The Noble Eightfold Thread: Buddhism

[Josquin des Prez]

Now you people are starting to sound like Osho.

[Grazioso]

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.

That's what I was trying to get at: a significant difference in emphasis between path/means/practice versus self-conscious avowal of a set of beliefs as a means of defining oneself personally and culturally. In Buddhism, there is, strictly speaking, no "I" that can be a Buddhist (That may sound a bit silly at first, but it's really a cornerstone of Buddhist thought and practice, and indeed of much mysticism across other traditions.)

Now you people are starting to sound like Osho.

If you have a problem with mysticism or paradox, steer clear of Buddhism.

[Grazioso]

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/

The Buddhist Narakas (hell realms) would give Dante a run for his money

[bwv 1080]

always liked this piece by science writer John Horgan.

http://www.johnhorgan.org/why_i_can_t_embrace_buddhism_19872.htm

For many, a chief selling point of Buddhism is its supposed de-emphasis of supernatural notions such as immortal souls and God. Buddhism "rejects the theological impulse," the philosopher Owen Flanagan declares approvingly in The Problem of the Soul. Actually, Buddhism is functionally theistic, even if it avoids the "G" word. Like its parent religion Hinduism, Buddhism espouses reincarnation, which holds that after death our souls are re-instantiated in new bodies, and karma, the law of moral cause and effect. Together, these tenets imply the existence of some cosmic judge who, like Santa Claus, tallies up our naughtiness and niceness before rewarding us with rebirth as a cockroach or as a saintly lama.

Western Buddhists usually downplay these supernatural elements, insisting that Buddhism isn't so much a religion as a practical method for achieving happiness. They depict Buddha as a pragmatist who eschewed metaphysical speculation and focused on reducing human suffering. As the Buddhist scholar Robert Thurman put it, Buddhism is an "inner science," an empirical discipline for fulfilling our minds' potential. The ultimate goal is the state of preternatural bliss, wisdom, and moral grace sometimes called enlightenment—Buddhism's version of heaven, except that you don't have to die to get there.

...
Even if you achieve a blissful acceptance of the illusory nature of your self, this perspective may not transform you into a saintly bodhisattva, brimming with love and compassion for all other creatures. Far from it—and this is where the distance between certain humanistic values and Buddhism becomes most apparent. To someone who sees himself and others as unreal, human suffering and death may appear laughably trivial. This may explain why some Buddhist masters have behaved more like nihilists than saints. Chogyam Trungpa, who helped introduce Tibetan Buddhism to the United States in the 1970s, was a promiscuous drunk and bully, and he died of alcohol-related illness in 1987. Zen lore celebrates the sadistic or masochistic behavior of sages such as Bodhidharma, who is said to have sat in meditation for so long that his legs became gangrenous.

What's worse, Buddhism holds that enlightenment makes you morally infallible—like the pope, but more so. Even the otherwise sensible James Austin perpetuates this insidious notion. " 'Wrong' actions won't arise," he writes, "when a brain continues truly to express the self-nature intrinsic to its [transcendent] experiences." Buddhists infected with this belief can easily excuse their teachers' abusive acts as hallmarks of a "crazy wisdom" that the unenlightened cannot fathom.

But what troubles me most about Buddhism is its implication that detachment from ordinary life is the surest route to salvation. Buddha's first step toward enlightenment was his abandonment of his wife and child, and Buddhism (like Catholicism) still exalts male monasticism as the epitome of spirituality. It seems legitimate to ask whether a path that turns away from aspects of life as essential as sexuality and parenthood is truly spiritual. From this perspective, the very concept of enlightenment begins to look anti-spiritual: It suggests that life is a problem that can be solved, a cul-de-sac that can be, and should be, escaped.

Some Western Buddhists have argued that principles such as reincarnation, anatta, and enlightenment are not essential to Buddhism. In Buddhism Without Beliefs and The Faith To Doubt, the British teacher Stephen Batchelor eloquently describes his practice as a method for confronting—rather than transcending—the often painful mystery of life. But Batchelor seems to have arrived at what he calls an "agnostic" perspective in spite of his Buddhist training—not because of it. When I asked him why he didn't just call himself an agnostic, Batchelor shrugged and said he sometimes wondered himself.

All religions, including Buddhism, stem from our narcissistic wish to believe that the universe was created for our benefit, as a stage for our spiritual quests. In contrast, science tells us that we are incidental, accidental. Far from being the raison d'être of the universe, we appeared through sheer happenstance, and we could vanish in the same way. This is not a comforting viewpoint, but science, unlike religion, seeks truth regardless of how it makes us feel. Buddhism raises radical questions about our inner and outer reality, but it is finally not radical enough to accommodate science's disturbing perspective. The remaining question is whether any form of spirituality can.

