Nonbelievers and Buddhism

[MikeSun5]

Without instigating anything ... what is, in your opinion, the best philosophy for understanding "reality as it really is?"

In my opinion? I'd say a philosophy void of chanting and mysticism.

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?

No. With this, you seem to be saying anyone attempting to understand reality is a Buddhist... This question also implies that Buddhism somehow was the origin of logic. Are you sure about that stuff?

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

Yea, I got that wrong. Mixing my phrases. I meant crutch or something.

Now, since no rewording has been offered... let us look at this statement about enlightenment: "Nirvana is recognizing the world as it really is." Statements like this are popular in mysticism and woo because they appear profound and specific when in fact they're very vague - if they say anything at all. These statements rely on wide encompassing definitions.
If I look outside, I recognize trees, cars, people, etc. That is how the world is, and I see that. Have I reached nirvana? Heck no! Because we're talking about a spiritual recognition, not simply recognizing objects! We're talking the "world as it really is" in terms of some sort of energy or absolute truth. Because it's commonly accepted that when you use words like "nirvana," the other words surrounding it automatically get new definitions. The phrase "recognizing the world as it really is" no longer can be taken literally. It now must be somehow turned from a simple sentence into a spiritual release from desire and suffering.
I'm sure you could define that sentence in 3 more (completely different) ways than what I just did. Convenient? Yes. Coincidence? I think not.

Next, saying "Nirvana is recognizing the world as it really is" implies that nobody can recognize the world as it really is without achieving nirvana. Why not? Can only people following Buddhist philosophies acheive nirvana? Are some people not born with it? How do the Buddhists know that we're not already recognizing the world as it is? How do the Buddhists know the difference? How do Buddhists even know about nirvana? Because one guy a long time ago said so?

Also, as a definition, the statment "Nirvana is recognizing the world as it really is" contradicts accepted definitions of Nirvana. To say that the definitions provided by Merriam-Webster mean the exact same thing fits into my description 2 paragraphs north of here.

Another thing that doesn't sit well with me: Buddhists say people suffer. Suffering is brought about by attachment to desire. In order to end the suffering, Buddhists attempt to free themselves of desire. So the Buddhist's unyielding desire to reach nirvana causes them more suffering due to their attachment to the desire they strive to be released from, and now I've gone crosseyed.

 

[Trent Wray]

With this, you seem to be saying anyone attempting to understand reality is a Buddhist... This question also implies that Buddhism somehow was the origin of logic. Are you sure about that stuff?

No I wasn't sure. But I think I realized where I was kind of seeing the draw to Buddhism for the non-believer / atheist / etc, and the conclusion I was ultimately drawing.

Arguably, atheism is the "default" position of a person in regards to god, and thus religion in general.

So I was trying to see if Buddhism could fit as a "default philosophy"

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Why can't a person just adopt a human moral code without having to follow some group movement?

 

[Trent Wray]

Why can't a person just adopt a human moral code without having to follow some group movement?

Because we live in groups?

 

[Meadmaker]

Now, since no rewording has been offered... let us look at this statement about enlightenment: "Nirvana is recognizing the world as it really is." Statements like this are popular in mysticism and woo because they appear profound and specific when in fact they're very vague - if they say anything at all. These statements rely on wide encompassing definitions.

Keep in mind that my statement about reality and Nirvana* was in response to a question that dealt specifically with reality and Nirvana. Trent has asked about whether Nirvana was somehow "more real". My answer was meant to emphasize that there is one reality, but that some people see it differently than others. The people who approach or achieve Nirvana see certain aspects of the world more realistically, in such a way that they are released from suffering.

Here's my favorite Buddhist story. I think it illustrates a state of Nirvana fairly well.

