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.
Question from an old cynic
I don't mean to be disrespectful, I've only come here because I believe that perhaps my cynicism about Buddhism is because I don't know enough about it and maybe if I ask a few questions .... you know. I'm not a Christian, or an atheiest, or anything else, I'm not into ism's generally but I am certainly not new to what many people call spirituality. Anyway I'll start at the pointy end.
It seems to me that Buddhism, apart from the obvious theological differences, is just like any other religion. It's loaded with dogma, rules that might give some people comfort, but only in the way that small children need parents to set boundaries. It's got it's icons and populist appeal. It's pretty much devoid of any earth based spirituality, having wiped out most of Asia's indigenous spiritual traditions on the pilgrimages from India.
So am I mistaken? Is Dharma really like a rule book that will lead to your salvation if you follow it 'religiously'? Does Karma really mean that if I do bad stuff, bad stuff will happen to me? Is it a whole lot more complicated than that and I'm missing the point?
I'm sure I'm missing a lot of what Buddhism teaches, I don't know nearly enough about it. But am I fundamentally wrong if I say that it proposes a defined belief system and from there a set of rules that will lead to our ultimate salvation?
It seems to me that Buddhism, apart from the obvious theological differences, is just like any other religion. It's loaded with dogma, rules that might give some people comfort, but only in the way that small children need parents to set boundaries. It's got it's icons and populist appeal. It's pretty much devoid of any earth based spirituality, having wiped out most of Asia's indigenous spiritual traditions on the pilgrimages from India.
So am I mistaken? Is Dharma really like a rule book that will lead to your salvation if you follow it 'religiously'? Does Karma really mean that if I do bad stuff, bad stuff will happen to me? Is it a whole lot more complicated than that and I'm missing the point?
I'm sure I'm missing a lot of what Buddhism teaches, I don't know nearly enough about it. But am I fundamentally wrong if I say that it proposes a defined belief system and from there a set of rules that will lead to our ultimate salvation?
0
Comments
There is no dogma, there are ideals, and sign posts, but nothing is encased in granite. Buddha himself stated that blind belief is dangerous, that you should take what he teaches, and hold them up to your analysis and if it works for you and you find truth in it, great...if not, then throw it away. The way I explain it to people is that it is a "religion" (though to me, it's really not) for people who believe in questiosn. Questioning themselves, questioning what they choose to or choose to not believe, questioning reality and the world, and motivations, desires, and on and on. The very belief and encouragement of questioning to me is the very opposite of dogma.
Buddha is not god, through his realizations and findings and enlightenment he showed us the way...and HIS way at that. The way to enlightenment varies slightly from person to person, and Buddhism allows for that wiggle room. The Dharma is not a "rule book" it is like everything else, a guide.
I do not understand though, how y ou can form such strong opinions on something you admittedly know nothing (or not much about). Don't you think it's wiser to read up on it a little bit, and save your opinions for when you have some weight to your beliefs? Maybe as simple as picking up Buddhism for Dummies (not an underhanded insult or anything...I know a lot of people who used that as their first intro book into Buddhism)?
Others here can probably answer your questions than me.
Many people have a misunderstanding of Buddhism due to either being misinformed or not informed at all.
"Buddhism", as a religion and/or philosophy, is wonderfully expansive with many traditions and interpretations.
You have many questions so, for now, I'll just grab a few that stuck out to me. Hopefully other people will be able to answer some of the others;
"Dogma" is something that can be found in almost any organisations but is most rife in religions. The definition of dogma is a belief or opinion that should be followed and not questioned http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dogma
Using this definition we find it doesn't stick well to buddhism because we are encouraged to investigate things for ourselves. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html And many respected high members of the sangha have questioned many of the beliefs in Buddhism. Some of them rejecting such beliefs altogether. The Dalai Lama has also stated that he would reject anything that science prooves to be false.
But, there are of course, some people and traditions who do have some level of dogma. This is sadly human nature.
When you say "rules" what do you mean?
There is no "thou shalt not" in buddhism.
Here are the guide rules for lay followers (anyone who isn't a monastic) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.179.than.html
Any other rules are usually what I call "house rules", or rules of the temple that one belongs to, which usually are inherited from the culture, like taking your shoes off to enter a temple etc.
What exaclty do you mean by "earth based spirituality"? Where else can we reach enlightenment if not on earth?
I have never heard this claim and can find no proof for this. In all countries that buddhism has spread to the local religions have continued to flourish, and in the case of Tibetan, Chinese and Japanese Buddhism, the local relgions have fused with Buddhism.
Where did you hear that the indigenous religions were wiped out?
Here is an interesting article http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell03.htm
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/karma.htm
There is a lot to read, and I'm sure this will create more questions. This shoul dbe enough for now.
Nios.
Could you cite an example of what you feel its 'dogma' is? Well.... we all need some rules to live by.... Life itself is made up of rules, really, isn't it? Social interaction, driving, working, drinking, they all have rules.... Rules aren't always 'bad'.....
But that said, in Buddhism, you are not expected automatically to abide by a set of rigid rules. you're expected to use your own discernment to decide for yourself whether it's a good 'rule' to live by (and therefore do so) or not a good rule to live by (and therefore are not required to).
I dunno where else 'rules' are such a personal choice, myself.....
#
I think that's a pretty scathing and generalist attack... Buddhism isn't to blame for that. And bear in mind that Buddhism's birthplace was india...but little of India now is Buddhist. The transmission of buddhism to the West has not been as damaging as you may think. It's not been single-handedly responsible for this wipe-out... has it?
Icons and populist appeal. Hmmmmm.....I think you'll find you're referring to maybe one or two specific schools. Please don't make the error of thinking one thing (erroneously) and applying it across the board (even more erroneously)....
What 'earth-based' spirituality are you referring to? I'm not sure I understand your point, there.
Buddhists do not seek 'salvation'. (Where? From what?)
Buddhists seek to know the origin of Suffering and the cessation of suffering.
Possibly, and yes.
Forgive me, but that's entirely obvious...
Yes.
Please read up on the basics on one of these sites:
http://www.BuddhaNet.net
http://www.AccessToInsight.org
Thank you.
Dogmas and buddhism...sounds like a nasty type of mix.
Well in everything has to be an order. Buddhist dogmas if you call them that are a bit lighter and can be questioned all the time if you feel the need to do so. Compared to Christianity for example, Buddhism is like a ...free religion. I mean, it encourages people to have different points of views , to debate points of views and so on. Christianity has only one point of view , and you can't question it's validity, as Christian dogma says.
About Dharma, dharma isn't like Bible. Dharma is something that you either follow, either you don't follow, depending on your choice.
About salvation...Buddhism isn't like Christianity, to be saved , to enter some sorts of paradise. My guess is that Nirvana is made to look like some sorts of heaven in the Christian West. In fact Nirvana means that you cut all of your attachements with ...let's say everything that causes you suffering, and as a result, you are free from all the fetters that keep you down.
About karma, karma is a process. To put it another way, you can do good, but not always receive good. Or, you can do bad things , and you don't necessarily receive bad things. Karma can be compared to a tree. You plant the tree. If you take care of it, it will grow, and bear fruits which will rippen and so on. If you don't take care of the tree, maybe it will grow but in some cases won't bear fruits at all.
About salvation part again. No one is your saviour. You are the only one one who can save yourself. About that, to save yourself doesn't mean to follow some religion just because it promotes salvation.
Now, about the appeal o the public and popularity. Buddhism didn't destroy a thing. This religious doesn't promote killing in the name of some fake deity just because some people don't believe in it. If you are reffering to destroying other religions, Buddhism just mixed with them. Tibetan buddhism, as far as I know, is a mix between Buddhism and the Tibetan native religion called Bon.
About icons and stuff, Buddha statues are somewhat pieces of art. Christian icons( like painted portraits of saints) are nothing like that (I was an Orthodox Christian).
Karma refers to the causes and conditions. When something bad (or good) happens to you it happens because of causes and conditions. So its bad karma that you have bad teeth. Good karma that a dentist. It is believed that your good (and bad) intentions have power. I guess they are a condition sort of.
You ask some very direct questions and that is good.
Is Buddhism a religion? It can be used as such, and I have seen it used as such. However I have also seen it used as a not-religion, and I can't say that about any other religion.
Buddhism also differs from other religions in that (1) "salvation" is theoretically possible to achieve before death, and (2) "salvation" can only be obtained through our own efforts. I have seen people change dramatically as a result of practicing Buddhism, and change in ways that I have not seen in other religions or even in psychological therapy. This dramatic change is a "calming" of emotional reactivity and an increase in caring and empathy ... in short, the person becomes a "happier" person, and I have seen this happiness remain unmoved by terrible circumstances in their outer lives.
The "set of rules" are guidelines for learning what Buddhism teaches, which is an internal journey. You do not have to follow them. And despite the fact that there are lots of instructions to follow, my teacher (who is a Tibetan monk ... and Tibetan Buddhism is about as "religious" as Buddhism gets!) always advises us to try them out and then see if we get the expected results. He says we should not believe it until we see it. It seems contradictory, I know. I take him at heart and am sceptical about lots!
As for karma: Karma is the set of imprints you set within yourself, the sum total of all your physical, mental, & emotional habits. Those imprints determine what happens to you. On an obvious level: If you are a loving and kind person, having set the imprints of love and generosity, you will find people respond to the warmth in your eyes and that you will generally be treated better than someone who always looks angry. You knew this! Perhaps you did not know that this is how karma operates ... we create our own karma every moment, and what we do, how we think and feel, creates what happens to us. Karma is also said to operate on subtler levels, on all levels. The usefulness of the concept karma is that awareness of how it operates is a strong motivator for mindfulness and making choices. These choices ... for honesty, for generosity, for kindness ... these choices make a person happier and psychologically healthier. And they help contribute to a better world, albeit on a microscopically small scale.
While I won't directly answer all your questions, since other people have pretty much covered that, I will tell you my take on the whole Buddhism as a religion/faith thing.
The Buddha encouraged his followers not to believe something merely because he says it is so. This is not to say that we should completely ignore what he has to say outright, but we should see if what he has to say is true or not based on our experience and reflection. This means that dogma has no place in Buddhism.
Those teachings such as Kamma and rebirth, which we can neither prove nor disprove through rational scientific methodology we should put to one side. To say that they are just kiddie stories to stop people from doing bad when really we don't know for sure that these things aren't true, IMO, would be a mistake.
I have a lot of conviction (perhaps a slightly more palatable word for cynics than 'faith') that there is a good chance that what the Buddha taught actually is true. The reason I have this conviction is because as I have tried out little bits and pieces of his teaching and see how they work, more and more so, I become more convinced that the other things he spoke of which I have not yet experienced are also true.
Here a simile of someone learning to swim is fairly accurate. At first, maybe they are very nervous so they reluctantly dip their toe in (or go to a Dhamma center, or post a message on a Buddhist Forum
Don't believe anything I say, don't just think about it, try it out, see if it works. Try some meditation (that's where most of us westerners start, at the deep end). See if you become a happier person. And if you aren't completely satisfied, I guarantee your money back!
Best Wishes,
Guy
Karma = the conditions for change; In Buddhism when we speak of "our" karma we are refering to our volitional thoughts and actions which create conditions for wholesome or unwholesome results.
Dependent Origination = the engine that causes change; "cause and effect"
And of course the visible effect of constant change is Impermanence. The only thing that stays the same is everything changes.
We don't control this system, but we can recognize how skillful thoughts and actions generally lead to beneficial results, and act accordingly. Karma is actually the totality of all conditions, but since we can only be concerned with our own thoughts and actions, it is our own karma that is of immediate consequence to each of us.
What an intriguing opener to a group! I think I hear the concern, is buddhism just another social conditioning intent on having others follow rules with hope of reward? Does that sum it up?
I admit, some cling to the teachings of buddhism in this way, hoping for a better next life or whatever version of heaven they are envisioning... but many recognize that these 'rules' you describe are just methods of training the mind to be more in our control.
Would you call a routine that a body-builder goes through dogma? It is a set grouping of exercises with the intention of gaining a reward (bigger muscles.) Buddhism is like that, where there are exercises (that vary by the gym instructor) all with the intent of coming to terms with the mind.
A person who does not exercise might not see it, because the mind is not like muscles in the body, visible to the naked eye. You can see those with a still mind flex their awareness though, such as in dealing lovingly to others, not becoming disturbed when disturbance flows around them and so on.
Does that clear it up?
Good luck,
Matt
There are many differences between the different schools of Buddhism and some disagreements. Also the texts that are relevant to one school might not be relevant to another, so there isn't THE Buddhism, but many forms of Buddhism.
Yes, it has dogmas, which differ from school to school, but these are treated like things you will come to see for yourself and not something beyond human comprehension. (but they are still dogmas)
I don't think the rules (in any religion for that matter) are what give people comfort. What gives them comfort is the idea that there is a way out of suffering.
When you are talking about dogmas I assume you are talking about things that can't be proved, right? In that sense the dogmas of Buddhism are generally secondary to its practice and the results coming from it. What I mean is that, even if you ditch all the dogmas of Buddhism you would still be left with a wealth of useful information that is verifiable through practice, and that the non-dogmatic part is the very core of Buddhism. Also, is through this non-dogmatic part that Buddhism makes you closer and closer to its goal, which is liberation from suffering, and because of that it feels much more real than other religious systems.
It has a beautiful iconography, but I don't see what is wrong with that. As for the populist appeal, I would have to disagree, but the resons for that are too big to post here.
I don't recall Buddhism wiping a single indigenous spiritual tradition. Even in Tibet it lives side by side with Bon, and you probably know in China and Japan they have their own set of beliefs that live side by side with Buddhism.
I don't know what you mean by earth based spirituality.
It is not so black and white.
It has a set of rules that lead to "ultimate salvation". But the belief system here is quite feeble since Buddhism concerns itself with human suffering, and that is a pretty objective reality. Even when it speaks of Devas (which would be close to Gods) it doesn't give them any relevance in its path to salvation, as you put it.
That's what happens when Buddhist teachers go on preaching about rebirth and kamma and give no significance to the core Buddhist teachings. People think Buddhism is about doing good, being good, receiving good karmic ramifications, being the good guy in the hope of being rewarded in this life an the next lives or a rewarding pastime etc. That's not much different to the other moral teachings around.
Simply said the core of Buddhism is about cessation of suffering. A good place to start is the four noble truths. Understanding suffering and how it arises and how we can eradicate it in this lifetime itself is all Buddhism is about.
I am not learned enough to advice you and I am not sure where to start even. But these texts will be good reads
Suffering
Dangers of Self
This could be true of a religion, it could be true of the Republican political party, it could be true of a lobbying organization, it could be true of the Shriners, it could be true of the Sons of Hibernia, it could be true of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People... Regardless of the truth or falseness of your statements, this doesn't seem like a very useful way of comparing religions.
You mention "spirituality" three times: first to state that you are not new to it, second to state the Buddhism lacks a particular type of spirituality, and third to state that Buddhism has wiped out that type of spirituality in Asia. This seems to be the core of your view of Buddhism; you seek a particular type of spirituality, and you haven't found it in Buddhism.
I sincerely hope that your search for your type of spirituality is successful.
Indeed, there is, once again, an underlying and, perhaps, unconsciously disrespectful ignorance of the facts elsewhere. For example:
As an Orthodox Christian, it must be obvious that there is not a single Christian dogma. A little reading of contemporary Christianity other than literalism reveals that theological debate is wide and diverse. If we want to criticise lack of information in another, it is as well to notice our own first.
On the subject of "icons and stuff", Orthodox Christianity has certainly developed a particular spirituality of the icon. Within other Christian groups, attitude to images goes (as among Buddhists) from aesthetic appreciation to use as focus for prayer.
@Cobber:
Thank you for your post. If that is how you see Buddhism and we see it otherwise, let us sit and exchange our reasons in friendship. I would like to learn from you what it is that would convince you that you are wrong and I am prepared to admit, if you manage to convince me on any point, that I must change my view. That, to me, is one of the prime skills of this site - or used to be.
And please forgive all those who may get defensive. They are genuinely nice (those that I know of old).
What do you mean by there is no Christian dogma? As in there is no topic that has an absolute opinion? If that is the case I supposed that there is no Buddhist dogma as well, right?
But in that case, how do you call the category of beliefs that aren't directly proven by reason?
My point is that it is not possible to point to a single dogma which is accepted across the whole spectrum of the Christian groupings. There are whole libraries of dogmas, of course, many of them either contradictory of others or self-contradictory. You will even find Christian commentators who deny the miracles, the Resurrection, and even the historicity of the Gospels.
But then we also have to concede that there are some serious archaeological puzzles posed by the stories of the life of Siddhartha too.
As a lifelong Buddhist this is not offensive to me. Buddhism, the religion, is just as prone to human foibles as any other human institution. Buddhism can be dogmatic, weighed down with religiosity, and sectarian nonsense, superstition and so forth. But at it's heart are insights that are utterly unique, brilliant and life changing. I remember a Theravadin Monk who came and stayed with my local community when I first started practicing meditation. I was a real keener and he could see that. After pestering him for a few days about how to be truly free he said, "Don't become a Buddhist, its not about becoming something else, just practice"
So it is a good idea if you are genuinely interested in Buddhism to not to expect much from, or idealize. the Religion, otherwise you will be disappointed by it humaness. Instead look into the amazing insights at the heart of it.
To me it looks like dogma, it looks like just another rule book. I realise that dogma is a loaded word and I shouldn't have used it, it was late I didn't think to find another word.
By earth based spiritualities I meant the so-called 'primitive' shamanistic traditions that are remnant in Daoism and Shintoism but were local to smaller communities. They didn't wipe them out, in the same way that the Christians did as they spread through Europe but the effect was essentially the same.
And thankyou Matt for your response, I am asking "is buddhism just another social conditioning intent on having others follow rules with hope of reward?" Perhaps I should have said that.
Your answer makes sense.
I'll check all of the references given here and will be more careful next time.
I am not offended, but I am astonished by your huge misunderstanding.
Buddha strictly stated that his teaching is NOT dogma or doctrine. Buddha said don't believe anything, even if he has said it. Only through personal experiment, investigation, and experience should be your basis, with Buddha as your GUIDE.
Buddhism does not promise any rewards. It teaches that there is no soul, no permanent self. Its aim is Enlightenment, but it is your journey alone, there are no Saviors. It emphasizes the importance of emptiness and voidness. It is not about fantasy-driven promises.
Buddhism is perhaps more empirical than science itself. It is not at all like any of the other religions or belief systems. It is only concerned with what IS.
I hope that clears things up for you.
.
Buddha says it's not a doctrine therefore it's not, how does that make any sense?
And your words..
Buddha says.....It teaches...., it's aim....there are....it's not about... it is only concerned with....
This is what I hear all the time and you wonder why I get the impression that it's just another way of indoctrinating the masses, however well-meaning and in many cases helpful these 'teachings' may be.
It's cool.
Maybe it is not your thing, then. What are you really looking for in spirituality? To ease some kind of suffering? To understand how things work? To understand why you are here? It might help if you told us specifically what you want to know and we can give you the Buddhist perspective. Then you can decide if Buddhism can give you what you are looking for.
As far as I know in Asia the beliefs you are talking about and Buddhism have a somewhat symbiotic relationship. they don't exclude or try to exclude each other. Instead, they ended up accommodating one another.
Buddhism doesn't try to condition anything. We are taught not to try to force our beliefs on others. Only when someone wants to learn about it we talk about it. We do have moral guidelines, but then again if you don't want to follow them we won't hold it against you. Buddhism might not be your thing, afterall.
1. There is suffering (sounds dogmatic?)
2. There is a cause of suffering (still pretty reasonable)
3. The cause of suffering is addiction to certain things.
4. We are addicted to things because of ignorance. We are unaware of what we are really doing, like any addict that is more focused on the short lived pleasures of their poison and overlooks the problems it brings;
5. This ignorance is something that is solvable; (example: when you were a child you would be afraid of a monster under the bed; now that you grew up and are smarter it won't scare you anymore. Many things stop causing you suffering once you understand them and let go of the illusion attached to them).
6. The way to stop being ignorant is the noble eightfold path; (How do you know if it works? You test it. If it doesn't work for you it is cool. We are here as buddhist because it has worked for us.)
Don't be astonished... I had some misunderstandings of Buddhism just a week or so ago. I decided to take it upon myself and decided to learn for myself. I'm more astonished at how I missed Buddhism for 46 years than I am someone misunderstanding it. Very lazy on my part...
I can't speak for anyone else, but you caused no offense with me. I just think saying "I don't mean to cause any offense" as a first line to someone or someplace is funny!
I think your deep looking at things like social indoctrination is a great place to be, as often it can unglue your mind from the social norms around you that inhibit or contradict your observations. "Who you gonna trust, me or your lying eyes!" - well, hopefully your eyes or you're pretty much boned
Just be careful that your mind isn't so crafty that it lets you throw out the baby with the bathwater so to speak. I have found a deep understanding of nature through my interaction with buddhist philosophies and practices... and while there are pitfalls of becoming a servant of doctrine, that is true of anything that you accept without knowing.
Good luck on your search, here and there.
Matt
Look, you're preaching to the choir here. I was and still am under the impression that religion is a form of mind control and used by rulers to control the masses. However, Buddhism transcends religion. Its actually more of a philosophy except it has the devotional aspect of religion.
You also ignored everything I described about Buddhism. If Buddha says his teaching is not dogma, then its not, because only he can define Buddhism. You can't define his teaching for him. (Bare assertion fallacy doesn't apply here.)
I too had many misunderstandings about Buddhism just recently, but I never came out and said Buddhism is dogma to supress people without first having a brief understanding of it.
For me this is problematic in a number of ways
1 Sure there is suffering, but there is joy too? Why the emphasis on suffering?
2 As soon as you say this happens because of this and therefore here is your solution, you create a system that people will cling to because yes, they do suffer. They become indoctrinated.
The swing in my backyard is yellow, the sky is blue and my coffee is bitter and hot.
Yours in the Dharma,
Todd
Muddy water let stand turns clear.
Are you familiar with philosophy? Do you know what a logical syllogism is? That's similar to what the Four Noble Truths are, so why condemn this and not other theories in philosophy?
Also "suffering" is the wrong word. It's more properly defined as unsatisfactory. Also, the Four Noble Truths aren't denying the joy of life, it is providing an antidote to "suffering".
The reason that this continues to bug me is that I'm surrounded by Buddhists who never miss an opportunity to quote some teaching or other and live their lives entirely by them. I am also a retired acupuncturist who for nearly thirty years, just about every day of my working life would come across a practising Buddhist overloaded with repressed anger and transfixed on the pretense of showing compassion to everyone, regardless of the circumstance, and convinced that this world of dust was simply here to be suffered upon.
I'm not looking for answers regarding my own spiritual journey and I'm not here to flame anyone. I am simply concerned that I have built up a negative idea of your religion through my experience and it's affecting my relationships with the people around me. I've tried to talk about it with people face to face and only end up being preached to.
Here's some advice for you:
Buddhists =/= Buddhism
http://www.BuddhaNet.net
http://www.AccessToInsight.org
None of the things you've attributed to Buddhism are of Buddhism; your initial post was so far off that I'm not going to bother a step-by-step reply, because you haven't done your own homework first. Learn the basics and then come back here with questions.
Thank you. I was going to repost my original post but your repost beat me to it.
Cobber, just take the time to read... Very simple.
Well the word is really Dukkha, which has a broader meaning than suffering. I used suffering and addiction for easier understanding.
I personally think a somewhat decent translation for the idea Dukkha conveys is thirst. Underlying our whole song and dance there is an eternal search for things that will make us feel good or cozy or safe, and an aversion for what will make us feel bad or pull the carpet from beneath our feet. This search for a state of stability is what is conveyed by Dukkha, and it is something very instinctive, even, that is why I like to call it thirst - almost like a natural reflex to the lack of something. (But the thirst thing is my idea, people usually call it suffering
Yes, some people cling to Buddhism. The problem is they keep being shoved off. For Buddhism, you are responsible for yourself, so you begin a process that really has to be called consciousness through pain, because you really can't throw your burden in the back of a Buddha and hope him to solve everything. What the Buddha does is give you the tools that you can use to solve your own garbage. Whether or not you will really dig deep it is up to you.
That reminded me of Pema Chodron. She was saying that sometimes you go to these Buddhist Centers and people are always smiling, and they gaze into your eyes, and she said she would think "there must be a lot of repressed anger here..." ehehehe
It is true. Some people repress a lot of things with these teachings, for lack of proper guidance mostly. I have seen people trying to deny suffering because they say they don't really exist. It sounds funny but it is actually pretty worrying. :-\
Why does it bother you so much, though? I mean they could believe in magic fairies, but why would it annoy you so?
It would appear that many of your concerns about Buddhism have been addressed, but you continue to defend some of your original concerns.
My recommendation is to approach the subject with a very open mind and see what you can get from it.
Its hard to learn about a new topic, as your original post implied, if you are closed minded about it.
I mean no offence, and good luck with your search for knowledge.
I'm not sure that it's such a problem as I may have made out but in answer to your question. I don't like being preached to, I don't like people assuming, for whatever reason, that they know what my problem or my solution is, as is happening in this very thread. I similarly don't have a lot of time for institutions that do this on a mass scale. Why this is the case, I don't really care, it just seems normal to me. I don't lose any sleep over it, it's just something that I don't like, like anchovies you know.
In the end, you are the only one that can correct your view. As I'll state for the third time now, you really should familiarize yourself with at least the basics of what Buddhism actually teaches before conducting yourself in such a manner. Creating an account on a religious forum merely to bash that religion and then complain about being preached to is pretty silly, don't you think?
Whatever your issues are with Buddhism, I'm confident that you can overcome them if you apply effort toward studying/understanding what Buddhism is all about. If you don't wish to put any effort in, but are here to vent at our expense, then please leave. Buddhism is all about effort toward personal salvation; the least you can do is put in minimal effort to not offend an entire religion just because you are ignorant of its basic tenets.
I'm usually the nicest and most tolerant person, so I'm saying it plainly to maybe get through to you. If it works, perhaps we can all laugh about this later and you'll have overcome years of religious bigotry. If not, then you don't really want our help, and my time at least will be better spent on other individuals that are actually here to learn.
And that's all I've got to say about that.
It's not preaching if you come up to us and ask. You laid out your misconception of Buddhism, you asked if you were mistaken, and everyone tried to correct you.
You seem to view Buddhism in the same light as Western religion. Buddhism is about yourself. You can go to a master if you would like as sort of a guide, but that is your choice. Your eternal life or destiny is not at stake here as in Western religion. There is no dogma that is required to be followed. Buddhism is not something that should bind you, nor is it something that asks to be proselytized. One of it's main focuses is non-attachment. You yourself are thinking like a Buddhist by criticizing the notion of clinging to something.
Just think about that and open your mind to the actual nature of Buddhism, rather than clinging to your own preconceived, false notions of what Buddhism is.
.
In my experience, as a newcomer myself to Buddhism from a Wiccan background, it's a lot easier to understand if you drop all Western religious views when you examine Buddhism. Now I don't know what you believe in so I can't give you a definite example for allegory. But I can say that some of the sites provided give excellent information.
As someone asked in another thread - is Buddhism just about the elimination of suffering? And the majority answered yes. As I have been told by another Buddhist, whether God exists or not is irrelevant to being able to achieve enlightenment. In this aspect, Buddhism does not have the strict dogma associated mainly with monotheistic religions. When questioned about the existence of God, the Buddha never answered it. I have heard that the Buddha later replied that there is no point arguing over what cannot be proved or disproved. That doesn't sound very demanding to me.
Once again though, I am a newbie so all I am trying to do is offer a different point of view.
Respectfully,
Raven
Buddhists response;
Cobbers response;
"Indoctrinating:- It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrinating
We have shown you this is wrong, we have shown you that we are encouraged to examine buddhism, so show us where buddhists are expected not to question. Show us where we are told not to critically examine the doctrine.
For the above reason, you will never be able to change your view of buddhism, because that's exactly what buddhism says; "There is a problem: this is the cuase of the problem: there can be an end to the problem: here is the solution to the problem" (the four noble truths http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/index.html)
You've asked on a buddhist forum about buddhism and then you say you don't like being preached to. You still claim that buddhism wiped out earth based religions, when it simply hasn't. They still exist! The effect was not the same as Christianity. The celtic and druidic religions of europe are non-existant accept for neo-paganism. Taoism, shamanism, shinto, Bon, animism, all these were there before buddhism and are still there now.
I am sorry to say this Cobber, but I'm not surprised that your buddhist friends get defencing when you question their religion.
In gassho,
Nios.
Thankyou
- Buddha (Kalama Sutra)
I really don't understand how cobber can interpret that as "loaded with dogma, rules that might give some people comfort; indoctrination."
.