Uncertain Minds: How the West Misunderstands Buddhism

B5C

Jeffrey

I thought it was interesting how he said the dharma was: impermanent, contingent, and imperfect. As a living organism.

compassionate_warrior

What a treat to be privy to a conference like this! I don't believe anyone here holds these misunderstandings of Buddhism, but certainly the general public has misconceptions about Buddhism based on gross oversimplifications of what Buddhism is.

The statement that the Buddha didn't set out to found a religion, but simply a practice, a methodology, has implications for the eternal debate on whether Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy, psychology, etc. I think it has become a religion. But these speakers agree that it didn't begin as a religion, nor was it intended to be.

It would be helpful if they'd define what they consider to be "early texts", vs. later texts.

Jeffrey

Peacock did not give an example of 'dogmatic' that is existent in the buddhist traditions.

zenff

For my practice to be authentic, it has to interact with our time and condition.
I think that’s what Batchelor finished saying.

I feel the same way. When I ignore what I think I know and understand as a person living in the 21st century, I would feel like living a lie instead of living the Dharma.

Jeffrey

I don't think the four noble truths as injunctions as opposed to descriptive is original. That is to say they are something we DO.

DaltheJigsaw

Thank you for sharing!

Jeffrey

I liked Peacock's description of the contingency of consciousness at around 43:00. This is really good.

zenff

Looked at some more of the video and liked it even better.
Thanks for posting this.

praxis

It's sad to see religious people deny their religiosity.

Dakini

They're not religious. They're "secular Buddhists". As Peacock pointed out, the Buddha's practice was not a religion. It was more an ethical discipline, a looking inward via meditation, and understanding the world (and dukkha) through the lens of conditionality.

Notice what he said about the Buddha making jokes about Hindu beliefs, and his words got written into scripture and taken literally. He didn't tell us how he determined the Buddha was joking, but that would be eye-opening if he could explain it. I wonder if he has any books published that go into more details.

And his statement that the Buddha was "anti-absolutist". Meaning, I think (?) that there's no set, prescribed way to respond to situations, no commandments. You have to treat each situation on its individual merits and conditions. I don't think that he uses the word "absolute" or "absolutist" here in the sense of "relative" vs. "absolute"

What a pleasant surprise! Thank you, B5C! :thumbsup: I'm going to review this. I missed the part Jeffrey mentions, about the contingency of consciousness.

Jeffrey

"I don't think that he uses the word "absolute" or "absolutist" here in the sense of "relative" vs. "absolute""

No I don't think he did, which is to say I am in agreement with Dakini. Because the absolute truth is that all dharmas are empty of a self essence, that is they are contingent, impermanent, and ungraspable... Which is basicly to say that the absolute truth is that there are no absolute truths. (which can also be clinging to a subtle negation... and that too obscures reality)

Jeffrey

One point that was confusing was that neither defined what they considered 'religion'. So I don't know what properties of say: zen, tibetan, theravad.. what properties are considered 'religion'? It was unclear if he was saying that westerners *think* in some way as religion or if he is saying that the dharma is *presented* this fallacious way.

So two problems: who is mistaking dharma as religion and how is religion defined?

Mahuidou

Thanks for the video, appreciate it.

Dakini

I took that to mean that the Dharma has taken on the trappings of religion in parts of the East. People pray to the Buddha now,and ask favors of him as if he were a deity, monasticism has been institutionalized, and Buddhism has melded in some cases with local indigenous beliefs or practices. So the way it's practiced has taken on religious qualities. (Maybe they were referring to rebirth, too, but they didn't mention it.) Easterners generally view it as a religion, some Westerners do, too. (See umpteen earlier threads on whether or not Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy.)

We've had definitions of religion posted here in the past. Belief in a set of dogmas, and in one or more deities was one definition. MindGate came up with a definition once that didn't require belief in a deity, though. And whether or not Buddhism is dogmatic is highly debatable, but I think the speakers here feel that it wasn't dogmatic as the Buddha taught it, but it has become so since his death. I know that's how Batchelor feels, and Peacock seems to be a pea from the same pod as S.B.

praxis

How could self proclaimed "fundamentalists" not be religious?

"how is religion defined?"

Good question!

Jeffrey

Well in buddha's time there was monasticism?? In my tradition the notion of praying to other beings is said to be based on buddhist teachings of the three jewels. There is our own efforts on our side of the equation, but there is also the awakened beings who are drawing us towards the other shore. Buddha himself considered it imponderable where a tathagata goes upon death, thus we cannot say with certainty that they are anhihilated (spelling). Buddha also said that both the powers of a buddha and the extent of the powers of a practitioner in jhana are also unknowable. Thus we cannot be *so sure* that reality is so hum drum as may be thought. Your third point was that buddhism adopts local color and that is I think a positive attribute of buddhism. It exactly goes back to the point that there is no absolute unchanging dharma. There are only appropriate responses (going back to the yunman story). Padmasambava, for instance, is said to have 'pacified' Tibet as a fertile place for the dharma.

Sabre

Would have been a more interesting discussion if there would have been a 'traditional' Buddhist there to argue with them. Now it is just two guys versus a straw man.

compassionate_warrior

Well, the topic was simply "how the West misunderstands Buddhism", not a debate between secular Buddhism and religious Buddhism. So there is no straw man, except what we may be projecting onto the discussion. But a debate as you suggest would certainly make for an interesting program.

compassionate_warrior

How could self proclaimed "fundamentalists" not be religious?

Because the Dharma isn't a religion, or wasn't in the Buddha's time, that's what I understood them to say. They're both getting down to what the Buddha taught vs. later influences. That is the sense in which they call themselves "fundamentalists". Peeling away the later religious elements to reveal the core ("secular") teachings of the Buddha.

"how is religion defined?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

Jeffrey

From your wikipedia source:

"Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.[1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature."

I think secular buddhism as they present their view would fall under this definition (of religion from the wiki) aside from origin/laws of the cosmos. Its always vague what 'spirituality' means is another question. I seem to think spirituality is our sense of 'mind' aside from the other five senses and that would fall under secular buddhism.

Indeed the notion of 'religious' and 'secular' are fabrications pasted over reality as it is in its raw naked form.

compassionate_warrior

I think Wikipedia has an interesting definition of religion. Various dictionaries define it differently, for the most part. This crowd seems to be deficient in the dictionary dept. Taking only the part about moral values, the speakers' stripped-down Buddhism would fit. I suspect they've concluded that the Buddha's earliest teachings didn't include a belief system or even a worldview, though, unless the 4 Noble Truths could be called a worldview. Their definition of the Buddha's basic teachings wouldn't include anything about the cosmos. It does include an analysis of human nature. I'd have to leave it up to the two speakers to say whether they think "spirituality" plays a role in their interpretation of Buddhism, and how they define spirituality.

I'd like to hear more from these people, if only to understand their POV better.

compassionate_warrior

Here is more from the discussion in the OP:

http://mingkok.buddhistdoor.com/en/news/d/19236

praxis

How could self proclaimed "fundamentalists" not be religious?

Because the Dharma isn't a religion, or wasn't in the Buddha's time, that's what I understood them to say. They're both getting down to what the Buddha taught vs. later influences. That is the sense in which they call themselves "fundamentalists". Peeling away the later religious elements to reveal the core ("secular") teachings of the Buddha.

"how is religion defined?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

Right, "Dharma" is not a religion. Who ever claimed that it was? I've never heard of Dharmaism...

Ada_B

We have a problem with the word "Religion", I suspect, because it has been abused. To me, Buddhism is a religion because it pertains to the spiritual, not just material existence. It is possible to be a Buddhist materialist, but without the non-materialist aspects of Buddhism, I'm not sure what's left.

It doesn't matter what you call it anyway. Words are always inadequate.

praxis

... without the non-materialist aspects of Buddhism, I'm not sure what's left.

No one knows what metaphysical matter is made of.

Hubris

It's sad to see religious people deny their religiosity.

Speak for yourself. Many of us here are atheist, I am, and I do not, nor have I ever considered Buddhism to be a religion. It appeals to me on an intellectual level rather than a more spiritual one. Buddhism is something that you need to self-initiate, and center around thought,action, and introspection rather than a fictional deity.

Jeffrey

In buddhism there is the form skanda which corresponds to our 5 senses. The sixth sense or sphere is the mind. The other four skandas pertain to the mind.

Scientific materialism has a little bit of a problem when understanding what an 'experience' is. What is this? In this world? What is this?

praxis

It's sad to see religious people deny their religiosity.

Speak for yourself. Many of us here are atheist, I am, and I do not, nor have I ever considered Buddhism to be a religion. It appeals to me on an intellectual level rather than a more spiritual one. Buddhism is something that you need to self-initiate, and center around thought,action, and introspection rather than a fictional deity.

Hi Hubris,

Religion is not defined by only theism.

Tosh

It appeals to me on an intellectual level rather than a more spiritual one.

The word 'spiritual' comes from the Latin 'Spiritus', and long before Abrahamic religions added a connotation with the soul to it, it really meant what the difference was between things that are alive and dead. Spritus means 'breath'; aka consciousness, aka the MIND.

So anything that works with the MIND is spiritual.

That's how I explain what being 'spiritual' is to alkies in A.A. anyways; and I'm sticking by it!

Carl Jung said, "Spiritus contra spiritum"!