Problem is if you believe in Reincarnation, you’d just come back and suffer again. The cycle continues…
I don’t think it’s that simple or clear cut. This very thread is indicative of the hazy definitions that society uses to categorize Buddhism as a philosophy vs a religion. IMO, Buddhism (or certain reinterpretations of it if you will) can be accepted as a secular philosophy.
Should we be mental slave to superstitious beliefs or cosmologies and ignore scientific thought and rational development? Religion is fluid and evolves, as do definitions of spirituality, and Buddhism has evolved and adapted.
When pinched in a corner, I clarify myself as a “secular Buddhist”. I don’t believe in literal spiritual reincarnation. I do believe that my thoughts, deeds, and actions propogate and perpetuate themselves beyond myself and can last long after I have died. That is reincarnation and the Tao in my secular interpretation, and is completely consistent with the noble truths and eightfold path.
In my limited knowledge, Buddhism is quite facile in the way it can adapt to various cultures and migrate beyond points of origin, precisely because the the main tenets hold up to various interpetation and overlay onto different cultures.
Now, we are in a 50 year old process of Buddhism coming into the West, coinciding with a huge increase in information technology. I can read Buddhist scripture from many traditions, that were previously available only to to monks and nuns. That can be immensely confusing, without the traditional training, but, that’s the Western lifestyle, and Buddhist teachers are adapting to that, Western Buddhists are writing and adapting it as well. The basic truths are basic because they illuminate a fundamental human condition, and don’t need to follow a specific tradition, though there is a good deal to be gained by accumulated wisdom.
I am not really all that concerned with hazy social definitions. I am also not that concerned with what people choose to call themselves and how they self-identify. That’s an individual choice. I have strong Buddhist sympathies, but I have to approach this issue textually. It would be a bit of an understatement to say that karma, samsara, and moksa are thinly documented in most Buddhist traditions. Aside from curious western ecclecticism, this is largely what Buddhists around the world apparently believe.
It is not obvious to me how any religion has really taken its cues from science.
As I’ve disclosed here before, I abhor labels. If you must track my beliefs through my lifetime while switching the stickers on my forehead, I’ve gone from nontheism (preschool) to Catholicism (ages 6-12), after that flipflopping, depending on my mood or life circumstances, for the next 17 years between a sort of deism, agnosticism, and a nihilism that I loathed but felt like I had no other choice in. Then again I loathed myself during this period as well-felt like I was the cruel pawn of an uncaring or absent God (in which case replace Him with Fate).
At age 29, during a quiet contemplative moment, I experienced a sort of newfound opening towards experience, a faint yet persistent desire within myself to go out & engage the world (specifically Nature) without carrying around that huge chip on my shoulder, followed immediately by an event which absolutely confirmed to me that the choice I made was correct. Since then I’ve gone from nature mysticism/neopaganism to Taoism (of a sort) to where I am now, having incorporated a number of Buddhist ideas into my milieu. It was most certainly not like I was shopping around for this or that, as if I could assemble a new set of creeds like I would build a turkey club sandwich, but instead I’d go read a book and immediately notice how the ideas I read matched uncannily with the things I experienced. But the Buddhism stuff was a series of more deliberate choices.
I’ve had no so-called “peak” experiences (the ones with the fireworks and such), but a number of plateau experiences (more mellow, longer lasting). I’ve managed to keep a “spark” of consciousness going during naps (I started doing it so that I wouldn’t lapse into REM sleep and wake up a zombie, but soon it kind of took on a life of its own). Lately I think I’ve managed to successfully “deattach” myself from a number of various pesky neuroses-getting into the empty heart of all phenomena, seeing things as they really are, and all that. Just this week I’ve achieved a sort of deeper understanding, a newer sense of freedom from attachment, along those lines-and as often happens at such times I got some real-world parallels/confirmations as well.
One of the biggest questions I’ve been trying to address lately is how to engage the world without becoming attached to it. Am I falling into samsara if I stop to appreciate a flower or a sunset, or do I have to “grasp” after it, suffer in its absence until I see it again, for it to be a problem? I dislike the extreme “denialist” strands of Buddhism (or at least the stereotype of same), as if you just forsake the world, live in rags for 40 years, your path to enlightenment will just fall into place. There was this story of a Buddhist monk who would go into a sort of rapture when you showed him flowers. In any event you won’t find Heaven in some next life, but it is always right here in front of you (I certainly found Hell in this life as well). Now maybe if my life goes to heck I’ll start singing a different tune, but it’s complete transformation that I’m shooting for, in whatever form it takes. The ego isn’t soothed upon Enlightenment; the ego is toast.
They do and they don’t. There is a vast literature of Buddhists arguing with each other on what does and does not hold up. The key, I think, is being part of this dialogue.
This is very deep water. There is a lot of Buddhist scripture out there in all sorts of forms. I suppose my point of view reflects my underlying discomfort with the “western lifestyle” of removing the difficult and inconvenient parts, whether they are doctrinal or practical.
First: How do Buddhists (and other reincarnation believing religions) reconcile the human population explosion?
I mean, did all the new people born “earn” their human status? Why now?
Second: If life (or existence) is suffering, is annihilation a valid desire? I understand that through the 8-fold path one can achieve detachment and Nirvana, but how is annihilation worse, better or different?
Okay, how 'bout this-
Answer 1) Is this important? Seriously- Buddha was once asked about the end of the world, and answered by asking “If you were shot by an arrow, would you spend your time asking who made it? Or would you worry about getting to a doctor?” In other words, does one need to work out all the machinations of the system before one can get the value of the teachings?
