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.
Buddhism as a religion
buddhafoot
Veteran
So, I've been reading some books about Buddhism. Things were going very well. I have been reading about Buddha, his life, his teachings, etc., etc. I've also been reading about reincarnation, the thinking behind it - and while it's a difficult concept for this Westerner to completely grasp at this time - I'm working on it.
Then I start reading a book by Thubten Chodron called "Buddhism for Beginners" - and things are starting to get a little convoluted.
First of all, I've never been able to grasp the concept of "His Holiness the Dali Lama" - what is the thinking behind this? Buddha himself never claimed the title of "holy" and made it quite clear that he was a man. Did his teachings teach of dieties or holy beings? If so, where? If not, where did this type of thinking come from?
Then there is talk about thinking of Buddha as 'manifestation'. What!?!?! And what's this talk of Buddhist dieties? The deity Manjushri being the manifestation of the wisdom of all the Buddhas? Avalokiteshvara being the manifestation of the compassion of all the Buddhas? People gaining clarvoyancy (sp?) with the "powers" they achieve after reaching enlightenment. It also had a thing in there saying that many people who have become enlightened have this power - but they are so humble that they don't tell anyone about it.
This is starting to sound like something you'd hear from Oral Roberts or Jimmy Swaggert.
Is this the religious side of Buddhism? What happened to all the basic teachings of Buddha. It seems like Catholicism in a way. There is what Jesus taught - and then there is all the other "stuff" that people have made up through the centuries.
Any thought? Any help?
Michael
Then I start reading a book by Thubten Chodron called "Buddhism for Beginners" - and things are starting to get a little convoluted.
First of all, I've never been able to grasp the concept of "His Holiness the Dali Lama" - what is the thinking behind this? Buddha himself never claimed the title of "holy" and made it quite clear that he was a man. Did his teachings teach of dieties or holy beings? If so, where? If not, where did this type of thinking come from?
Then there is talk about thinking of Buddha as 'manifestation'. What!?!?! And what's this talk of Buddhist dieties? The deity Manjushri being the manifestation of the wisdom of all the Buddhas? Avalokiteshvara being the manifestation of the compassion of all the Buddhas? People gaining clarvoyancy (sp?) with the "powers" they achieve after reaching enlightenment. It also had a thing in there saying that many people who have become enlightened have this power - but they are so humble that they don't tell anyone about it.
This is starting to sound like something you'd hear from Oral Roberts or Jimmy Swaggert.
Is this the religious side of Buddhism? What happened to all the basic teachings of Buddha. It seems like Catholicism in a way. There is what Jesus taught - and then there is all the other "stuff" that people have made up through the centuries.
Any thought? Any help?
Michael
0
Comments
I'm no expert on Tibetan Buddhism, so I'll let somebody with more experience take some of your questions, but the way I look at it is this: The buddhist path is an individual pursuit. If something seems wrong to you, let it go. Question everything, that's what "the man" said
First, the Dalai Lama.
The title of "Holiness" is entirely honorific, as it is for other high lamas, such as H.H. the Panchen Lama or H.H. the Karmapa. Monks are usually called "Venerable", although some are referred, in Tibetan, as rinpoche which means 'loved' or 'revered'. It also carried implications that this person is already far advanced in their realisation of enlightenment.
The Dalai Lama, the Panchen and the Karmapa, along with many hundreds of lamas are tulkus. These are (semi-)aware reincarnations of great teachers. In the case of the Dalai Lama, he is also seen as the incarnation of Chenrezig, who is called Avalokiteshvara in India and Kwan Yin in China, the boddhisatva of compassion. since 1642, the Dalai Lama has been the supreme leader of all the schools and lineages of Buddhism in Tibet. He was also, until recently, absolute ruler. There is an excellent book that gives well-documented histories of the 14 Dalai Lamas and their predecessors: The Fourteen Dalai Lamas: A Scared Legacy of Reincarnation by Glenn H. Mullin (Clear Light Publishers, Santa Fe. 2001)
In order to understand the Tibetan world-view, it has to be remembered that they continue to have a flourishing and pre-Buddhist shamanistic religion, Bon, which co-exists with Buddhism and is also under the protection of HHDL. Many of the beliefs of Bon have found their way into Buddhist mythology and iconography in Tibet. Deities of various sorts are accepted as part of samsara and do not presuppose any sort of Supreme Being. In the same way, Icelanders continue to believe in the existence of elves and similar nature spirits.
One cultural aspect of Tibetans is that they are entusiasts. Having been brought the Dharma by Padmasambhava (Guru Rinpoche) and others, they embraced the bodhisattva ideal. Where Western nations were setting wealth and powwr as the outcomes at which to aim, Tibet set itself a very different goal. They wanted to produce a nation of conscious, deliberate, reincarnated people. They believe that they have succeeded and it is certain that teachers such as Tenzin Gyatso (the Dalai Lama), Sogyal Rinpoche, the Karmapa Lama and hundreds of others are extraordinary people.
Does that answer some of the questions?
My friend,
Perhaps it would be more productive to look into why this situation 'causes' you so much trouble?
Is it the situation (ie Buddhism being a religion) that's the problem or your reaction to it...
If this isn't clear then please PM me so I can discuss things with you further.
A deep bow,
Dave
I do not take anything I read completely as it is. In all things you must seperate the fact from the fiction. If you have no way of doing that then you just put it aside for now. I avoid speculating about who was reincarnated, what powers people gain, what is Avalokiteshvara (actual being or just concept), how many Buddha's there are, etc. If I am ever at the point to "know" these things myself through wisdom or something gained from my practice, great. If not, great. Why bother to worry?
I focus on one thing. The Buddha taught us the 4 Noble Truths and the 8 Fold Path. If you see wisdom and skillfullness in practicing these things along with bhavana (meditation) then follow the Path with effort and mindfulness. If you do not see the benefits in following such a way of life then continue on with the ways of worldly things.
My advice is to start with the dry, intellectual, scholarly look at what the Buddha taught (what is accepted by all schools of Buddhism). What the Buddha Taught by Walpola Rahula is a good place to start. Walpola Rahula takes things like the 4 Noble Truths, the 8 fold Path, meditation, the precepts, etc. and explains them very understandably. If, after that, you want to learn about different traditions like Theravada, Tibetan, Zen, Ch'an, Mahayana, Nichiren Buddhism, Pure Land, etc. feel free. I believe it is best to get the main ideas down at the beginning though. The ritual and cultural add-ons may throw you off at first.
That make a lot of sense. Different countries have developed different meaning of what Buddhism means to them.
I think Christianity is like that in a lot of ways. It is documented fact that, when Catholic missionaries went to different countries - they realized you just can't come into a people and say, "Your gods are crap. My god is the only God." cuz they're going to rake you over the coals.
So, what a lot of missionaries did was incorporate an existing peoples gods into Catholicism as "saints". It was done in Africa and Europe a lot. St. Bridgette was associated with the "Earth Goddess" which let the people still worship their gods under the guise of Christianity. (I've even read - but never seen - about old illuminators depicting St. Bridgette as a nun holding up the front of her skirt to show off the "womb" - until this was eventually weeded out by the church) Many churches were built on old ewe groves. Some forms of Voodoo have African and Christian elements in the religion.
This book I am reading is by a Tibetan nun - so that might explain a lot.
Michael
It's not that it's causing me trouble - it's just trying to understand Buddhism. I guess I thought Buddhism was a "mentality" that basically taught people how to work on themselves. Not something that incorporated a bunch of Hinduism like ideas and deities into the framework of it. I guess the hodge-podge of deities and and all these beings running around doing this or doing that - kind of messes me up. Kind of like Greek mythology. While I love it, after awhile, Greek mythology became more of a story for me instead of something you would take to heart and follow.
Make sense?
Michael
I guess at this point - being that I'm really ignorant - it is a way of centering oneself. Without hopes or goals or greed of "attaining this heavenly reward if you do all of these things - or burning in hell otherwise".
It means going through life and trying to do what is right because, ultimately, it is good for YOU. No one else. Just you. There is nothing to gain except the satisfaction of loving, having compassion, ridding oneself of the things that bring on jealousy, anger, greed, wanting, longing, fear of the unknown, etc.
It means finding peace in yourself and the world around you.
It means coming to terms that when people die, it isn't because they're guilty of sins, or evil, or wrong, or not following the right religion - it's because sometimes things just happen. Like the tragedy with the tsunami recently. I can't believe that some people think God was killing thousands and thousands of people (who I was taught that he loves) for some cosmic goal.
It's all these things and more.
Michael
Michael, you are not ignorant in the least. Think of Buddhism as an object in a well wrapped package. You already know what's in the package but you have never seen it. So you have to tear away all of the packaging covering up what's inside. Sometimes when things are wrapped to tightly we try and pull the tape too hard making it harder for us to get inside and causing frustration. Sometimes we have to slow down and peel away the layer a little at a time.
It is, however, important to notice that the historical Buddha was a product of his time and place as well as the Enlightened One (ditto Jesus and Mohammed, etc.) The Turnings of the Wheel had to be couched in language and language brings a whole waggon-load of baggage, historical and mythic.
Buddhism has proved to be an engine of syncretism in all the societies it has reached, absorbing its prevailing mythos. This, to me, explains why Western Buddhism is essentially humanistic and individualistic. It is also why it is non-deistic.
Personally, as a British Druid, I find it easy and pleasant to include our local deities as 'archetypes'. In this, I find comfort in the Tibetan practices and their deep love and reverence for the land.
That sounds like the Sheela Na Gig figures that can be found on some old Norman era churches over here. The attached picture shows one of the most famous and can be found on Kilpeck church.
You may wish to reflect on these extracts from the Maha-vagga on the First Turning of the Wheel of Dharma at the Deer Park in Sarnath:
First, there is the meeting between the newly Enlightened One and his first five disciples:
The Blessed One is quite clear that, whilst Prince Gautama may have had name and title, the Awakened One has gone beyond such impermanence and is, indeed, 'holy'.
The first of the Five to perceive the truth of the teaching was Kondanna:
And the Tathagata ordained Kondanna because he had seen, had fully experienced transience as the reality of samsara.
The account goes on with reference to the many worlds of the gods (no capital letter: these are not to be confused with the monotheistic delusion). This is entirely in the tradition of story-telling the world over:
I find it fascinating that the shout precedes the light: sound before vision, which is to be found in most pre-Abrahamic belief structures. It is even hinted at in Judaic scriptures where the 'Word' precedes Light (cf. Genesis and St John). In the West, since the Renaissance, primacy has been given to sight and the study of light. It is from optics that we have derived almost all of our modern physics and technology. Our pre-Roman ancestors, in these islands and elsewhere, used sound in ways we no longer fully understand. One example: Stonehenge. Most study has focused on its function as a 'clock/calendar' ignoring the acoustic properties of the stones. The Inner Ring has been shaped in such a way that sounds within that circle cannot be heard beyond the Outer Ring, which demonstrates an understanding of acoustics (and the ability to shape stone in the open air to perform in certain ways) which outstrips our own. The function of this acoustic preparation is not understood any longer but I am under the impression that it was crucial.
You make a good point and it was interesting reading your article.
But!, I find that some things hold true with Buddhism that also hold true with Christianity...
Buddha made a point of telling people that he was just a man and not a deity. He never pronounced himself or stated that he was "holy".
It was only until after his death, fascination with people looking to expand a religion, etc. that these terms came up. If Buddha would have stated that after his awakening - he was holy - that would be one thing. Having people come up with what Buddha was years, decades or centuries after his demise - is something completely different.
I never read anywhere in the bible that a group of men were supposed to get together and vote someone in the office to lead the Catholic church - yet Cardinals do it whenever a pope dies. And who came up with the name pope? It wasn't Jesus. And when did Jesus say that this man is supposed to be "holy" and an avatar of God on earth?
I didn't think to reflect on the "extracts from the Maha-vagga " because, in my ignorance, I didn't know these were things that came from the mouth of Buddha. So, if I'm missing something, I need to be enlightened. But, I find I have a hard time coming to terms with thing that "other men" - unenlightened men - have come up with after the fact.
Does that make sense?
Michael
I think you are getting trapped in a recent logical mindset. It is one of the classic discussions within the Christian churches about the age and "authenticity" of the Scriptures. Such discussions are seen as irrelevant to Buddhism.
Nobody doubts that the writing down of the Buddha's teachings occurred long after the perinibbana. As you will see from the discussions that followed the Tathagata's death, the Sangha gathered to recitye the Dharma so that the words were not lost. At the same time, the accuracy of the transmission was constantly monitored. In our modern world, we appear to have a real distrust for the oral tradition but it is right at the heart of Buddhism. Even more important than the suttas is the direct relationship with the guru (teacher) who may, particulartly in Tibet, transmit teachings that are never wrtitten down.
The question is not whether the Buddha actually said this or that but how it affects our own journey on the Noble Eighfold Path.
Now, I fgear, I must challenge one of your statements: I have pointed to a very early text, composed and recited during his lifetime, where he specifically says the opposite. It is also the opposite of what Jesus said to his disciples where he called them "friends". The Buddha Shakyamuni had 'gone beyond' and was no longer the Gotama who had sat under the tree.
We also need to notice that, as against Christianity, Buddhism does not specify a single Buddha. In Tibet, Padmasambhava is revered as the Second Buddha and, throughout the Buddhist world, teachers have arisen who have revealed more and more of the secrets of the Dhamma. The very development of Mahayana, arising so long after the perinibbana, is an example of this development. There are, too, some writers who are suggesting that teachers like HHDL, Thich Nhat Hanh, Jack Kornfield, Masao Abe and many others are pointing at yet another development, a Fourth Vehicle, in the expansion into the West.
Christian scholarship has, since the late 18th century, been obsessed with historicity. Buddhism has (to date) largely escaped such literalist reductionism.
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin said, back in the 1940s, that we need a new definition of holiness. Perhaps that is what you are arriving at? Holiness appears important to you.
I also don't have a problem with being "blessed". When I was a Christian - I believe that Jesus' mother, Mary, was blessed. She carried the son of God. Angels told her that she was blessed by being given the opportunity of the honor of giving birth to Christ.
But, she wasn't holy. Jesus nor God made any statements that she was holy or was to be worhipped or prayed to. In fact, later in the Gospels, Jesus even made the statement to her "who is my mother? who is my brother?"
I also believe that authenticity is crucial. To me, if we don't have authenticity - then it's not real - not true. If you buy a piece of antique furniture that is not authentic - it's fake. It's worthless to those seeking "the real thing".
So, my point regarding authenticity is that, from one awakened, we actually have what they said without other peoples piousness, greed, desire for fame or stature - getting in the way and muddying things up.
Also, I think there are multiple reasons why there is disagreement between us.
1) I'm very ignorant in the ways of Buddhism.
2) You are very well versed in the ways of Buddhism.
3) You seem to have an eye for the more religious (if that's a good word to use) view of Buddhism.
4) I seem to have more of an aetheist view of Buddhism.
Just keep talking to me - maybe I'll come around and get things straight eventually
Michael