Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Am I able to convert?
I am wondering if it is possible for me to be a Buddhist if:
A. I don't believe in samsara/karma, at least not in any traditional sense.
B. I do not believe that humans should always be non-violent, I believe that to protect someone or oneself, violence can be necessary.
C. I do not feel that eating meat is wrong.
A. I don't believe in samsara/karma, at least not in any traditional sense.
B. I do not believe that humans should always be non-violent, I believe that to protect someone or oneself, violence can be necessary.
C. I do not feel that eating meat is wrong.
0
Comments
And in any particular tradition?
Or do you just want to know whether someone has to publicly subscribe to certain views to be welcome at a meditation class/ temple service?
Either way, I agree with Jason: You'll be fine.
Keeping an open mind is extremely important.....
Buddhists need to practice non-violence, but that doesn't mean self-defence is not asppropriate, at times.... We believe aggression is incorrect, but defending yourself is another matter......
Many Buddhists eat meat.
I'm personally trying to wean myself off it though.
I like it, and I have needed to eat meat for my system function....
You'll find plenty of discussions on eating meat, whys, wherefores "for" and "against" everywhere.
Won't discuss it here, but it's worth examining, in order to practice mindfully.....
1) You see that there is something deeply flawed with life;
2) You want to be happy but you really don't know how to do that in a meaningful, lasting way;
3) You aren't finding the answers in whatever tradition(s) you have explored or were brought up in.
As far as the rest, you start where you are. If you don't "believe" in samsara or karma, that's OK. That will come with understanding. That's why we have teachings, so that you can begin to understand the true nature of things, which is not at all the way we perceive them, by the way.
I can say, from my own personal experience, that the answers are here to be found in Buddhism, but it takes time. One doesn't change overnight. It takes years, some might say lifetimes, but change does occur if you stick with it. If finding a way out of the misery that samsara is by its very nature, then that won't be a problem, imho.
As for "converting", there is not requirement that you "convert" to Buddhism to become a Buddhist. I've known an Episcopal priest and others who have continued to follow their religion while becoming Buddhist practitioners. They're not mutually exclusive.
I'd say give it a try. What have you got to lose? What have you got to gain?
Palzang
Example: A few years ago I was on holiday with a friend in Southend and we decided to have dinner in a fish'n'chip bar (very English, lol). As we waited for our meal a gang of youths came in and started attacking the lad serving behind the counter. Soon a full scale fight had broken out between the two sides. I got up and stood between them and they backed off. I never actually had to lay hands on anyone.
Ironically I still enjoy watching boxing, ice hockey, rugby and Mixed Martial Arts contests. I think that mankind has a natural agressive tendency which needs relatively safe ways to find release - a safety valve - and sport, where violence can be contained and controlled, serves this purpose.
As to your third point, I still eat meat, but not as much as I used to.
The thing that strikes me the most about your question is the use of the word “convert,” which certainly implies that Buddhism is a religion that one believes in, rather than a skill that one practices.
As far as I am concerned, a religion is a religion is a religion is a religion. The world has enough religions. We need religion about as much as we need a new way to convert hydrocarbons into carbon dioxide.
It doesn't matter how big our god [or buddha] is, whatever conception we have puts us in a box. From inside the box, the view looks vast and spacious ... but when we get outside the box we can clearly see how limited our view really was, and that our god wasn't big enough. Our god, our buddha, our religion will never be big enough.
The trick is to get out of as many boxes as possible. Cross the river and leave your raft behind. As many times as necessary.
For my part, I prefer to look at Buddhism more as a lifestyle to be learned and a skill to be developed. Cushion hours have no substitute, and are critically important. Given good direction and effort, everything falls into place.
If we are OK right now with who we are and where we are at, we have achieved at least something.
Starting points that I would suggest:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wheel008.html
http://www.audiodharma.org/talks-gil.html
[I especially like Fronsdal's talks on the Anapanasati Sutta]
Good luck with everything ....
Palzang
My (Christian) mom said she was glad I'd become a Buddhist, because: "At least now you believe in something, rather than nothing." Unfortunately for that theory, I'm a Zen Buddhist! But I didn't have the heart to explain that to my mom!
Of course, no one is required to take refuge to attend events or classes at the monastery. My mom takes classes there, also helps out with the gardening.
Jacx—
You're absolutely right. I hadn't thought about it before, but taking refuge would amount to converting, wouldn't it?
And I've never heard the part about “relying on the teachings of external sects” before, either, but obviously making a commitment to the three jewels is part of a long, long tradition, and, at first blush anyway, you have quite convinced me that “conversion” would be the appropriate word.
Clearly, Buddhism has been associated with religion from its beginnings:
http://www.amazon.com/Haunting-Buddha-Religions-Formation-Buddhism/dp/0195168380/
[Haunting the Buddha is also available here: http://www.questia.com/Index.jsp for a lot less money]
Nonetheless, the Buddha said, “that which I have proclaimed and made known as the Dhamma and the Discipline, that shall be your Master when I am gone.”—
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html
—from reading this, it certainly seems to me that, in the Buddha's opinion anyway, the important thing is the dhamma--which means that the entire idea of taking refuge in the three jewels would have to derive from a later, post-historical Buddha tradition. And, if I read my Kalama Sutta correctly, we are not bound to follow any tradition simply because it is a tradition.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wheel008.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html
So, I would suggest that even the notion of taking refuge becomes just one more raft that we eventually have to walk away from. I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say that we should never pick up this particular raft in the first place—after all, if we are going to cross a body of water, we do need a raft—but I'm much more careful these days than I used to be about what I pick up and what I don't, and what I'm carrying around with me and what I'm not. I figure the fewer the things that we pick up, the fewer the things that have to leave behind.
Just my opinion, of course.
I've been wrong before.
Palzang
One of the basic rules of history is that no one ever passes a law or establishes a rule for no reason. Why pass a law against littering unless people are, in fact, littering? Clearly, people were, indeed, following other “sects” after taking refuge, or this little addendum wouldn't have been established.
One of the things that strikes me here is that “sect” is not clearly defined. It might well refer to other sects of Buddhism, Daoism [of which there were several groups], or to some version of the local popular religion. There is a long history of interplay between these three groups in China, which ultimately came to include Confucianism as well in mid-Song [Sung] times with the arrival of Zhu Xi [Chu Hsi] in the late twelfth century, which set the tone of Chinese Buddhism up until Qing times.
Generally speaking, on a societal level Chinese Buddhism became successful by its inclusion of women into xiao, the Chinese concept of filial piety. This was accomplished by the notion that, unless one's mother had obtained Buddhahood, she would be reborn in some version of Buddhist hell, and, due to the structure of Confucian piety, it fell to her son to rescue her from this distress by offering merit on her behalf, which, in turn, could most effectively be done by offering material benefits to the Sangha on earth.
Once this idea caught on, the effects on Chinese society were enormous—after all, there were very few people who were neither mothers nor sons—and set a pattern for Chinese society that existed up to the twentieth century. And it also put Daoism, in its various versions, on a retreat from which it never fully recovered [although, neither was it completely vanquished].
Moving on from this point, the Buddhist accumulation of wealth became key. By Tang times, the Buddhist church [I use that word deliberately] fell into two broadly defined classes: the large monasteries and the local temples. The monasteries were not taxed, controlled huge swathes of land [complete with serfs tied to the land], and became, essentially business centers and proto-banks. [A similar pattern was followed in Tibet]. They became the destination of many a wealthy man seeking to evade the government for many reasons—although taxation was the most important.
Over all, it was a pretty good, stable system. Periodically, of course, Buddhism would be persecuted ... mostly when the central government ran into financial difficulties and needed to refill its coffers. Nonetheless, the Tang Dynasty was so closely associated with Buddhism that when it fell, much of the blame for its demise fell on Buddhism as well, and it marked the end of the large-scale influence of the Pure Land, Hua Yen, and Tien-tai sects, and cleared the way for the rise of Chan in the Song Dynasty which followed.
The trick was to curry Imperial favor. Access to the throne equaled access to wealth and power, seductive elements in any society. The large monasteries survived into the Song pretty much intact, but their influence was far more of a regional nature, existing somewhat like islands in the ocean, communicating with each other intermittently, if at all. And they each became rivals for the ear of the emperor.
The theoretical groundwork for the development of Chan had actually been laid down by Zong Mi [Tsung Mi] in Tang times, and in the Song his ideas were taken up by the different “Buddhisms” with a vengeance, not only to differentiate themselves from traditional Tang Buddhism, but also from each other. In short order, every McTemple was claiming a direct, unbroken, secret transmission from the Buddha. Exact interpretations of this transmission varied with whatever political expedient was necessary at the time.
Of course, there is absolutely no evidence that such a secret transmission ever existed, but that just proves how well-kept the secret was ... right? Can't lose with logic like that.
Thus, Chan was born amidst this squabbling for the table scraps of the Tang, and has characterized Chan ever since. [Such squabbling of course, was a far cry from the bloody history of Buddhism in Tibet]. At any rate, by Song times [and since], there developed a host of Buddhist sects, and a tradition of wandering monks.
So--and it took a long while to get here--while the injunction against sects would surely apply to the temple down the road, it would also apply to whatever ideal that that temple represented, whether it be some other version of Buddhism, Daoism, a local sect, or Confucianism [Confucian “temples” of sorts were beginning to spring up in Song times]. Each of them, of course, were claiming a monopoly on “the truth”—an indication of how little human nature has changed since the Buddha's time.
Two excellent introductions to Chinese Buddhism which I would highly recommend to anyone who is at all interested in Buddhism are:
http://www.amazon.com/Seeing-through-Zen-Transformation-Lilienthal/dp/0520237986/
http://www.amazon.com/Zen-War-Brian-Daizen-Victoria/dp/0742539261/
For a little bit deeper reading, these are good:
http://www.amazon.com/Buddhism-Chinese-Society-Jacques-Gernet/dp/0231114117/
http://www.amazon.com/Mothers-Sons-Chinese-Buddhism-Alan/dp/0804731527/
http://www.amazon.com/How-Zen-Became-Enlightenment-Song-Dynasty/dp/0824832558/
If anyone is really serious about Chinese Buddhism, there are other books which I could recommend, but are not so appropriate for an introduction. Alternatively, one might browse this site:
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/
where I post under a different nick.
And at this point, we are probably getting far afield from "Buddhism 101," so I will take the opportunity to bow out of this thread, with as much grace as I can muster. Besides, I have to go to work tomorrow. Vacation's over.
Good luck to everyone.
Remember, I could be wrong.
Palzang
不要投到旁門左道,聽邪師説法。
I think it would be a bit of a stretch to call another (legitimate) school of Buddhism, or the (Buddhist) temple down the road 旁門左道! Fightin' words to be sure!
as Venerable Palzang pointed out: I just like to add from my experience: At the beginning, some 14 or so years ago, when I started practising Buddhism,
I also didn't accept and understand the beliefs in Karma and Samsara. It took me
many years to learn that Karma and Samsara are unavoidable. That it is a basic
teaching and condition of our lives/ existence. Reflecting, why I then those many
years ago didn't understand, was my beginner's misunderstanding: I
always thought: Where do all these souls come from??? Where are my memories
from previous lives????
Now I am really happy I understood in this lifetime others might say also: it took many lifetimes to learn this
Give it a try...and don't be sad if you don't get it now, it will come in some time :smilec:
With best regards
ShinMeiDokuJoh
I understand what you meant by convert; that was a poor choice of words.
Let me ponder my question longer.
Palzang
I'd say that if you don't believe in so many of Buddhism's core tenets, e.g., moral causation (kamma), the round of birth, death and rebirth (samsara), strict non-violence (ahimsa), etc., why bother worrying about being a "Buddhist" in the first place? Why not just try to be a good person, and if there are certain Buddhist teachings that you find helpful or inspiring, then by all means put those teachings into practice and see what happens?
There's nothing special about the label "Buddhist" if that's what you're worried about. A label is merely a conceptual distinction, and it holds no real validity on its own. In essence, it doesn't matter what you choose to call yourself. What matters most, according to the Buddha's teachings at least, is what you do (kamma). As long as your intentional actions don't cause harm to yourself or to others, you can call yourself whatever you want.
Jason
Now with that said, my query was improperly phrased; to this I fully admit.
I will, as I said before, think about this further.
That's my point. In Buddhism, harmlessness is always applicable; there is always the choice to be non-violent, even when confronted with violence:
Jason
By the by, what scripture has Buddha Gautama's teaching?
"The Simile of the Saw," one of the Middle Length discourses of the Pali canon. If you look closely at Jason's post, you'll see a little link there in brackets: (MN 21) The Simile of the Saw is the 21st scripture in the Majjhima Nikaya collection.
Pretty much all the major scriptures are either attributed to the Buddha, or if someone else is the main speaker, at least end with the Buddha saying "I approved this message." However, the Mahayana sutras, and a few of the Theravada ones, didn't come into existence until quite a long time after the death of the Buddha.
The teachings contained in the Sutta Pitika of the Pali canon are widely regarded as the closest to the actual words of the historical Buddha. This guide from the Access to Insight website is a good starting point, IMO.