-
- Buddha taught the doctrine of ‘anatman’ or no-soul-ness, that is, explicitly not the transmigration of souls. There is no soul. what gets incarnate in your next life is not you. Really, I’m not even me, now, in that there is no me, there is just a fluid, slowly changing group of attributes that I call me. So it doesn’t have to add up to 1 Billion humans + 11 Billion animals = 6 billion humans and 6 billion animals.
-
- Who said it was only earth? Hell, my instructor used to comment on how Hinduism and Buddhism were a lot like Star Trek- you go to heaven, and hey, they all look like people, except they have magic powers, and they’re green, or blue.
Annihilation of desire, annihilation of rebirth. The annihilation of the artificial construct that is the ego. These things are achieved while one lives. The upshot would be not being reborn again after death.
MU - Mental Unmasterbation? 
Well, that really strikes at an important point, doesn’t it? Is Western Buddhism really Buddhism? If a large number of people practice in a different way than most, does it take away from the practice of others? Is change not fundamental to the nature of existence? Why would Buddhism as a practice be any different? Certainly Christianity is not practiced today as it was 2000 years ago or during the Spanish Inquisition. Nichiren Buddhism is about as far away from any other kind of Buddhism as I’ve ever seen – is it really Buddhism? Then why is it called Buddhism? What makes something truly Buddhist?
Honestly to me this seems like a Catholic telling a Jehovah’s Witness they don’t really understand Christianity. There are major differences between the two but they both believe Christ is the Savior of mankind. To me, the cycle of death and birth is what we go through every day of our lives as we struggle to find peace. We die and are reborn over and over again every second. That is samsara. Life is samsara. When we focus on the present moment, allow ourselves to be truly aware, and are able to live free from attachment, that is nirvana. That’s Buddhism as I see it, and as countless Zen Buddhists before me have seen it.
The way I see it, pain is inevitable, suffering is optional. You are at some point in your life going to experience pain. Maybe you stub your toe, maybe you lose your job. There is absolutely nothing that can be done to avoid that pain.
So you can grasp your foot and hop around cursing, ‘‘Why oh why did I stub my toe? I’m such a moron! Stubbed toes shouldn’t exist in this world! I shouldn’t have to suffer! Waaaah!’’ Or you can say, ‘‘Damn, that hurts,’’ and move on with your life.
So to answer a previous question, the cessation of suffering is absolutely attainable in this lifetime. It doesn’t mean you’re never going to slip back into a state of suffering again. However, since (from my perspective) the only thing that matters is this moment anyway, this moment free from suffering is all you need. There are several Zen Masters who are generally regarded to have achieved this state permanently – considering all the meditation they do, it wouldn’t surprise me, but I’m so far from that point it’s impossible to imagine.
This is actually much more in line with my own beliefs than the interpretation I posted. I just googled and pasted the first decent interpretation I found, but my personal perspective is much more in line with what you have posted here.
Yes, exactly. When we die, we will certainly manifest in another way – maybe as part of a tree or a particle of air or a droplet of water, because we are matter, we are energy, we can’t be created or destroyed. We will manifest in a different way. The idea that our current manifestation makes up the sum total of our existence is an illusion.
Thank you.
Because no other religion has ever done this at any point throughout history or in today’s world of perfect adherence and acceptance of all doctrine. Religion is a highly, highly subjective thing.
As I mentioned before, I am just beginning to study this–I started studying Buddhism about six months ago–so this discussion is fascinating to me. I became interested in Buddhism because I wanted to change my way of thinking, and the first two Noble Truths resonated with me. I wanted to “suffer” less, which for me meant to stop obsessing over things I cannot change, to let go of my desire to control people and situations, to acknowledge that no matter how hard I wanted something to be true, I had to face the fact that it wasn’t. For me, Buddhism represents a way of thinking that will allow me more freedom. Learning how to detach from things that cause me pain and grief is eye-opening, and brings me more peace than anything I’ve encountered. Because I’m a former fundie, the idea of Buddhism as a religion scares me, because religion has been ruined for me. But as a way of thinking and living and allowing, it brings peace.
I should mention I am also in therapy with someone who touches on Buddhist teachings without calling it that. Several people who’ve known me a long time have remarked on how much I’ve changed, how much more calm and accepting I am, in the last year.
“If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.” – at least for us Zen practitioners, two things hold true:
-
Only that which you experience yourself can inform your enlightenment. Teachings are at best a convenient set of signposts, and at worst an impediment.
-
Buddha found the path, and can show the path, but the Buddha isn’t the path. There is no teaching and no teacher who is objectively more right than any other, the question is solely of what works for the individual seeker in his quest.
This doesn’t mean to throw everything away, as when it comes down to it the teachings and the Buddha did find their enlightenment and their methods are useful. It DOES mean that things that get in the way of enlightenment can be discarded, regardless of how fundamental they are–and furthermore, for us Zen types, even the desire for enlightenment itself must be discarded to achieve it. If belief in reincarnation is holding you back, don’t believe–the universe does not care one way or another, and when the time is right you’ll perceive the Truth (whatever that actually is).
Geez, I’m debating this very same thing in another thread. Unsuccessfully, mind you.
Trying to shoehorn Buddhism into a single rigid definition and saying that all adherents must believe X is to – well, not understand the Buddha nature of Buddhism.
I asked it in the other thread, I’ll ask it again here:
Someone self-identifies as Catholic. He or she goes to Mass, takes communion, goes to confession, and believes whole-heartedly in the Trinity and the general theology of Catholicism. He or she also eats steak on Fridays and engages in some good old fashioned premarital sex.
Is that person a Catholic?
If I pointed at the Moon, would you look at my finger and say it’s the Moon? 
(Never ask this question of a dog.)
I’d say it’s a Catholic.
I’ll give you extra credit for that answer.
No questions to ask, but just wanted to say that this has been an enlightening (heh) thread. Thanks olives!
I tend to be more of the “cheerfully break your finger” school of Zen.
For reference: