Truth Claims: Thoughts or Encouragement?
Eugene
Explorer
Hi, all. I'm well aware that happiness/unhappiness come from my own mind. I have no circumstances to blame for any unhappiness that I have. The reason I've (tentatively) begun a Buddhist practice is because my own mind torments me. I'm tormented by opposing truth claims, i.e., from different religions (specifically, Christianity and Buddhism).
For instance: I'll hold onto the truth that I just have to sit, watch the mind and the breath, and when a "debate" comes on in my mind, just recognize it, and let it go. Good Buddhist practice. But then, I think: well, that's easy; I could have done that as a Christian. Did I leave the church because I'm shallow and left when the going got tough? And then off I go again; the phenomenon of "can't stop thinking."
Or, conversely: I'll sit in front of my icons, and say a contemplative prayer, quiet my mind... good Christian practice. But then I'll think: this is great, but where do I go? I can't think of one church I can hang out with comfortably... I mean, the people I've met are all great and so forth, I've been lucky that way, but the services are corny, and every church (like probably every sangha) has rules that I think are stupid. So I think, okay, then, I'll "be" a Buddhist. But I'm not sure I BELIEVE many Buddhist doctrines. I think my heart's in Christianity... but I let the divisions in the churches do some damage on me, and didn't seem to help the problems in my mind. So maybe I should be a Buddhist. And so it goes.
This is SO STUPID.
Forgive me if this is TMI. Again, just looking for some thoughts and/or encouragement.
Comments
Ok, calm down.
First of all, it's fine.
You're allowed to have these thoughts. It's all part of 'progress on the Path' and frankly, it really doesn't matter what path you're on....
Thomas Merton, a Christian monk, said he wanted to be the best Buddhist he could be.
Jim Pym, a Zen master, is also a leading figure in the Quaker movement.
His Holiness the Dalai lama (HH the DL) has written a book called 'the Good heart' describing the similarities between Christ's teachings and those of the Buddha.
Thich Naht Hahn (TNH) has written a similar book called Living Buddha, Living Christ.
My summary, at this juncture is that you can practise any religion on earth you want, and fully incorporate every single Buddhist tenet you want, without any fear of a clash.
However, to fully practise Buddhism, at one point or another, something about a theistic religion will have to be laid aside.
What Buddhist doctrines don't you believe?
By the way, there is no requirement to do so....
Our Sangha doesn't have any rules at all, other than being respectful of others. Just sayin'. it could just be you haven't found the right group, Christian or otherwise. There are a lot of churches out there, have you tried several? I know many people who are happy in a more Unitarian style church.
Also, there is no requirement for belief in Buddhism. What doctrines do you have problems believing? Most people coming from a Christian background tend to have problems with the notions of Karma and Rebirth/reincarnation, but being unsure what you think of them doesn't mean you can't practice Buddhism. Many people simply think of Karma as the fruit of actions. What you sow, you reap, as Christians tend to put it, same idea. We like to talk about rebirth a lot, but you don't have to believe in it to be Buddhist. Many people don't. Many people just don't know, and that is ok, too.
It sounds to me like you are looking for a system to follow but then you run into questions/problems with the systems you've looked at so far. You'll probably run into problems like that no matter which belief systems you look at. Questioning those things, in Buddhism, is welcomed and encouraged. You don't have to know how you feel and think about it all to study or practice the foundations of it.
Yeah and that's just two religions. There are thousands of religions and thousands of gods that humans have practiced/worshiped. It's clear that humans are making some of this stuff up, if not the majority of it. So what do we do? I've always been a Skeptic, not accepting claims as true (or likely true) without sufficient justification. Christianity in particular never met any burden of proof for me, and when I studied other religions I found the same problem. Buddhism, at least, offers a more common-sense view of the reality we share, and ways to see that reality more clearly... to experience the cessation of suffering for yourself.
The best we can do is try, to seek out "the truth" without anyone else's blinders on (and hopefully taking off our own blinders), honestly and without concern for whether the truth will be pleasant or painful. Seeking the truth for its own sake.
