Is Buddhism worth checking out?

[Carrie]

I'm a former fundy Christian and now I'm an Atheist. I've always thought meditation might be kinda cool, so I'm thinking of going to check out a local Zen meeting. But I have no idea what to expect or it it's even worth it.

I'm picturing a bunch of middle aged hippies sitting in a circle meditating and saying "Om" and that sounds really silly to me.
Does anyone think this sort of thing would be cool? Or would it be lame? I mean, can I just get a book and learn to meditate? Is it something you even have to learn or can you just start doing it yourself by sitting alone and clearing your head?

Also, I'm guessing that Buddhists believe a lot of silly things, like you shouldn't drink, you must deny yourself, etc. to be holy.
And from what I gather from the info posted at the front of our local Yoga / Zen building here in town, they believe in stuff like special healing rocks and herbs for spiritual clarity and crap like that.

So should a skeptical Atheist like me even bother with Buddhism? Do you have to be all committed to it to get anything out of it, or is it the kind of thing where you can take some and leave some? What do you think of it?

[Heathen Dawn]

Much of what you believe about Buddhism could be stereotypes. That was true in my case. I still have my reasons for not being a Buddhist, but those are not the bad reasons I had before I checked it out (hint: Buddhism just isn’t my style).

I say yes, check it out. It’s not an absurd or evil religion like the Abrahamic ones. Albert Einstein endorsed it with these words:

“Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity”

[Autonemesis]

"What is the sound of one infidel checking me out?" - Buddha

:D

[Toto]

You probably won't find anyone chanting 'OM' since that's a Sanskrit-Yoga thing.

If you want just the meditation, look up Insight Meditation, or find someone who studied with Jack Kornfeld, or find some of his books or tapes - such as Inner Art of Meditation (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1564553906/internetinfidels).

Or try the Dalai Lama's Secular Meditation (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/6304468288/internetinfidels).

There's a lot of variety among Buddhists - some are very westernized and scientific, some are more into flakey new age stuff.

And you should consider: Buddhism is good for your health (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/magazine/14BUDDHISM.html).

[andy_d]

Originally posted by Carrie
I mean, can I just get a book and learn to meditate? Is it something you even have to learn or can you just start doing it yourself by sitting alone and clearing your head?


Well you can have a crack by yourself. You've already got all the tools you need to meditate perfectly. However, like all new skills, you'll find it much easier to learn from a person than a book. Still, if you're not ready to walk up and say "hi" then reading might give you bit more insight into the principles for now. I'd say stick to a book like the ones Toto mentioned and stay away from the airy-fairy New Age rubbish. Most of those people have no clue.

By all means, shop around until you find someone you like. Be critical.

If possible, it might help to check all your Abrahamic baggage and concepts about what "religion" should be at the door :) You won't need any of that shit.

At the very least, they'll probably be up for a cup of tea and a chat.

[demoninho]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn
“Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity”

Cool quote, finally an answer to all those fundies who keep quoting Einstein as a believer in the judeo(-christian) god

[Opera Nut]

There are various forms of meditation. Some people chant mantras, some people silently concentrate on their breath, etc. For more information about mantras do a google search on Thomas Ashley-Ferrand.

There are several major schools of Buddhism. The first one is Theravada[lesser vehicle], the second one is Mahayana [greater vehicle](Chinese), then there is Vajrayana [Diamond Way](Northern India), Zen (Japanese), Tantric and Tibetan. Each of these has divisions as well and some have yoga forms associated with them.

One of the cool things, I think, about Buddhism is that you can be an atheist and be a Buddhist too. You do not have to believe in God. I attended a Chinese Buddhist temple for a while and the people there were very nice and thoughtful. The temple was dedicated to Kwan Yin who is the female Bodhisattva of Compassion. Sort of like Mother Mary.

Buddhism has some of the same concepts as Hinduism, karma [what goes around comes around] and Dharma [truth], but stripped it of its many deities and aspects of God. The Eight Fold Path and the Four Noble Truths are the starting point. Everything we think is real is impermanent and illusory and changing (goes back to the Shiva the Destroyer aspect of Hinduism).

