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.
The saddest thing about this all to me, is that everyone spent so much time trying to correct your views on our beliefs, but you came to this discussion with your mind closed, and no learning can take place when the student comes with a full mind. Maybe when you're ready to open your mind, then come back and reread what's already posted, because there is an amazing amount of GOOD information here, that breaks down our beliefs better than most books do.
Do we really need to continue this? No matter what you say, he'll never find the answers he wants, because he's not really looking for answers. I just hate to see people wasting their time.
It's like going out to dinner, and eating a meal right before you leave the house. It's like going to a lecture or speech, with earplugs on. It's like 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife...LOL j/k.
Point being learning can only take place when the mind is willing to learn. No learning can take place when the person has his hands over his ears while his mouth is asking questions.
On re-reading my posts I admit that I have been unwilling to let go of old preconceptions under the pretense of wanting to learn more. I've been guilty of tunnel vision. I don't know that my opinions have changed but that is hardly surprising given what I've just said. In any case I was out of line and I apologise.
I think this is good for us all to remember, and to apply to ourselves.
The comments on suppressed (or, indeed, expressed) anger apply here too.
Neither the First, nor the Second Noble Truth is unique to Buddhism. The Buddha was not the first, I'm sure, nor certainly the last to declare that life can be unsatisfactory, blocked, painful and disappointing. This, after all, in the story of Siddhartha, is why he set out: to find a 'way out'.
So many times, when we allude to this common human experience of dissatisfaction/discomfort, we slip into "Buddha club jargon", using Sanskrit or Pali words or, even worse, horrible neologisms like "non-self" or "dependent origination". Just because we may have spent a little time arriving at some understanding of the flow, heft and meaning of the Noble Truths through the stories and words attributed to the Historical Buddha, plus commentaries, sermons, treatises, etc., is it really wise to assume that our non-Buddhist interlocutors are going to be convinced by a game of "Buddha says..."?
If we take that route, we lay ourselves open to accusations of dogmatism - indeed, we may be inviting them. The challenge, surely, is that conversation with the 'gentile' should be in their language until such time as they want to learn the technical jargon.
It is not adequate to say that dukkha has a wider and deeper meaning that the usual translations. By shifting meaning, we are falling into the trap of sectarian discourse, and it is not surprising that non-Buddhists may be put off. We should be glad that Cobber, for example, is ready, despite the scratchy responses, to continue the dialogue.
Add to that the fact that there is nothing more irritating than a "holier than thou" approach and Buddhists may come across as portraying themselves as superior, happier, wiser, better, which is just so much nonsense.
I see some Buddhist teachings and ideas (especially in the more ritualistic types of Buddhism) as... I don't necessarily want to say dogmatic, it's just that they don't make sense to me. So what I do, is I take what I can from the teachings, and leave the rest. For me, nothing so far has been taken on blind faith. I read some teachings, and they make sense to me, just like learning mathematics. There is a wealth of information, and I can look at algebra and calculus and geometry, but it won't make sense until I know basic addition and subtraction first, and that won't make sense until I know the concept of numbers and counting. Some of the seeming dogmatic stuff may seem dogmatic because it may be like a first grader trying to read a college calculus textbook. None of it makes sense, because they do not have the foundation for the knowledge. But they can add 2 and 2, and get 4, and it makes perfect sense to them, they don't accept it as true just because it was taught to them by authority, they accept it because they can personally see it working. In the same way, many of the Buddhist teachings can be personally validated and verified to make sense (to me at least:P) And maybe there is something to those other teachings that do not make sense to me, maybe there isn't. For now, I only take what makes sense to me, and leave all the rest in the back of my mind, waiting for a time, if it ever comes, when I can verify that information. If I can't, it isn't accepted (by me.) And that is perfectly fine, in my opinion anyways
For me, I started reading through the wiki pages on Buddhism. Then i headed over to Buddhanet.net for clarification. Anyways, if you were to accept teachings that seem dogmatic to you, then no matter if the actual teachings are dogmatic or not, you would be accepting dogma. If you take the time to learn and understand them, start small and build up, then you may begin to see things a little differently, I know I did, and I can only speak for myself. I took the time to "test the waters" and give the teachings a try. I tend to focus on what can be understood here and now, and just not worry about any of the other stuff that doesn't make sense, I don't call it correct or incorrect, i just leave it be and focus on the parts that work for me.