For me, one of the key realizations in my life has been that everything I need to support my spirituality, to find the truth, is already in me. It can't be provided to me by an outside force nor does it require a commune with an outside force. Religions and philosophies can provide an avenue to help us find those answers, but they are not the answers themselves. That is where I ran into issues with the Abrahamic religions...that you have to seek outside of yourself for any answers.
Thanks, folks (Federica, I've calmed down... sort of...). I'm going to read these comments more carefully at home (when I'm not working... guess that's my other "wrong foot" or whatever, being on the internet at work). Meanwhile, as a Christian, i can make this joke, in response to a mention that was made of going to the U.U. Don't forget it's just a joke!
What do you get when you cross a Unitarian with a Jehovah's Witness?
Someone who goes around knocking on doors for no particular reason.
I don't see any reason why you can't incorporate both aspects into your life. I wasn't raised Christian, and I'm not even baptized, but I find myself drawn towards aspects of Christianity and occasionally attend church. I'm even going on a 5 day retreat at a nearby Trappist monastery to explore Christian monastic life and contemplative prayer. Despite what people may tell you, you don't have to be just one or the other. (If you're not already familiar with their works, I suggest checking out Thomas Merton, especially Contemplative Prayer and Mystics and Zen Masters, and Thomas Keating, both Trappists from the Christian contemplative tradition.)
from lama shenpen hookhams dharma talk
Jeffrey, I like that lama shenpen quote. I'll probably print it out and put it on my refrigerator. I found a quote by Lama Sheng on the Dharmakaya that was similarly moving.
I am touched by your respectful description of your dilemma! Very touched
.
I have good friends, a married couple, who appear to live and breathe Christianity, and don't go to church for the same reasons you list. This does not bother them at all nor do they feel they are 'not doing it right'. They spent the last 20 something years living overseas teaching English in China, Austria, Japan, etc and I joke with them that they missed out on the solidification of American Fundamentalist Christianity. They are aware of it and hesitantly shared with me how horrified and disgusted they are by some of it.
Here's a little bit of my journey, and it has a starting point but I didn't end up specifically anywhere. The journey is ongoing, of course.
Everyone here who says "it doesn't matter" is absolutely right -- but remember this is a realization, not a 'teaching' or a matter of doctrine. It won't matter, eventually, you'll just see it naturally.
Most of us in the west travel from a Judeo-Christian framework to wherever they are going, and end up taking along some assumptions without realizing it. I don't know if I can articulate these assumptions very well, other than to say that the fundamental premises of Christianity and Buddhism are VERY different, like, worlds apart, and until that essential difference is parsed out in your own head, assumptions from Christianity will interfere and confuse (only because it was there first, and remains incompletely questioned).
Buddhism has no deity or God or savior, it is atheistic (avoid thinking of the modern atheists slamming religion for now). The beginning of the Buddhist journey is YOU, whatever that is
.
I grew up orienting to the Divine or spirituality or whatever it is as being 'somewhere' outside myself, dwelling in something or somewhere outside my sense of 'me' and 'mine'. If Buddhism is oriented from that perspective, it can grow all kinds of tentacles and dogmatisms that don't apply. This is just my personal 'take' on it, others have explained it better.
So a year ago a began 'seriously' practicing, with meditation and study after about 20 years of being an intellectual Buddhist (sort of). In the last few months, a change of sorts has happened, and I believe it is a deepening of my practice rather than a lightening of it. I rely a lot less on intense sutta study than I did, though I sense I will return to it, and maybe travel back and forth between sutta/Dharma study and then this . . . just life study, where what I've learned and grown from serious practice just . . . exists and does its 'thing' in my mundane daily life.
I do not think "Oh, I'm not being a very good Buddhist" or "This is not a Buddhist way of looking at XXX". Buddhism and 'just me and my life' is losing distinction as two different things. Hard to explain.
This 'way' is extremely heretical in a typical Christianity sort of way (maybe not with the Trappists or Meister Eckhart types), most especially because there is only me, whatever that is, and no transcendent Deity dictating rules and regulations that I adhere or align myself to.
Good gawd I'll go on for hours like this, so I'll stop (damn coffee
)
There is no opposition. Merely time required to understand Christianity's mystical truth through contemplation. We can as many Christian contemplatives do, learn meditation from different traditions such as Buddhism. Everything is fine
Thanks everyone. Hamsaka, I appreciate your thoughts, especially as you're smart or intuitive enough to understand that the "fundamental premises of Christianity and Buddhism are VERY different, like, worlds apart." They have some similarities. They were both "started" by a person, a human being. Their priests and monks dress in funny clothes. They often use beads to help with prayers. They have services involving fire and water. But apart from that, the premises are very different.
I realize that language is always just a "finger pointing to the moon." And yet: the way people speak can reflect their fundamental beliefs/faith. Like, the metaphor for "getting it" in Christianity is a wedding party. Interesting, eh? What's the metaphor in Buddhism? It's hard to resist a party. That's one reason I've been drawn to Nichiren Shu; not only because of the vocalized meditation/prayer (which appeals to me as a musician), but because their Gohonzon/Object of Veneration is, essentially, the depiction of a party: everyone hanging out on Mt. Sacred Eagle listening to the Buddha deliver the essential Dharma. Everybody's in the party -- buddhas, bodhisattvas, deities, demons, etc.
@Eugene -- All best wishes in your travels. It may lighten whatever your load may be to know that, whatever the spiritual persuasion, you will make mistakes. After 40+ years of Zen Buddhism, I still think of Buddhism as Mistakes R Us. Without making mistakes, no one ever learns anything.
With respect -- and no disrespect towards others -- I would like to say a little about why I distrust Christianity. This is just my life and my view ... I'm not trying to convince anyone else or to disparage what they may feel.
Christianity, the predominant religion of the United States, is based in caritas, a word sometimes too-loosely translated as "charity." Judaism, another thread in American spiritual life, is based in "the law." These are very different foundations and for that reason the term "Judeo-Christian" is more a public-relations nod to an Abrahamic god and a desire to be politically correct than it is a reference to a living reality.
Christianity is quite comforting (when it's not busy telling everyone how they are going to get left behind when the shit hits the fan). Someone/something loves you in the deepest possible way. I don't know anyone who wouldn't respond to such a premise. And to love what loves you is deeply fulfilling.
But things, of course, are not always smooth sailing and at such times, it is necessary to call on a reservoir of belief. Even when the going gets tough, still I believe in God and that belief keeps me going in some sense.
There is no spiritual practice that begins without belief and hope. Belief, because you're not entirely sure, and hope for pretty much the same reason. Perhaps it is like learning to ride a bicycle: At first, you hope and believe you too can ride because you see your friends zooming here and zooming there. Then you give it a try and, sure enough, the bumps and bruises mount up. But still, hope and belief propel the effort. And then, one day, whaddya know, you can do it -- you can ride and zoom and skid all on your own.
Though no one likes a metaphor that is too plain-Jane, still I think bike riding is a perfect match for spiritual endeavor. You hope and believe and practice and then, with luck, the dime drops.
But notice that once you have learned to ride a bike, belief and hope are no longer a necessity. Doubt has been erased. You know you can ride and ... you just ride. You don't get on your bike each day saying, "I hope I can do this. I believe I can do this." You just do this. Were you to believe you could do it, that would be secondary and vaguely foolish: Why believe something you already know?
And it is here that I am inclined to part ways with Christianity as it is generally provided. There is little or no encouragement in Christianity to actually ride the bike ... or, if the words appeal to you, to actually know who or what God is. Instead there is simply more and more encouragement to believe and hope what you allegedly don't and can't know. To my way of thinking, this is a profound unkindness.
Hope and belief are necessary components of spiritual beginnings. They are limited, but they are useful. There is no skipping over them and there is no looking down your nose at them. But it is important to listen to that small voice that may whisper when no one else is around -- when you are alone as perhaps at 3 a.m. looking at the bedroom ceiling -- "who precisely is this God who loves me and whom I love?" When no one else's answers truly answer, what will your answer be? If, in this realm, you rely on someone else's words, then you consign yourself to a life of doubt, no matter how sweet the music.
So-called meditation in Buddhism is a direct way. Not a direct way of hoping or believing, but a direct way of knowing. Meditation takes courage and patience and doubt. There may be strange events along the way, but in general, there is no one single shazzam lightning bolt. There is just practice and bumps and bruises and eventually just riding ... an exercise that may be wonderful but is no longer especially wondrous. Meditation is not the only way to reach your own best understanding and realization, but it is one good way.
Hell, I don't know -- maybe eating a chocolate bar works better. If that's what you think, then give it a whirl. The worst that could happen is just another bump or bruise.
Best wishes... and sorry for so much prattle.
Gengaku, this is very thought-provoking and helpful; and the metaphor of riding the bike really works: I get it. Whether or not Christianity actually encourages people to ride the bike (not sure that it doesn't), the fact that I'm on this site is witness to the fact that I certainly was not riding. I was not riding; really not. So whether I call the Ultimate, "God" or Void or the Dharmakaya, or anything like that, may not matter; what matters is that I ride and find out for myself. And I think it would be helpful to me to find out why I haven't done that -- why I hold back. But that's a question for myself.
Actually, there was a big controversy in the 15th century between Roman and Orthodox theologians. The Romans said that God was in fact unknowable; the Orthodox said that God was knowable in His "energies," as opposed to His "essence": but the energies are God, and thus one can know God, intimately. I always thought that was a helpful way to look at things -- also a helpful way to look at other humans. I can know them -- even intimately -- in their energies, but not their essence; there is a part of them that's uniquely them and uniquely precious. I always felt that that idea kept me from a certain arrogance. But that's not very Buddhist of me, to think that a person has an "essence."
>
You need to consider the difference between 'fundamental premises' and 'rituals'.
The above, are rituals, they have nothing to do with the 'fundamental principles or tenets of either religion. They're just the whistles and bells, and absolutely nothing to do with the religions themselves.
>
Sounds exactly like Christianity to me. One of the reasons it completely turns me off, but that really is just me talking.
>
On the contrary, it's quite insightful.
Strip away all the nuances and characteristics that the person has cumulatively been conditioned to manifest, and you and that person are precisely the same 'essence'.
So now Truth comes with labels? Why would you have to choose one religion over another?
If you are a Christian and find yourself exploring other religions, you might have found some limitations about Christianity, or rather, you are bursting at the seams of the Christian ideal. Me, for one, I did.
Explore Buddhism and see what it feels like. No-one says you have to become a Buddhist (that is, find a label to define yourself).
But for me, once I began to tread the Buddhist path, there was no way back. Christianity was like trying to fit an ocean into a glass of water, and I mean no offence. I'm just describing my personal experience.
The Dalai Lama says that there is no need for anyone to change religion, @Eugene.
What is found at the heart of the breath can be found by another route in bread and wine outpoured.
' In silence and in tranquillity of mind we are all arising together at each moment..its only when we engage the discursive mind and fall back on words that we become divided '.
Father Thomas Keating. Christian monk and meditation teacher.
Thanks all. Federica, re: two points you made: yes, the "bells and whistles" in all the religions are pretty much the same, but the fundamentals are different. That was my point.
Re: Nichiren Shu, I was told pretty clearly today by the Shonin at my sangha that the Buddha was within (everybody) and that one could never seek the Buddha outside of that… so no, Nichiren folk don't pray to an outside source. The "party" on the Gohonzon is just a depiction of the Dharma being taught… like a statue, but in calligraphy (I also have a statue; both are for focus and inspiration). The "party" aspect of the Gohonzon appeals to me, because it seems there are at least… other people there… not just one big essence (with all due respect). My shonin also made another interesting point: he said that Buddhists do NOT think "we are all one." He says that's a New Age concept. He says that Buddhists believe "we are all interconnected," and that is different. I find that comforting. If I fall in love, I'd like to fall in love with someone whom I believe to be really different -- not someone who's the same as me. But maybe it really is like the Lotus Sutra says: only Buddhas know "the equality and differences of all things."
These are scattered thoughts.
And dharmamom… I see what you're saying. No, Truth doesn't come with labels; but in this saha world, it comes with language. Maybe, as someone once said, "language is a virus from outer space," and that's the whole problem But while we're here, we do talk; it's a discussion board; so I'm just describing concepts that I struggle with. I figured that was the purpose, kind of, of a discussion board; it's certainly not for when I pray or chant or meditate. Your words are helpful, as everyone's here.
One last thing: what IF… just what IF… we really are all different essences -- really really ontologically different? And the Ultimate (call it what you will) was also an Ultimate Other, different from us? And our job was to love each other -- to become one with each other's energies? Like at a really good party? Just a thought. Would that be so bad?
As we say in my little "branch," gassho to all. This is a good group!
Perhaps not. But, then, the ultimate wouldn't really be the ultimate if it excluded us, was something other than and outside of us would it? Non-duality makes more sense to me in this regard, at least.
the primordial ground includes everything.
Primordial ground is kind of like the fish who can't find water story.
Perhaps non-theistic is what you were going for there?
I agree with the use of the term non-theistic @dhammachick. It does not have the arrogant overtones of the atheists overt denial 'there is no God' and the unspoken assertion that 'I am it's prophet'.
@anatman I feel more comfortable using non-theistic to describe Buddhism
@anataman Few atheists actually claim there is no God (or more appropriately "are no gods"). What they say is generally either that they don't believe in any gods, or that there's not sufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of any of the gods that humans believe in. What's "out there" is a mystery, but people are claiming that these things really do exist. To claim that no gods exist can be just as problematic as claiming that they do. I don't think that's agnosticism, it's still atheism, but it's not hardcore militant atheism (thinking all atheists are like that is like saying all Christians are right-wing fundamentalists; it's based on the vocal minority making a clamour... when the majority are a bit more sensible in both camps).
I think where atheism is evangelical is when they say one "should" require evidence to believe in God. I am an adult and I don't need someone to suggest criterion for my belief.
I'm not making sweeping generalisations here, I am talking about the vocal minority @AldrisTorvalds. When I was much younger, I was caught up by proselytising atheists, and their scrolls of scientific logos. Now, I'm a lot more laid back and have transformed my world view to some degree, I see through the error of taking their word as gospel, and in the same way I view religious fanatics vocally espousing their gospels. When you are caught up in the words, you can miss the point entirely.
@Eugene on a serious note your OP appears to be strung out on a tightrope of anxiety about what is the truth. My opinion is that when everything you think of has an opposite, the truth is found slap bang in the middle - ta da, thats buddhism; laugh at your anxiety, and it will cancel out in just the right way.
Oh oh, I see someone tight-lipped, and with forehead frowning in contempt of my statement and hands hovering over the keyboard, fury ripping through their veins; or maybe they will just have a good belly laugh, and let it all just go away....
... \ lol / ...
(nevermind)
I don't deny, I don't affirm. I simply don't need the notion of a God in my life to be happy. I have done perfectly without for most of my life.
Feel more grown-up because of my decision, and have made more grown-up decisions because of that.
@dharmamom Same here. Never have had the need. I have a need to seek truth, but not a need to believe things that I'm not remotely convinced are real. If there's a pathway to knowing something, I want to know... such as what Buddhism offers. My parents are Christians (everyone I know is a Christian in real life), but I've never been offered a pathway to "knowing" that the Christian God, in particular and above-and-beyond the gods of any other religions, exists and created everything. Even that assertion doesn't seem logically necessary or possible to me. To create something you need to use something else; nothing comes from nothing. Christians tell me in the beginning all that existed was God, and then he created the universe. From what? With what? If he used something to create it, then there was already something... otherwise he'd have to create it from himself (which sounds more like a Deistic god that kicks things off and is strangely never heard from again, a more logical argument I think).
Given the lack of evidence for all of these gods' existence, and for any type of interventialist god, the most I could see myself believing would be that Deist concept. However I still don't see any reason to think that's the case either.
I'm such an outcast here in America where the majority are Christians. I primarily identify as Buddhist and Humanist (with "Skeptic" to invoke my strict epistemological standards), but that just means "wrong" to everyone around me anyway. There's a lot of agreement about human rights and happiness and all that, but sometimes the disagreements about what exists and whether or not the Bible is an "authority" (and should be an authority over everyone in America, Christian or not), make it not worth talking much about. Things get awkward. I don't talk to my family about my beliefs at all, we just love and support each other as always.
There is an inherent flaw in this statement, nothing from nothing is, well nothing. And to get something from nothing, is mentally challenging, as well, so how should one be looking at such paradoxes for intellectual satisfaction - well you need to transform your understanding, and stop clinging to ideas. So how can one show this? Sorry, if this seems a bit much for some, but for those who get it, you've got it. ... \ lol / ...
To get around this philosophically, and I am utilising my interpretation of Kegon philosophy here is that you have to transcend the limits imposed by language (the ideas that leave you spell-bound, and trapped in the illusion of a world of abstract ideas), and experience that something and nothing go together and this is perfectly described by the yin yang symbology (uh oh I see a change in avatar on the horizon - as a reminder], and you cannot have one without the other. They arise simultaneously and are in fact one and the same, foreground and background, and the trick is to witness this for yourself in meditation, it is ji (the particular) and ri (universal), the universal and the particular in perfect harmony ri ji muge - form is emptiness, and unified. This is as far as you can go intellectually; to transcend this barrier, is to let go of everything and experience the bliss of buddhahood, to bear witness to ji ji muge.
It's a fascinating and mentally slippery device, but as nothing can cling to the mind in it's primordial state, it can only be experienced, and the world of abstract ideas can not get to grips with it.
Next time you are meditating, it can be experienced in this way: when you look at objects without labelling them as this and that, and hear sounds as just sounds, and words as just words. There is an empty silence which is the background to all the forms of your experience, and they can be experienced together - this is ri ji muge. The labelling is what creates the illusion, and when you stop labelling - Nirvana.
Unfortunately you have to come back and wash the dishes, and walk the dog; just don't label them as wash, dishes and walking and dog. After all humans are particular views of the universe, with the quality of self-awareness, and self-knowledge.
Have fun!
Nonsense..Of course you label them as wash, dishes, walking and dog...
Oh what a tangled web we weave when we try to figure stuff out and figure it out by our selves..
Nonsense..Of course you label them as wash, dishes, walking and dog...
Oh what a tangled web we weave when we try to figure stuff out and figure it out by our selves..
Not my words, my friend!
Explain it better then... I don't often glean anything from your comments, just ornery self-righteousness. You practice your way father.
Then I suggest that ignore my comments..as I learned to do with yours a short while after you joined.. except when you mislead others.
By assuring them for example that the object of Buddhadharma was to achieve Oneness with everything..possibly the most basic of schoolboy howlers... that was a recent one.
Or your embarrassingly obvious attempt to show that you had inside knowledge of Dzogchen...over which we will draw a veil.
No I was just teasing you out. You will also have noticed some of my other comments as well, like not-revealing my-self other than as an avatar. There is a difference between acting the fool and being one.
Now, peacock feathers away, let's continue deceiving everyone together shall we.
No lets not.
And you are as transparent as water, whatever you might imagine to the contrary.
You are not a fool. And you are not acting like one..
Let's not get personal. Play nice you two or you'll ruin the thread for everyone else.