[Josquin des Prez]

Except that his conclusion is of course, laughable.

[Grazioso]

always liked this piece by science writer John Horgan.

http://www.johnhorgan.org/why_i_can_t_embrace_buddhism_19872.htm

It's unfortunately filled with gross oversimplifications or outright misrepresentations

[Karl Henning]

It's unfortunately filled with gross oversimplifications or outright misrepresentations

I almost think that must necessarily be the case, when one is setting out to say This is why I think this set of beliefs false. The temptation to fashion the Other into the image of what one obviously cannot accept, is perhaps too powerful.

There's something beautiful C.S. Lewis said, and I am sure I am garbling it . . . but it is to the effect that he could not have embraced Christianity if all the other religions in the world were completely false, and Christianity (miraculously) the only one which is true. Probably in every religion, you see a people, a culture, coming to grips with The True.

[Josquin des Prez]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D7rWLzloOI

Haha, ok, now, can anyone explain this to me?

[Elgarian]

There's something beautiful C.S. Lewis said, and I am sure I am garbling it . . . but it is to the effect that he could not have embraced Christianity if all the other religions in the world were completely false, and Christianity (miraculously) the only one which is true. Probably in every religion, you see a people, a culture, coming to grips with The True.

I can't remember the exact words either, but I agree that's certainly what he meant, Karl.

I see no reason whatever why we can't examine Buddhism and feed on whatever wisdom we find there, without needing to embrace the whole. The whole notion of the karmic cycle, for instance: the grasping to relieve pain which in turn generates more pain, and so more grasping, is a seriously helpful insight that any westerner can benefit from. (David Ross and I were joking about it recently with regard to our addiction to CD buying, but it was joking with intent).

[bwv 1080]

wisdom, schmisdom - just give me that old time religion

[Marc]

wisdom, schmisdom - just give me that old time religion
[....]

Hell yeah!

[jowcol]

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.

A lot of the westerners have been drawn to the mind games of Zen, which are fun (and useful), but tend to obscure the core precepts and  virtues.  The primary goal is to reduce suffering on earth, and the basic "system" requires not external or supernatural forces.  The Buddha's dying words basically said you need to work it out-- or in the words of Samuel Beckett, "Use your head.  You're on earth, and there's no cure for that!"

[jowcol]

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

True, but in Luke 10:27 , did he not tell an expert in the Law that if he followed the Jewish "Shema", that he would be saved?   How can one reconcile both statements? This was a paradox I wrestled with in my Southern Baptist days.

[jowcol]

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

I forget which Sutra, but teh Buddha basically said if you are worried about differences between sects and not trying to work out your life and those around you, you are missing the boat.     

Similarly, there is a case where he supposedly won a debate with a priest who wanted to convert.  The Buddha told him not to-- it would upset the priest's followers, and no one had a monopoly on the truth.

Note:  Buddhists aren't supposed to proselytize, and in discussing this topic, I have no plans on converting ANYONE. 


I'd want to make that clear before The Abbot at a local temple suggested that the best way to discuss Buddhism is in the terms of faith the other person is comfortable with, as the basic ideas and the human condition is the same for all.    It doesn't matter what name one uses to describe the path.

[jowcol]

"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.

Buddhism has been bent, folded and mutilated by Easterners as well.  It does not have much of a need for purity, and has no true canonical scripture.  It is very accomodating of incorporation of outside elements from other faiths if it can help relieve human sorrow.  I had several shocks when I first visited Thailand and saw how the faith was practiced.

The parable of the vehicles likens the differenent branches to the case where he needs to get his children to run out of  a burning house.   They can't understand the danger they  are in, and won't leave until teh father promises them different toys.  The "branches"  or sects were the toys-- necessary to save the children, since they could  not understand the reality of their situation.  the father was justified in lying because it was the only thing the children would leave the house for...

[jowcol]

wisdom, schmisdom - just give me that old time religion

Love the Chick Publications!  I had a huge collection during my evangelical period...

[Josquin des Prez]

Chick is great, he has some crazy parodies. "A wyatt man" is also fun, though his humor is a bit more crude. And yes, i realize both of those authors are totally serious, tragically so.

[Coco]

Hi jowcol, I was hoping you'd show up.

Just a question: are you a member of a sangha? Are there any teachers that you work with on a one-to-one basis?

[Florestan]

The Buddhist Narakas (hell realms) would give Dante a run for his money

I am curious: what is the Buddhist conception of hell? What is it needed for? Who goes there and why? Who or what are those devils who torment them?

[mc ukrneal]

I am curious: what is the Buddhist conception of hell? What is it needed for? Who goes there and why? Who or what are those devils who torment them?

Perhaps this will be of interest while waiting for an answer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naraka_(Buddhism)