Understandable. It’s very difficult to separate out a particular element as being core critical to following the root moral philosophy, versus one that is an element of regional culture, history or tradition.
In the Westernization of Buddhism, I think much of what you may see being removed isn’t out of a motive of avoidance of being inconvenienced or challenged, it is an attempt to reconcile a different history and culture with one that is familiar.
Deep water again.
Religious people have certainly done this. I think there are two questions worth considering here. First, are you part of a community that considers itself members of a faith? And are your beliefs sufficiently consistent with that faith that your belief is supportable in a meaningful way? I don’t mean you, personally. I think you are very thoughtful and articulate in your beliefs.
The first question is pretty easy to answer and has been answered perfectly well.
The second, I think, is harder. The Reform tradition in Judaism is the perfect example. It has been around quite awhile in the United States and people are reasonably comfortable with it. Judaism is also very convenient to look at because the definition of Jewishness is clear. If you are a member of the tribe (circumsized if male, mother is Jewish) and you follow the Law, you are a Jew. End of story.
The Reform tradition has jettisoned most of the Law. Jews who do follow the Law have a pretty reasonable argument that despite their membership in the tribe, Reform Jews are not Jews. but since the priests died out, there is no real hierarchy to tell Jews what’s what. So they fight about this all the time.
Reform Jews explicitly got rid of anything not “adapted to the views and habits of modern civilization”. The only law they accept is the law that elevates their lives spiritually, whatever that means. Though there are several million of them worldwide who celebrate Passover, to to synagogue, and call themselves Jews, orthodox rabbis certainly can contend that they are not in fact Jews. I do not think this is an unreasonable point of view logically speaking. It might be pretty dumb given that Jews are a historically persecuted minority and should probably band together, but that’s another issue entirely.
Past religious controversies tended to be about either differences in doctrine or practice (heterodoxy or heteropraxis, for hte theologians playing along at home). In no case that I can think of was this a result of self-consciously tossing out what was inconvenient or inconsistent with contemporary mores. The great controversies of the early Catholic church were doctrinal. The split in Islam is largely political. Mahayana took a soft left from Therevada, and Nichiren took a hard right from them both. There is no argument in the 95 Theses to abandon Catholic ideas that were just not compatible with modern ones.
The idea that one can pare down the inconvenient parts of a religion seems to be a modern phenomenon, and I think it absolutely demands the question of just how much can you chip away at a religion to be a religion before it turns into something else entirely. Speaking from my own experience, I have very strong sympathies for both Buddhism and Stoicism. Yet I cannot consider myself one of either because I believe neither in cosmic reason nor in the cycle of birth and rebirth. I take what I can from both traditions, but I just cannot label myself a member of either. This is definitely a subjective decision, so I am especially interested to see how people who can join up rationalize it. I certainly don’t think it is a cut and dried matter.
Maybe. But take a look at non-violence, for example. Non-violence is explicitly linked to karma in the Pali Canon and elsewhere. To derive non-violence without karma requires a substantial revision of a lot of Buddhist moral and logical thinking. At what point is this no longer Buddhism?
Perfect!
You will definitely find talk of karma and rebirth in the Pali Canon. But does that mean that I have to take it literally in order to be a proper Buddhist? What if I simply take it as a poetic metaphor?
The best metaphor I’ve seen for our existence is to compare it with that of a candle flame. The flame is constantly flickering. Can we truly say that the flame
five seconds ago is that same as the the flame at this very instant? Yet our conventional way of thinking is to give this candle flame an illusion of continuity
by saying that this flame right now is the same flame as a few seconds ago.
Human beings, in fact, the whole of existence can be likened to this candle flame. Can you truly say that you’re exactly the same person as you were when you were a baby?
Furthermore, let’s say that I took this candle flame and then used it to light a second candle. Then I blow out the first candle flame.
Can you say that the flame has completely disappeared? Or has the flame continued on in another form, not entirely separate, and not entirely the same either, from the first flame?
