Nonbelievers and Buddhism

[Dancing David]

Weird.

I'm curious though (and PLEASE don't take offense - I genuinely wonder) if the Buddhist qualifier is there simply to soften the stigma usually associated with atheism. Throwing a "Buddhist" in there with "atheist" would imply (to a religious person) that you're a bit more "open minded" than the normal anti-religion atheist. Or, as Buddhists, do you guys genuinely practice the rituals, mantras, hand gestures, and what not?

It can be sort of like the difference between Protestants and Catholics in many ways (if the split had occured at 300 AD), the adoration of the buddha is not part of some schools, prayers to the buddha are part of others.

The mudras, mantras and the like, vary from school to schools.

So it really varies from school to school, style to style.

I understand atheists cherry picking from religions to find a nice way to live. It's quite common. The Golden Rule, and all that.... but I'm wondering if you guys actually identify with the Buddhist culture. Do you honor the Buddha and his incarnations?

Not as a buddhist no, I do not implore to Avolokiteshvara or the Taras, nor do I say the Amida chants.

Please understand I'm not accusing anything, I'm asking. The reason I ask is because of perspectives like this:



Without having studied Buddhism extensively, I can understand this point of view. Meditation is totally possible without Buddhism. In fact, trying to meditate in the fashion of Buddhists would probably mess mine up.

Depends, the primary form is mindfullness.

But if all it is are a few clever sayings and a different way to meditate, is that really worthy of the title of Buddhist? I mean, I believe in loving thy neighbor, and thou shalt not kill, but I don't identify myself as a Christian. Again, I ain't hating, I'm just stating.

It is a coherent philosophy

The three principles:
anatta, annica, dukka

The four 'noble' truths
There is suffering .
There is a cause of suffering.
There is the cessation of suffering.
There is the eightfold path leading to the cessation of suffering.

The eightfold path

 

[MikeSun5]

What do you think enlightenment means in the context of Buddhism?

"An end to suffering," or "a spiritual revelation of truth." Right? Apparently, Buddhists believe that ending suffering will eventually "end the cycle of rebirth."

The verbage used is just too woo-ish for me.

The concept of enlightenment is not unanimously defined, and ultimately, I think that is probably intentional. To me, Buddhism in this context seems similar to what Scientology is attempting to do by saying it's compatible with any and all religions, when in fact it has it's own sets of practices, rituals, phrases and beliefs.

I think I just need clarification on the non-religious/atheistic aspect of Buddhism. Atheists don't usually worship at temples. Those who deny a diety don't usually accept concepts like "heaven" and "rebirth."

 

[ugot2bekidding]

"An end to suffering," or "a spiritual revelation of truth." Right? Apparently, Buddhists believe that ending suffering will eventually "end the cycle of rebirth."

The verbage used is just too woo-ish for me.

The Buddha's enlightenment was more about 'self actualization' then about achieving some supernatural state.

 

[Meadmaker]

Weird.

I'm curious though (and PLEASE don't take offense - I genuinely wonder) if the Buddhist qualifier is there simply to soften the stigma usually associated with atheism. Throwing a "Buddhist" in there with "atheist" would imply (to a religious person) that you're a bit more "open minded" than the normal anti-religion atheist.

There's a certain truth to that. Also, and probably moreso, there's a desire to have some of what religious people have, but without all the woo stuff that you normally have to buy into to be religious.

Or, as Buddhists, do you guys genuinely practice the rituals, mantras, hand gestures, and what not?

Back when I called myself a Buddhist, I did. I stopped calling myself a Buddhist as I did them less and less.

A big reason I stopped doing Buddhist stuff is I had a family and started doing Jewish stuff, which I was surprised to find had a great deal in common with Buddhist stuff. Can you be a Jew and an atheist? It's a bit of a stretch, and the answer could be quite complicated, so I sometimes say, when asked about religion, "I participate in Jewish rituals." Most people would say that's not enough to make you Jewish. Most Buddhists would say that is enough to make you Buddhist.

We are sometimes colored in our view of other religions by Christianity's emphasis on belief. In Christianity, the central core of it is belief, specifically belief in God and Jesus. That defines you as a Christian. I think the same is true of Islam, but I'm not certain. The same is not true about Buddhism, nor is it true of Judaism, or paganism, or I assume Taoism and Confucianism. It's hard for people who grew up with Christianity as the default religion to think of other religions and not think that "what you believe" is the important part. That's really not important for Buddhism and not all that important for several other religions.

Do you honor the Buddha

Yes (or I did, anyway)

and his incarnations?

See my previous discussion about common misunderstandings of Buddhist belief in reincarnation.

But if all it is are a few clever sayings and a different way to meditate, is that really worthy of the title of Buddhist? I mean, I believe in loving thy neighbor, and thou shalt not kill, but I don't identify myself as a Christian. Again, I ain't hating, I'm just stating.

This illustrates what I said above. For Christianity, belief is very important. It defines who is and isn't Christian, so just loving your neighbor doesn't make you a Christian.

For Buddhism, practice is very important. Belief is not very important. So, if you say Buddhist things and meditate in the Buddhist way, yes that's worthy of the title Buddhist.

 

[Meadmaker]

"An end to suffering," or "a spiritual revelation of truth." Right? Apparently, Buddhists believe that ending suffering will eventually "end the cycle of rebirth."

The verbage used is just too woo-ish for me.

Of all the things in Buddhism that I knew were "important", i.e. more or less core to the religion, this was the one that made me feel most uncomfortable, for exactly that reason. I never really came up with a good, non-wooish explanation for it.

 

[Dancing David]

"An end to suffering," or "a spiritual revelation of truth." Right? Apparently, Buddhists believe that ending suffering will eventually "end the cycle of rebirth."

The verbage used is just too woo-ish for me.

The concept of enlightenment is not unanimously defined, and ultimately, I think that is probably intentional. To me, Buddhism in this context seems similar to what Scientology is attempting to do by saying it's compatible with any and all religions, when in fact it has it's own sets of practices, rituals, phrases and beliefs.

I think I just need clarification on the non-religious/atheistic aspect of Buddhism. Atheists don't usually worship at temples. Those who deny a diety don't usually accept concepts like "heaven" and "rebirth."

Well the different schools vary in exactly what that terminology means, in most Mahayan and some Theravada it can mean reincarnation, which is funny because that is exactly countered by the AHB's doctrine of anatta!

Anatta (no -atman) means exactky that there is no soul, there is nothing to be reincarnated, which is funny but typical that people ignore a basic tenant of the philosophy.)

So other schools will have that the cycle of rebirth is the end of the conuation of suffereing.

Now enlightenment is a poser because the meanings and uses vary widely, the enlightenment iof the AHB was manifold, part if that morification of the flesh is not productive. Part is that many parts of life are unavoidable and interdependant. The main one being that the concept of a self (as opposed to just using the labels body, thoughts, emotions, perceptions and habits) leads to sufferering.

 

[Dancing David]

Of all the things in Buddhism that I knew were "important", i.e. more or less core to the religion, this was the one that made me feel most uncomfortable, for exactly that reason. I never really came up with a good, non-wooish explanation for it.

Here is a try:
Striving for pleasure and striving to avoid displeasure, doing violent things, having negative thoughst, acts and perceptions leads to more negative thoughts, perceptions and actions.

If you learn to choose rather than to just respond, then there is a higher chance that there will be fewer negative thoughts, perceptions and actions.

If you just respond to negative things, they tend to carry on in a chain of consequences. If you choose how you respond to negative things then they will still be negative but hopefully one makes choices that lead to less negative consequences.

For example: I think of people I know whose children fight in grade school, because of a family feud started by their great grandparents. (I am not making this up.)

 

[Meadmaker]

Here is a try:
Striving for pleasure and striving to avoid displeasure, doing violent things, having negative thoughst, acts and perceptions leads to more negative thoughts, perceptions and actions.

If you learn to choose rather than to just respond, then there is a higher chance that there will be fewer negative thoughts, perceptions and actions.

If you just respond to negative things, they tend to carry on in a chain of consequences. If you choose how you respond to negative things then they will still be negative but hopefully one makes choices that lead to less negative consequences.

For example: I think of people I know whose children fight in grade school, because of a family feud started by their great grandparents. (I am not making this up.)

That makes sense, but I'm not sure how it addresses the concept of avoiding the cycle of rebirth. What you are saying above seems to be that the things you do tend to perpetuate themselves, so that negative thoughts, perceptions, and actions perpetuate themselves by transferrence to others including to future generations. That makes sense. However, positive thoughts, perceptions, and actions also seem to perpetuate themselves, but it seems as if the Buddha was saying that if you reach that state of Nibbana, your positive (or perhaps realistic would be a better term) thoughts, perceptions, and actions would somehow result in a condition where the cycle was stopped. Not just the cycle of negativity, but all cycles.

This seemed a bit wooish.

 

[MikeSun5]

...so I sometimes say, when asked about religion, "I participate in Jewish rituals."

I just say I like bitter herbs and lamb. And lots of sweet berry wine.

We are sometimes colored in our view of other religions by Christianity's emphasis on belief. ... For Buddhism, practice is very important. Belief is not very important.

This is very interesting. I'm learning a lot on this thread.

But I am still a little miffed by the praying to statues and candles and whatnot. I guess maybe that's just the glamorized made-for-TV Buddhism.

Striving for pleasure and striving to avoid displeasure, doing violent things, having negative thoughst, acts and perceptions leads to more negative thoughts, perceptions and actions.

This is a good philosophy, but it's basically the Golden Rule, present in pretty much all religions. I'm not sure that's what enlightenment is all about, but if it is, I'm like at least 90% there. Sans Buddhism.

I wondering... let's say a person meditates, does (or doesn't do) the rituals, mantras, etc. and reaches enlightenment. What then? How do you know when you've reached it? I guess it's supposed to be some sort of spiritual awakening or realization and "you just know," but what happens after? Do you go to work the next day? Do you start doing seminars? Do you keep practicing Buddhism, or are you finished?

Meadmaker, I have a question for you... Buddhism may not put emphasis on belief, but atheism deals with it directly. I'm assuming the goal of your practicing Buddhism is enlightenment, so what do you suppose will happen when you acheive it?

 

[Meadmaker]

But I am still a little miffed by the praying to statues and candles and whatnot. I guess maybe that's just the glamorized made-for-TV Buddhism.

I don't think so. Among cultures where Buddhism is the dominant religion, I think there's quite a bit of it, and it's every bit as wooish as it seems. I'm just saying that all of that stuff is not necessary or core to the religion/practice of Buddhism.

Also, you might be interpreting things not quite correctly, at least for some people you are viewing. When I was a practicing Buddhist, you would have seen me meditating in front of a statue of the Buddha, or chanting in front of a statue of the Buddha, but you would never have seen me praying to a statue. I'm not saying no one ever has, but most of what looks like praying to statues, isn't.

Meadmaker, I have a question for you... Buddhism may not put emphasis on belief, but atheism deals with it directly. I'm assuming the goal of your practicing Buddhism is enlightenment, so what do you suppose will happen when you acheive it?

Well, I don't practice it these days, although I might start again. You never know. However, when I did practice it, I wouldn't say that was my goal. "Awareness" would be a better description.

I'm not sure there's a real difference, but I wasn't looking for a goal, so much as a process.

Let me describe a practical situation. At the same time I was practicing Buddhism, I was lifing weights, and trying to build muscles. One day, I was struggling to do a bench press of a certain weight. There was pain in my arms, and I tried and tried to lift the weight. I wanted very much to push that weight upward, but the pain and the force back was too much. I gave up. I got up, and walked around, and gave it some thought. I was sure that I could lift that weight, and yet I had failed. I decided to try it differently.

I got on the bench, set the weight machine, and took a deep breath. I pushed upward. This time, I became aware that there was a force pushing back, and I observed it. I moved my arms upward, and noticed the increase in force. As I continued to push up, I became aware of mild pain in my arms, and observed that increase as I raised them further. Eventually, I became aware that my arms were at full extension, and I lowered them.

The key to lifting that weight was to give up the struggle to lift that weight. There was no "I" that was lifting the weight. Either there was enough muscle in my arms to lift the weight, or there wasn't. By setting aside the desire to lift the weight, I lifted the weight.

Would that work for other people? Maybe. Could it be achieved without Buddhism? Obviously. I don't think there is anything that can be done using Buddhist belief or practice that couldn't be done without Buddhist belief or practice. However, learning the teachings and practices might help. As with any system of self help, there's nothing magical about it or nothing necessary, but this guy and his followers put together a lot of good writing that is pretty coherent and that addresses a lot of questions a lot of people have. Such a system can save some time looking for answers.

 

[NordaVinci]

Original Nature is experienced. The Principle of the Universe is understood. Personally I think it has to do with the entangled states of measuring and not measuring, and the purpose or heart with which one measures...or doesn't measure....

 

[MikeSun5]

Original Nature is experienced. The Principle of the Universe is understood. Personally I think it has to do with the entangled states of measuring and not measuring, and the purpose or heart with which one measures...or doesn't measure....

I like Meadmaker's explanation better.

 

[Erigena]

Dancing David “It can be sort of like the difference between Protestants and Catholics in many ways (if the split had occured at 300 AD), the adoration of the buddha is not part of some schools, prayers to the buddha are part of others.”

Ryokan “There are no rules in Buddhism, really. Only guidelines, "you really shouldn't, for your own sake" instead of "thou shalt nots".

This is just an observation… I was reading an interview with an author of a book who said he didn’t describe the main character in detail because he feels it is up to the reader to interpret what the character embodies to his or herself. Like visual art the written word to many authors is meant to allow the reader to decide what the story means to them. I bring this up because whether it is the Christian bible, the Qur’an, the Torah or quotes of philosophical ideas from Buddha, the meaning of the message is determined by the person reading or listening to it. So all religions can have guidelines as supposed to rules depending on who is interpreting the message associated with it.

 

[Moochie]

There's certainly woo involved in many aspects of Buddhism, but as far as I can tell it's possibly the least offensive religion, and it does have good things going for it (in my view), although the current Dalai Lama is against oral sex which I would think would be a deal breaker for many of us.

Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia "God in Buddhism" article:

I think that's about it in a nutshell. As far as I know, the Buddha never created a religion for others to follow. All the woo elements seem to have been painted on by woo-believers. The essence of Buddhism, which I consider to be meditation, can realign one's whole understanding of life, the universe, and the whole enchilada. Meditation isn't exclusively a Buddhist practice, either. Most if not all religions have something like meditation at their core. All the woo is just that: woo, usually constructed by people for purposes other than what the religion's intent is or was.

Religion is an expression of something I believe to be deeply ingrained in human beings; it's really a shame that all most of us can pay lip service to are the sillier aspects of human folly.

For anyone interested, this Google video of a talk given by someone who knows meditation well enough to teach it to others, goes a long way to making it intelligible to most people. Be warned, though, that it's an hour long, and requires some "active listening" skills.

It's interesting to note that ACT (Acceptance and Commitment Therapy), one of the more recent developments in psychology, utilizes a form of meditation (mindfulness).


M.

 

[Erigena]

When the Buddha was asked about God, he answered by asking whether man's mind was finite, or infinite. Of course, the answer is finite. When asked about God's mind, the answer was "infinite". So, can a finite mind understand an infinite one? Of course not.

So, the Buddha concluded, there's really no point in worrying about what God wants, because you wouldn't understand it anyway. Actually, he went farther than that. He said that there is no reason to speculate about whether such an entity exists or not, because, if it did exist, you couldn't comprehend what it would mean for such an entity to exist.

In other words, Buddhism is a "strong agnostic" religion, meaning it asserts that it is impossible to know whether God exists, and says we shouldn't worry about it. It just isn't part of the religion.

As for other wooish things that Buddhists often believe, they do believe them, but they aren't actually part of Buddhist doctrine. It is possible to be a Buddhist and not believe any wooish things. While I can't see James Randi becoming Buddhist, there is nothing in Buddhism that is incompatible with his message.

One thing commonly associated with Buddhism that would appear to contradict that lack of wooishness is reincarnation. However, the Buddhist concept of reincarnation is widely misunderstood. In America, that is partly because Tibetan Buddhism is bettern known than some other varieties, and Tibetan Buddhism is far outside the main stream of Buddhist thought. Even many Buddhists, though, don't really understand the Buddha's teachings on reincarnation. As I read them, I see him talking about living many lives, but in the most famous teaching on reincarnation, he notes that "we", our identity, is made up of five elements, none of which survive death. So, what is being reincarnated?

I took that to mean that when we die, something of us does indeed go on. Our bodies still exist, although they will be transformed through decomposition. Our thoughts live on in papers we wrote and in memories of those who knew us. Whatever we did continues to have an effect. In fact, when we die, there is no, true, "I" or "we" that dies, nor is there any "I" to come back. It's just a transformation. This doctrine is the "anatta", which means "no self", or "no soul".

This is in stark contrast to the Hindu concept of reincarnation, which is the kind of thing we are more likely to think about as reincarnation, in which my soul comes back, but in a different body. The Buddha had some bad things to say about that teaching, along with most of Hinduism.

In short, Buddhism appeals to the atheist because it's completely compatible with atheism, and with what we call skepticism (i.e. lack of belief in paranormal powers.) Of course, one can still ask whether it's a waste of time, and that is a more dificult question to answer. During the brief period of practicing Buddhism, I found it somewhat beneficial.

Final thought: Although completely opposite in doctrine, I was surprised to find there was so much in common between Buddhism and Judaism.

I had never considered reincarnation to incorporate that idea. I always thought it to be a physical rebirth so this is very interesting.

 

[Erigena]

Words like those also imply hasty translations.

What do you think enlightenment means in the context of Buddhism?

Just a question, but doesn't that answer depend on the Buddhist responding? There are people on this thread who have pointed out that there are many various aspects of Buddhism so a Buddhist monk from Tibet would apply a different meaning to those words than say Meadmaker for example because as I understand it he practices a different kind of Buddhism than they do.

 

[Trent Wray]

Okay, reading quickly the four noble truths:

There is suffering (dukkha).
There is a cause of suffering (craving).
There is the cessation of suffering (nirvana).
There is the eightfold path leading to the cessation of suffering.

I'm thinking, "Okay. Suffering is bad. I want to end suffering. What's the 8 fold path?"

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

Now ultimately, no longer clinging to the self and life should help free a person from suffering, and that's the basic concept, yes?

Well, I have long thought that no longer clinging to the concepts of right/wrong in and of themselves would be more freeing. That it's not the self and my clinging to the self and life that is the problem ... rather it's my attributing good/bad and right/wrong to them that is the b.s. at the root of the issues.

Am I essentially being redundant? Or am I mistaking the root to morality, when it really is the clinging to the self that is at the root. If anyone agrees that I'm being redundant or switching the roots incorrectly, why, in your opinion, is that so?

Because in examining the four truths and the 8fold path, it is defined in terms of right/wrong themselves. There are 8 rights to correct the main universal wrong. Get rid of right and wrong then .... and problem solved .... yes? Why try so hard to stop clinging to the fruit of the tree or the tree when you can just cut the sucker down?

 

[Dancing David]

That makes sense, but I'm not sure how it addresses the concept of avoiding the cycle of rebirth. What you are saying above seems to be that the things you do tend to perpetuate themselves, so that negative thoughts, perceptions, and actions perpetuate themselves by transferrence to others including to future generations. That makes sense. However, positive thoughts, perceptions, and actions also seem to perpetuate themselves, but it seems as if the Buddha was saying that if you reach that state of Nibbana, your positive (or perhaps realistic would be a better term) thoughts, perceptions, and actions would somehow result in a condition where the cycle was stopped. Not just the cycle of negativity, but all cycles.

This seemed a bit wooish.

He (the AHB) said that nibbanna (extinguishment) was of tanha (desire), the imbalance that leads to dukka (suffering).


And yes many many many interpretations exist.

 

[Dancing David]

Okay, reading quickly the four noble truths:

There is suffering (dukkha).
There is a cause of suffering (craving).
There is the cessation of suffering (nirvana).
There is the eightfold path leading to the cessation of suffering.

I'm thinking, "Okay. Suffering is bad. I want to end suffering. What's the 8 fold path?"

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

Now ultimately, no longer clinging to the self and life should help free a person from suffering, and that's the basic concept, yes?

Well, I have long thought that no longer clinging to the concepts of right/wrong in and of themselves would be more freeing. That it's not the self and my clinging to the self and life that is the problem ... rather it's my attributing good/bad and right/wrong to them that is the b.s. at the root of the issues.

Am I essentially being redundant? Or am I mistaking the root to morality, when it really is the clinging to the self that is at the root. If anyone agrees that I'm being redundant or switching the roots incorrectly, why, in your opinion, is that so?

Because in examining the four truths and the 8fold path, it is defined in terms of right/wrong themselves. There are 8 rights to correct the main universal wrong. Get rid of right and wrong then .... and problem solved .... yes? Why try so hard to stop clinging to the fruit of the tree or the tree when you can just cut the sucker down?

Those are great questions, the original term for noble is 'aryan'!

More later, I thing that one can rephrase it as one wants, if one wants.

the AHB never said his path was for all, if you do not like it, that is cool.

Even worse he told Anada on his death bed to stop relying on him as 'the buddha'.

Be ye lamps unto yourselves.

The point of the eightfold path is to decrease attachment and end suffering of the existential nature. It won't cure tooth pain.

 

[jadey]

As an Atheist, I'm open to the principles in Buddhism (and Taoism) because they provide philosophical/psychological insight into this thing we call existence. And, it doesn't involve having to surrender myself to some fairy-tale sky daddy, or adopt a belief system.

I have read bits and pieces of various religions, and this is exactly how I perceive buddhism. I've often thought of it as more of a philosophy than a religion, because it is so different from the western religions that I had been exposed to. It seems to offer human insights into the nature of things rather than special divine revelations. It does not offer salvation, but suggests that you should pursue your salvation diligently. From their perspective, salvation is not granted, rather it is attained by through personal insight, and brings an end to suffering. I've also read that the Buddha (Siddarta Ghatama sp?) was strongly opposed to his teachings becoming institutionalized.

Of course, I don't know this to be an accurate representation of buddhism, just what I interpreted from reading various descriptions of the religion. It just seems like a much more insightful religion than the revealed religions.