Taoism And Buddhism

[orlando]

I don;t have any major problem with Buddhism, and like the Dalai Lama, but I reject it as a useful path in life for me for the reasons mentioned above. IMO it is like any other religion in claiming special insights into the way life and the universe works based more on tradition than proof and it treats this life as essentially something to detach from so as to find something better (even though hardly anyone actually claims to have achieved enlightenment) - to me not that different from a Christian focussing on heaven instead of their life in the real world. It also has logically irreconcilable doctrines, like the one I mentioned whereby people are reborn even though there is no soul tobe reborn. However I like the fact it focusses more on your own behaviour and mental state etc -- ie trying to be more compassionate -- than on having certain beliefs

[Rev R]

Some modern Buddhists just reduce it to a code of ethics plus some meditation essentially, but then I think they are just reinventing it, a bit like very liberal Christians.

 

That is the second time I've seen a statement like this used as a critique of Buddhism.

 

A little perspective from a mad monk:

 

Gautama Buddha requested his followers to spead his teachings in accordance to the culture and times they were in. Gautama wanted his teachings to be accessible to everyone. Of course as a method of thought enters other cultures it must change to meet the needs of a society. The greatest example of this being afterlife beliefs. Most folks jump right to reincarnation, probably because Tibetan vajrayana is one of the most visible of Buddhist schools but it is not the only afterlife belief present in the myriad forms of Buddhist practice. The Chinese and Japanese adapted their own cultural beliefs concerning the afterlife to the Buddhist concept of "rebirth" just as the Tibetans did. The oldest extant teachings (the Pali canon) do not go into any detail concerning an afterlife, but do teach that there is no separate or permanent essence to our existence. Self is seen as a process rather than an artefact.

 

Another factor to take into account is that "the Buddha" was absorbed into Hinduism as an avatar of Vishnu. I've seen two interpretations of this. The first being an attempt to reconcile the differences in the Buddhist and Hindus while the other states that Buddha incarnated as an advesary to Hindu teachings. Teaching his Dharma to tempt people away from Hinduism.

 

On deities:

Some sutras do include references to god like beings. However, the mere mortals in these stories do not fall to the ground and worship these beings. Instead these beings act in a literary sense to give the teaching in the form of dialog. Each Buddha or Bodhisattva has a specific set of attributes, these are meant to be an expedient means of teaching. Representations of key concepts or qualities that the Buddhist strives to manifest in his own life. Mahayana teachers were known for utilising cultural deities with the same conceptual qualities as the characters in the sutras.

 

For example Vairocana Buddha is a personification of the idea of emptiness and Avalokitesvara is the embodiment of loving-kindness.

 

Back to the original point of teaching in terms of culture. It only makes sense that in modern (particularly Western) society, the Buddha-dharma be taught and examined with consideration to modern science and reason. In order to do that you have to sift through and eliminate Asian cultural baggage from the practice.

 

 

Oh and the Dalai Lama is only the political and spiritual leader of Tibet and in no way speaks for all Buddhists.

[PandaPirate]

I don;t have any major problem with Buddhism, and like the Dalai Lama, but I reject it as a useful path in life for me for the reasons mentioned above. IMO it is like any other religion in claiming special insights into the way life and the universe works based more on tradition than proof and it treats this life as essentially something to detach from so as to find something better (even though hardly anyone actually claims to have achieved enlightenment) - to me not that different from a Christian focussing on heaven instead of their life in the real world. It also has logically irreconcilable doctrines, like the one I mentioned whereby people are reborn even though there is no soul tobe reborn. However I like the fact it focusses more on your own behaviour and mental state etc -- ie trying to be more compassionate -- than on having certain beliefs

 

I wouldn't compare Buddhism to Christianity. Buddhists don't try to force their beleifs down anyone's throat and they've never burned anyone at the stake. Big difference.

 

• What is Buddhism?

 

Buddhism is a religion to about 300 million people around the world. The word comes from 'budhi', 'to awaken'. It has its origins about 2,500 years ago when Siddhartha Gotama, known as the Buddha, was himself awakened (enlightened) at the age of 35.

 

• Is Buddhism a Religion?

 

To many, Buddhism goes beyond religion and is more of a philosophy or 'way of life'. It is a philosophy because philosophy 'means love of wisdom' and the Buddhist path can be summed up as:

 

(1) to lead a moral life,

(2) to be mindful and aware of thoughts and actions, and

(3) to develop wisdom and understanding.

 

• How Can Buddhism Help Me?

 

Buddhism explains a purpose to life, it explains apparent injustice and inequality around the world, and it provides a code of practice or way of life that leads to true happiness.

• Why is Buddhism Becoming Popular?

 

Buddhism is becoming popular in western countries for a number of reasons, The first good reason is Buddhism has answers to many of the problems in modern materialistic societies. It also includes (for those who are interested) a deep understanding of the human mind (and natural therapies) which prominent psychologists around the world are now discovering to be both very advanced and effective.

 

• Who Was the Buddha?

 

Siddhartha Gotama was born into a royal family in Lumbini, now located in Nepal, in 563 BC. At 29, he realised that wealth and luxury did not guarantee happiness, so he explored the different teachings religions and philosophies of the day, to find the key to human happiness. After six years of study and meditation he finally found 'the middle path' and was enlightened. After enlightenment, the Buddha spent the rest of his life teaching the principles of Buddhism — called the Dhamma, or Truth — until his death at the age of 80.

 

• Was the Buddha a God?

 

He was not, nor did he claim to be. He was a man who taught a path to enlightenment from his own experience.

• Do Buddhists Worship Idols?

 

Buddhists sometimes pay respect to images of the Buddha, not in worship, nor to ask for favours. A statue of the Buddha with hands rested gently in its lap and a compassionate smile reminds us to strive to develop peace and love within ourselves. Bowing to the statue is an expression of gratitude for the teaching.

 

• Why are so Many Buddhist Countries Poor?

 

One of the Buddhist teachings is that wealth does not guarantee happiness and also wealth is impermanent. The people of every country suffer whether rich or poor, but those who understand Buddhist teachings can find true happiness.

 

• Are There Different Types of Buddhism?

 

There are many different types of Buddhism, because the emphasis changes from country to country due to customs and culture. What does not vary is the essence of the teaching — the Dhamma or truth.

 

• Are Other Religions Wrong?

 

Buddhism is also a belief system which is tolerant of all other beliefs or religions. Buddhism agrees with the moral teachings of other religions but Buddhism goes further by providing a long term purpose within our existence, through wisdom and true understanding. Real Buddhism is very tolerant and not concerned with labels like 'Christian', 'Moslem', 'Hindu' or 'Buddhist'; that is why there have never been any wars fought in the name of Buddhism. That is why Buddhists do not preach and try to convert, only explain if an explanation is sought.

 

• Is Buddhism Scientific?

 

Science is knowledge which can be made into a system, which depends upon seeing and testing facts and stating general natural laws. The core of Buddhism fit into this definition, because the Four Noble truths (see below) can be tested and proven by anyone in fact the Buddha himself asked his followers to test the teaching rather than accept his word as true. Buddhism depends more on understanding than faith.

 

• What did the Buddha Teach?

 

The Buddha taught many things, but the basic concepts in Buddhism can be summed up by the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path.

 

• What is the First Noble Truth?

 

The first truth is that life is suffering i.e., life includes pain, getting old, disease, and ultimately death. We also endure psychological suffering like loneliness frustration, fear, embarrassment, disappointment and anger. This is an irrefutable fact that cannot be denied. It is realistic rather than pessimistic because pessimism is expecting things to be bad. lnstead, Buddhism explains how suffering can be avoided and how we can be truly happy.

 

• What is the Second Noble Truth?

 

The second truth is that suffering is caused by craving and aversion. We will suffer if we expect other people to conform to our expectation, if we want others to like us, if we do not get something we want,etc. In other words, getting what you want does not guarantee happiness. Rather than constantly struggling to get what you want, try to modify your wanting. Wanting deprives us of contentment and happiness. A lifetime of wanting and craving and especially the craving to continue to exist, creates a powerful energy which causes the individual to be born. So craving leads to physical suffering because it causes us to be reborn.

 

• What is the Third Noble Truth?

 

The third truth is that suffering can be overcome and happiness can be attained; that true happiness and contentment are possible. lf we give up useless craving and learn to live each day at a time (not dwelling in the past or the imagined future) then we can become happy and free. We then have more time and energy to help others. This is Nirvana.