I look at rebirth in much the same way. Our actions (karma) continue on after we die like that second candle flame continues on. There is something that experiences this karma that for conventional purposes we might call ourselves, but can also validly be looked upon as not ourselves either.
Why not just take suffering and nirvana then as poetic metaphors? Are you still a Buddhist? What are your standards for taking something literally versus a poetic metaphor?
I do not presume to speak for you, but typically, that standard is convenience.
No, it isn’t. But it’s a good example of using words to pretend that it is. For a couple thousand years or so death and rebirth have been…death and rebirth. Along with a whole progression into another state.
Now take the words that describe that concept and apply it to some sort of daily existence, and it may be a lovely philosophy; might suck in some people; might feel good–it’s just not Buddhism.
If you just want to take the philosophy and make it so nebulous it encompasses everything and nothing, that’s fine. It’s just not what the owners of that tradition have held during its entire run.
And more specifically, once you take out the non-science nonsense of rebirth/reincarnation, etc, you are left with an approach to life that has no particular substance to it any more than “Be nice to other people” is the substance of Christianity. There are folks who call themselves Christian, I’m sure, who are basically atheists but like the feelgood “Be nice.” But it’s a stretch to call themselves Christian.
All modern religions are caught up in the basic dilemma that science is at odds with the supernatural. Buddhism no less so. Perhaps the difference is that fewer Buddhists will fret over the fundamental distortion than Christians or Muslims, but it still seems silly to me when people embrace some comforting ideas and pretend they are embracing the actual belief system.
Wanna be enlightened about how the universe works?
Look to Science. While you are contemplating and divesting yourself of desire in the hope that that’s gonna get you some Enlightenment, I might suggest trying not to get bonked on the head by a meteor or something. Because you won’t be Reborn, even if you are a Zen type.
Look, you can floof words til the cows come home. The Universe does not care and is not even listening.
The bottom line is, not everyone interprets reincarnation, samsara and karma in the same way. Zen Buddhists certainly look at it much differently than other traditions, but I’d be hard-pressed to call their motive convenience. I kind of feel like the idea of Western Buddhism as an eclectic practice is being conflated with actual Zen teachings I and others have discussed in this thread. Do you think Zen is not really Buddhism because it has a different interpretation of these concepts?
I don’t think Buddhism and science are mutually exclusive at all. As I stated before, I believe in observable phenomenon, not magic. I have stated nothing magical here, only that over time I have seen the benefit of the Buddhist worldview and come to have a strong faith and affection for said benefit. There is nothing in the Four Noble Truths or in my interpretation of karma and samsara that negates science.
There are a number of randomized controlled trials and benchmark studies indicating the basic Buddhist concepts like mindfulness and non-attachment are effective at treating anxiety, depression, and even severe personality disorders (Dialectical Behavioral Therapy is one of these, and is the first empirically supported treatment ever for Borderline Personality Disorder. It is now showing great success with comorbid diagnoses and substance abuse.)
Buddha said, ‘‘The mind is everything. What you think, you become.’’ And he was right. We know from decades of research that the way people think affects the way they feel. We call this body of knowledge ‘‘Cognitive Theory.’’ We also know that meditation improves baseline mood and provides a host of other positive benefits.
In short, there is plenty of scientific evidence to indicate that this Buddhist shit is highly effective at making happy people.
So, I basically agree with you. We should look to science.
Considering I work in a highly technical field and many of my close friends are both atheists and scientists, I don’t see that being a Zen practitioner is at odds with science (or Science!) at all. “That which I experience is that which is valid and has meaning and truth. Examine it closely.” I have scientist friends who would agree with that in every particular.
Look, you can floof words til the cows come home. The Universe does not care and is not even listening.
[/QUOTE]
That might well be the case, but I’m still smiling. Therefore Zen Buddhism as I practice it is true for what I personally need it to be true for.
