexity]

It's hard not to respond to unadulterated twaddle.

Oh, I know.

It is also very hard not to look at some threads, even though you know there is a slow-motion train wreck in progress.

I just wanted to establish that I know what I should do even if I am utterly incapable of doing it.

 

[Dancing David]

I think this really comes down to a matter of perspective. Is the Buddhist view that most of our suffering comes from our own mental reactions really that revelatory? I dunno, I think it's something most people should be able to work out. That's not to say there are not deep philosophical traditions in Buddhism, there certainly are, but I think the reason that most people immediately think of them rather than the religious features is predominately down to the way Buddhism has been promoted in the West. If Christianity had been imported to the West when enlightenment values were highly regarded I suspect we would have a very different view of it.


The problem with using D.T. Suzuki as a source is that he is probably one of the clearest examples of someone who repackaged Buddhism to make it appealing to Western audiences. Reading his writings in Japanese on Zen make this distinction abundantly clear. This is not to say he invented things wholesale but it is fair to say that Suzuki is not an impartial source.


Depends on which Buddhism you are looking at and Zen Buddhism in Japan is just as institutionalised and ritualised as any number of other forms of Buddhism. It's not really God-centric but I would certainly say that it is ritual-centric and I also think you'd find a lot of woo amongst staunch Zen practitioners.


I would actually go so far as to say you could immerse yourself in almost every form of Buddhism promoted in the West, including Tibetan Buddhism, and still retain an atheist/skeptic perspective. The only problem with this, I feel, is if you then try to argue that the atheist/skeptic interpretation is actually what REAL ORIGINAL Buddhism is really all about.

BTW, if anyone is interested in the story of Buddhism being promoted to the West I recommend having a look at 'Curators of the Buddha' by Donald Lopez or any of the books dealing with the World Congress of Religions held in Chicago in 1893 (or for Tibetan Buddhism 'Prisoners of Shangri La' also by Lopez).

So much truth, I have stated however that the buddhism of the pali canon, while it has woo within, it has much less than other branches. But that is because the monks cleaned it up for their own reasons (maybe they did not like the dirty limericks).

However when I read Thich Nhat Hanh, most of what he says is essentially pantheistic to the point of oblivion. So his traditional Vietnam style buddhism, may be very packaged for westerners, or it may not be. I do not really know. The compatability with atheism may be very deliberate.

I also know that confirmation bias really influences human perceptions and I may just disregard what TNH says that I disagree with.


Here is something he said about Xianity:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionand...2003/extended-interview-thich-nhat-hanh/2758/

Q: But Christians believe in a personal God and in the divinity of Jesus. How do those beliefs fit with Buddhism?
A: There are many levels of Christianity. There are many notions about God. To believe that God is a person is just one of the notions of God that you can find in Christianity. So, we should not say that there is one Christianity. There are many Christianities.

And then he also says
What I would say to Osama Bin Laden

Do you believe that evil exists? And, if so, would you consider terrorists as evil persons?

Evil exists. God exists also. Evil and God are two sides of ourselves. God is that great understanding, that great love within us. That is what we call Buddha also, the enlightened mind that is able to see through all ignorance.

What is evil? It is when the face of God, the face of the Buddha within us has become hidden. It is up to us to choose whether the evil side becomes more important, or whether the side of God and the Buddha shines out. Although the side of great ignorance, of evil, may be manifesting so strongly at one time that does not mean that God is not there.

Kind of a mixed bag.

 

[CKava]

So much truth, I have stated however that the buddhism of the pali canon, while it has woo within, it has much less than other branches. But that is because the monks cleaned it up for their own reasons (maybe they did not like the dirty limericks).

However when I read Thich Nhat Hanh, most of what he says is essentially pantheistic to the point of oblivion. So his traditional Vietnam style buddhism, may be very packaged for westerners, or it may not be. I do not really know. The compatability with atheism may be very deliberate.

I also know that confirmation bias really influences human perceptions and I may just disregard what TNH says that I disagree with.

Thich Nhat Hanh is an example of someone who I would say has made a deliberate effort to appeal to Westerners. I think he is earnest and believes in the vision of the Buddhist teachings that he promotes but his writings along with D.T. Suzuki, Alan Watts, Chogyam Trungpa, the Dalai Lama and Philip Kapleau promote a particular interpretation of Buddhism. One that is wholly compatible with modern Western values and I feel that in a sense, this involves a distortion, or at least a reinterpretation, of the Buddhist tradition.

When I began my studies on Buddhism one of the biggest issues for most of the people on the course was that they had a large number of preconceived ideas about what 'real Buddhism' was about, based on the writings of the above promoters. An objective examination shows a tradition with a much more varied and much less scientific approach than the popular image suggests.

 

[Ryokan]

What is 'real Buddhism'? Theravada? Pure Land? Tibetan Buddhism? Zen? Nichiren? Some other form? How do you define 'real Buddhism', what are it's characteristics?

Are Suzuki and Thich Nhat Hanh not 'real Buddhists'?

I'm genuinely curious.

 

[Dancing David]

Thich Nhat Hanh is an example of someone who I would say has made a deliberate effort to appeal to Westerners. I think he is earnest and believes in the vision of the Buddhist teachings that he promotes but his writings along with D.T. Suzuki, Alan Watts, Chogyam Trungpa, the Dalai Lama and Philip Kapleau promote a particular interpretation of Buddhism. One that is wholly compatible with modern Western values and I feel that in a sense, this involves a distortion, or at least a reinterpretation, of the Buddhist tradition.

When I began my studies on Buddhism one of the biggest issues for most of the people on the course was that they had a large number of preconceived ideas about what 'real Buddhism' was about, based on the writings of the above promoters. An objective examination shows a tradition with a much more varied and much less scientific approach than the popular image suggests.

Yeah, I agree, I would not use science and buddhism in the same sentence without it being totally contrived.

And again, not having met many of the monks around THN's mentors, I have no way to say what stream he is in.

But then the 'Jesus people' movement fed right into the modern born again movement in Xianity, I know some 'Jesus people' who are still the same as they were in 1969 and I know others who have become huge thumpers of the bible. So the same religion different paths, none is truer that the others.

 

[CKava]

What is 'real Buddhism'? Theravada? Pure Land? Tibetan Buddhism? Zen? Nichiren? Some other form? How do you define 'real Buddhism', what are it's characteristics?

Are Suzuki and Thich Nhat Hanh not 'real Buddhists'?

I'm genuinely curious.

They are real Buddhists, as far as I am concerned, they are just Buddhists who promote/promoted versions of Buddhism that are aimed particularly at Western audiences. This typically involves presenting their tradition in a particularly favourable light and repackaging certain concepts/traditions so that they are appealing to Westerners. There is nothing wrong with that but it does mean that when relying on them as your source of information about Buddhism you are basically getting a modern interpretation designed to appeal to Western audiences.

Thich Nhat Hanh is, I believe, quite explicit about how his brand of Buddhism offers a novel approach- with scriptural and historical support, of course- and Suzuki, well it would take some time to go into but it is well established that his portrayal of Japanese Zen Buddhism was a form of Buddhist Modernism highly tailored to Western audiences (his wikipedia page even has a section discussing it).

EDIT: Oh and to address your actual question if you take a look through this very thread you will find multiple examples of people making rather straightforward claims about what 'real'/'original' Buddhism is about i.e. an atheistic and rational philosophical system that has been misinterpreted as a religion. I am not promoting this perspective however as over the years I've studied Buddhism I've found such a presentation creates a very misleading image of the tradition as a whole.

 

[MikeSun5]

I would actually go so far as to say you could immerse yourself in almost every form of Buddhism promoted in the West, including Tibetan Buddhism, and still retain an atheist/skeptic perspective. The only problem with this, I feel, is if you then try to argue that the atheist/skeptic interpretation is actually what REAL ORIGINAL Buddhism is really all about.

I think this is a fair statement that illustrates Buddhism's oddly wide appeal... If an atheist begins studying Buddhism, he/she can keep their original atheistic view. If a theist begins studying Buddhism, he/she can keep their original belief in God. Because Buddhism apparently is compatible with both atheistic and religious belief systems.

(So is Scientology, I hear. )

...I feel that in a sense, this involves a distortion, or at least a reinterpretation, of the Buddhist tradition.

When I began my studies on Buddhism one of the biggest issues for most of the people on the course was that they had a large number of preconceived ideas about what 'real Buddhism' was about, based on the writings of the above promoters. An objective examination shows a tradition with a much more varied and much less scientific approach than the popular image suggests.

Well, one ugly facet of religion is the Holier-than-thou attitude, to which Buddhism takes no exception. The simple fact that there are different sects of Buddhism is proof that some people think that one form is somehow "better" or more "pure" than another.

So while certain Buddhists who only follow a small percentage of Buddhist teachings happily refer to themselves as "Buddhists," there have got to be other (more "devout"?) Buddhists who would not consider the former a "real Buddhist." I doubt a barefoot bald man clad in robes somewhere in an Indian temple would look at a bearded vegan cafeteria-Buddhist from San Francisco as an equal in faith or practice. Or maybe he'd be so enlightened that it wouldn't matter.

Sooo.... even though Ryokan doesn't like the question, it's a valid one for a non-Buddhist to ask. What is the minimum you must do/read to be called a Buddhist? The answer (I've inferred) is that it's different for everyone. Anyone can call themselves a Buddhist, no matter how much or how little they've studied. Other Buddhists may disagree with your title, but those Buddhists aren't following your version of Buddhism, so to naraka with them, right?

 

[NordaVinci]

One day I was concentrating to have an experience of the Mother Voidness that would make a difference to me such that I could understand it. In the evening I was waiting for my ride at a corner bar, looking out the window..in front of a pac-man machine. I decided to play a couple games. The most I ever got at that time was about 59,000. The first two games that is what I got..about. But the third game was entirely different.

I remember putting in the quarter and beginning, but then I came back to my ordinary consciousness to notice that my hand was moving the level flawlessly, without even having lost one pac-man yet, and my score was 159,000. The pac-man and the chasers were moving superfast. As I came back to normal consciousness, I had to concentrate again so as to figure out where to go and what to do so as not to get caught....and I very quickly lost all the remaining pac-men.

The eye of the bubble had momentarilly been absorbed into the surface of the ocean.

 

[dafydd]

One day I was concentrating to have an experience of the Mother Voidness that would make a difference to me such that I could understand it. In the evening I was waiting for my ride at a corner bar, looking out the window..in front of a pac-man machine. I decided to play a couple games. The most I ever got at that time was about 59,000. The first two games that is what I got..about. But the third game was entirely different.

I remember putting in the quarter and beginning, but then I came back to my ordinary consciousness to notice that my hand was moving the level flawlessly, without even having lost one pac-man yet, and my score was 159,000. The pac-man and the chasers were moving superfast. As I came back to normal consciousness, I had to concentrate again so as to figure out where to go and what to do so as not to get caught....and I very quickly lost all the remaining pac-men.

The eye of the bubble had momentarilly been absorbed into the surface of the ocean.

Now you are just trolling.The Mother Voidness indeed! Do you have anything serious to contribute to the thread?

 

[Dancing David]

And without repitition and variable control you don't know what it was related to, it may have been the Mother Voidness, it may have been your lunch, it may have just happened.

This is also way off topic.

 

[blobru]

From Pali Canon to Bally Pacman: and BuDdHa made the final level on both!

 

[CKava]

One day I was concentrating to have an experience of the Mother Voidness that would make a difference to me such that I could understand it. In the evening I was waiting for my ride at a corner bar, looking out the window..in front of a pac-man machine. I decided to play a couple games. The most I ever got at that time was about 59,000. The first two games that is what I got..about. But the third game was entirely different.

I remember putting in the quarter and beginning, but then I came back to my ordinary consciousness to notice that my hand was moving the level flawlessly, without even having lost one pac-man yet, and my score was 159,000. The pac-man and the chasers were moving superfast. As I came back to normal consciousness, I had to concentrate again so as to figure out where to go and what to do so as not to get caught....and I very quickly lost all the remaining pac-men.

The eye of the bubble had momentarilly been absorbed into the surface of the ocean.

And lo NordaVinci did continue to try and derail the thread and post further anecdotes that no-one on the JREF forum found compelling or had any interest in. And so he promoted the 'wisdom' of the Living Buddha Rev. Moon across the interweb to the non-enlightened. Amen.

 

[Complexity]

And Amen.

You mean all we had to do was say 'amen' and it would be over?

 

[Erigena]

Don't we all cherry-pick? What thinking person does not examine a range of beliefs and decide what makes sense to him?.

Yes, and as I said, people should use whatever brings value to their life.

Does anyone really bow to authority in every particular of any doctrine or dogma?

Tom Cruise, Scientology?

And how did any dogma get to be the official one anyway, except that somebody who managed to get himself into a position of power and authority tried to impose his own set of cherry-picked beliefs on everyone else?

I agree. Cherry picking is how religions evolve.

[/QUOTE]Oh, OK, those people were "divinely inspired." We know that because they told us so themselves.[/QUOTE]

I don’t' believe in divine inspiration and certainly didn't make any claim to.

My point was that I don't understand why people who practice part of something would label themselves as a follower of the whole ideology.

 

[Erigena]

My point was that there are lots of Marxists in the world, but very few of them would agree with every single thing that Marx said or taught. Likewise, there are lots of Buddhists in the world, but very few would agree with every single thing that the Buddha taught.

I think your approach to who is and who isn't a Buddhist among the cherry pickers is very heavily influenced by Christianity. A Christian believes that Jesus Christ was God incarnate. If you believe that, it's really hard to say, "He had some good ideas, but this stuff in Chapter 3 is just way out of line." This is not the case with Buddhism.

I'm don't follow any religious beliefs unless you count the Golden Rule which is prevelant in many religions including Buddhism. I used Catholicism to illustrate a point that you would have to follow more than a few aspects of that faith to be considered among the practioners of it.

Yes, there are people, including an awful lot of Asian Buddhists, who feel that the Buddha was the ultimate special person, reincarnated thousands of times and achieving spiritual perfection, so much so that he was able to walk on the day he was born, and lotus flowers blossomed where he stepped. There are other Buddhists who think he was a pretty darned ordinary guy who had some good ideas. Neither one is "more Buddhist" than the other.

As far as one not being more Buddhist than the other, I'm not sure you would get an agreement from those who believe in the woo aspects of it. There are people on here who have said the original ideas of Buddha are...and not everyone agrees. So if you just think there are some good ideas, why label yourself with the same name as others who believe in the woo attached to it.

 

[Erigena]

really REALLY hard.



Haha. I'm pretty sure that is what's being asked of you, my friend. What does one need to do to call themselves a Buddhist?

You claim to be a Buddhist/atheist. Soooo.... how ya figure?

Doesn't the burden of proof rest on the person making the claim?

Yes it does.

I suppose it's a matter of how people want to be known/understood.

 

[Erigena]

I believe I've already answered that in this thread. It seems to me this is not enough for Eregina - but since there are so many variations of Buddhism, and I simply can't follow them all to the letter, I was just wondering what (s)he felt was the minimum required.

You have said that you follow Buddhism and that there are many variations in the philosophy. In order for a religion/philosophy to be labeled it has to have some commonalities. If you follow the majority of the commonalities than it would make sense that you would choose to label yourself as such. If you just think there are some good ideas, but you don't subscribe to the majority of it than why label yourself with the same name as others who do?

Also, if the common perception of Buddhism includes a lot of woo and you don't believe in that aspect of it, then again, why the label?

I do understand that perception doesn't make it fact.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm don't follow any religious beliefs unless you count the Golden Rule ....

I understand you don't follow a religious belief system, but you are probably more familiar with one of them than others, and it shapes your understanding of what a religion ought to be.

So if you just think there are some good ideas, why label yourself with the same name as others who believe in the woo attached to it.

Why not? It does no harm, and it serves a purpose. It allows me to put something on a form if someone asks. It helps me to find books that I think are interesting on amazon.com using the search function. I'm perfectly happy with people who believe the same things I do, but don't call themselves Buddhists, or who do.



In other words, it's no big deal, at least not to me, and not to any Buddhists I've met. I suppose if I were to go to Vietnam I could probably find some disagreement on the subject, but I haven't done that, so it's not something I lose sleep over.

 

[Dancing David]

You have said that you follow Buddhism and that there are many variations in the philosophy. In order for a religion/philosophy to be labeled it has to have some commonalities. If you follow the majority of the commonalities than it would make sense that you would choose to label yourself as such. If you just think there are some good ideas, but you don't subscribe to the majority of it than why label yourself with the same name as others who do?

Also, if the common perception of Buddhism includes a lot of woo and you don't believe in that aspect of it, then again, why the label?

I do understand that perception doesn't make it fact.

The commonality is the eightfold path.

 

[a3sigma]

Tom Cruise, Scientology?

I was still referring to "thinking people".