One day, a monk was travelling along a path through a forest. He did not know where the path led. From behind him, he heard a noise. He turned around, and saw a tiger running at him down the path. He did not know what was on the path, but he ran down it, away from the tiger. As he rounded a bend in the path, with the tiger in pursuit, he saw that the path ended at the edge of a very high cliff. He had just enough time to reach the cliff before the tiger, so he ran ahead, and jumped off the cliff. As he fell, he saw a branch sticking out of the side of the cliff. He reached out, and grabbed the branch. He looked around. He was far above the rocks below, and there was no other place than the branch to hold on to, and he had fallen too far down the side of the cliff to climb back up. Continuing to look around, he noticed that the branch was starting to pull free from the cliff, and it would not hold for long. He then saw a vine growing near the branch, and on that vine was growing a strawberry. He reached out, grabbed the strawberry, and put it in his mouth and thought, "Ah....delicious."

Can only people following Buddhist philosophies acheive nirvana?

Certainly not.

How do the Buddhists know that we're not already recognizing the world as it is?

You might be, but if you appear to be suffering because of what you see, that is a clue that you are not seeing it realistically.

How do Buddhists even know about nirvana? Because one guy a long time ago said so?

You could say that, but more importantly, what he said makes sense. It seems like it could be true.

Also, as a definition, the statment "Nirvana is recognizing the world as it really is" contradicts accepted definitions of Nirvana. To say that the definitions provided by Merriam-Webster mean the exact same thing fits into my description 2 paragraphs north of here.

As I noted earlier, my comment wasn't meant as a definition, but an answer to a question about a specific aspect of Nirvana.

Another thing that doesn't sit well with me: Buddhists say people suffer. Suffering is brought about by attachment to desire. In order to end the suffering, Buddhists attempt to free themselves of desire. So the Buddhist's unyielding desire to reach nirvana causes them more suffering due to their attachment to the desire they strive to be released from,

Yes. I've read the same thing, almost exactly in those words, in Buddhist literature. I don't know if the Buddha himself addressed it. Attachment to the goal of reaching Nirvana will prevent you from reaching Nirvana.

One thing you have to realize is that Nirvana isn't really a goal. Above all, it is not even remotely analogous to Heaven, although people who are influenced strongly by Christianity seem to think it is. It's more of a side effect.


========
* You will see some people say "Nirvana" and others say "Nibanna". It's the same thing. I tend to say "Nibanna". The difference is the source of the material that the person has read. "Nibanna" comes from the transliteration of the Pali word. "Nirvana" comes from Sanskrit. Theravadans are generally influenced by the Pali works. Mahayanna Buddhists are generally influenced by the Sanskrit.

 

[Meadmaker]

Why can't a person just adopt a human moral code without having to follow some group movement?

You don't have to, but people are social animals, influenced by their community. Plus, it's always possible that those who came before, and created philosophical systems on which societies have been base, might have some good ideas.

 

[barrymore]

Another reason is because of aesthetics. There is a difference between a religious follower who blindly follows something because that is what they are "supposed" to do, and someone who chooses to follow, or incorporate parts of, a religion and/or philosophy due to aesthetics. Playing the part of a logic machine is no fun.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

One should be mindful and make choices to reduce suffering.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Welcome!

 

[NordaVinci]

Thanks.

 

[MikeSun5]

One day, a monk was travelling along a path through a forest. He did not know where the path led. From behind him, he heard a noise. He turned around, and saw a tiger running at him down the path. He did not know what was on the path, but he ran down it, away from the tiger. As he rounded a bend in the path, with the tiger in pursuit, he saw that the path ended at the edge of a very high cliff. He had just enough time to reach the cliff before the tiger, so he ran ahead, and jumped off the cliff. As he fell, he saw a branch sticking out of the side of the cliff. He reached out, and grabbed the branch. He looked around. He was far above the rocks below, and there was no other place than the branch to hold on to, and he had fallen too far down the side of the cliff to climb back up. Continuing to look around, he noticed that the branch was starting to pull free from the cliff, and it would not hold for long. He then saw a vine growing near the branch, and on that vine was growing a strawberry. He reached out, grabbed the strawberry, and put it in his mouth and thought, "Ah....delicious."

