I've been practicing for 13 years. Nothing formal, just trying to live my life a certain way.
Any Buddhists?
- Thread starter TonyH
- Start date
What is the sound of one hand shaving?
With all due respect, please note my previous use of bolds to preface or quotes to surround buddhism or buddhist.
The very term "buddhism" in an invention of Western scholars and tends to reinforce the idea that it is a creed to be lined up alongside other creeds.
First and foremost the Buddha taught a method ("dharma practice") rather than another "-ism". The dharma is not something to believe in but something to do.
He challenged people people to follow their reason as far as it would take them and not pretend that any conclusion was certain unless it was demonstrable.
As a follower of the Buddha, as opposed to a "Buddhist", I am not a "believer". The dharma is a method to be investigated and tried out. If it works for you, keep doing it. The Buddha before he died refused to appoint a successor, remarking that people should be responsible for their own freedom. Dharma practice would suffice as their guide.
Don't take my word for it. And don't take any other posters words for it.
Explore for yourselves.
I re-iterate the quoted post.
The Buddha re-invented philosophical thought and spawned one of The Great World Religions, engaging some of the most brilliant minds in history to their fullest extent over centuries. It is also responsible for a tradition of esoteric practice which strains body, mind and reason to the limit and at times beyond. Belief in The Buddha's teachings as coming from an utterly unique personage is an intergal part of the process, as is Faith & Trust in the Guru & Method and an acceptance of a vast and comprehensive system of ethics, ritual and salvific practice. There is nothing substantively different from Buddhism as a social or cultural phenomemon compared to any other Great Religion, despite some fundamental differences in doctrine.
It is simply not possible to undergo the training and discipline which was commonplace in Tibet and other places without an iron consitution and implicit faith in their correctness and efficacy.
There might have been great strides in bringing The Dharma to The West in the last 50 years or so, but most people have no idea just how much effort is required to get to the stage where you can be legitimately called a Lama/Guru.
As H.H. Tai Situpa once said. "Buddhism is not pick and mix"
The Buddha re-invented philosophical thought and spawned one of The Great World Religions, engaging some of the most brilliant minds in history to their fullest extent over centuries. It is also responsible for a tradition of esoteric practice which strains body, mind and reason to the limit and at times beyond. Belief in The Buddha's teachings as coming from an utterly unique personage is an intergal part of the process, as is Faith & Trust in the Guru & Method and an acceptance of a vast and comprehensive system of ethics, ritual and salvific practice. There is nothing substantively different from Buddhism as a social or cultural phenomemon compared to any other Great Religion, despite some fundamental differences in doctrine.
It is simply not possible to undergo the training and discipline which was commonplace in Tibet and other places without an iron consitution and implicit faith in their correctness and efficacy.
There might have been great strides in bringing The Dharma to The West in the last 50 years or so, but most people have no idea just how much effort is required to get to the stage where you can be legitimately called a Lama/Guru.
As H.H. Tai Situpa once said. "Buddhism is not pick and mix"
Last edited:
Buddhism is as close as I've ever come to identifying with a "religion," as it were, but I just can't go the extra step in calling myself a practitioner. But to address some of the questions in this thread, the Buddha never intended it to become a religion. It became one as it spread and changed after his death. And as Thich Nhat Hanh says, the Buddha would be the first to say "Don't call me a god. I'm a man just like you." But of course, he wasn't just another man. He demonstrated profound insights that changed the world. And he did not try to force it on anyone or give anyone an ultimatum, saying instead in effect "Try it out for yourself and make your decision with your own reason." That is so refreshing compared to Western thought. That is what originally appealed to me, because it's about looking within to find the answers, rather than looking outward to a deity for salvation.
But as a person living in the West, in today's world, attachment is inevitable. So I'm constantly struggling with how I should go about looking at karma. The Bhagavad Gita's definition of Karma yoga makes a lot of sense for the modern, working person. So already a bit of Hindu thought creeps into my belief system, as well as other things. Hence I doubt I can ever completely give myself over to Buddhist thought.
But as a person living in the West, in today's world, attachment is inevitable. So I'm constantly struggling with how I should go about looking at karma. The Bhagavad Gita's definition of Karma yoga makes a lot of sense for the modern, working person. So already a bit of Hindu thought creeps into my belief system, as well as other things. Hence I doubt I can ever completely give myself over to Buddhist thought.
I would respond, but I don't actually believe that any of us are really here.
I appreciate your well written and thoughtful responses. I suspect we would be in agreement on substantially more issues related to the dharma than we might disagree on.
Buddhism rules. End of story.
+1
I don't know why you think The Buddha didn't intend to start a religion when he set out to and succeeded in developing an entirely new world view and system of practice, started a monastic order in his own lifetime, instigated rules and vows in accordance with a different ethical system based on his own insights, debated Vedic adepts in public and advised people from all over his region how to live, including the aristocracy. At one point he reputedly had 10,000 mendicants with him, travelling around modern Nepal and Northern India. I can understand the tendency to play-down the extra-ordinariness of The Buddha, for/to/as Westerners, but let's not go too far. Let's not either forget or donwplay the very different styles and emphases of Buddhism from different parts of Asia. Someone unfamiliar with Buddhism having the Chod practice explained to them or witnessing a full-on Wrathful Sadhana in Dharamsala, then going to a Theravadan Summer Retreat, follwed by a Seshiin in Ehei-ji, might find little to connect these 3 events apart from similar Statuary. Buddhism is vast and very difficult. The Tibetan "Bible" alone is at least 50 times larger than the Old and New Testament combined and each of the four major Traditions emphasises different aspects of this canon, developing and growing the literature for a thousand years. So too did Chinese Chan practitioners. And Dogen's philosophy alone, while stemming from his experiences in China, is enough to keep a talented man interested for his whole lifetime, literally re-inventing Japanese language to accomodate his unique and profound understanding of The Buddha's experience. The Buddha was not "the ancient Nietzsche". He was a lot more than that.
I don't disagree with anything you say here, I just have a different view.
The same can be said for the core Christian beliefs.
- Thread starter
- #94
It seems that this thread has become much more contentious than I intended it to be. Ironic, considering the subject matter.
Different people interpret things in different ways. If this were a thread on Christianity, we wouldn't get far if all the Pentecostals (for instance) kept trying to convince the Catholics that "YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG", while the Baptists kept provoking the Presbyterians. In the US, we have many non-denominational churches that center on Christ, the Bible, etc. We don't presume to tell them that they aren't Christians - unless we're on the extreme fringe. Every religion has hundreds if not thousands of different sects and interpretations.
What is more important, that a person have faith or that the person has the right faith?
Different people interpret things in different ways. If this were a thread on Christianity, we wouldn't get far if all the Pentecostals (for instance) kept trying to convince the Catholics that "YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG", while the Baptists kept provoking the Presbyterians. In the US, we have many non-denominational churches that center on Christ, the Bible, etc. We don't presume to tell them that they aren't Christians - unless we're on the extreme fringe. Every religion has hundreds if not thousands of different sects and interpretations.
What is more important, that a person have faith or that the person has the right faith?
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #96
Or any of the other major religions. The heart of all the major beliefs is peace and love, it's the external factors that distort that fact.
- Thread starter
- #97
It's kinda funny how things like this happen...
Well, honestly...this thread has been running on and off for nearly two years. If we could let go of the lecturing on who's right and who's wrong we could keep it alive for some to continue the discussion.
- Thread starter
- #98
One of the great strengths and remarkable qualities of Buddhism is its ability to provide a vast range of advice that can be used by others of any faith. That is not to say those doing that are Buddhists, rather many useful life skills can be learned from it. Some of my colleagues are psychiatrists and they recommend readings and give advice that draws deeply from the Buddhist well. This can be said about many religions, but it seems that Buddhism offers much advice that can bring comfort to people, esp those in western societies. Just my observation.
I read "Entering the Stream" about 15 years ago. It's an introduction to the Buddah and his teachings. I never could get used to the "being passive" aspect of it. Other than that, I found it very useful.
