The Noble Eightfold Thread: Buddhism

[Grazioso]

Suddenly a number of threads here have turned to discussion of Buddhism, so by request, a thread for discussions or questions about Buddhism. A good scholarly but accessible introduction:



Peter Harvey, Cambridge UP

A useful encyclopedia:


Schumacher et al., Shambhala Publications

[Florestan]

I've always wondered what would have Buddha said about his name being used for an -ism. 

[Mn Dave]

I could list a bunch of books but I hope at some point we discuss practice.

[Mn Dave]

I've always wondered what would have Buddha said about his name being used for an -ism. 

He might shake his head.

[Grazioso]

I've always wondered what would have Buddha said about his name being used for an -ism. 

"Did they get a good picture of me for the book's dust jacket?" 

Seriously, that ties into points I was making in the "last book" thread about Buddhism and Eastern religions in general not fitting neatly into existing Western intellectual categories, as well as Buddhism having been bent, folded, and perhaps even mutilated as it's been interpreted and adopted by Westerners.

I could list a bunch of books but I hope at some point we discuss practice.

Discuss away. This thread is for anything about Buddhism: scholarship, practice, news, general questions, whatever.

[Florestan]

Seriously, that ties into points I was making in the "last book" thread about Buddhism and Eastern religions in general not fitting neatly into existing Western intellectual categories, as well as Buddhism having been bent, folded, and perhaps even mutilated as it's been interpreted and adopted by Westerners.

This seems to imply that the true nature of Buddhism will always be out of the reach of a Westerner. Is this the case?

[Mn Dave]

This seems to imply that the true nature of Buddhism will always be out of the reach of a Westerner. Is this the case?

It doesn't make it any easier, but out of reach? No.

[Grazioso]

This seems to imply that the true nature of Buddhism will always be out of the reach of a Westerner. Is this the case?

Is there a true nature of Buddhism, or any religion? Buddhism has taken on very different forms and trappings as it's traveled across the world over the millennia, including its journey to the West, primarily during the last century and a half or so. Just compare the Theravada of Thailand with Tibetan Buddhism or Rinzai Zen in Japan  Are any of them right or wrong?

Certainly I think Westerners can practice or learn from Buddhism. Insofar as it has a true nature in the spiritual sense, certainly a Westerner can gain the same insights as someone from the East.

I do think it's important to know, though, that Buddhism has been subject to "spin" from the first moments it was "discovered" by Westerners and used as a polemical/political tool vis-a-vis Hinduism during the Raj in the 19th century, for example. In more recent days, there has been question over whether Buddhism has been watered down or altered and then "sold" to Westerners in a fashion that makes it more appealing to them.

[Mn Dave]

I'd like to include what I consider to be a valuable resource online.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/

[Florestan]

Is there a true nature of Buddhism, or any religion? Buddhism has taken on very different forms and trappings as it's traveled across the world over the millennia, including its journey to the West, primarily during the last century and a half or so. Just compare the Theravada of Thailand with Tibetan Buddhism or Rinzai Zen in Japan  Are any of them right or wrong?

Certainly I think Westerners can practice or learn from Buddhism. Insofar as it has a true nature in the spiritual sense, certainly a Westerner can gain the same insights as someone from the East.

I do think it's important to know, though, that Buddhism has been subject to "spin" from the first moments it was "discovered" by Westerners and used as a polemical/political tool vis-a-vis Hinduism during the Raj in the 19th century, for example. In more recent days, there has been question over whether Buddhism has been watered down or altered and then "sold" to Westerners in a fashion that makes it more appealing to them.

Then perhaps Buddhisms (with an emphasis on the plural form) is more accurate a term than Buddhism?

[Karl Henning]

Western intellectual categories are not set in stone, are they?

[kishnevi]

I've always wondered what would have Buddha said about his name being used for an -ism. 

But it's not his name--it's a term for a category of individuals to which (according to his followers) he belonged, and which we ourselves can all become--and I'm not sure if he actually ever applied the term (or its Pali equivalent) to himself.

If the term was based on his name, we would be talking about Gautamism or Siddharthism.

[bwv 1080]

always liked the tradition of Buddhist Hell paintings and the now various hell-themed amusement parks around SE Asia

http://visboo.com/buddhist-hell-2.html



http://www.mythailandblog.com/2010/06/welcome-to-buddhist-hell/

[Grazioso]

Then perhaps Buddhisms (with an emphasis on the plural form) is more accurate a term than Buddhism?

I would say so, just as one must use distinctions for the numerous varieties of, say, Christianity. As Jeffrey notes, "Buddha" itself is an appellation with different shades of meaning, depending on the context and Buddhist tradition, that was applied to the historical Siddartha Gautama, originator of the Buddhist teachings, to mean "Awakened One."

Western intellectual categories are not set in stone, are they?

For some people they are 

Seriously, no, but it can cause Westerners some intellectual difficulty to fit various Eastern spiritual traditions into our typical ideas of religious "isms." Eastern "religions" are often better described as ways, paths, tao, do, etc., as in the "Noble Eightfold Path" of Buddhism. If nothing else, there's a subtle difference in emphasis: not so much the formal adoption of a belief system as a means of self-definition/identification, e.g., "I am a Baptist. That is what I believe in," as "I am a follower of the Buddha-Way. These are the teachings and steps I follow as a practical matter."

Plus, Westerners tend to divide "isms" into mutually exclusive camps. You may not, apparently, be both a Christian and a Muslim. In the East, extensive religious syncretism is pretty normal.

[chasmaniac]

Westerners tend to divide "isms" into mutually exclusive camps. You may not, apparently, be both a Christian and a Muslim. In the East, extensive religious syncretism is pretty normal.

We treat these - they treat themselves? - as creeds rather than practices. When sects are defined by lists of propositions, every change in a list produces new sects by definition.

I cannot speak for The East.

[Josquin des Prez]

This seems to imply that the true nature of Buddhism will always be out of the reach of a Westerner. Is this the case?

From what i understand its supposed to be out of reach of humanity as a whole. Buddhism is dissolution into the beyond. If you actually understood him, you'd have lost him.

The hardest part for a westerner, supposedly, is to find this esoteric aspect and separate it from the exoteric exterior, which is merely the surface.

[Florestan]

Seriously, no, but it can cause Westerners some intellectual difficulty to fit various Eastern spiritual traditions into our typical ideas of religious "isms." Eastern "religions" are often better described as ways, paths, tao, do, etc., as in the "Noble Eightfold Path" of Buddhism. If nothing else, there's a subtle difference in emphasis: not so much the formal adoption of a belief system as a means of self-definition/identification, e.g., "I am a Baptist. That is what I believe in," as "I am a follower of the Buddha-Way. These are the teachings and steps I follow as a practical matter."

Yes, but to follow a teaching one has first to believe it to be right, or at least to be right to try following it. Conversely, a Baptist could as well say: "I am a follower of the Christ's way* and his teachings." I don't think the difference is so cut and clear.


* Actually Christ too defined Himself as path, see John 14:6.

Plus, Westerners tend to divide "isms" into mutually exclusive camps. You may not, apparently, be both a Christian and a Muslim.

That's a logical impossibility indeed. A Christian is someone who believes in Christ as being the son of God. For a Muslim God has no son. I think that not even the most tolerant syncretism is able to reconcile these different paths. 

[Coco]

I tend to see the different approaches to Buddhism as various permutations of what Buddhist literature refers to as "skillful means".

It's tempting to say, "different paths, same goal," but to me "the goal" is not even the goal. The value of the dharma to me is not teleological but rather process-based. Every moment you are involved in a continual process of awareness, rather than there being some mysterious object "awareness" that is suddenly grasped and kept.

[Josquin des Prez]

Yes, but to follow a teaching one has first to believe it to be right, or at least to be right to try following it. Conversely, a Baptist could as well say: "I am a follower of the Christ's way* and his teachings." I don't think the difference is so cut and clear.


* Actually Christ too defined Himself as path, see John 14:6.

That's a logical impossibility indeed. A Christian is someone who believes in Christ as being the son of God. For a Muslim God has no son. I think that not even the most tolerant syncretism is able to reconcile these different paths. 

Well, as the saying goes, if you want to find water, its best to dig into one place, rather then poke holes everywhere. Still, i don't think those religions are mutuality exclusive, if we are talking about universal principles (which, by definition, must be the same across all religions). Most perennial traditionalists agree on the impossibility of maintaining the notion of a single, "true" religion, which may have worked in the past, but is no longer applicable today. 

[Grazioso]

I tend to see the different approaches to Buddhism as various permutations of what Buddhist literature refers to as "skillful means".

It's tempting to say, "different paths, same goal," but to me "the goal" is not even the goal. The value of the dharma to me is not teleological but rather process-based. Every moment you are involved in a continual process of awareness, rather than there being some mysterious object "awareness" that is suddenly grasped and kept.

As they say in Zen, if you try to find it, you will lose it.