I honestly appreciate you attempting to follow my crazy line of questions. I'm learning an awful lot about how Buddhism is perceived by those that practice it, and how non-Buddhists' perceptions are shaped by previously held notions about unrelated religions. Understanding it is definitely an exercise in objectivity.

That being said, that story did not help me out at ALL. The monk went from self-preservation (running away from the tiger), to suicidal recklessness (jumping off a cliff), back to self-preservation (grabbing a branch), then to an ADD-like distraction (mmmm... strawberry). His desire to live made him suffer via his fear of the tiger. That's not enlightened... but I guess once he realized he was screwed, he reached nirvana. Then he happily plummeted to his doom?

I had a girlfriend once who didn't understand why people smoked weed. Her confusion is similar to mine about nirvana. I'll paraphrase the discussion, and you'll see what I mean when you substitute "smoke" for "meditate," and "high" for "enlightened," and "Potheads" for "Buddhists."

SOBER GIRL: "So I don't get it. You smoke, you get high, then what?"
POTHEADS: "Then NOTHING. You're high. Mission accomplished."

Once you're free of suffering and desire... what do you do? Chill out?

You will see some people say "Nirvana" and others say "Nibanna". It's the same thing.

That's funny. I thought it was like referring to Jesus as Jeebus.

 

[blobru]

One day, a monk was travelling along a path through a forest. He did not know where the path led. From behind him, he heard a noise. He turned around, and saw a tiger running at him down the path. He did not know what was on the path, but he ran down it, away from the tiger. As he rounded a bend in the path, with the tiger in pursuit, he saw that the path ended at the edge of a very high cliff. He had just enough time to reach the cliff before the tiger, so he ran ahead, and jumped off the cliff. As he fell, he saw a branch sticking out of the side of the cliff. He reached out, and grabbed the branch. He looked around. He was far above the rocks below, and there was no other place than the branch to hold on to, and he had fallen too far down the side of the cliff to climb back up. Continuing to look around, he noticed that the branch was starting to pull free from the cliff, and it would not hold for long. He then saw a vine growing near the branch, and on that vine was growing a strawberry. He reached out, grabbed the strawberry, and put it in his mouth and thought, "Ah....delicious."

I honestly appreciate you attempting to follow my crazy line of questions. I'm learning an awful lot about how Buddhism is perceived by those that practice it, and how non-Buddhists' perceptions are shaped by previously held notions about unrelated religions. Understanding it is definitely an exercise in objectivity.

That being said, that story did not help me out at ALL. The monk went from self-preservation (running away from the tiger), to suicidal recklessness (jumping off a cliff), back to self-preservation (grabbing a branch), then to an ADD-like distraction (mmmm... strawberry). His desire to live made him suffer via his fear of the tiger. That's not enlightened... but I guess once he realized he was screwed, he reached nirvana. Then he happily plummeted to his doom? ---

Speaking as a non-buddhist, the only moral I see in the story is that because the monk was concerned by his own imminent death (enough to flee the tiger), but not consumed by it, he was able to enjoy the strawberry. I think the goal of Buddhism (nirvana?) is to accept the fact that you will suffer loss, including your own life one day, without losing your taste for life.

 

[CKava]

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.

To suggest that there is no pantheon of gods in Theravada Buddhism is extremely misleading. Theravada Buddhism does not have the whole variety of Bodhisattvas recognised in Mahayana sects but they still have a whole range of beings from a highly developed Buddhist cosmology which is certainly put to good use. On top of this various deities that have been absorbed syncretically frequently often feature rather prominently in common practices. Finally, practically all forms of Buddhism, bar Westernised versions, explicitly recognise 'Gods' as one of the realms of rebirth.

I know you tacitly recognise all of the above in some of your replies but you simultaneously seem to be arguing that the way Theravada Buddhism is practised in Theravada countries and throughout history is somehow less authentic than interpreting Theravada Buddhism as an atheistic philosophy which, for the reasons mentioned below, I think is a highly questionable claim.

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.

There is actually genuine academic debate over what preserved texts represent the 'oldest' texts and although the conventional view has been that the Pali Canon is the oldest this is certainly not an uncontested view. In relation to the supernatural elements it is certainly true that the traditions became more elaborate as time went on but anyone reading 'early' Buddhist scriptures without an agenda will find supernatural elements galore. Which makes complete sense given the environment in which Buddhism developed.

I got interested in Buddhism in my mid teens because it seemed to me to present an alternative 'philosophy' that was based on reason rather than superstition and which seemed less dogmatic than any of the monotheistic religions I had been exposed to. I saw the superstitious elements as cultural baggage and read books that explained that the original teaching of the Buddha was a rational message of self awareness. Then I went to university to study Buddhism and other religious traditions and came to realise that I had, in essence, bought into a completely unrealistic portrayal of Buddhism which had been intentionally created to appeal to secular Western audiences dissatisfied with the superstitions and dogma of Christianity.

The arguments that many people in this thread are making to defend Buddhism as atheistic and rational, as a result, seem very familiar to me and I think they severely misrepresent the history of the Buddhist tradition. I don't mean that there is no way to interpret Buddhist philosophy and teachings in a way that is compatible with atheism or secularism, you certainly can... and indeed there are many modern Buddhist groups, particularly in Western countries, that do this. However, arguing that this is therefore the ORIGINAL and REAL form of Buddhism is simply wishful thinking. Or at least it is not what the evidence currently suggests unless you look at it with that predetermined conclusion in mind. In fact conversely to what is popularly believed, recent scholarship on early Buddhist communities has suggests that various ritual practices, including those that most people today would dismiss as superstitious (such as protective chants), were much more central to the earliest communities than the kind of philosophical views that are most attractive to us today.

I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't practice Buddhism or that there is nothing of value in its teachings or introspective traditions but I do think people should apply the same criticism they would to modern Christian movements to the claims of modern Buddhist movements. And I also think that before anyone makes claims about what Buddhism is and isn't about they should take the time to research the history, particularly of the sources from which they are drawing their information, as more often than not the popular version is extremely idealised and drawn from sources with the clear agenda of making Buddhism appealing to a Western/secular audience.

 

[MikeSun5]

Nominated. Welcome to the JREF, CKava (2 year old New Blood...?).

 

[CKava]

Long time lurker, I guess . I search the forum when I'm looking for a specific response to something but the sheer volume of posts on here always leaves me feeling a bit daunted about participating. Threads seem to be capable of growing at an exponential rate and it looks like it could be a lot of effort just to keep up!

Anyhow, thanks for the welcome , I can't quite resist a skeptical discussion about Buddhism!

 

[Meadmaker]

That being said, that story did not help me out at ALL. The monk went from self-preservation (running away from the tiger), to suicidal recklessness (jumping off a cliff), back to self-preservation (grabbing a branch), then to an ADD-like distraction (mmmm... strawberry). His desire to live made him suffer via his fear of the tiger. That's not enlightened... but I guess once he realized he was screwed, he reached nirvana. Then he happily plummeted to his doom?

Blobru's explanation was spot on, and there's not much that could be said any better as far as a few sentence summary. I'm going to elaborate on it a bit following the form from your question, illustrating how at each step of the story, he followed a completely rational path.

First, he sees the tiger. Self preservation is a worthy goal, so it seems reasonable to run. He looks ahead, and realizes this course of action cannot be followed for much longer. He has calculated that he does not have any options other than going over the cliff, or being eaten by the tiger. Furthermore, he doesn't have time to examine the cliff. He will reach the edge barely before the tiger. If he stops to try to gather more information, it will be certain death from the tiger. Instead, he jumps, which is probable, but not certain, death. Sure enough, he sees something that might help him out. He didn't know about the branch, but there it is. It can save him. He grabs it.

Now what? He's hanging from the branch. He didn't have time to look before, but now he examines his surroundings. There is no way back up. There is no way safely down, and the distance and landing surface are such that when he falls, death is certain. Oh, and the branch is starting to give way anyway. The uncertainty in the time of his death has been reduced. It seems likely to occur within the space of a few minutes.

Now what? Out of options. Oh..wait. There is one option. There's a strawberry. I love strawberries. Yummy.

As blobru noted, because he was not consumed by fear of death, he could enjoy life to the fullest in the circumstances that are available to him. He wasn't just going to give up and die when his fear (the knowledge of his impending dome from the tiger) attacked him. He wasn't afraid to move forward even when things looked bleak. He was sufficiently aware to take notice of all his surroundings and find all of his options, so he grabbed the branch, but then noted that his reprieve was only temporary. Still, he decided to enjoy life, and eat a strawberry. More than that, he was able to be totally mindful of the strawberry and its taste, concentrating on it to the exclusion of other thoughts, such as his imminent disaggregation.

That's important, because we are all hanging from that branch. We can pretend that we will not plummet sooner or later, but that only works for so long. Deny it all you want, but the branch will pull out and you will fall. Confronted with that realization, many would be too depressed to go on. An enlightened person will live happily knowing it is only temporary, as long as he is able to draw breath.

In answer to the question of Nirvana, then what? You have to realise that the quest for Nirvana is a response to a specific problem. Siddartha's father tried to shelter him from knowledge of sickness, old age, and death, but he found out about them anyway, and he was severely bummed out. Once he found out about them, he started practicing rituals that Indian holy men said would prevent them, but he found that wasn't working. He then went on to meditation, and found the middle way between those two extremes. In other words, Nirvana isn't some goal that is plucked from thin air. It's a response to a very real problem, the problem of suffering (dukha).

If you are perfectly content with your aging body, and you do not fear either your own death or the death of your loved ones, then you might have already achieved Nirvana. If not, there's a guy who says there's an eightfold path that can help you.

 

[rsaavedra]

And I also think that before anyone makes claims about what Buddhism is and isn't about they should take the time to research the history, particularly of the sources from which they are drawing their information, as more often than not the popular version is extremely idealised and drawn from sources with the clear agenda of making Buddhism appealing to a Western/secular audience.

Very good advice. I have found myself interested in Buddhism at some point, and mostly because of what you say: dissatisfied with the bias of a Christian/Catholic indoctrination. Have purchased a few beginner's books on Buddhism, though I fear these are mostly appealing to the Westerner:

What the Buddha Taught
Awakening the Buddha Within: Tibetan Wisdom for the Western World (as the title gives away, this very much appeals to the Western world)
Mindfulness in Plain English (About buddhist meditation, not exactly about Buddhism, but written by a Buddhist monk; this is also written for the Westerner)
And believe it or not: Buddhism for Dummies

All of them yet to be read fully. But in general, even with the Woo in it, I wanted to know more about Buddhism, because it's really the only religion, or religion-like philosophy (whichever people might want to call it) that seems to promote critical thinking and skepticism, which was interesting in and of itself.

In my primary education (catholic school) there were in all levels these mandatory courses called "Religion." And you can guess it, the only religion we learned anything about there was Catholicism. This was just a venue for dogma indoctrination. I wish that course at lease had been true to its name, and had taught about religions in general, including Buddhism, and the atheistic point of view.

 

[Erigena]

To suggest that there is no pantheon of gods in Theravada Buddhism is extremely misleading. Theravada Buddhism does not have the whole variety of Bodhisattvas recognised in Mahayana sects but they still have a whole range of beings from a highly developed Buddhist cosmology which is certainly put to good use. On top of this various deities that have been absorbed syncretically frequently often feature rather prominently in common practices. Finally, practically all forms of Buddhism, bar Westernised versions, explicitly recognise 'Gods' as one of the realms of rebirth.

