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 Without the Buddhist?
Lately, I began questioning just what it mean to personally be a Buddhist. So I thought to myself. "Well basically, it is the Noble Eight Fold Path preceeded by the Four Noble Truths. So I started them off.
1) Life is categorized by dissatisfaction and suffering.----True
2) Life contains suffering because of our cravings or attachments.
This seems to be the hang-up for me. I honestly don't think craving is at the root of all our suffering. Sickness, death, loss of loved ones, natural disasters, corrupt governments, and criminals all cause people suffering, but are not exactly the result of one's personal cravings. And it depends on how you define attachment. If you mean unconditiional emotional attachment to others fine, but if you mean being with somebody for your own self-intrests, not so advisable.
3) There is an end to this suffering which is Nirvana, Enlightenment.
Well I feel you can never get rid of all the suffering in your life. There will always be problems. People will dissappoint, you'll lose your job, the tree will fall on your house. Your kid might die when he is 12.
I do believe that peace of mind is attainable though. Not some undescribable state of being, but rather a sesnse of calm and serenity within people, places, or things in this very moment.
4) The 8-Fold Path.
I have no problem with the 8-Fold Path at all. It provides a fairly open morality more like suggestions than commandments which I personally feel can lead people to a happier state of living. Mindfulness in the moment is one of my favorite aspects of Buddhist thought. The idea of building one's concentration to a level where content and happiness of the mind are much more solid is very appealing to me.
Now, I have gone into great detail regarding my agnostic view on God, rebirth, and the afterlife in other places. They all seem to require a certain element of faith, faith being the very obstacle that lead me away from Christianity and into Eastern thought. I acknowledge rebirth only as a moment to moment rebirth which I feel is much more pertitent to this moment than what 'might' happen after I die.
So what does this all mean? Essentially I am not really a Buddhist as much as I really tried. But I do not feel bad about this. In fact there is a sense of calm within me rather than inner-conflict over what to call myself or what to believe in. I let go to the attachment of labels, beliefs, and faith.
I know what some of you may be thinking. I am only picking and choosing what I believe here and not seeing the whole truth. Well you would be right in thinking that. But please be honest with yourself, isn't that what we all do? We find a path that is conducive to our line of thinking and reject or accept it. Why did you stop believing in the faith you were brought up in? Because you chose not to believe in it or were incapable of doing so. It is healthy to pick and choose what you believe.
(As Thich Naht Hanh said, "I like fruit salads," in reference to taking precepts of many major religions rather than just following one.)
I still consider myself a very joyful person who practices meditation for relaxation and is very happy. I just realized that I really don't need a label, a God, belief system, teacher, Buddha, or otherwise to give me that happiness. Only I could do that.
Perhaps what I am trying to say in all of this is that I am a Buddhist at heart. When it comes to morality, I have no objection to Buddhism, the problem as it always has been with other faiths is 'belief'.
1) Life is categorized by dissatisfaction and suffering.----True
2) Life contains suffering because of our cravings or attachments.
This seems to be the hang-up for me. I honestly don't think craving is at the root of all our suffering. Sickness, death, loss of loved ones, natural disasters, corrupt governments, and criminals all cause people suffering, but are not exactly the result of one's personal cravings. And it depends on how you define attachment. If you mean unconditiional emotional attachment to others fine, but if you mean being with somebody for your own self-intrests, not so advisable.
3) There is an end to this suffering which is Nirvana, Enlightenment.
Well I feel you can never get rid of all the suffering in your life. There will always be problems. People will dissappoint, you'll lose your job, the tree will fall on your house. Your kid might die when he is 12.
I do believe that peace of mind is attainable though. Not some undescribable state of being, but rather a sesnse of calm and serenity within people, places, or things in this very moment.
4) The 8-Fold Path.
I have no problem with the 8-Fold Path at all. It provides a fairly open morality more like suggestions than commandments which I personally feel can lead people to a happier state of living. Mindfulness in the moment is one of my favorite aspects of Buddhist thought. The idea of building one's concentration to a level where content and happiness of the mind are much more solid is very appealing to me.
Now, I have gone into great detail regarding my agnostic view on God, rebirth, and the afterlife in other places. They all seem to require a certain element of faith, faith being the very obstacle that lead me away from Christianity and into Eastern thought. I acknowledge rebirth only as a moment to moment rebirth which I feel is much more pertitent to this moment than what 'might' happen after I die.
So what does this all mean? Essentially I am not really a Buddhist as much as I really tried. But I do not feel bad about this. In fact there is a sense of calm within me rather than inner-conflict over what to call myself or what to believe in. I let go to the attachment of labels, beliefs, and faith.
I know what some of you may be thinking. I am only picking and choosing what I believe here and not seeing the whole truth. Well you would be right in thinking that. But please be honest with yourself, isn't that what we all do? We find a path that is conducive to our line of thinking and reject or accept it. Why did you stop believing in the faith you were brought up in? Because you chose not to believe in it or were incapable of doing so. It is healthy to pick and choose what you believe.
(As Thich Naht Hanh said, "I like fruit salads," in reference to taking precepts of many major religions rather than just following one.)
I still consider myself a very joyful person who practices meditation for relaxation and is very happy. I just realized that I really don't need a label, a God, belief system, teacher, Buddha, or otherwise to give me that happiness. Only I could do that.
Perhaps what I am trying to say in all of this is that I am a Buddhist at heart. When it comes to morality, I have no objection to Buddhism, the problem as it always has been with other faiths is 'belief'.
0
Comments
Nothing wrong with honesty.
_/\_
metta
So, if you can't accept the supramundane, a literal 31 planes of existence model, then that's totally fine. Do what you gotta do. It's more important that you practice the 8-fold path than a metaphysical model. Additionally, ability to believe in these matters is contingent upon one's own experience & understanding, and we cannot expect ourselves to give these ideas too much credence until we have found the teachings to be very accurate. It is perfectly acceptable to put these issues aside, at least for now. And I would further argue that if these ideas reduce your faith in the Buddha's teachings that you should not pursue them or worry about them.
This path is all about practice anyway. So that's what we need to do. The point is to see things as they are, not project a worldview onto the universe. The only thing I would argue against, as I have said elsewhere, is saying that these teachings do not have an important role in the teachings. I would also say that the argument that these teaching were simply culturally conditioned phenomena is false. It is said in multiple instances that the Buddha could & did directly recall his former existences at will, in the same sense I remember what I did yesterday (only with more detail).
_/\_
metta
It is so simple but understandable. We determine how much our pain and problems actually make us suffer. This guy is pretty awesome.
This is entailed in the Kalama Sutta and testing the teacher is encouraged in Majjhima Nikaya 47 Vimamsaka Sutta,
since thus testing, it will make the faith of the student strong and firm. Buddha wants your faith to be so strong that it will be unbreakable by any force and so encourages you to practice and test, until you know Buddha's the right guide for you.
Something that I find interesting is that words sufffering, attachment, and craving are all nouns. Nouns are labels created by the mind in order to establish a sense of stability and security in an uncertain world. I see that the Buddha is really addressing the human felt angst and cognitive dissonance that is created during the times of life's noticable changes. I prefer to really focus efforts on removing labels and replacing nouns with verbs. This is not 101 material really, but thanks for bringing this up.
Once one appreciates the static nature of life, it's impermanence, one experiences those things that change from a different psychological and philisophical understanding or POV if you will.
Best to you staying on your spot without feeling the need to pull someone off of there's.
BTW- I've read "BWB" it was a good read with real applicative examples.
Not dissimilar in a sense of what this Christ so many people make a fuss about once said.
"Where two are more are gathered together so I am there with them," is in fact a form of yoga.
Thusly, further evidence of the need of a shanga with others, rather then being an island unto oneself. Although, that is where the compassion for the moment must start.
In Gassho
You say that "suffering, attachment and craving" are all nouns and it is an interesting point. They all derive, of course, from verbs, two being gerunds and, thus, contain the notion of action.
Of course, as our teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh remind us, the use of a single word as an independent 'cause' is to miss the point that the matrix of dependent co-arising is dynamic rather than static, as well as being multifaceted. I must, therefore, take issue with you view of life as 'static': it is constantly in flux and only our habit of seeing it in 'snapshots' gives us the illusion of stasis.
Thanks for pointing out my error. Does it sound better this way-
Once one appreciates the dynamic nature of life, it's impermanence, one experiences those things that change from a different psychological and philisophical understanding or POV if you will.
That's what I meant originally:bowdown: .
As Alan Watts pointed out, the buddha began a discussion 2500 years ago which still carries on to this day.
So, when will we transcend this thought that there is anything to transcend? How can this I rise above my own reality?
Hmmm..........