Nonbelievers and Buddhism

Dancing David said:
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


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'.
Click to expand...
Thanx for checking into that. *tips my hat* :)

Hmmm ..... okay, so one more thought. And if you or anyone else can shed light on this as well .... that would be cool :)

The Buddha essentially is saying that Life and suffering go hand in hand, but one can release themselves from the control that suffering has by releasing the attachment to certain aspects. Right? And although he chose one path ... there are many paths that potentially lead to a nirvana type of state. Yes?

Okay .... so let me ask. Is Nirvana supposed to transcend a person through the muck and mire reality the average person experiences? OR .... is Nirvana supposed to make the reality "all that much more real". IOW, is Nirvana supposed to be "as real as it can possibly get" for the human experience. Am I phrasing it correctly?

For those who are familiar with them, I'm thinking of the concept of the Twilight and Gloom in the Russian Night Watch tetralogy books by Sergei Lukyanenko. For those who are unfamiliar with them, one way of looking at the mythos of the novels is that there are multiple layers of the world as we know it, and adepts (called Others) are capable of entering those levels. Each level (the first of which is called the Gloom) you enter is essentially harder to access and requires more skill and training. The final level, IIRC, which very few see turns out to be exactly the same as the world in which everyone lives already. So in a sense, the most adept can travel through all the levels ... ending back up at the same point. This is kind of what I'm thinking and trying to paraphrase the concept of Nirvana as. Am I way off?
 
Erigena said:
Religion is based on faith ...
Click to expand...

Is that a definitive characteristic, or is that a characteristic of all the examples with which you are familiar?

Buddhism doesn't require faith in anything. Buddhism doesn't require belief in woo or anything supernatural.

As for whether it is or is not a religion, it is what it is. The answer to the question tells us something about your definition of religion, much more so than telling us anything about Buddhism.

We have several examples of people here who are, or have been Buddhists, and insist that they do not believe in woo, and do not believe in God or gods, and do not believe in anything supernatural. Is it that we are not really Buddhists?

Certainly many followers of Buddha believe in wooish things, and they practice religions that are a blend of Buddhist philosophy with other religious elements. I would assume that the Buddha himself also believed in wooish things (like the existence of a diva realm, for example), but since he lived over 2000 years ago, it would be surprising if he did not believe in those things. The point is that the wooish elements that he or his followers believed in are not central to the teachings of Buddhism. They are optional beliefs, most of which were added after his death.
 
Trent Wray said:
The Buddha essentially is saying that Life and suffering go hand in hand, but one can release themselves from the control that suffering has by releasing the attachment to certain aspects. Right? And although he chose one path ... there are many paths that potentially lead to a nirvana type of state. Yes?
Click to expand...

So far, so good.

Okay .... so let me ask. Is Nirvana supposed to transcend a person through the muck and mire reality the average person experiences? OR .... is Nirvana supposed to make the reality "all that much more real". IOW, is Nirvana supposed to be "as real as it can possibly get" for the human experience. Am I phrasing it correctly?
Click to expand...

I think that's correct. Nirvana is recognizing the world as it really is.
 
Meadmaker said:
Is that a definitive characteristic, or is that a characteristic of all the examples with which you are familiar?

Buddhism doesn't require faith in anything. Buddhism doesn't require belief in woo or anything supernatural.

As for whether it is or is not a religion, it is what it is. The answer to the question tells us something about your definition of religion, much more so than telling us anything about Buddhism.

We have several examples of people here who are, or have been Buddhists, and insist that they do not believe in woo, and do not believe in God or gods, and do not believe in anything supernatural. Is it that we are not really Buddhists?

Certainly many followers of Buddha believe in wooish things, and they practice religions that are a blend of Buddhist philosophy with other religious elements. I would assume that the Buddha himself also believed in wooish things (like the existence of a diva realm, for example), but since he lived over 2000 years ago, it would be surprising if he did not believe in those things. The point is that the wooish elements that he or his followers believed in are not central to the teachings of Buddhism. They are optional beliefs, most of which were added after his death.
Click to expand...
Earlier in the thread someone mentioned it was a philosophy and not a religion. To them it was worth noting the difference and I responded under the generally accepted definition of religion, but as with everything I suppose there are other interpretations of that word.

