Is there anywhere in Buddhism which talks about someone who doesnt necessarily NEED Buddhism?

zenmyste

For example; People who might genuinely think Life 'isnt' Suffering and that they dont 'need' a path to follow.
They're happy as they are. With their 'own' path and dont need guided by someone else or religions etc etc..

Many of you may now talk about these such people must be living deluded lives then if they dont think there is suffering in the world.... But why are 'these' people deluded just becuase other people (you and me) follow a certain path. Just because it works for us, doesnt mean its the 'only and correct way'

Buddhists must believe in buddhism for one main reason first, = they believe in the first noble truth, that there is suffering in this world..

But there are some people who will say they dont necessarily agree.
They might not think 'birth is suffering' old age is suffering 'sickness is suffering (sickness is natural and some people accept it and get on with it) and then death isnt suffering. (again its a natural cause) and some people know and accept this..

Some people might also believe Buddhism is a little pessirmistic..

So my question is; Is there anything in Buddhism that talks about these people 'without' saying they are DELUDED. (because i dont think 'all' of them ARE deluded..)

Thanks in advance guys!

federica

The Kalama sutta is addressed to Kalamas, who were not the Buddha's followers....
The four Noble Truths are 'Noble' because they are indisputable, but remember that the correct translation of dukkha is not 'suffering'. that is one interpretation, it's not a translation.
There are other terms, such as unsatisfactory, up-and-down, and 'stressful'...... and the term 'dukkha' itself, is known to refer to a 'wonky cartwheel'....

Also, have a look at this thread, for more input on the word 'suffering'....

vinlyn

In my view there cannot be a life without suffering, although sometimes in Buddhism I think there may be too much emphasis on that. We don't suffer every day or every week or every month. But sooner or later there will be illness, old age, job stress, marriage stress, child stress, etc.

PrairieGhost

Knowledge of suffering is a condition for the path. But suffering could also be seen as relative i.e. you might be happy, but Buddhism can help you learn to be happier.

Sabre

When somebody is sick, does he need a cure?
He won't want to take it, if he think he's healthy.

An interesting sutta may be the Magandiya Sutta.
http://www.dhammaweb.net/Tipitaka/read.php?id=109

Magandiya, like a man born blind, would not see impure and pure forms, would not see, blue, yellow, red or brown forms, would not see even and uneven forms, would not see the constellation, the moon and the sun. He would hear a man with sight say. Wonderful is a white garment, pure and stainless. Then he goes in search of white.A certain man cheats him, giving an oil sprayed coarse garment, saying: Good man this is a white pure stainless garment. He accepts it puts it on and pleased says delighted words- Wonderful is a white garment, pure and stainless.Magandiya, would that blind man, knowing, seeing, accept, wear and utter words of delight?’‘Good Gotama that man, born blind would accept, wear and utter words of delight not knowing and not seeing that oil sprayed coarse garment. He would utter those words of delight, wonderful is a white garment, pure and stainless, placing faith in the man who has sight.’ ‘Magandiya, in the same manner, wandering ascetics of other sects are blind, not knowing and not seeing health and extinction, would say this verse.

Metta!

misecmisc1

if somebody says - he is born and he is not suffering, then i think it is similar to saying - he is in London and he is not in UK. Getting born itself is birth of suffering.

Tosh

I know a British monk called Chonden in his 50s who has a father who really disagreed with his son becoming a monk. Anyway, Chonden was telling me he's tried to explain about the truth of suffering to his father (who is in his late 70s), and his father says, "I'm not suffering!", while getting angry at his son, other car drivers, the government, etc, etc, etc.

And maybe a denial of suffering is cultural - it's not macho, or it implies we're a loser or weak - in modern society, if we admit to finding life difficult (and it is difficult). Just a few weeks ago in an A.A. meeting we had a new guy arrive (slightly drunk) and he introduced himself voluntary to the group and his introduction went along the lines of "Hey, yes, I've got a problem with alcohol, but I don't know why because I'm an millionaire and have this fantastic life, etc, etc!" That made me smile; he was saying "Yeh, I'm at an A.A. meeting, but I'm not a total loser!"

There's a phrase an Italian woman once told me, I can't remember it exactly, but it went along the lines of "To suffer in silence is a very British thing", but I think it's not just common to the British.

And I like the beginning of a Road Less Travelled by that Peck guy, it starts with "Life is difficult. If we realise that we are half way there." I don't think life's easy for anyone, but there's things we can do to make the journey slightly easier.

federica

Ah, yes... the stoic "stiff upper lip" thing where guys crack on regardless....

Maybe what the guy at the AA meeting meant (and of course, I wasn't there, you were, so i may be completely off with the way it comes over to me) is that in spite of all his outwardly satisfying and fulfilling material things, he still managed to have a drink problem, which seemed bizarre to him, because surely, only have-nots and low-lives were alcoholics? why should someone who apparently seems to have it all and thereby projects total contentment - ever have an alcohol problem?
I don't think he was trying to justify his position, i think he found it unbelievable that someone as successful and upwardly-mobile - can actually STILL have a hang-up!

which is proof that even the happiest amongst us, can be crying inside....

just my PoV, which of course, could easily be shot down in flames. I may be grabbing the wrong end....

seeker242

For example; People who might genuinely think Life 'isnt' Suffering and that they dont 'need' a path to follow.
They're happy as they are. With their 'own' path and dont need guided by someone else or religions etc etc..

They are spoken about but they are always considered deluded. They are called "ordinary people" or "puthujjana", which is, by definition, deluded.

spiritually ennobled ones understand things in a different way from ordinary people. Indeed, at Suttanipāta p.147, it is said, 'Whatever, bhikkhus, is regarded as "this is true reality" by the world... that is well seen by the spiritually ennobled ones with right wisdom as it really is as "this is deceptive"', and vice versa. Sn. p.148 then says 'Whatever, bhikkhus, is regarded as "This is pleasant" by the world... this is well seen by the spiritually ennobled ones with right wisdom as "this is painful (dukkha)"', and vice versa. This is because desirable sense-objects are impermanent and bring pain when they end, and because spiritually ennobled ones, unlike ordinary people, see the five 'bundles of grasping fuel' — the conditioned world — as painful. While ordinary people do not agree with this, or that 'birth', that is, being born, is painful, they may of course agree that, for example, 'not to get what one wants is painful'.

Buddhists must believe in buddhism for one main reason first, = they believe in the first noble truth, that there is suffering in this world..

I don't think one needs to believe in suffering. All you have to do is watch the nightly news and it's plainly evident!

Floating_Abu

Great relay @Tosh - and fantastic examples, and thanks Fede.

Sometimes I think that most people seem quite happy but I agree with Tosh about that most people don't know what dukkha IS.

The Buddha taught the word dukkha - NOT suffering. So it is also a bit misunderstood I guess....

Ta.

Floating_Abu

Buddhists must believe in buddhism for one main reason first, = they believe in the first noble truth, that there is suffering in this world..

..

Some people might also believe Buddhism is a little pessirmistic..

"He showed me the brightness of the world."

That's how my teacher, Ajaan Fuang, once characterized his debt to his teacher, Ajaan Lee. His words took me by surprise. I had only recently come to study with him, still fresh from a school where I had learned that serious Buddhists took a negative, pessimistic view of the world. Yet here was a man who had given his life to the practice of the Buddha's teachings, speaking of the world's brightness. Of course, by "brightness" he wasn't referring to the joys of the arts, food, travel, sports, family life, or any of the other sections of the Sunday newspaper. He was talking about a deeper happiness that comes from within. As I came to know him, I gained a sense of how deeply happy he was. He may have been skeptical about a lot of human pretenses, but I would never describe him as negative or pessimistic. "Realistic" would be closer to the truth. Yet for a long time I couldn't shake the sense of paradox I felt over how the pessimism of the Buddhist texts could find embodiment in such a solidly happy person.

Only when I began to look directly at the early texts did I realize that what I thought was a paradox was actually an irony — the irony of how Buddhism, which gives such a positive view of a human being's potential for finding true happiness, could be branded in the West as negative and pessimistic.

You've probably heard the rumor that "Life is suffering" is Buddhism's first principle, the Buddha's first noble truth. It's a rumor with good credentials, spread by well-respected academics and Dharma teachers alike, but a rumor nonetheless. The truth about the noble truths is far more interesting.

Full teaching: Life isn't just suffering

Floating_Abu

@zenmyste

Are you sure you are not a closet Christian trying to encourage us to let go of the bad ways ?

To your overall question, I don't think Buddhism has ever said you need Buddhism.

It's like a party invitation, come if you want, leave if you don't.
Stay and watch if you wanna be a voyeur.

Pretty simple actually.

Abu

Tosh

@Floating_Abu; yes you're spot on, the Buddha taught 'dukkha' not 'suffering'; the word 'dukkha' isn't directly translatable, but means 'stress' or 'suffering' or 'inherently unsatisfactory', or 'dissatisfaction', and probably a lot lot more; it has a lot more layers than mere 'suffering'.

RichardH

@zenmyste is not here to turn people people away from Buddhism, or to push something. There is no agenda. He can't walk away... but can't engage fruitfully either. There is just a ball of conflicted thoughts and feelings about it.. unresolved stuff.

genkaku

My guess is that Buddhism is the first to suggest that no one needs Buddhism in any mandated, lifelong style. Buddhism is not like the church-prone Christianity in which no one wins the door prize without dropping dead.

Buddhism does lean pretty hard on the metaphor of using a raft (Buddhism) to cross the choppy waters of life's stream. Once on the other side (no need to drop dead first), no one in his right mind continues dragging a useless raft along.

RichardH

My guess is that Buddhism is the first to suggest that no one needs Buddhism in any mandated, lifelong style. Buddhism is not like the church-prone Christianity in which no one wins the door prize without dropping dead.

Buddhism does lean pretty hard on the metaphor of using a raft (Buddhism) to cross the choppy waters of life's stream. Once on the other side (no need to drop dead first), no one in his right mind continues dragging a useless raft along.

So where did you leave your raft?

Mine is a houseboat... a very cool looking paper house style zen minimalism, with simple mats and cushions, and a bonsai. Traded in the old Tibetan model ...it was too Victorian and stuffy.. but it had a great thanka collection.

seeker242

"'The great expanse of water' stands for the fourfold flood: the flood of sensuality, the flood of becoming, the flood of views, & the flood of ignorance.

'The near shore, dubious & risky' stands for self-identification. 'The further shore, secure and free from risk' stands for Unbinding. 'The raft' stands for just this noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. 'Making an effort with hands & feet' stands for the arousing of persistence. 'Crossed over, having gone to the other shore, he would stand on high ground, a brahman' stands for the arahant."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.197.than.html

Let go of the raft too early and you end up drowning! Only a fool would let go of the raft before they have actually crossed.

DairyLama

Mine is a houseboat...

Houseboats?! You were lucky. In my we just had an old tyre and we thought that was sheer luxury...

DairyLama

Just because it works for us, doesnt mean its the 'only and correct way'

You're right. There are many paths to choose from.