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 from different perspective
Some people believe that Buddhism is NOT a religion. Some do. Some view it as a spiritual path for genuine spiritual progress. Some see it as a community for companion.
I think it's how you really perceive it.
For me, in my culture, Buddhism IS religion (you may have different opinion, but please respect my culture). People light incense and worship Buddha and kuan yin like gods and ask for luck, wealth, and other worldly request. I am doing so and I don't feel anything strange with it.
Also it's a form of spiritual practice for me as I want to become enlightened too, hopefully in this life.
And I plan to know more friends through Buddhist community.
This is my perspective on Buddhism. I think it's the beauty of it because the follower is allowed to choose how he want to perceive it.
how is your perspective on Buddhism?
I think it's how you really perceive it.
For me, in my culture, Buddhism IS religion (you may have different opinion, but please respect my culture). People light incense and worship Buddha and kuan yin like gods and ask for luck, wealth, and other worldly request. I am doing so and I don't feel anything strange with it.
Also it's a form of spiritual practice for me as I want to become enlightened too, hopefully in this life.
And I plan to know more friends through Buddhist community.
This is my perspective on Buddhism. I think it's the beauty of it because the follower is allowed to choose how he want to perceive it.
how is your perspective on Buddhism?
0
Comments
My view is that Buddhism is a religion, a spiritual path which we embark with others on the way to enlightenment. Scary it is to think we're all alone in Samsara.
I don't really believe I could be enlightened by praying because I was taught Samsara was governed by the law of karma. Hence I cannot be rich, good-looking, prosperous, smart without sufficient good karma to bring about such causes.
That is my prospective on Buddhism
After all, the core goal of Buddhism --> enlightenment is about liberating oneself from samsara (karma and reincarnation).
But then I started thinking about the etymology of the word Yoga and how it is to be understood in Buddhism (no tin the dualist sense, but about comprehension of reality), related to clear light awareness or rigpa, etc. and I think that we could say that only from that point of view (at least for now) it could be considered a religion... or at least a "religious path"
I see people lighting incense and candles,putting food and water offerings on the shrine.I may not do this myself,but for the people who do,they are connecting with buddha in their own way.
No big deal.So some people pray to Buddha,so what.Let them pray.It is helping them.
As you rightly point out people perceive it how they wish to.At least we are all trying to practise it one way or another,the other point you make is the cultural aspect.Praying to deities may not happen in all schools of buddhism,I don't know for sure,but who are we to criticize just because it doesn't fit our word view.
With metta
Buddhism has never seemed to fit that standard. I take Buddhism as the Buddha intended it... as a tool or method for liberation. Though there are some fantastical historical accounts (stories) in Buddhism, I am convinced that the process of enlightenment whether sudden or gradual is quite true and provable in this life by following the Noble Eightfold Path and experiencing it for one's self.
But to be even more precise, I think Buddhism has always been what we might call a type of 'transcendent psychology,' and it's only been relatively recently (at least in the West) that its more technical terms have been understood and translated in ways that make this clear. I think this shift is due in no small part to the decades of excellent scholarship that has been brought to bear on the texts and the religious-historical context in which they took shape.
Regardless of how it's been popularized, at its core, Buddhism deals exclusively with one subject, that of human mental suffering. The Buddha himself made it clear that:
That's not to say there aren't 'supernatural' concepts in Buddhism, or that local customs, deities and religious practices haven't found their way into Buddhism wherever it's been established. But rather than a pure system of thought or a strictly faith-based worship of the supernatural, a critical analysis of the earliest texts reveals a much more pragmatic and specialized method of mental training than most traditional Buddhists and Western converts realize—one that seeks to diminish and even eliminate suffering by radically changing the way the mind relates to experience.
Whatever else this radical transformation may open one up to, I can't say, but I suspect that Thanissaro Bhikkhu's right when he says that we're "not committing spiritual suicide." The allegory of the cave in Plato's Republic immediately comes to mind here, where he uses the image of the philosopher turning the soul (mind) away from the darkness of the visible realm (samsara) towards the light of the form of the Good (nibbana).
I see I have afflictive emotions. I see I can stop them (regardless the method). I can also see that sometimes multiple afflictive emotions have common causes, if I cut one cause that is allowing multiple emotions to arise, then all the other emotions cease, for example: If I'm afraid of going to the end of the alley, I can check and see that my real problem is the fear to the unknown; if I cut my fear to the unknown not only the fear going to the end of the alley stop, but every other that is rooted in this kind of more basic fear. Also, I can see that sometimes anger to something is rooted in fear to something, and fear in ignorance.
Now having in mind that I can cut one root and then every other blossom rooted to it also ceases (like one one cuts a plant), I've come to found, by analysis, that every afflictive emotion is finally rooted in ignorance.
I have different types of ignorance, particular ignorances; in the end, I can track them to one root ignorance that refers to the comprehension of the nature of phenomena. Thus, if I cut this, then all the other afflictive emotions ceases.
Result? Afflictive obscuration and cognitive obscuration have ceased, ergo, Buddha.
More or less how I see it. I believe religions evolved to provide an answer to the unknown and to give a sense of special purpose to human existence.
Also doesn't Buddhism not claim that it is the only true way and that all other religions are false?
As is always the case, words fall short. And your points towards the end seem to jive with what i've always thought, namely that you can combine buddhism with other religions. Assuming they didn't contradict, and even if they did you could be an unorthodox buddhist. If you want to be a buddhist who prays to jesus I don't see a problem really.
But Vajrayana teachers do say that Vajrayana is the supreme vehicle, the culmination or somehow the best of the three. And HHDL has said that he used to believe that Buddhism was the superior belief system of all (when he was much younger), but after traveling the world and getting to know other religions and their practitioners, he has taken a "different strokes for different folks" approach. Whatever works to bring people to the core values of kindness, honesty, etc. is good, he now says.
The "forms" of Buddhism that have come to be are adaptations suitable for a culture/nation, dependent upon existing systems of thought and belief, and no true claim can be made that one of these forms is correct for another culture/nation; much less an individual. Careful examination from many angles, and diligent practice to replace confidence in the teachings with wisdom of their ultimate truths, are the stepping stones to enlightenment.