It seems whether or not certain sects of Buddhism are compatible with atheism largely depends on a person's interpretation of it, how they define religion and how they define themselves.
 
Atheism: a lack of belief in gods.

It does not mean a lack of religion.
 
Erigena said:
Earlier in the thread someone mentioned it was a philosophy and not a religion. To them it was worth noting the difference and I responded under the generally accepted definition of religion, but as with everything I suppose there are other interpretations of that word.

It seems whether or not certain sects of Buddhism are compatible with atheism largely depends on a person's interpretation of it, how they define religion and how they define themselves.
Click to expand...


I think the last paragraph sums it up quite nicely.

I think Buddhism is typically practiced as a religion but CAN be a non religious philosophy. Many Buddhist writings have nothing to do with any sort of dogma and really just are a way of looking at and dealing with the world (but not in a supernatural way). Let's take for instance the 8 fold path. Taken by itself, I feel like it is simply a useful life tool, it doesn't seem particularly mystical to me.
 
Erigena said:
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.
Click to expand...

Depends on the variety of buddhism, some are almost all woo free, and there is no faith in the buddhism taught in the Pali canon.

Faith gets you no where.

Now in Amida buddhism, it gets you a private paradise.
 
Trent Wray said:
Thanx for checking into that. *tips my hat* :)

Hmmm ..... okay, so one more thought. And if you or anyone else can shed light on this as well .... that would be cool :)

The Buddha essentially is saying that Life and suffering go hand in hand, but one can release themselves from the control that suffering has by releasing the attachment to certain aspects. Right? And although he chose one path ... there are many paths that potentially lead to a nirvana type of state. Yes?

Okay .... so let me ask. Is Nirvana supposed to transcend a person through the muck and mire reality the average person experiences? OR .... is Nirvana supposed to make the reality "all that much more real". IOW, is Nirvana supposed to be "as real as it can possibly get" for the human experience. Am I phrasing it correctly?
Click to expand...
I have not found nibanna, so I can only read other people descritions of it.

If one retrains one's conditioning so that when a situtation presents itself, there is a choice made rather than just reaction, that is like nibanna.

It is allegedly the 'extinguishment' of the attachment to pleasure and the avoidance of displeasure.

Yet all I can say is, it is all real. It is the response to reality that matters.

Nibanna is 'unconditioned'. If tanha/craving in extinguished the there is less dukka/suffering.
 
I have decided that a better way to answer the question about whether Buddhism is or is not a religion is to say that Buddhism is not a religion, but there are many religions that are Buddhist.
 
Meadmaker said:
Is that a definitive characteristic, or is that a characteristic of all the examples with which you are familiar?
Click to expand...

It's pretty much a definitive characteristic. I'm pretty sure one does require faith to be religious.

Buddhism doesn't require faith in anything. Buddhism doesn't require belief in woo or anything supernatural.
Click to expand...

Buddhism seems to sit squarely on top of the religion/not-a-religion line, holding equal stake on both sides, as well as holding no stake in either. On one hand, there are Buddhists who worship deities and believe in reincarnation. On the other hand, there are Buddhists who are atheists and claim Buddhism doesn't require faith or supernatural explanations.

Two completely separate ideas. Yet both are able to refer to themselves as Buddhists.... :boggled:

Meadmaker said:
I have decided that a better way to answer the question about whether Buddhism is or is not a religion is to say that Buddhism is not a religion, but there are many religions that are Buddhist.
Click to expand...

Okay, I think saying "Buddhism is not a religion" is demonstrably false, not only because of how it's normally referenced and described, but also how religion is defined.
Also, when atheist-Buddhists are asked what their religion is, I'd imagine most of them would say something to the effect of, "I'm an atheist and a Buddhist," or simply, "I'm Buddhist." If Buddhism is not a religion, then you Buddhists seem to have many scholars and reference books (along with some other Buddhists) giving you a bad name. ;)
And then there's the convenience issue. Having to answer "I am an atheist who does not practice religion, although I do ascribe to many tenets of Buddhist philosophy." takes a lot longer than just answering, "Buddhism."

And getting back to enlightenment:

Meadmaker said:
Nirvana is recognizing the world as it really is.
Click to expand...

Meadmaker, noooo!! Statements like these are the bane of woo. I will resisit the urge to attack that sentence with logic on the hope it can be reworded. ;)
 
MikeSun5 said:
Two completely separate ideas. Yet both are able to refer to themselves as Buddhists.... :boggled:
Click to expand...

I have a feeling that someone is bound to respond to this statement with something like, "hey, Mike -- Catholics and Protestants are both Christians!"

Before anyone takes that route, remember: the differences in other religions are not as drastic as the differences in Buddhism. There is no room for atheism in stuff like Christianity or Islam.
 
MikeSun5 said:
Statements like these are the bane of woo. I will resisit the urge to attack that sentence with logic on the hope it can be reworded. ;)
Click to expand...
Without instigating anything ... what is, in your opinion, the best philosophy for understanding "reality as it really is?"

If you say logic, or anything at all really, aren't you using principles of Buddhism which essentially are saying, "your personal path is the best path," etc?

I would think that if someone were undecided, then they wouldn't be using Buddhist principles of thinking because their path is unclear to them.

But these thoughts I'm posting are only based on the ideas I'm interpreting from this thread.

Practically speaking, I could say "reality is what it is regardless of how I understand it," ... but that's not really all that practical since I still have to make decisions and relate to a static environment everyday regardless.
 
MikeSun5 said:
Meadmaker, noooo!! Statements like these are the bane of woo. I will resisit the urge to attack that sentence with logic on the hope it can be reworded. ;)
Click to expand...

Really? Why? (And did you mean "bane"? I would think being the "bane of woo" would be a good thing.)

I'm pretty sure what I said was ok.

As for the religion thing.....some of those definitions fit "atheism" too.

Atheists like to say, "Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby." I've been trying to come up with a corresponding saying for Buddhism. I invite my fellow Buddhists, former Buddhists and sort-of Buddhists to give it a shot.

ETA: As I reread the above, I realized an answer. "Buddhism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby."

(It's slightly koan-like.)

ETA2: There is one huge difference between the Buddhist saying above, and the atheist saying that inspired it. The atheist saying is very instructive and helps the reader understand exactly why people say that atheism is not a religion. The meaning of the Buddhist saying is hardly obvious to anyone, and the people who do get it without explanation are likely to be Buddhists. For that reason, I would still encourage the Buddhists in the audience to come up with a saying that actually serves the same purpose as the original, atheist, saying.
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
I have not found nibanna, so I can only read other people descritions of it.

If one retrains one's conditioning so that when a situtation presents itself, there is a choice made rather than just reaction, that is like nibanna.

It is allegedly the 'extinguishment' of the attachment to pleasure and the avoidance of displeasure.

Yet all I can say is, it is all real. It is the response to reality that matters.

Nibanna is 'unconditioned'. If tanha/craving in extinguished the there is less dukka/suffering.
Click to expand...
Okay then let me ask one last question (probably LOL) :)

What is the overall Buddhist view on how a person should personally "deal with" the past and the future. I'm assuming "the now" is where reality is at, more or less. And by the past and future I mean, essentially, reflecting on the past and trying to learn from it .... and planning and trying to predict the future or working towards some future goal, etc and so forth.
 
Schrodinger's Cat said:
I think the last paragraph sums it up quite nicely.

I think Buddhism is typically practiced as a religion but CAN be a non religious philosophy. Many Buddhist writings have nothing to do with any sort of dogma and really just are a way of looking at and dealing with the world (but not in a supernatural way). Let's take for instance the 8 fold path. Taken by itself, I feel like it is simply a useful life tool, it doesn't seem particularly mystical to me.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is like the golden rule in the sense that in itself it has nothing to do with the supernatural or any sort of mysticism, but is present throughout many religions. I follow that principle but I don't subscribe to any religion.
 
Since Buddhism is altruistic, living for the sake of others, then when applied to past, present and future, it means that those of the present should live for the sake of people of the past and people of the future, for example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom