Nonbelievers and Buddhism

[Meadmaker]

RE: Theravadans and woo.

My impression from reading is that the Theravadan scriptures are not overly wooish, but Theravadan practice in southeast Asia is every bit as wooish, and maybe moreso, than other forms of Buddhism. I don't know if that's an accurate impression.

 

[NordaVinci]

Of course then since we are getting scholastic here.....Buddhism is still developing. There are modern day Buddhist groups that believe in life after death and in the existence of a God of personality,because of having received this revelation from Buddha himself. Don't believe me?...such groups exist in Korea and Taiwan for example. Rev. Sun Myung Moon in fact is the Matreya Buddha. And Buddhist groups exist who recognize that he is, because the first Buddha in the spirit world told them so....and I might add that the common emphasis between Christianity and Buddhism is to know the true nature of reality by looking within your own mind.

 

[Complexity]

Of course then since we are getting scholastic here.....Buddhism is still developing. There are modern day Buddhist groups that believe in life after death and in the existence of a God of personality,because of having received this revelation from Buddha himself. Don't believe me?...such groups exist in Korea and Taiwan for example. Rev. Sun Myung Moon in fact is the Matreya Buddha. And Buddhist groups exist who recognize that he is, because the first Buddha in the spirit world told them so....and I might add that the common emphasis between Christianity and Buddhism is to know the true nature of reality by looking within your own mind.

They be woo.

 

[Frank Merton]

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.

I don't think it is accurate to say one "converts" to Buddhism--at least to the sects I'm familiar with. You can go to Temple if you like, and participate in Buddhist charities, and no one will ask you if you've "converted" and there is no ritual that I know of comparable to Christian baptism.

I think the best definition of a "Buddlhist" is "someone who accepts the Buddhist diagnosis of the nature of our existence--you know--the "Four Noble Truths" and so on. Since this is wildly subject to personal interpretation, almost anyone can truthfully say they are a Bhuddist, regardless of the details of their religous opinions. There is also nothing I know of in any Buddhist sect that requires adherence to any sort of creed, nor any prohibition on also being an adherent of some other religion.

I think it is accurate to say that most Buddhists do accept the concepts of karma, of rebirth and Samsara, of "Enlightenment," and, of course, the utility of regular meditation. I think all would also agree that far more important than these details is the ethical prescriptions of compassion, moderation, and respect for all sentient life.

 

[CKava]

RE: Theravadans and woo.

My impression from reading is that the Theravadan scriptures are not overly wooish, but Theravadan practice in southeast Asia is every bit as wooish, and maybe moreso, than other forms of Buddhism. I don't know if that's an accurate impression.

My experience with early Buddhist scriptures is that by modern standards they are very wooish. There are non-wooish bits and teachings but they typically feature a plethora of Gods, spiritual beings, miraculous events and special powers.

The vinaya has less but that is largely because it is a list of rules.

 

[NordaVinci]

They be woo.

I interpret that to mean "Thank you for telling me. I didn't know that!"

But then of course there is the Wu-Chi, Wang Chi, and Tai-Chi..... which correspond to the Origin, Division and Union stages of the Four Position Foundation, which of course explains everything....

 

[CKava]

I don't think it is accurate to say one "converts" to Buddhism--at least to the sects I'm familiar with. You can go to Temple if you like, and participate in Buddhist charities, and no one will ask you if you've "converted" and there is no ritual that I know of comparable to Christian baptism.

Most Buddhist traditions have some variety of a 'going for refuge' ceremony in which a person indicates their commitment to the Buddhist tradition and their faith in the Buddha, the dharma and the sangha. This often serves as a kind of 'conversion' ceremony.

http: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refuge_(Buddhism)

I think the best definition of a "Buddlhist" is "someone who accepts the Buddhist diagnosis of the nature of our existence--you know--the "Four Noble Truths" and so on. Since this is wildly subject to personal interpretation, almost anyone can truthfully say they are a Bhuddist, regardless of the details of their religous opinions. There is also nothing I know of in any Buddhist sect that requires adherence to any sort of creed, nor any prohibition on also being an adherent of some other religion.

