Thoughts on Buddhism

[Agmanellium]

I'm an atheist. I have been meditating seriously for two years now. I usually meditate for an hour a day in one sitting. I have slowly been reading the Pali canon for the last year and a half. I do not believe in gods. I have no reason to believe in rebirth, however I reserve final judgment on that as direct experience of the remembrance of past lives does not manifest until reaching the formless attainments in meditation. I suspect that the Buddha experienced memory of and taught rebirth due to preconditioning by his culture. I have yet to see an explanation that reconciled the doctrine of rebirth with the doctrine of no self that was to my satisfaction.
I came to an understanding of Dukkha, the basic unsatifactoryness of life, well before I heard of it through Buddhism. If was as a thought experiment regarding the creation of AI. If a consciousness were to be created what would keep it from simply abiding in, or winding down to, a state of continuous meditation-like self reflection? What would insure that it was always return to action? A simple command: "be thou discontent" (forgive the king James). I believe this is one of the "base operating commands" that evolved for survival of animal life. This to me is the core of the Buddhist teachings. Dissatisfaction exists and the Buddha found a pathway that can lead to the cessation of that dissatisfaction. If what it asks you to give up is more important to you than what the path offers, then don't walk the path, simple as that.
Another thought: the version of Buddhism you gave up is an extreme, so is rejecting all of it, good and bad. The middle path is between extremes. The middle path leads to the true Dhamma.

[wickedrum]

sure, there are hundres of forms of Buddhism. some of them are more obsessed with religious worship than others, but somewhere in there exist some truths that we are not yet able to understand.
there's one thing we need to be careful about here. while rejecting religion and gods, we don't have to equate it with spirituality as the two are not the same!

[Edwardo Piet]

From a purely philosophical point of view I think that there is wisdom in the Buddhist ideas and ideals of not being too attached to things. I'm generally anti-attachment but I also think that that is something to not take too seriously, there's nothing wrong with having fun so long as it doesn't become dependency. As for the religious parts of Buddhism, I obviously don't subscribe to any of that.

[KichigaiNeko]

Agreed DvF..you come into this world with nothing... then it is a race to see who has the most debt at death...

I do find meditation techniques helpful...I like some aspects of Budhism and Zen Budhism...but to follow it??? Nah

[mhikl]

. . .
Then when talking about rebirth, there are many who say that you cannot follow the Buddhist path without accepting rebirth as it is fundamental to 'the path' and not much point carrying on if you don't accept it. . .
All the best
Laurens

Namaste Laurens,
as there are many denominations in faith based religions, there are a number of branches of Buddhism. However the basic tenets are the same. First and foremost, Buddhism is not a faith based philosophy or religion and is constantly under scrutiny and change is made when an error in reasoning is found. They Buddha instructed all to question his teachings and never accept a word without study. An example of this is the Dalai Lama as a youth. He saw shadows around the craters he observed on the moon through his telescope. The belief at the time was that the moon was self luminescent, the light coming from within. The shadows proved otherwise and so changes to belief were made.

The belief in reincarnation is interpreted by some that the spirit or soul is reborn in another body, sentient or other. (Buddhism does not believe in the soul. We talk about a life force that goes on as another form, only metaphors and imagery is often invoked for that which is difficult to explain. When the body dies it becomes another form of energy through decay and change.) But the foundation of rebirth is the rebirth in the moment. Moment to moment your body changes, your hair grows, you age, an idea you hold alters. This is the foundation of rebirth. It means change. This you should know from your studies. It can be very reassuring. The fact that it doesn't promise you life after death, to some, distressing. All difficult or pleasant situations will change; for the better or for worse. How you react is the rebirth, the change within you, for the better or for the worse.

The Buddha was asked if there is a god or gods. He replied that what cannot be proved or disproved is left to the individual. It is your choice to believe in a "resurrection" of your life force; it is not a founding principle of Buddhism. Everything changes is its foundation, a pretty simple idea, but profound. Pain and pleasure change. And the clincher for me, you can change your response to the changes you meet in life; they don't have to dictate your mood or reaction. Of course we feel pain wether you are a Buddhist or atheist and you may cry. You may lose a body part through no fault of your own. How you choose to deal with the pain and the lose is your choice.* Such is empowering.

Buddhism doesn't give answers, it only directs you along a paths of understanding so you can make the best choice. The Buddhist is taught throughout his/her life to question. And once you've found some answer that seems to work, continue to question it.

I will reference Wikipedia from the article on Reincarnation pertaining to Buddhism:
The early Buddhist texts make it clear that there is no permanent consciousness that moves from life to life.[88] Gautama Buddha taught a distinct concept of rebirth constrained by the concepts of anattā, that there is no irreducible ātman or "self" tying these lives together,[89] and anicca, that all compounded things are subject to dissolution, including all the components of the human person and personality.

In figurative language we like to show reincarnation as the passing of life energy like the dying candle lighting another candle as it extinguishes. The fist candle no longer burns but nothing of that candle is gone, it has only changed. Every speck of energy is still in existence, somewhere. This is modern physics we would not come to begin to understand in the West until the 19th Century.

Many of the difficulties I perceive on forums such as this is the difference in understanding around dominant brain thinking often explained as left-brain, right-brain thinking. Problems will arise between those who think more clearly through the use of metaphor and images and those who like things spelt out in simple and concrete terms.

The West sees religion along the lines of the concrete; God and man are in separation.
The East (most traditional religions anywhere through time) sees god and man as the same; there is no separation.
The first is left brain sensed and the latter, right brain sensed.

And for the more concrete thinker, man and god does not mean the big guy with the white beard of Michelangelo's ceiling. God is just the creative (feeling, sensing) spark within us.

So rest assured, when you die, you die; regardless your philosophy.+

* a modern day understanding of this comes from
—Viktor Emil Frankl, an Austrian neurologist and psychiatrist as well as a Holocaust survivor who wrote about his experiences in Man's Search for Meaning and
—Albert Ellis, an American psychologist who in 1955 developed Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT).
Neither were Buddhist's per se, but both came to many of the same understandings the Buddha did, about 2500 years earlier. Their understandings would be better understood by the more concrete thinker.

+ But every particle will continue on for ever as it has been for ever in some form or other.

[Anomalocaris]

Buddhism is like other religions. No basis in fact, but it probably teaches a few good things?

In my opinion, no "good" thing that is taught by causing large group of people to believe the same factless, wit dulling, intellect currupting bullshit, would remain, on more complete analysis, a good thing.

[Rev. Rye]

Well, I have considered becoming a Buddhist, in particular the Theravada form, but reincarnation has been the major stumbling block for me , but now that I've read Stephen Batchelor's Buddhism Without Beliefs, and found that one can (apparently) be a Buddhist without accepting reincarnation or becoming a vegetarian (because vegetarian food, in my own personal opinion, is terrible when it tries to pretend to be meat; that said, meat-eating appears to be accepted in Buddhism as long as you don't kill the animal yourself, or know that it was killed especially for you), and now the major stumbling block is being bothered to practice meditation.

[passionatefool]

From personal experience.

I was born into a buddhism/neo-taoism family. I started my study in buddhism very young and about 6 years ago i got really serious. I had study many different school of buddhism, different traditions/branches from Mahayana to therevada to vajrayana. I read and study many sutras, mainly the Mahayana canon. I was initially a devout Pure Land buddhist, after a while I became interested in Chan (or Zen in japanese). I attended a Chan monastery, an affiliation to Chung Tai Chan Monastery in Taiwan, one of the very well known monastery in the world. There I practice meditation and finally took refuge under the triple jewels and became an upasaka and uphold the precepts. I actually have one of those upasaka robe with the sash. Anyway at that time I still attend my Pure Land monastery where I teach Buddhism theory to youth and became pretty well known in the community there. I also wanted to later on ordain and lead a monastic life.

To make story short, I had always been skeptical and very liberal in views. I couldn't accept some of the teachings by masters. I attended a trip to see Grand Master Wei Chueh, the founder of Chung Tai, and for many reasons I was disappointed and it made me question everything. I was also aware of the "blind faith" which buddhists have even though they claim they don't. I often times discuss my concern and my doubt with my dharma brothers and sisters and they would avoid it. Sometimes I would comment on a Master and how his teaching is nonsense according to scientific findings and they accused me of slandering and will receive negative retribution. So yes Buddhism, atleast modern buddhism, is based on faith and therefore no different from any other religion.

However I do want to say that they are indeed much more peaceful in my opinion. In all of my years of studying it, meeting different teacher at different monastery and different traditions, they tend to be very accepting and open minded. If someone doesn't believe in what they believe in, they simply say that it isn't the person's affinity yet. When I was a buddhist, along with many of my dharma friends, we never feel the need to force our belief onto anybody. And I wouldsay if you meet moderate buddhist, they are the wisest and most peaceful people, not always right but peaceful.

In Mahayana and Vajaryana (which includes Mahayana but much more tantric practices) most masters are I would say liberal. like the interview of Dalai Lama by Carl sagan, Dalai Lama said that if a buddhist belief or practice conflicts with science, buddhism must always give in and accept science.

I came across an article on Theravada Buddhism, now I did not spend enough time with Theravada buddhism to say much but they are quite interesting. An article said that ordained monks was trained and teach to not accept any teachings either from sutras or from teachers unless it agrees with logic and reasoning. Therevada monks will also consume meat if it was offered to them. One odd thing is that nuns are often time refered as monk but most modern therevada buddhism schools had been an advocate for women and gay rights.

So if I have to pick a religion, I would say that I would pick Buddhism over others. I might be bias because I was a Buddhist. But either way Buddhism has its religious, faith, and supernatural aspect that I can't accept. It has woshipping practice, though they claim they worship to remind them of practicing, I suspect they worship buddhas and bodhisattvas like gods/goddesses. It also has fear of retribution as a mean of control. And my process going from a religious Buddhism to an Atheist was painful and took a few years of philosphical examination and debating with myself, I finally abandon buddhism and now an Atheist.

[Rev. Rye]

Dalai Lama said that if a buddhist belief or practice conflicts with science, buddhism must always give in and accept science.

I came across an article on Theravada Buddhism, now I did not spend enough time with Theravada buddhism to say much but they are quite interesting. An article said that ordained monks was trained and teach to not accept any teachings either from sutras or from teachers unless it agrees with logic and reasoning.

Yes. That is definitely one of the big positives about Buddhism. Can you imagine what the western religions would be like if they followed that maxim?

Therevada monks will also consume meat if it was offered to them.

Yes, this is a big deal breaker for me. I honestly believe that the worst food that I've ever had to eat in my life was from a vegan restaurant; if vegetarianism means having to put up with that shit, I'll stay a carnivore. But, hey, at least, from what I've read, Buddha considered meat-eating to be a karma-neutral act (after all, even vegetarianism requires the death of innocent plant life), and refused to mandate vegetarianism unless you know the meat was killed for you specifically; and, given the fact that you can buy meat from a supermarket, you can easily get around that.

[passionatefool]

Dalai Lama said that if a buddhist belief or practice conflicts with science, buddhism must always give in and accept science.

I came across an article on Theravada Buddhism, now I did not spend enough time with Theravada buddhism to say much but they are quite interesting. An article said that ordained monks was trained and teach to not accept any teachings either from sutras or from teachers unless it agrees with logic and reasoning.

Yes. That is definitely one of the big positives about Buddhism. Can you imagine what the western religions would be like if they followed that maxim?

Therevada monks will also consume meat if it was offered to them.

Yes, this is a big deal breaker for me. I honestly believe that the worst food that I've ever had to eat in my life was from a vegan restaurant; if vegetarianism means having to put up with that shit, I'll stay a carnivore. But, hey, at least, from what I've read, Buddha considered meat-eating to be a karma-neutral act (after all, even vegetarianism requires the death of innocent plant life), and refused to mandate vegetarianism unless you know the meat was killed for you specifically; and, given the fact that you can buy meat from a supermarket, you can easily get around that.

Yeah I mean I like Buddhism and its moderation. But it still has most of the aspect of other religions. I have also seen a Theravada monk who was quite aggressive toward me when i was a mahayana Buddhist and vice versa, said I was corrupting the Dharma and will have horrible negative retribution. But I would say in general they arent as bad at all. They are kind of laid back in my opinion especially with the Zen. The very liberal Zen are very .....human and down to earth. Mainly in Japan only, priests get married and stuff.

And I love vegetarian food if it was cooked right, but you are right those vegetarians meats are horrible! lol