The teachings of the Dalai Lama are those most prominent in the West. There are CDs available of his teachings and books which explain and popularize it. He is a very interesting person.

The movie "Little Buddha" is a very basic explanation of the picking of the next Dalai Lama and the story of Gautama the Buddha. Gautama the Buddha is NOT revered as a God but revered as a person who achieved enlightenment.

There is a wonderful book that nobody has ever heard of called "The Importance of Living" by Lin Yutang. It was a best seller in the 1930s. He was the child of Christian missionaries in China and this is a wonderful treatise on Chinese history and Chinese philosophy. It has chapters on such things as "Why I am a Pagan" and "The Importance of Loafing".

Read it.

Good luck in your explorations.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste carrie,

thank you for the post.

you can get a very good overview of Hinyana Buddhism from this site:

http://www.buddhanet.net/


Not to nitpick with Opera Nut..

however... Theraveda means "Teachings of the Elders" and it is the main existant school of Hinyana (Lesser Vehicle) Buddhism.

It should be clearly noted that "lesser" is not meant in a derogatory manner.. even though some schools interpet it in that fashion. the term "lesser" here denotes that this school is applicable for a smaller group of individuals than the Mahayana (Greater Vehicle) or Vajrayana (Diamond Vehicle) schools.

The Dalai Lama is a practiconer of the Vajrayana school of Buddhism and he practices a particular sect of that school. There are several very well known commentators on Buddhism in the West... namely Thich Nhat Hanh and S. Suzuki... though they both offer their perspective from the Zen traditions which are subsumed under the Mahayana umbrella of teachings.

it is my opinion.. that one gets out of something what one puts into something.

yes, Buddhism does require a commitment to practice. you are learning a skill and, like all skills, it takes practice to become proficient.

naturally, there are activities that we should not engage in as they will impede our progress upon the spiritual path. something to keep in mind... generally speaking, Buddhism is about the Middle Way... to neither extreme... not abstaining or not becoming an alcoholic. if one does not have the will to drink but not become an alcoholic, they should probably not drink, n'est pas?

[Paul2]

Gautama the Buddha is NOT revered as a God but revered as a person who achieved enlightenment.


Sidenote: if i recall correctly, the term "buddha" is reserved for whoever brings enlightenment into an unenlightened world, and that is what Gautama did. So yes the Buddha is not worshiped as a god, but he's remembered as a teacher.


Edit: more to the subject, a book i found helpful would be "What the Buddha Taught" by Walpola Rahula, available in paperback from amazon or your local bookshop.

[kalamasutta]

carrie,

One of the descriptive words that the Dharma uses when referring to itself............."ehipassiko"........meaning in effect "come and see for oneself"........

The Buddhadharma has "many mansions"!...............from Theravada..............."Buddhas can only point the way, each has to walk the path themselves"................to Shin Buddhism that relies upon "Other Power".............and everything in-between..........84000 dharma gates.........

"The way of the Buddha is to know yourself;
To know yourself is to forget yourself;
To forget yourself is to be awakened by all things" (Dogen)

Perhaps there is no real starting place, yet my first real taste of Buddhism was the book "The Vision of Dharma" by the Theravada Elder Nyanaponika Thera..............this inspired me to begin meditation and truly see Buddhism as a lifechoice.........since then..............but that is MY story........

"Ehipassiko"..................come and see for oneself......

[NearNihil Experience]

"Also, I'm guessing that Buddhists believe a lot of silly things, like you shouldn't drink, you must deny yourself, etc. to be holy. "

There are as many types of buddhism as there are buddhist practicioners. Though there are some major followings.

Therevada Buddhists and Mahayana Buddhists seem to dominate.
They have the findamental difference of recognizing a higher power(though not necessarily a conscious God) and have a sharp division about an afterlife. forget which is which, benn quite a while since I did any reading or studying of these.

Denial is not a key to anything, finding your own needs and seeing your place in the world honestly seems a major goal of Buddhism....recognizing your insignificance to the entire world \universe and seeing your great significance to those thing immedately surrounding you, this might be a goal of a buddhist.

Doing what it is you feel is best for you in any situation is very buddhist.



"And from what I gather from the info posted at the front of our local Yoga / Zen building here in town, they believe in stuff like special healing rocks and herbs for spiritual clarity and crap like that. "

Now you're talking mysticism...there quite a variety of practices in Eastern mysticism...New agers have destroyed any semblence of making any sense of those mystic traditions....ignore the crystals ignore the crap like that.

hrebs are one thing, an object to focus concentration is a crystal, and neither are needed or required for practicing any form of buddhism...if someone tells you otherwise, they are probably more capitalist than buddhist.

You sound like you want to stay away from the mysticism...don't ignore it, take with a couple grains of salt and draw your own conclusions....that would be very buddhist of you... ;)

good luck and I hope you find some acceptance of your place in the world without mumbo-jumbo to guide you.
joshua

[Nowhere357]

This is from a post I made elsewhere:

Most Buddist sects emphasize the four noble truths, and meditation is an important part.

Meditation is useful. Successful people from athletes to accountants know how to focus and concentrate, which is applied meditation. Dream control is improved by meditation. Meditation techniques help overcome mental hurdles such as addiction. It lowers stress, boosts the immune system, and etc. I hope the value of meditation is not controversial. (Prayer is a form of meditation.) (Btw meditation does not require the lotus position or chanting.)

The four noble truths are interesting:

1) Life is suffering - dukkha
Birth trauma
Illness
Old age
Fear of approaching death
Separation from what one loves
Stuck with what one hates
2) The cause of suffering is desire - tanha
3) The cure for suffering is to remove desire
4) To remove desire, follow the Eightfold path

The eightfold path:

1) Right Knowledge
Understand the Four Noble Truths
2) Right Thinking
Decide to set a life on the correct path
3) Right Speech
Don't lie
Don't criticize others unjustly
Don't use harsh language
Don't gossip
4) Right Conduct
Follow the Five Precepts
5) Right Livelihood
Earn a living that does not harm living things
6) Right Effort
Conquer all evil thoughts
Strive to maintain good thoughts
7) Right Mindfulness
Become intensely aware of all the states in body, feeling, and mind.
8) Right Concentration
Deep meditation to lead to a higher state of consciousness (enlightenment)

The five precepts:

Do not kill
Do not steal
Do not lie
Do not be unchaste
Do not take drugs or drink intoxicants
___________________________________________________

This is philosophy and is not authoritarian. No threats, no dogma, no arbitrary beliefs. Buddha says to think for yourself and find your own path.

The major sects: Theravada (Hinayana), Mahayana, and Vajrayana Buddhism.
Theravada is the most straight-forward, Vajrayana is more mystical.

[andy_d]

I'd like to address a couple of teensy sticking points for me in your post Nowhere (which was otherwise pretty spot on)

I don't feel that emphasising desire as the primary cause of suffering is either correct, or useful. The "tanha" is closer to thirst or craving and is probably best explained in English by the word attatchment. Desire itself can be a good thing. What is considered bad is attatchment to external things in the expectation that they will bring about happiness.

It's a very common misconception that Buddhism seeks to eliminate all desire, but it's not correct. Only the desire for suffering is on the hit list.

The other thing that I noticed was that you described one of the 5 Precepts as "Do not be unchaste". I think people could be confused by that into thinking that this means that Buddhism disapproves of sex in the same way that the Abrahamic religions do. It doesn't (yay! :) )

I think the precept is better described as "Refrain from sexual misconduct". Misconduct is defined within Buddhism as any behaviour which does not uplift and empower. Put simply, sexual misconduct would be any behaviour which wasn't in line with the other precepts.

So sex itself is absolutely fine*, as long as you aren't harming others, taking the non-given, being deceitful, or losing your head. So, for example, hardcore S&M is prefectly acceptable, as long as everybody is a consenting adult and is having a good time :D


*myself, I would go a little further than discribing it as merely "fine"...

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by andy_d
It's a very common misconception that Buddhism seeks to eliminate all desire, but it's not correct. Only the desire for suffering is on the hit list.
My understanding is that if a given desire leads to suffering, we should try to get rid of it. Also, that it's our tendancy to desire in general which leads to suffering in general.