I like to think that "suffering" or "dukkha" in this context is dissatisfaction and discontentment. So far, and again this is just my personal experience, Buddhism seems to be a path of acceptance. When you are suffering, you are discontent with your current circumstances; you do not accept them as equal or fine, you want something else, you want your circumstance to change or be something else. Really, everything is in a constant state of change, and circumstances cannot be fully controlled to meet your requirements for enjoyment, so it seems like it would be better to learn to be content rather than pursuing unreachable things. When you learn to be content in all situations, that suffering is gone, you are no longer chasing temporary contentment through the pleasing of the senses. I liked the analogy of the addict someone mentioned before. If someone is addicted (lets say in this example, to a drug, meth), they are constantly searching for contentment through the usage of this drug. Sometimes they get it, sometimes they don't, and that dependence causing suffering, discontentment, and gives only temporary contentment in return. They get to the point where they are using just to keep from being sick. For me, the teachings of Buddhism seem like a rehab program, they teach us to be free of our "addiction" (the addiction being the constant seeking or clinging to the desire to please the senses, which in many cases can result in possible temporary contentment, but seems to always foster discontentment and suffering along with it.) For me, it is really about getting that clinging to desire out of the way so that we can enjoy and treasure every moment, and help others to do the same.
Anyways, I wish you all the best! I hope you find what it is you are looking for. Take care!
Cobber, you're are looking at Buddhism from the outside, as a social phenomenon, and you're observing that it seems to be pretty much like any other religion. And you're exactly right. If it weren't like other religions, it wouldn't be a religion. The points you make are true. Buddhism has dogma and rules. Buddhists are human beings and our behavior is pretty much like the behavior of other human beings in other religions. We're preachy and hypocritical and who knows what else. It doesn't help that many of the responses to your points have been along the lines of telling you how to become a Buddhist, which you're not interested in, without actually addressing your points.
The truth is that everything you complain about in our behavior is in yours also. You've repeated the dogma about people embracing rules for comfort more than once. I've seen this stated many times, but I've never seen anyone offer proof. I've done some reading in the scientific literature on religion, and this doesn't seem be supported. It appears to be part of the dogma of people who want to criticize religion. The point I'm making is that we all seem to have our dogmas.
Looking back at your posts, I see a fair amount of preaching. I'm not denying that you make some good points, but it seems to me that if you don't like being preached to, you're going to have to allow for other people not liking it either.
Rather than try to defend Buddhism, I'm just going to point out that you're exactly like us, and we're exactly like you. The solution to your concerns lies in the way that you deal with that.
To me buddhism is pretty simple. Just be compassionate.
I would guess that the Buddhists you know are over-complicating things. Maybe they're too "attached" to buddhists sayings.
If I don't follow all the "guidelines", it doesn't make me any less buddhist. It just means I'm not ready to. I follow the ones that I do understand. There isn't a god who's going to punish me if I don't.
Karma as I understand it is more like something that's natural and just happens all around us. I would say karma is like a ripple you cause by your actions (thoughts, speech, and physical actions). Your ripples will affect the people around you and their's you.
The bottom line is, there's no dogma in Buddhism. The guidelines are there if you want to follow them. If not, that's ok too. What you get out of Buddhism depends on what you put into it.
It is good that you're questioning Buddhism, because that's a core process to being buddhist. A good buddhist will question everything. Faith isn't required in buddhism, but maybe just faith in yourself.
Another thing I'd like to examine is: What if I AM believing certain things to give me comfort? Were you going to save me from that falsity? You would be taking on a big responsibility because you might make me more mentally unstable and unhappy by taking me away from my comfort. Unless you can present a better alternative wouldn't I prefer to adopt habits and beliefs which are comforting?
Aside from that I will agree that there are some negatives about 'simply comfort'. If you give me a wake up call to that I thank you, but you do realize that my belief is that I can find wisdom to overcome the need for comfort. Maybe google Pema Chodron to catch the vibe about such teachings if you need some corroboration that this exists.
Another thing I'd like to examine is: What if I AM believing certain things to give me comfort?............
Jeffrey,
This is a question that I ask myself all the time and in all situations. I know how self-deceiving I can be, how subtly I lead myself into error. I have come across a very useful model:
Question for you Cobber... Have you tried to read about Buddhism? In other words, try finding out for yourself. It won't make you a Buddhist if that's what your afraid of. Just read a bit and then maybe things said here will make more sense. Or maybe it won't...
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 occurred to me that a cynic is just someone looking for answers.
Comments
Do we really need to continue this? No matter what you say, he'll never find the answers he wants, because he's not really looking for answers. I just hate to see people wasting their time.
It's like going out to dinner, and eating a meal right before you leave the house. It's like going to a lecture or speech, with earplugs on. It's like 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife...LOL j/k.
Point being learning can only take place when the mind is willing to learn. No learning can take place when the person has his hands over his ears while his mouth is asking questions.
I apologise.
On re-reading my posts I admit that I have been unwilling to let go of old preconceptions under the pretense of wanting to learn more. I've been guilty of tunnel vision. I don't know that my opinions have changed but that is hardly surprising given what I've just said. In any case I was out of line and I apologise.
If you are willing to listen to an audio talk I recommend this one:
http://www.kunkyab.org/teachers/venrobina.htm
Addiction Vs. Freedom. It is somewhat short (40 min or so) and very no-nonsense. It might give you a general idea of what Buddhism is about.
I think this is good for us all to remember, and to apply to ourselves.
The comments on suppressed (or, indeed, expressed) anger apply here too.
Neither the First, nor the Second Noble Truth is unique to Buddhism. The Buddha was not the first, I'm sure, nor certainly the last to declare that life can be unsatisfactory, blocked, painful and disappointing. This, after all, in the story of Siddhartha, is why he set out: to find a 'way out'.
So many times, when we allude to this common human experience of dissatisfaction/discomfort, we slip into "Buddha club jargon", using Sanskrit or Pali words or, even worse, horrible neologisms like "non-self" or "dependent origination". Just because we may have spent a little time arriving at some understanding of the flow, heft and meaning of the Noble Truths through the stories and words attributed to the Historical Buddha, plus commentaries, sermons, treatises, etc., is it really wise to assume that our non-Buddhist interlocutors are going to be convinced by a game of "Buddha says..."?
If we take that route, we lay ourselves open to accusations of dogmatism - indeed, we may be inviting them. The challenge, surely, is that conversation with the 'gentile' should be in their language until such time as they want to learn the technical jargon.
It is not adequate to say that dukkha has a wider and deeper meaning that the usual translations. By shifting meaning, we are falling into the trap of sectarian discourse, and it is not surprising that non-Buddhists may be put off. We should be glad that Cobber, for example, is ready, despite the scratchy responses, to continue the dialogue.
Add to that the fact that there is nothing more irritating than a "holier than thou" approach and Buddhists may come across as portraying themselves as superior, happier, wiser, better, which is just so much nonsense.
I see some Buddhist teachings and ideas (especially in the more ritualistic types of Buddhism) as... I don't necessarily want to say dogmatic, it's just that they don't make sense to me. So what I do, is I take what I can from the teachings, and leave the rest. For me, nothing so far has been taken on blind faith. I read some teachings, and they make sense to me, just like learning mathematics. There is a wealth of information, and I can look at algebra and calculus and geometry, but it won't make sense until I know basic addition and subtraction first, and that won't make sense until I know the concept of numbers and counting. Some of the seeming dogmatic stuff may seem dogmatic because it may be like a first grader trying to read a college calculus textbook. None of it makes sense, because they do not have the foundation for the knowledge. But they can add 2 and 2, and get 4, and it makes perfect sense to them, they don't accept it as true just because it was taught to them by authority, they accept it because they can personally see it working. In the same way, many of the Buddhist teachings can be personally validated and verified to make sense (to me at least:P) And maybe there is something to those other teachings that do not make sense to me, maybe there isn't. For now, I only take what makes sense to me, and leave all the rest in the back of my mind, waiting for a time, if it ever comes, when I can verify that information. If I can't, it isn't accepted (by me.) And that is perfectly fine, in my opinion anyways
For me, I started reading through the wiki pages on Buddhism. Then i headed over to Buddhanet.net for clarification. Anyways, if you were to accept teachings that seem dogmatic to you, then no matter if the actual teachings are dogmatic or not, you would be accepting dogma. If you take the time to learn and understand them, start small and build up, then you may begin to see things a little differently, I know I did, and I can only speak for myself. I took the time to "test the waters" and give the teachings a try. I tend to focus on what can be understood here and now, and just not worry about any of the other stuff that doesn't make sense, I don't call it correct or incorrect, i just leave it be and focus on the parts that work for me.
Here is the wiki for the four noble truths: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths
you can click on all the links to different things to learn about them.
Here is a clarification and further teaching on the four noble truths that I found useful: http://www.buddhanet.net/4noble.htm
I like to think that "suffering" or "dukkha" in this context is dissatisfaction and discontentment. So far, and again this is just my personal experience, Buddhism seems to be a path of acceptance. When you are suffering, you are discontent with your current circumstances; you do not accept them as equal or fine, you want something else, you want your circumstance to change or be something else. Really, everything is in a constant state of change, and circumstances cannot be fully controlled to meet your requirements for enjoyment, so it seems like it would be better to learn to be content rather than pursuing unreachable things. When you learn to be content in all situations, that suffering is gone, you are no longer chasing temporary contentment through the pleasing of the senses. I liked the analogy of the addict someone mentioned before. If someone is addicted (lets say in this example, to a drug, meth), they are constantly searching for contentment through the usage of this drug. Sometimes they get it, sometimes they don't, and that dependence causing suffering, discontentment, and gives only temporary contentment in return. They get to the point where they are using just to keep from being sick. For me, the teachings of Buddhism seem like a rehab program, they teach us to be free of our "addiction" (the addiction being the constant seeking or clinging to the desire to please the senses, which in many cases can result in possible temporary contentment, but seems to always foster discontentment and suffering along with it.) For me, it is really about getting that clinging to desire out of the way so that we can enjoy and treasure every moment, and help others to do the same.
Anyways, I wish you all the best! I hope you find what it is you are looking for. Take care!
The truth is that everything you complain about in our behavior is in yours also. You've repeated the dogma about people embracing rules for comfort more than once. I've seen this stated many times, but I've never seen anyone offer proof. I've done some reading in the scientific literature on religion, and this doesn't seem be supported. It appears to be part of the dogma of people who want to criticize religion. The point I'm making is that we all seem to have our dogmas.
Looking back at your posts, I see a fair amount of preaching. I'm not denying that you make some good points, but it seems to me that if you don't like being preached to, you're going to have to allow for other people not liking it either.
Rather than try to defend Buddhism, I'm just going to point out that you're exactly like us, and we're exactly like you. The solution to your concerns lies in the way that you deal with that.
To me buddhism is pretty simple. Just be compassionate.
I would guess that the Buddhists you know are over-complicating things. Maybe they're too "attached" to buddhists sayings.
If I don't follow all the "guidelines", it doesn't make me any less buddhist. It just means I'm not ready to. I follow the ones that I do understand. There isn't a god who's going to punish me if I don't.
Karma as I understand it is more like something that's natural and just happens all around us. I would say karma is like a ripple you cause by your actions (thoughts, speech, and physical actions). Your ripples will affect the people around you and their's you.
The bottom line is, there's no dogma in Buddhism. The guidelines are there if you want to follow them. If not, that's ok too. What you get out of Buddhism depends on what you put into it.
It is good that you're questioning Buddhism, because that's a core process to being buddhist. A good buddhist will question everything. Faith isn't required in buddhism, but maybe just faith in yourself.
Aside from that I will agree that there are some negatives about 'simply comfort'. If you give me a wake up call to that I thank you, but you do realize that my belief is that I can find wisdom to overcome the need for comfort. Maybe google Pema Chodron to catch the vibe about such teachings if you need some corroboration that this exists.
Jeffrey,
This is a question that I ask myself all the time and in all situations. I know how self-deceiving I can be, how subtly I lead myself into error. I have come across a very useful model:
With thanks to Sister Ishpriya, RSCJ
It occurred to me that a cynic is just someone looking for answers.
Best wishes on your search.
Great one! Looking with a squinty mind