Buddhism is a much more inclusive tradition when compared to the Abrahamic monotheistic religions and I doubt that most Buddhists would have any issue with someone identifying themselves as a Buddhist without taking part in a specific ceremony.

However, I think it is wrong to suggest that most forms of Buddhism require no adherence to 'any sort of creed' as most do have a number of moral precepts and basic teachings which they expect 'good' Buddhists to recognise and abide by. The 'going for refuge' ceremony, for example, typically includes a pledge to abide by a set of precepts even if you are a lay follower. The fact that most Buddhists will opportunistically ignore such precepts is irrelevant because the followers of practically all religious traditions opportunistically ignore prohibitions.

As for being non-exclusive, this is certainly the case with Western Buddhist traditions (these are typically extremely welcoming to followers of other religions) and most non-Western forms of Buddhism are noted for their syncretic nature. Yet, in Buddhist countries, despite widespread syncreticism it is also easily observed that Buddhist authorities are often very dismissive of other non-Buddhist practices as being superstitions. Furthermore, in areas where Buddhism has historically competed with other developed religious traditions there are also often easily observable polemical views.

I think it is accurate to say that most Buddhists do accept the concepts of karma, of rebirth and Samsara, of "Enlightenment," and, of course, the utility of regular meditation. I think all would also agree that far more important than these details is the ethical prescriptions of compassion, moderation, and respect for all sentient life.

I think your spot on here except that for a large amount of Buddhists 'regular meditation' plays absolutely no part in their practice. I would also have some reservations about saying 'all' Buddhists would regard moral considerations as more important than their traditional views (see Sri Lanka for instance).

 

[Meadmaker]

I interpret that to mean "Thank you for telling me. I didn't know that!"

....

 

[jadey]

I think your spot on here except that for a large amount of Buddhists 'regular meditation' plays absolutely no part in their practice. I would also have some reservations about saying 'all' Buddhists would regard moral considerations as more important than their traditional views (see Sri Lanka for instance).

Thank you for your input on this subject. Having been exposed to Buddhism mostly through western authors, it is good to get this perspective.

I've read from a couple of sources (can't recall which) that Mahayana Buddhists perform their meditation through "mindful living". Kind of like an active meditation where they are mindful and "in the moment" while performing their daily tasks/jobs, etc. What is your opinion on this matter?

 

[Dancing David]

Of course then since we are getting scholastic here.....Buddhism is still developing. There are modern day Buddhist groups that believe in life after death and in the existence of a God of personality,because of having received this revelation from Buddha himself. Don't believe me?...such groups exist in Korea and Taiwan for example. Rev. Sun Myung Moon in fact is the Matreya Buddha. And Buddhist groups exist who recognize that he is, because the first Buddha in the spirit world told them so....and I might add that the common emphasis between Christianity and Buddhism is to know the true nature of reality by looking within your own mind.

Yup, yup , yupper.

A strong mix of woo.

 

[Dancing David]

I think it is accurate to say that most Buddhists do accept the concepts of karma, of rebirth and Samsara, of "Enlightenment," and, of course, the utility of regular meditation. I think all would also agree that far more important than these details is the ethical prescriptions of compassion, moderation, and respect for all sentient life.

There is considerable hair splitting on karma, reincarnation and samsara as well.

 

[Dancing David]

My experience with early Buddhist scriptures is that by modern standards they are very wooish. There are non-wooish bits and teachings but they typically feature a plethora of Gods, spiritual beings, miraculous events and special powers.

The vinaya has less but that is largely because it is a list of rules.

I suppose it also depends on the scripture, the pali canon has some but remarkably little.

Yet the other oral traditions that got written down are rather impressive, all the tales of the 'lives' of the buddha are entertaining, he was monkey, he was a tiger, he did this he did that.

Then there is the 'miracle' of the mango tree.

Which is funny to me, how can the buddha be reincarnated if there is no atman?

 

[Dancing David]

I interpret that to mean "Thank you for telling me. I didn't know that!"

But then of course there is the Wu-Chi, Wang Chi, and Tai-Chi..... which correspond to the Origin, Division and Union stages of the Four Position Foundation, which of course explains everything....

Uhm hmmm, most of us are aware of the woo of buddhism. And the sexism.

 

[Dancing David]

Most Buddhist traditions have some variety of a 'going for refuge' ceremony in which a person indicates their commitment to the Buddhist tradition and their faith in the Buddha, the dharma and the sangha. This often serves as a kind of 'conversion' ceremony.

http: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refuge_(Buddhism)


Buddhism is a much more inclusive tradition when compared to the Abrahamic monotheistic religions and I doubt that most Buddhists would have any issue with someone identifying themselves as a Buddhist without taking part in a specific ceremony.

However, I think it is wrong to suggest that most forms of Buddhism require no adherence to 'any sort of creed' as most do have a number of moral precepts and basic teachings which they expect 'good' Buddhists to recognise and abide by. The 'going for refuge' ceremony, for example, typically includes a pledge to abide by a set of precepts even if you are a lay follower. The fact that most Buddhists will opportunistically ignore such precepts is irrelevant because the followers of practically all religious traditions opportunistically ignore prohibitions.

As for being non-exclusive, this is certainly the case with Western Buddhist traditions (these are typically extremely welcoming to followers of other religions) and most non-Western forms of Buddhism are noted for their syncretic nature. Yet, in Buddhist countries, despite widespread syncreticism it is also easily observed that Buddhist authorities are often very dismissive of other non-Buddhist practices as being superstitions. Furthermore, in areas where Buddhism has historically competed with other developed religious traditions there are also often easily observable polemical views.


I think your spot on here except that for a large amount of Buddhists 'regular meditation' plays absolutely no part in their practice. I would also have some reservations about saying 'all' Buddhists would regard moral considerations as more important than their traditional views (see Sri Lanka for instance).

There are so many traditions as well, some layity take a set of vows for an extended period , others for a set period. Do you take the five or the ten and become a preist?

Some eat meat, some don't. Some squash bugs, some don't. Some restrict property, some don't.

Many buddhist cultures are replete with all sorts of quirks ,the caste system in Tibet, misogyny, homophobia, folk medicine, rituals of intervention.

I have to check the source but I think it is cool that monasteries often had branches of seperate schools within them.

 

[Frank Merton]

I think it is cool that monasteries often had branches of seperate schools within them.

Buddhism is chock full of sects. The difference seems to be Buddhism's tolerance of varying ideas and practices--it has no "jealous God" who forbids the worship of other gods, no demand for the right faith before one can be saved.

I've commuted between Vietnam and the States now for about ten years, and have my main experience with Vietnamese religions--mainly Chinese-style Buddhism (Buddhism with a large dollop of Taoist influence in a Confucian political structure). I go to Temple pretty much whenever my friends invite me (which tends to be several times a week), and do contribute to the Temple and to their charities (but then I also go to Episcopalean church and contribute to them when I'm in the States}.

I've never been put under any pressure to engage in any joining ritual, nor has anyone ever questioned my right to go to Temple and behave as though I were a Buddhist. I also "sit" (meditate in Buddhist style) for several hours each week, and testify strongly to its value, outside any doctrinal context.

The really important thing to me is the Buddhist understading of the nature of our predicament in life--we suffer because we want things, and giving up these desires--or at least recognizing them for what they are--makes life a whole lot better. I am agnostic about the existence of a phenomenon of Enlightenment, but think it a worthy goal regardless.

Christian and Buddhist ethics differ in a few minor points--especially that Buddhism puts its emphasis on compassion to all sentient beings, while Christians reserve their compassion for humans. Still, to someone who is interested in "righteousness," both traditions are positive and good.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Because we live in groups?

That doesn't quite explain a rational thinker following a religion which incorporates a lot of magical thinking and that rational thinker claiming the religion does not contain said magical beliefs.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

What I'm looking for here is not the literal, 'why', but rather, what is the rationale. You can say, "these are my moral beliefs", and, you can say, "Buddhists share the same moral beliefs".

But when you move from that to, "I practice Buddhism", or, "I believe in Buddhism but the religion does not include a god belief therefore it is a rational religion", then you've gone into the territory of magical thinking.

 

[Frank Merton]

That doesn't quite explain a rational thinker following a religion which incorporates a lot of magical thinking and that rational thinker claiming the religion does not contain said magical beliefs.

It is because the religion is open-minded about what you think are magical ideas. You don't have to accept them, but you can, and either way you are respected.

Most Westerners who come to think of themselves as Buddhists tend to take figuritively the ideas of Enlightenment, karma, Samsara, rebirth, and so on. What they take up is meditation, Buddhist ethics (compassion and moderation) and the Buddhist prescription for happiness (understand that suffering comes from desires you can't fulfill). Of course it is more involved than I can possibly hope to express in a few sentences.

 

[Trent Wray]

After reading this thread now and pondering mainly just the posts within it (IOW, not googling the subject, etc) .... does Buddhism have within it a "True Scotsman" aspect that is harder to pinpoint than in other religions / philosophies?

I REALLY AM NOT trying to start ANYTHING .... I promise. I just want to describe what seems to be a sort of "snobbishness" to some of the people I know who claim to have a form of buddhism. And I'm not trying to form sides ... I'm just trying to nail down if this "feeling I have" regarding it has any validity to it.

Let me give an example. I have an atheist friend who is heavily into martial arts and although he doesn't claim to be Buddhist, he does often joke about "perhaps one day the Buddhist monkhood will be within my future." He frequently mentions ideas about suffering mirrored in this thread, and one of his big things is "being in the moment." If I ever get upset about something that happened in the past, or worry about the future, he is patient and will listen, but ultimately he describes them all as "illusions". I understand WHY he can say that .... but practically speaking I will still have to deal with them on some level.

The thing is, if he sees others start to act based on ignorance, or show the slightest bit of irrational weakness ... he pounces on it. You can even watch him physically walk different and hold his head up a littler higher. He won't say anything to the person whom he is viewing this way ... instead he will show utmost politeness to them. But later, with me, he will describe those people as ignorant monkeys, or hippocritical ethic whores, and a variety of other names. "Why won't people just take responsibility for their actions and not show such contempt for those who are different then them?" And he will eventually leave them alone .... holding his head high around them and watching his every word and step, while in private he speaks about them as though he is the wise sage and they are ignorant heathen.

And I can understand his reactions. Afterall, they are human. But in his focus to be "more than human," it's as though he starts to become his own hippocrite. He "rises up" into his state of serene "flowing with the moment" attitude, usually by comparing himself to others to stand tall. That is how it seems. He feels morally superior to those who aren't like him, although he'd never say it or show it to their face. That would take away from his righteous view of his "path."

And with me .... when I start to get too emotional or opinionated , he doesn't give me the same luxury he gives himself or even that I give him. I allow him the freedom to be opinionated, etc and whatever. But he will distance himself from me if I show the same, and "grow weary" of my attitudes, claiming they are dragging me down while he is "staying in his moment."

To me ... he's not becoming superior or even bettering himself all that much. He's hiding from reality and the practical nature of being a human being. There is a "True Scotsman" without saying it type of attitude. Or perhaps it's a "no true scotsman" type of thing.

Now, I'm not claiming that Buddhism is like this, since I don't have a lot to compare it to. But as with anything, I think people can use ideas and philosophies to feed their ego as opposed to bettering their life, etc and so forth.

Does anyone else think this? Or have any input? Again ... I'm isolating him as a case to examine the flip side. It's not my overall impression. But I can't stand this behavior in him, because it's as though he is trying to value life by devaluing it or something. It is an odd irony.

Thoughts?

 

[Frank Merton]

Does anyone else think this? Or have any input? Again ... I'm isolating him as a case to examine the flip side. It's not my overall impression. But I can't stand this behavior in him, because it's as though he is trying to value life by devaluing it or something. It is an odd irony.

Thoughts?

No one can make any decisions about how to lead their lives, or what philosophical or relligous systems to follow, except ourselves. That others in good will try to influence us this way or that has to be recognized as well meant but probably futile. In the end, being a Buddhist may or may not be helpful to you. One thing is sure--it has only slight effect positive or negative on your post-death status, if there is one, and clearly none if there is not.