 

• What is the Fourth Noble Truth?

 

The fourth truth is that the Noble 8-fold Path is the path which leads to the end of suffering.

 

• What is the Noble 8-Fold Path?

 

In summary, the Noble 8-fold Path is being moral (through what we say, do and our livelihood), focussing the mind on being fully aware of our thoughts and actions, and developing wisdom by understanding the Four Noble Truths and by developing compassion for others.

 

• What are the 5 Precepts?

 

The moral code within Buddhism is the precepts, of which the main five are: not to take the life of anything living, not to take anything not freely given, to abstain from sexual misconduct and sensual overindulgence, to refrain from untrue speech, and to avoid intoxication, that is, losing mindfulness.

 

• What is Karma?

 

Karma is the law that every cause has an effect, i.e., our actions have results. This simple law explains a number of things: inequality in the world, why some are born handicapped and some gifted, why some live only a short life. Karma underlines the importance of all individuals being responsible for their past and present actions. How can we test the karmic effect of our actions? The answer is summed up by looking at (1) the intention behind the action, (2) effects of the action on oneself, and (3) the effects on others.

 

• What is Wisdom?

 

Buddhism teaches that wisdom should be developed with compassion. At one extreme, you could be a goodhearted fool and at the other extreme, you could attain knowledge without any emotion. Buddhism uses the middle path to develop both. The highest wisdom is seeing that in reality, all phenomena are incomplete, impermanent and do no constitute a fixed entity. True wisdom is not simply believing what we are told but instead experiencing and understanding truth and reality. Wisdom requires an open, objective, unbigoted mind. The Buddhist path requires courage, patience, flexibility and intelligence.

 

• What is Compassion?

 

Compassion includes qualities of sharing, readiness to give comfort, sympathy, concern, caring. In Buddhism, we can really understand others, when we can really understand ourselves, through wisdom.

[Vomit Comet]

• Why are so Many Buddhist Countries Poor?

 

One of the Buddhist teachings is that wealth does not guarantee happiness and also wealth is impermanent. The people of every country suffer whether rich or poor, but those who understand Buddhist teachings can find true happiness.

 

"Religion is the opiate of the masses [...] the collective sigh of the repressed." - Karl Marx

[orlando]

A little perspective from a mad monk:

 

Gautama Buddha requested his followers to spead his teachings in accordance to the culture and times they were in. Gautama wanted his teachings to be accessible to everyone. Of course as a method of thought enters other cultures it must change to meet the needs of a society. The greatest example of this being afterlife beliefs. Most folks jump right to reincarnation, probably because Tibetan vajrayana is one of the most visible of Buddhist schools but it is not the only afterlife belief present in the myriad forms of Buddhist practice. The Chinese and Japanese adapted their own cultural beliefs concerning the afterlife to the Buddhist concept of "rebirth" just as the Tibetans did. The oldest extant teachings (the Pali canon) do not go into any detail concerning an afterlife, but do teach that there is no separate or permanent essence to our existence. Self is seen as a process rather than an artefact.

 

Another factor to take into account is that "the Buddha" was absorbed into Hinduism as an avatar of Vishnu. I've seen two interpretations of this. The first being an attempt to reconcile the differences in the Buddhist and Hindus while the other states that Buddha incarnated as an advesary to Hindu teachings. Teaching his Dharma to tempt people away from Hinduism.

 

On deities:

Some sutras do include references to god like beings. However, the mere mortals in these stories do not fall to the ground and worship these beings. Instead these beings act in a literary sense to give the teaching in the form of dialog. Each Buddha or Bodhisattva has a specific set of attributes, these are meant to be an expedient means of teaching. Representations of key concepts or qualities that the Buddhist strives to manifest in his own life. Mahayana teachers were known for utilising cultural deities with the same conceptual qualities as the characters in the sutras.

 

For example Vairocana Buddha is a personification of the idea of emptiness and Avalokitesvara is the embodiment of loving-kindness.

 

Back to the original point of teaching in terms of culture. It only makes sense that in modern (particularly Western) society, the Buddha-dharma be taught and examined with consideration to modern science and reason. In order to do that you have to sift through and eliminate Asian cultural baggage from the practice.

 

 

Oh and the Dalai Lama is only the political and spiritual leader of Tibet and in no way speaks for all Buddhists.

 

Hi, no time to respond in depth, but I know that the essence of Buddhism is more about practices than beliefs, which i think is a plus for it, and the Buddha himself was agnostic about, or did not pronounce on certain things he though unimportant to the goal of escaping suffering. But IMO it has always been more than purely secular/this-worldly and was originally in a context of escaping from Samsara, ie rebirth - seen as a continuation of this -- impermanent and unsatisfactory -- state of being in a physical existance in the world and subject to suffering. This iwas probably inevitable in that the Buddha came from Indian culture where reincarnation was taken for granted by most people. This is a religious and unproveable, and IMO useless idea. It also conflicts with the BUddhist docrine of no-self/anatta (ie unlike in Hunduism there is no atman to reincarnate in another body) which IMO is a kind of logical endpoint that is reached due to the BUddhist focus on egolessness as the way to find serenity -- ie if you can detach from caring about what happens to you, you will suffer less due to the ups and downs of life - somewhat as Kipling recommended in "If". That is not to say actual Buddhist practices may not be able to reduce the experience of suffering in life in some cases. However IMO most often it is better to get off your arse and do things to make your life more pleasant than just to sit on it meditating in the hope of gaining more serenity and detachment.

 

I know BUddhist teachings have been much adapted culturally -- the weirdest one I know IMO is Japanese Sokka Gakkai, which is popular in the West, and manages to reduce "Buddhism"to chanting the first verse of the Lotus Sutra in order to gain happiness and prosperity.

 

I know Buddha placed no importance on deities and they are seen as powerful beings who are largely irrelevant to humans, not as centrally important like in other religions. Also I know may Buddhists do not believe in them or see them as symbolic.

 

I know the Dalai Lama does not represent all Buddhists and did not say he did. However he is probably the best known one in the West.

 

I don't give a **** if some people in the west prefer to pare it down to certain practices and ethics etc, if that suits them. I was just saying that seem to me somewhat of a departure from the original context of escpaing samsara and achieving some mystical state of nirvana etc. In that case I guess Buddhism is a philosophy, or perhaps a sort of alternative to psychotherapy, a way of trying to feel better about yourself

[Deva]

Hi, no time to respond in depth, but I know that the essence of Buddhism is more about practices than beliefs, which i think is a plus for it, and the Buddha himself was agnostic about, or did not pronounce on certain things he though unimportant to the goal of escaping suffering. But IMO it has always been more than purely secular/this-worldly and was originally in a context of escaping from Samsara, ie rebirth - seen as a continuation of this -- impermanent and unsatisfactory -- state of being in a physical existance in the world and subject to suffering.

 

Agreed. It is more than purely secular/this-worldly, but also its about understanding the "this worldly" as it really is, which is not what we think it is. Some can and will disagree, but I also think rebirth is an important part of Buddhist teaching.

 

This is a religious and unproveable, and IMO useless idea.

By this statement I assume you mean unprovable by the standards of modern science. It isn't something reproducible in a lab. There is evidence but not of the type that would satisfy a logical positivist or a scientific materialist, no, thats true. If you find it a "useless idea" then for sure you probably wouldn't find Buddhism too useful or helpful.

 

It also conflicts with the BUddhist docrine of no-self/anatta (ie unlike in Hunduism there is no atman to reincarnate in another body)

Not really. It does not conflict if properly understood. Rebirth comes from an understanding of dependent origination.

 

I don't give a **** if some people in the west prefer to pare it down to certain practices and ethics etc, if that suits them. I was just saying that seem to me somewhat of a departure from the original context of escpaing samsara and achieving some mystical state of nirvana etc. In that case I guess Buddhism is a philosophy, or perhaps a sort of alternative to psychotherapy, a way of trying to feel better about yourself

 

I don't think Nirvana is a "mystical state." Buddhism isn't a "way of trying to feel better about yourself." It can't be that since as you said earlier, there is no "self" in Buddhism. I say it is a way of seeing the world (samsara). The dharma is practiced 24 hours a day and not just sitting on a cushion blissing out. Thats not it. I do agree that what often seems to pass for Buddhism in the west is a departure from the original context of ending samsara (I wouldn't say "escaping").

[Rev R]

Teahcing pigs to sing Deva.

[florduh]

In response to the original question, I guess it depends on who you talk to.

 

Personally I have no use for gods or rules or fantastic and unfounded notions of how things REALLY work, but both systems of thought offer a lot of practical ideas for daily life. Human nature dictates that some will always take a useful idea and make it into an absurd religion. I guess some people need a rigid structure more than others.

 

My personal philosophy and way of living happens to come closer to Buddhist thinking than it does anything else. Does that make me a non-religious Buddhist? After all, we each need to be labeled!

[PandaPirate]

Label me awake and in need of coffee.

 

In the end, it doesn't really matter how we define things. Wayne Dyer talks about that all the time...labeling things. It doesn't define them, it defines us.

[Evolution_beyond]

I am always grateful to people who have the knowledge necessary to intelligently answer the critics of Buddhism.

 

Unfortunately, since I am a newcomer to the path, I often don't have the ability to do that.

 

What I do know is that the core principles and practise of Buddhism seem to work (I know this from experience) - ie. allow me to experience peace of mind and to exhibit positive behaviour towards others.

 

I also know that Buddhism is a theory that tries to explain the facts about human behaviour and human experience - and a proposed method for dealing with some of the problems of human behaviour and the dissatisfaction that many people feel about life. I don't know to what extent the theory has been 'proven' but I know that the method/practise of Buddhism has had positive effects on many people.

 

At the end of the day it works for me (at present). And I think it's good that buddhism is a system of thought that allows and encourages its followers to think for themselves.

 

I am not following Buddhism blindly. I independently arrived at a conclusion about life and my feelings that mirrored the noble truths - after many years of arguing vehemently against them. It's almost as if there's a surface understanding of the four noble truths - and a deeper understanding that you can only arrive at when life experience shows you what really is the source of your own miseries (a craving for life to be other than what it is, or an immature clinging onto unreasonable expectations).

 

And to answer my own question I am of the belief that Buddhism is a kind of method of self-help (probably the original self-help therapy) - it is also a philosophy. I no longer think that it really counts as a religion - and it is only tradition and assumption that encourages people to call it that. Though to be sure there are many religious and supernatural kinds of thinking that have unfortunately become stuck to it thanks to the cultures in which it originated.

[Rev R]

Unfortunately, since I am a newcomer to the path, I often don't have the ability to do that.

 

Give it time and choose your confrontations well.

 

One issue that I wrestle with is the line from speaking about the Dharma and teaching the Dharma.

[orlando]

this statement I assume you mean unprovable by the standards of modern science. It isn't something reproducible in a lab. There is evidence but not of the type that would satisfy a logical positivist or a scientific materialist, no, thats true. If you find it a "useless idea" then for sure you probably wouldn't find Buddhism too useful or helpful.

 

No I don;t that's right. I don;t find any of the religions I have studied useful in any way unless you take out some of the more useful ethical suggestions and possibly reinterpret some aspects of their teachings symbolically to refer to aspects of normal life. I think they all claim more knowledge than they really have and contain unscientific, traditional beliefs that may hinder you in thinking clearly about the real world and life as it is. I think they also all include some contradictins and illogical ideas that have to be taken on "faith." I find Buddhism one of the least objectionable on the whole.

 

 

It also conflicts with the BUddhist docrine of no-self/anatta (ie unlike in Hunduism there is no atman to reincarnate in another body)

Not really. It does not conflict if properly understood. Rebirth comes from an understanding of dependent origination.

 

 

I have studied as much as it interests me to spend time doing so. I find it as incomprehensible as the Trinity, for example. I have heard no clear explanation of how one life can actually lead to another if nothing is being passed on, and how the second being can be said in some way to still be the same entity as the first one as is suggested by the doctrine of samsara and the idea that one should seek to get off the cycle of rebirths, or by the Tibetan belief in reincarnated Lamas, or by the idea that there is some essence of you to exist in the bardos.

 

 

I don't think Nirvana is a "mystical state."

 

How do you prefer to describe it then? IMO it's just another nonexistant religious concept - something you would spend you life aiming for (instead of just trying to enjoy life on its own terms) and never really attain.

 

 

 

Buddhism isn't a "way of trying to feel better about yourself." It can't be that since as you said earlier, there is no "self" in Buddhism. I say it is a way of seeing the world (samsara). The dharma is practiced 24 hours a day and not just sitting on a cushion blissing out. Thats not it. I do agree that what often seems to pass for Buddhism in the west is a departure from the original context of ending samsara (I wouldn't say "escaping").

 

What's wrong with "escaping" -- or does that just sound too blunt and negative to you? What else is Buddhim about if not escaping from samsara, which is deemed undesirable?

 

I think some aspects of Buddhist philosophy are good, like being compassionate, or trying to get used to the idea that things change and are impermanent etc, but in some ways it seems to me too negative about life, and too passive -- if you took it literally --- life always cnntains suffering and uncertainty therefore one should not have any attachment to pleasures and posessions or any desirable experiences becasue they might come and go -- you would never have any ambitions or make the most of what life has to offer. Buddhism teaches you to detach from enjoyment of the senses and from strong emotions etc and be some kind of serene saint; i just don't think that is a practical way of getting the most out of life. So life can have suffering and disappointments, but we can accept that fact and still try to focus on getting as much of the enjoyable stuff as possible can't we? Buddhism teaches to despise the body because it is corrupt and impermanent, to detach from pleasures, to have no ambition, to not love or need any individuals too much but to have detached compassion for all. It just doesn't seem very "human" to me. it's too idealistic. I also challenge anyone to really match up to its demands of being totally without ego. I don't think that is what humans are like or should think they have to be like.

[orlando]

Teahcing pigs to sing Deva.

 

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. If you are referring to me as a pig it doesn't seem a very civilised way to debate

[orlando]

And to answer my own question I am of the belief that Buddhism is a kind of method of self-help (probably the original self-help therapy) - it is also a philosophy. I no longer think that it really counts as a religion - and it is only tradition and assumption that encourages people to call it that. Though to be sure there are many religious and supernatural kinds of thinking that have unfortunately become stuck to it thanks to the cultures in which it originated.

 

 

I definitely like the Buddhist emphasis on practice not belief, as i said, and think that for some people it probably does lead to a calmer, less unhappy perspective on things. I also like that the Buddha did not demand belief but said try my way of life/thinking and see if it suits you. Certainly someone following the buddha's teachings is not going to be an unpleasant human being. i am just not sure it offers any special ultimate truths and I think taken too literally, like other religions, it could be unhelpful. However I thik that the ultimate goal of enlightenment is just a myth. I don't believe any such state of perfect blissful detachment exists [or any concomittent benefits like "getting off the cycle of samsara"] or if it did that it would be useful for helping us exist in the day to day world we live in. I think we are just as we are, with messy changes of emotion and ups and downs and some ambitions and wishes that probably won't be fulfilled, and anger and disappointment, and love and passion and sadness and happiness, interest and boredom, etc and that is what being human is like.

[PandaPirate]

Well, Orlando, the great thing about it is that if you don't want to be buddhist or anything else for that matter you don't have to be.

 

However, I get the impression that you are trying to belittle those of us who do practice it and you may not mean to. If you don't understand it, then move on. Otherwise, you're whiping a dead horse.

[orlando]

Well, Orlando, the great thing about it is that if you don't want to be buddhist or anything else for that matter you don't have to be.

 

However, I get the impression that you are trying to belittle those of us who do practice it and you may not mean to. If you don't understand it, then move on. Otherwise, you're whiping a dead horse.

 

 

Once again you want to insist I have just "not understood it" rather than that I disagree. is it not possible I have a resasonable understanding of it, but don't agree with the point of view? Is that not what this site is all about in realtion to Christianity?

 

I wonder what response I would get if I posted "you guys have just not understood Christianity properly, move on"

 

Or is it in the rules here that you can criticise and disagree with Christianity, but not anything else?

 

PS I don't wish to belittle people, just to debate my point of view and criticise ideas I don't agree with or think are not helpful. Sorry if I have seemed offensive in the way I have put some things

 

I was very believing in all sorts of things when I was in my teens (I thought it was vital to have a very open mind about everything -- and in a sense, when you don't have enough information and experience to know if certain things are likely to be true or not that is not unreasonable), and only slightly less believing in my 20s. now I am more skeptical. i am not happy about the way some things have gone in my life and I can see some decisions I made I now regret were directly due to not seeing reality just as it is and having wooly, supernatural or overly idealistic ideas

 

Also, having decided christianity made no sense I thought probably some other religion - like Buddhism (so nice and undogmatic, the Dalai Lama is so nice, the Buddha so compassionate) was probably THE truth. Now I don't think any are

[florduh]

"Also, having decided christianity made no sense I thought probably some other religion - like Buddhism (so nice and undogmatic, the Dalai Lama is so nice, the Buddha so compassionate) was probably THE truth. Now I don't think any are "

 

I have made a similar search looking for THE truth. My conclusion is that there isn't one.

 

Certain philosophies and beliefs can help some people to frame their human experience and cope with the inherent randomness of life. In that area, Buddhism has a lot to offer.

 

Buddhism and other Eastern philosophies can offer this framework freely and can adapt to the times and individual requirements. Christianity, on the other hand, is rigid, exclusive and controlling. It tries to force itself on individuals and whole societies. Even lukewarm liberal Christians believe theirs is the only correct religion, god and interpretation. Huge difference in my mind.

[Deva]

Or is it in the rules here that you can criticise and disagree with Christianity, but not anything else?

 

No, but in this one particular forum the rules say: "In this one area of Ex-Christian.net, each individual who has adopted an alternative spiritual expression should feel encouraged to freely express any experiences, thoughts, or opinions without fear of being brow beaten, harshly criticized, or condemned."

 

I see this particular section of the forum a place where ex-christians who have found another spiritual path, whatever it may be, to freely express themselves and possibly find support.

 

I am not saying you have violated the rules yet, Orlando. The key word is "harshly". I understand Buddhism doesn't work for you. Just going by some of the things you have written, it seems to me that you may not have a complete grasp of what the Buddha said. Then again, I am not sure I do myself. I am not a self-appointed guardian of the dharma. The whole Buddhist viewpoint is that what is said in the sutras must be experimented with in real life. You have to discover for yourself through practice whether or not it is true.

[orlando]

I do not claim to have a huge in depth knowlege of Buddhism[then again if you needed a Phd in everything before being allowed to have an opinion about it we would hardly ever be able to dicsuss anything], but I looked into it long enough to decide I don't find it useful at the moment. I like aspects of it though and once saw the Dalai Lama opening a symbolic peace garden in London and he gave me a feeling of upliftment that impressed and moved me at the time

 

Also, I cannot, from experience, say that years of meditation practice and scrupulous attention to a Buddhist lifestyle and ethics and so on do not for some people lead to great peace of mind and happiness, and a rock-like inability to be upset my life's impermanence, changes and difficulties. maybe they do. is that your experience?

[Deva]

Also, I cannot, from experience, say that years of meditation practice and scrupulous attention to a Buddhist lifestyle and ethics and so on do not for some people lead to great peace of mind and happiness, and a rock-like inability to be upset my life's impermanence, changes and difficulties. maybe they do. is that your experience?

 

 

No, I don't think you have to have a PhD in something in order to comment on it. Just be prepared to have other persons possibly better informed set you straight.

 

I have a great admiration for the Dalai Lama and what he has accomplished as an example of a Buddhist before the world.

 

As for your question above, I do not personally have "years of meditation practice..etc." so cannot say from personal experience if its a fact. Do I have my suspicions it is the correct path to the ending of suffering? The answer is yes, otherwise I would not be attracted to it and it would be a waste of time and effort.

[orlando]

OK, that's fair enough

 

IMO suffering can't be ended until we are dead, but you just have to try to be as positive as possible and focus on the good bits.

 

I think that's another aspect of religions, that they make absolute pronouncements about things, when real life is messy.

 

But as I say I can see Buddhism has some good ethical stuff in it and not much dogma and I dare say meditation in terms of a direct approach to calming the mind and putting things in perspective etc may well help ease anxieties somewhat. Anyway, i hope your continuing practice and study is useful to you and things work out well

 

I might have said some things a bit too harshly above, but on the whole I was just trying to point out some of the problems I have with Buddhism honestly, partly as people sometimes to think Christianity is "obviously" nonsense and unhelpful but Buddhism is lovely and one can't say anything against it

[PandaPirate]

Pain is inevitible. Suffering is optional.

 

Zen saying

[orlando]

Pain is inevitible. Suffering is optional.

 

Zen saying

 

How is it optional? I am sure there are ways to reduce it, but I don't see it as natural, human, or even possible to be able to remove it. Imagine that I find out today that the people I love most have been killed in a terrorist attack, or I find out that I have some incurable illness that is going to severly disable me in a year or so -- how would I not suffer, unless I am some complete emotional zombie? How would it seem if I reacted to such news with detachment and no feeling of suffering? Why should I think being able to do so should be our goal? I. Also if one admits there is pain, then how can one experience pain - whether physical or emotional - and not suffer from it - is one just supposed to observe it and say, "oh that's interesting, pain is being experienced" I don't see how that's supposed to work.

 

I read that there are Buddhist exercises where you are supposed to detach from any feeling of disgust at normally unpleasant things or attraction to normally pleasant ones -- that an enlightened person, could, for example, eat a gourmet meal or something rotten with the same equanimity. But it seems to me it is just normal and human to feel bad about unpleasant experiences that happen to us and enjoy pleasant ones. Also I think it seems unrealistic to try to have no ego at all when the fact of the matter is we are bodies and experience the world through them and are inevitably seperate beings who need to take an interest in our survival and proposerity and well-being. Just because one can experience some blissed out state of "oneness"in meditation I don't think this changes anything in real life

 

All just IMO

[Evolution_beyond]

i am just not sure it offers any special ultimate truths

 

I don't care about special truths. I only care about helpful truths.

 

and I think taken too literally, like other religions, it could be unhelpful.

 

Life is too full of subtle nuances for me to take anything too literally.

 

I thik that the ultimate goal of enlightenment is just a myth. I don't believe any such state of perfect blissful detachment exists [or any concomittent benefits like "getting off the cycle of samsara"] or if it did that it would be useful for helping us exist in the day to day world we live in.

 

Maybe you are dressing it up to be more than it is. Maybe the path is more important than the goal. Maybe even stepping one step along the path is better than not stepping on the path at all.

 

And maybe stepping even a few steps along the path is indeed very helpful in day to day life.

 

we are just as we are, with messy changes of emotion and ups and downs and some ambitions and wishes that probably won't be fulfilled, and anger and disappointment, and love and passion and sadness and happiness, interest and boredom, etc and that is what being human is like.

 

A big part of Buddhism is learning to make your peace with your own perfections - to observe rather than seek to change. It is only when you dont judge something that you can learn to move past it anyway (if you want to). Judging your imperfections as wrong will only perpetuate their power and hold on you.

 

Some of these things are hard to explain. You need to experience them in action. Some of these understandings come with time, wisdom and experience. This is why it is so important to realise that no-one can come to understand the Dharma until they are ready to understand it. It is almost pointless for us to be having this discussion because nothing I say is going to convince you of anything. People have to arrive at truths and understandings themselves, when they are ready to see them. (However discussions can sow seeds that will take root later...)

 

On other hand I am always aware that I could be wrong - and maybe your words will sow seeds later

[Evolution_beyond]

Once again you want to insist I have just "not understood it" rather than that I disagree. is it not possible I have a resasonable understanding of it, but don't agree with the point of view? Is that not what this site is all about in realtion to Christianity?

 

Maybe there are things you don't understand. But I also think there are definitely things that you disagree with (at present). It is always possible however that new understandings will change your mind about things. On the other hand it is perfectly possible that you really do disagree with Buddhism and understand fully what it is that you disagree with. Maybe it is us who are wrong - and there is something that we fail to understand (at present).

 

Only an Omniscient being could solve this riddle. And as we both know - there ain't no such thing

 

We have to do the best we can with our shortcomings of knowledge - and respect each others' points of view. FWIW I think you are asking questions in a perfectly respectful way.

 

I wonder what response I would get if I posted "you guys have just not understood Christianity properly, move on"

 

The purpose of this site is what we all have in common - that we used to be christians but now are not christians. It's not neccesarily a site for the non-religious however. So other religions have a different status on this site than christianity does. I would expect nothing else. A site for ex-hindus may well contain open and curious discussion about christianity and I would not expect christianity to get as tough a time as hinduism on such a site.

 

Or is it in the rules here that you can criticise and disagree with Christianity, but not anything else?

 

you can disagree with anything you like. But we can defend non-christian philosophies and 'religions' too.

 

PS I don't wish to belittle people, just to debate my point of view and criticise ideas I don't agree with or think are not helpful. Sorry if I have seemed offensive in the way I have put some things

 

I haven't found you at all offensive