I definitely agree that the intention of Buddhism is NOT the removal of all human desires. To anyone even remotely interested in Buddhism, I recommend exploring the apologetics, especially for the first noble truth. Everything I've seen about these basic ideas has made sense - this stuff is reasonable, interesting, and useful.

No comparison to my experiences with the Abrahamic religions ar all.

I think the precept is better described as "Refrain from sexual misconduct".
Yes. I think the same concept applies to all five precepts. Buddha is not saying that we are bad if we don't follow the precepts. They are guidelines and advice towards moderation, and not commands. He doesn't say we can't kill in self-defense, steal to feed our kids, lie to the gestapo, have sex outside of marriage, or enjoy a beer (or a bowl) after a day's work.

Btw I don't claim to know what the Buddha said, and really it doesn't matter, even to the Buddha. This stuff stands or falls on it's own.

[premjan]

I don't think it is the desire that is the problem: it is the fixation on the desire. So that it hurts when the thing you desire is taken away.

[ACow]

Hmmm...i'm not entirely sure what to say on the subject.

I'm not a buddhist myself, but i suggest that everyone at least take the time to look into general buddhist philosophy. There's some great stuff in there, and alot of it is stated so succinctly and logically that its hard to find anything else that beats it.

Another thing to keep in mind is to remember that there are different factions of buddhism, just as there are different factions of christianity and just about every other religion. Similarly, like everyone else, its hard to find someone who practices who isn't going to try to persuade you or teach you their own style.

Its good to know what kind of buddhist your talking to whether their based on zen, mahayana, therevada, or vajrayana. I was lucky enough to have a pretty damned good introductory teacher to the whole thing, so i don't really have many books or anything to offer in that respect.

I personally focus on the philosophical and teachings of buddhism. I'm not a big fan neccesarily of adhering to meditation because everyone else does it. Plus you've got to remember that as an organized religion, you'll get alot of other stuff like holidays and cultural traditions that aren't really "buddhist" in themselves.

If anything, i guess i should say the best schools to start with are therevada or mahayana. Tibetan buddhism (like the dalai llama practices) and other forms of vajrayana and esoteric buddhism, probably isn't entirely what your looking for, at least now, as all of the mandalas, mantras and institutional structures and authority might turn you a bit off it. If your interested you can also check out zen, but it can be kind of hard for alot of people to comprehend and understand, and frustration in that might just drive you away at an early stage.

Again, keep in mind to keep seperate what is tradition and culture, and what is actual teaching.

And as that old buddhist saying goes, there comes a point when you must even leave the dharma behind. For it is like a raft you use to cross a river, and once you reach the other side of the river, the raft can be left on the shore, for if you carried it along on your shoulders the whole way, you'll just hinder yourself.

[paul30]

Nowhere 357 certainly covered some of the basics.

There are different kinds of Buddhism. Some are non-theological; some believe in a whole array of gods and beings. But even these are more metaphorical than literal: more representations of states of mind than external beings.

The Dalai Lama says Buddhism is less a religion than a philosophy.

The Buddha himself said he wasn't concerned with gods and devils, only with how to live.

Life is full of suffering and loss; and he found ways of eliminating them.

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by paul30
Life is full of suffering and loss; and he found ways of eliminating them.

Buddhism doesn’t eliminate suffering and loss, it just changes man’s attitude towards them. Buddhists suffer and lose just like all other people, they just don’t react sharply as do ordinary people. In that, Buddhism is like Christianity.

The attitude towards suffering and loss is atheism’s biggest problem: the atheist faces them head-on, in full force, with no way of alleviating their impact. Suffering is totally real in atheism, and loss of life is irrevocable. Atheism is definitely not for sensitive people.

[Magic Primate]

you can also check out zen, but it can be kind of hard for alot of people to comprehend and understand, and frustration in that might just drive you away at an early stage.

According to Zen, there is nothing to be understood. Its realising this fully which may be hard.

There is a story about Bodhidharma who came from India to China in the year 527 CE to transmit the dharma. As told by Zen Master Dogen who lived in the thirteenth century, Bodhidharma went to see the Emperor in the kingdom of Liang.

Emperor Wu said: "Ever since I have been emperor I have built temples, copied sutras, and approved the ordination of more monks than I can count. What is the merit of having done all this?"
Bodhidharma said: "There is no merit."
The Emperor said: "Why is that so?"
Bodhidharma said: "These are minor achievements of humans and devas, which become the causes of desire. They are like shadows and forms and are not real."
The Emperor said: "What is real merit?"
Bodhidharma said: "When pure wisdom is complete, the essence is empty and serene. Such merit cannot be attained through worldly actions."
The Emperor said: What is the foremost sacred truth?"
Bodhidharma said: "Vast emptiness. Nothing sacred."
The Emperor said: "Who is it that faces me?"
Bodhidharma said: "I don't know."

[andy_d]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn
Buddhism doesn’t eliminate suffering and loss, it just changes man’s attitude towards them.

Kind of the same thing though, isn't it?

If you eliminate the headf*cks you give yourself, you really do suffer less.

[Majestyk]

Read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". Buddhism is worth checking out. I can't really say anymore than that.

[Mageth]

Worth checking out. Read the Tao Te Ching, if you haven't. (I personally think that "pure" Buddhism is hard for "Westerners" to grasp and practice, but one nice thing about Buddhism is that it's adaptible, and one doesn't have to go "whole hog" to benefit or gain insight from it).

For a different perspective on spirituality for the Atheist, particularly for "Westerners", you might want to check out some of Joseph Campbell's writings. Some of his writings address meditation and its goals, though perhaps more from the perspective of Hinduism than Buddhism (Hinduism is the root of Buddhism). An Open Life is a good place to start.

[paul30]

DON'T read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance."

It's crap.

It's not about Zen; it won't teach you how to fix your motorcycle.

It is very unBuddhist, because it's a big fat literal ego-trip, and one of the basics of Buddhism is to get outside the ego.

And yes, Heathen Dawn and Andy d you are correct.

;)

[Mageth]

DON'T read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance."

It's crap.

It's not about Zen; it won't teach you how to fix your motorcycle.

I read it, and for the most part agree. I found little Zen there, and only bits and pieces about motorcycle maintentance, which wasn't my first concern anyway.

What good content there is in the book, IMO, lies in the road-trip story about a father and his flawed relationship with his son.

BTW, another intersting book to read (or listen to; there's an excellent audio version), is Herman Hesse's Siddhartha.

[Magic Primate]

Originally posted by Mageth


For a different perspective on spirituality for the Atheist, particularly for "Westerners", you might want to check out some of Joseph Campbell's writings. Some of his writings address meditation and its goals, though perhaps more from the perspective of Hinduism than Buddhism (Hinduism is the root of Buddhism). An Open Life is a good place to start.

Or cut through that and go straight for Jung, which is where most of Campbell's ideas come from anyway.

[Magic Primate]

Originally posted by paul30
DON'T read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance."

It's crap.

It's not about Zen; it won't teach you how to fix your motorcycle.


I'll second...er, third that!


Originally posted by Mageth
another intersting book to read (or listen to; there's an excellent audio version), is Herman Hesse's Siddhartha.

And that. You also might wanr to check out the writings of DT Suzuki (nothing to do with motorcycles this time).

[Nowhere357]

Otoh, Zen Driving: Be A Buddha Behind The Wheel! by Berger, K.T.

A fun and useful book, imo. I still use the techniques, and am a better driver by far because of them.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Magic Primate
Or cut through that and go straight for Jung, which is where most of Campbell's ideas come from anyway.

I don't think it's fair to say that "most of Campbell's ideas come from" Jung. It's true that Jung had considerable influence on Campbell and his ideas, particularly in the area of the relationship of psychology to mythology, but Jung was just one of many influences on Campbell. Campbell himself claimed that his "guru", if he had one, was Heinrich Zimmer. In Campbell's own words, from An Open Life:

You know, for some people, "Jungian" is a nasty word, and it has been flung at me by certain reviewers as though to say, "Don't bother with Joe Campbell; he's a Jungian." Im not a Jungian! As far as interpreting myths, Jung gives me the best clues I've got. But I'm much more interested in diffusion and relationships historically than Jung was, so that the Jungians think of me as a kind of questionable person. I don't use those formula words very often in my interpretation of myths, but Jung gives me the background from which to let the myth talk to me.

[Ramen]

IMO, anyone interested in Buddhism should read the books written by Pema Chodron (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=Chodron%2C%20Pema/104-0199849-1446379).

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by andy_d
Kind of the same thing though, isn't it?

If you eliminate the headf*cks you give yourself, you really do suffer less.

Well, if that’s true, then it makes Buddhism the best anaesthetic there is. ;)

[charvakan]

Yes, definitely check out Buddhism. It gave me some very valuable insights into how to approach life, and even the nature of consciousness.

But there's no getting around the inconvenient fact that the Buddha assumed some things that simply aren't true, and the religion he founded is based on those errors. The big one is reincarnation (or metempsychosis, since he did not believe in a soul). Right behind it is karma, the supposed law that makes sure you get what's coming to you in this life and the next. His whole shtick was to get off the never-ending round of rebirth, and of course there isn't one; and you were supposed to do it by using up all your karma without accruing more. He also accepted the existence of various gods and demons and all sorts of other supernatural stuff, but that's less important.

In Buddhism, attachment is to be avoided because it accrues karma and guarantees more lives. Basically, this means you aren't supposed to care very much about anything. Frankly, I think this is pretty crappy advice if taken as far as the Buddha wanted it taken, but it is a welcome counterpoint to the pathological acquisitiveness of life in the West today. The original sources make it clear that the Buddha thought all human attachments just hold us back from reaching nirvana and should be cut. The only reason that "householders" were OK was that it was believed that they could sever those attachments in a future life and reach nirvana at the end of that one.

I'm sure there are modern-day Buddhists who have dropped the reincarnation/karma nonsense, and I know it's possible to absorb some very positive things from Buddhist philosophy without swallowing the supernatural stuff. Check it out.

[premjan]

I think "reincarnation" and "karma" are memetic concepts and so really existed then, and still do exist, though not in all cultures, not uniformly and were and are less meaningful than the Buddha made them out to be. I think religious beliefs really are just descriptive of the cultural state of memes and the human attitude towards them. The belief in judgement day among the semitic creeds indicates the route that memes take among believers of that faith (or, rather, if the memes take such a route, it predisposes such people or cultures to believe in semitic religions over eastern ones). This is what is meant by "spirituality" IMO: a description of the meme path.

[RED DAVE]

Try

The Three Pillars of Zen by Philip Kapleau

How to Meditate by Lawrence LeShan

P.S. Zen and the Art of motorcycle Maintenance is a truly great book describing both one man's psychological journey and healing and possessing great insight into the nature of our perception and understanding of reality

RED DAVE

[paul30]

Also read:

almost anything by Thich Nhat Hahn.

Being Peace is my favorite, but most of them are good.

The Dalai Lama also has some good books, and some interviews with him are good.

[Vajradhara]

Originally posted by charvakan
Yes, definitely check out Buddhism. It gave me some very valuable insights into how to approach life, and even the nature of consciousness.

But there's no getting around the inconvenient fact that the Buddha assumed some things that simply aren't true, and the religion he founded is based on those errors. The big one is reincarnation (or metempsychosis, since he did not believe in a soul). Right behind it is karma, the supposed law that makes sure you get what's coming to you in this life and the next. His whole shtick was to get off the never-ending round of rebirth, and of course there isn't one; and you were supposed to do it by using up all your karma without accruing more. He also accepted the existence of various gods and demons and all sorts of other supernatural stuff, but that's less important.

In Buddhism, attachment is to be avoided because it accrues karma and guarantees more lives. Basically, this means you aren't supposed to care very much about anything. Frankly, I think this is pretty crappy advice if taken as far as the Buddha wanted it taken, but it is a welcome counterpoint to the pathological acquisitiveness of life in the West today. The original sources make it clear that the Buddha thought all human attachments just hold us back from reaching nirvana and should be cut. The only reason that "householders" were OK was that it was believed that they could sever those attachments in a future life and reach nirvana at the end of that one.

I'm sure there are modern-day Buddhists who have dropped the reincarnation/karma nonsense, and I know it's possible to absorb some very positive things from Buddhist philosophy without swallowing the supernatural stuff. Check it out.

Namaste charvakan,

thanks for the post.

you proclaim it to be not true. how have you ascertained this? with what would you replace this theory?

do you disagree with Cause and Effect in the natural world? if not, why would you disagree with it in the metaphysical world? if so, how come?

attachment does not accrue karma. the Buddha says " I declare, oh Bhikkus, that violition is karma." attachment increases our defilements, however those, in and of themselves, do not produce karma. by the by, karma isn't how you've described it.. that is, i believe, what is known as a straw man. if karma worked the way you've described it, there would be no hope of ever ending it. however, it doesn't work like that.. we can change and/or mitigate the ripening of negative or positive karma by our actions (violitions) in this life time.

householders, as you've termed them, were not ok in the original transmission.. the Hinyana was really designed for the monastic community. the advent of the Second Turning of the Wheel provided a mechanism by which householders could be included in the Sangha.. and, perhaps more importantly, Guru Rinpoche (Padmasambhava) was a householder and brought the Vajrayana to Tibet in the 700's, as such, in the Vajrayana there isn't a real demarcation between householders and monastics in terms of their realizations.

[premjan]

There is no evidfence that reincarnation as a memetic phenomenon does not exist.

[andy_d]

Originally posted by Vajradhara
we can change and/or mitigate the ripening of negative or positive karma by our actions (violitions) in this life time.


Or, in the words of the Big B himself:

"I do not believe in a fate which befalls us no matter how we act. I believe in a fate which befalls us unless we act."

That's always been a really attractive premise to base your worldview on, to me. It puts the responsibility for action squarely on the individual, not some ethereal being or mystic force.

[Magic Primate]

Is the attractiveness of a premise a valid justification for believing it to be true?

If I am a Buddhist at all, I am of a very 'stripped-down' sort - no reincarnation, no karma, no absolute truth, only liberation in the here and now.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by Magic Primate
Is the attractiveness of a premise a valid justification for believing it to be true?

This is something that's always perplexed me. How can one "believe" in something unless the evidence supports the view? Afaik, there is no evidence for reincarnation, so I can't "believe" in it. I can hope it's true, but that's another story.

Nowhere
Now Here

[Magic Primate]

The whole point of the original Buddhism was escape from the cycle of reincarnation anyway. To wish for it would be seen as a mistake, as a type of clinging causing unhappiness.

[premjan]

I think the semitic religions take care of reincarnation quite well: they substitute it with judgement day. I think memetics is a function of peoples' mental state or beliefs. Changing people's beleifs or behavior can change memetics and cause "reincarnation" to disappear.

[fgorin]

Heather Dawn quotes Albert Einstein -

“Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity”

Thanks for that quote. Very interesting. Could you share the source?

- Frank

.

[Vajradhara]

Originally posted by premjan
I think the semitic religions take care of reincarnation quite well: they substitute it with judgement day. I think memetics is a function of peoples' mental state or beliefs. Changing people's beleifs or behavior can change memetics and cause "reincarnation" to disappear.

i think that i can make a pretty good case that reincarnation was taught in the semitic religions...

Gilgul, in Judaism, for instance...

[fgorin]

andy-d posted -

"I don't feel that emphasising desire as the primary cause of suffering is either correct, or useful. The "tanha" is closer to thirst or craving and is probably best explained in English by the word attatchment. Desire itself can be a good thing."

========================

Hello, Andy. I agree that desire per se probably isn't the root cause of suffering - or actually even tanha (thirst, clinging, attachment). The root, it seems to me, is what the Buddhists call avidya - which is literally "not seeing", that is, not seeing the real. In other words, not seeing through the problem of duality and the consequences of wrong desire.

Avidya is usually translated as ignorance but in the sense of involutarily ignoring what is real. So, the suffering that comes from attachments and hungers grows straight from delusion. The whole point of enlightenment is to break through this and see the real situation with its causes and effects (karma).

In a related teaching, called viparyasa (or "upside-down views"), ignorance is -

1. Experiencing permanence in what is impermanent.
2. Experiencing pleasure in what is suffering.
3. Experiencing selfhood in what is empty of self.
4. Experiencing beauty in what is base.

There are variations of this but basically it's seeing the world and life in upside-down, distorted ways, from the viewpoint of avidya/ignorance.

Hope this adds to the discussion.

Peace,

~ Frank


.

[premjan]

reality is impermanence and change.
mental categories and ways of thinking easily turn into traps.
the mental habits that man is unable to break cause many abuses in the secular world.
all is at once sensible when seen from the perspective of eternity.
not the conventional judeo-christian eternity which is not eternity at all. but the mystical eternity. the realization that time itself is an illusion. the overcoming of the illusion of time may be the final leap into the infinite.

there is only "objective" point of view: that which is outside of space and time, changeless and eternal.

[seebs]

There's all sorts of baggage that different people might associate with Buddhism, especially now that it attracts lots of New Age people. However, Zen Buddhism is probably useful, if only in that studying Zen is likely to teach you modes of thought which are broadly applicable.

[Grommitt]

Do you have to be all committed to it to get anything out of it, or is it the kind of thing where you can take some and leave some? With that attitude, I doubt you will ever "get" anything of value no matter what you try, be it Zen or bowling or playing the banjo.

Cultivate some strength of character, then find your path.

[VTboy]

Buddhism is a RELIGION. For example the Pure Land Buddhism that is very common in South East Asia. Here Buddhist beleive that their was a buddha before Guttama(sp) that when we reached enlitenment he created a new world a new plane of exsistant that has no death and no suffering. The land of ultimate bliss it is called. He is known as the Amita Buddha or the Buddha of infinite Light and Life. To be reborn in the new world you have to say his name when you die, and have lead a good life. Once you are reborn here you can live here in compleat bliss untill you reach enlightenment. You can think of it as being like heaven.

[Malagasy Rain]

After reading these posts, it seems as though Buddhism seems to be a pretty interesting religion. Many of the concepts and philosophies derived from Buddhism are extremely interesting, hard-hitting, and mostly common sense.

Most importantly, I like how you can actually live by some of the teachings without forsaking your atheism.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

generally speaking, all Buddhist schools hold that there have been prior Buddhas before the historical Buddha, Guatama Shakyamuni.

Moreover, there will be additional Buddhas that appear. the next one is said to be Maitreya, the Buddha of Compassion.

as for reincarnation or rebirth... firstly, i should say that those two terms are pretty technical terms in Buddhism and we refute the former and uphold the latter...

(cavet, all of my postings are from my point of view and are mainly to support my own understanding. other Buddhists may disagree with my interpetation)

the question is, i think, one of evidence. is there any? perhaps. however, the heart of this question really is "is there evidence that i can accept?"

that is the crux of the matter... what type of evidence would one be willing to accept? as a Buddhist, it's pretty straight forward... we read in the Pali Canon a text called the Jataka Tales, which are stories of the Buddha's past lives.

this clearly establishes rebirth as a doctrine taught explicitly by the Buddha.

does that evidence suffice?

for some it may and for some it may not.

in the Vajrayana tradition, espeically in it's form in Tibet, there is a tradition of "tulkus" or "incarnate lamas" that has existed since the 1200's or so. these tulkus are said to be accomplished lamas that chose to be reborn to continue the teachings and so forth.

they are put to all manner of tests... if you've seen the movie "Kundun" you'll see some of the tests that His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama underwent to prove his authenticity. would these tests be acceptable evidence?

again, some will find the evidence compelling and others will not.

in the end.. it really depends on ones capacity... though i know my Hinyana brothers and sisters will vigorously disagree with me :) in my school (Vajrayana) we posit that there were three Turnings of the Wheel of Dharma that correspond with the Hinyana, Mahayana and Vajrayana views, each being progressively more subtle than the previous.

by the by... it is this view we have when studying the Sutras as well...

[aditya]

Originally posted by Carrie
So should a skeptical Atheist like me even bother with Buddhism? Do you have to be all committed to it to get anything out of it, or is it the kind of thing where you can take some and leave some? What do you think of it?
I have given my take on essentially the same issue in another thread "Buddhism and soul".
I am not a Buddhist myself but I think I understand where he was coming from or leading to.

[premjan]

I think of Buddhism as spiritualist atheism.