I know you tacitly recognise all of the above in some of your replies but you simultaneously seem to be arguing that the way Theravada Buddhism is practised in Theravada countries and throughout history is somehow less authentic than interpreting Theravada Buddhism as an atheistic philosophy which, for the reasons mentioned below, I think is a highly questionable claim.


There is actually genuine academic debate over what preserved texts represent the 'oldest' texts and although the conventional view has been that the Pali Canon is the oldest this is certainly not an uncontested view. In relation to the supernatural elements it is certainly true that the traditions became more elaborate as time went on but anyone reading 'early' Buddhist scriptures without an agenda will find supernatural elements galore. Which makes complete sense given the environment in which Buddhism developed.

I got interested in Buddhism in my mid teens because it seemed to me to present an alternative 'philosophy' that was based on reason rather than superstition and which seemed less dogmatic than any of the monotheistic religions I had been exposed to. I saw the superstitious elements as cultural baggage and read books that explained that the original teaching of the Buddha was a rational message of self awareness. Then I went to university to study Buddhism and other religious traditions and came to realise that I had, in essence, bought into a completely unrealistic portrayal of Buddhism which had been intentionally created to appeal to secular Western audiences dissatisfied with the superstitions and dogma of Christianity.

The arguments that many people in this thread are making to defend Buddhism as atheistic and rational, as a result, seem very familiar to me and I think they severely misrepresent the history of the Buddhist tradition. I don't mean that there is no way to interpret Buddhist philosophy and teachings in a way that is compatible with atheism or secularism, you certainly can... and indeed there are many modern Buddhist groups, particularly in Western countries, that do this. However, arguing that this is therefore the ORIGINAL and REAL form of Buddhism is simply wishful thinking. Or at least it is not what the evidence currently suggests unless you look at it with that predetermined conclusion in mind. In fact conversely to what is popularly believed, recent scholarship on early Buddhist communities has suggests that various ritual practices, including those that most people today would dismiss as superstitious (such as protective chants), were much more central to the earliest communities than the kind of philosophical views that are most attractive to us today.

I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't practice Buddhism or that there is nothing of value in its teachings or introspective traditions but I do think people should apply the same criticism they would to modern Christian movements to the claims of modern Buddhist movements. And I also think that before anyone makes claims about what Buddhism is and isn't about they should take the time to research the history, particularly of the sources from which they are drawing their information, as more often than not the popular version is extremely idealised and drawn from sources with the clear agenda of making Buddhism appealing to a Western/secular audience.

For a while I had more questions than answers. You have successfully resolved any confusion in the discussion and done so with respect. I second the nomination.

 

[Trent Wray]

One should be mindful and make choices to reduce suffering.

Dude I like it

So this is essentially a good summary of Buddhism in a nutshell then, yes?

It essentially reduces the Golden Rule even further. It's almost the "why" underlying the Golden Rule perhaps. I don't know if it replaces it ... but in some ways the Golden Rule is "how" to go about accomplishing the reduction of suffering, with the reduction of suffering as it's wheel-center.

 

[MikeSun5]

If you are perfectly content with your aging body, and you do not fear either your own death or the death of your loved ones, then you might have already achieved Nirvana. If not, there's a guy who says there's an eightfold path that can help you.

Yes, that's quite an ambitious perspective.

Buddhism definitely deserves closer inspection. I most likely won't convert, but I'll have to read up on it more than I already have. Like I said earlier, I was a little put off by some of the spacey ideas and concepts (especially the non-metaphoric reincarnation stuff), but there's obviously more to it than that -- if you can separate the philosophical logic from the ancient mysticism, that is. Like CKava said, it's a slippery slope to claim that Buddhism is (or can be) woo-free. Although most of your posts have been diplomatic about it.