For me, the truth of the first two of the Four Noble Truths I can attest from my own experience. I don’t believe them, I know them. I don’t have the same grasp on the Third and Fourth, but from my attempts to follow the path, it seems like there’s something in them and they are worth pursuing. Karma is kinda interesting; I haven’t seen the point of reincarnation yet, except to make a circular system. It doesn’t mean anything to me. The Buddha was apparently speaking from experience when he discussed reincarnation, having full memory of all his past lives. I don’t have any experience that allows me to relate to that. If I become Enlightened and that suddenly becomes relevant, OK fine. I’m happy to wait till then.
For a long time I didn’t call myself a Buddhist. Now I do. It seems like I fit into a community of Western Buddhists. If I’m not a real Buddhist because I don’t believe (or disbelieve) in reincarnation, that’s fine with me. I don’t care about the label, I just want to end my suffering. But I will continue to listen to Buddhist teachers, read Buddhist texts, hang out with Buddhist people and follow what I understand of the Buddhist path, because it works the best for me of everything I’ve tried. You could call the term convenient, sure.
It seems irrelevant to me whether or not I’m a real Buddhist or a semi-quasi-fake Buddhist. Who is judging? What difference does it make?
I don’t consider it a matter of mere convenience. The true question for me is: What role should this doctrine play in my life? Should I spend any time at all considering whether this is literally true or not? Does arguing on a message board about whether I’m a “Real Buddhist” alleviate my suffering? 
Here’s a particularly good article written by a Therevada Buddhist monk on the issue of the “self”. I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to apply what was written to how I feel about speculating on reincarnation.
Nice Username / Post
I’ve taken apart what Olivesmarch4th said and added citations. Unfortunately, they’re from Wikipedia, but I don’t have access to my books.
From Wikipedia, on Buddhism Rebirth (Buddhism) - Wikipedia
“Buddhist meditation teachers suggest that through careful observation of the mind, it is possible to see consciousness as being a sequence of conscious moments rather than a continuum of awareness. Each moment is an experience of an individual mind-state: a thought, a memory, a feeling, a perception. A mind-state arises, exists and, being impermanent, ceases following which the next mind-state arises. Thus the consciousness of a sentient being can be seen as a continuous series of birth and death of these mind-states. In this context rebirth is simply the persistence of this process.”
Okay, pretty much what Olivesmarch4th said, there is no self, you’re constantly being reborn, except when you die, and then it’s even more so.
From Wikipedia on Samsara Saṃsāra (Buddhism) - Wikipedia
“*Saṃsāra, a Sanskrit and Pāli term which translates as “continuous movement” or “continuous flowing”, which, in Buddhism, refers to the concept of a cycle of birth (jāti), and consequent decay and death (jarāmaraṇa), in which all beings in the universe participate, and which can only be escaped through enlightenment.” *
-snip-
"According to the Buddha, the beginning point of Saṃsāra is not evident, just as there is no beginning point to a circle. All beings have been suffering in Saṃsāra for an unimaginable period, and they continue to do so until the attainment of nirvana."
Okay, Samsara is the world of rebirth, where we are now, and will be for the foreseeable future, unless we get on the stick.
Wikipedia on Nirvana Nirvana - Wikipedia
“The Buddha described Nirvana as the perfect peace of the state of mind that is free from craving, anger and other afflictive states (kilesas). The subject is at peace with the world, has compassion for all and gives up obsessions and fixations. This peace is achieved when the existing volitional formations are pacified, and the conditions for the production of new ones are eradicated. The Buddha in the Dhammapada says of nirvana that it is “the highest happiness”. This happiness is an enduring, transcendental happiness integral to the calmness attained through enlightenment or bodhi, rather than the happiness derived from impermanent things. The knowledge accompanying nirvana is expressed through the word bodhi”
So Nirvana is the cessation of desire and attachment. If you wanted to actually be pedantic, you might be able to argue that Olives ought to have said ‘Satori’ or ‘Bodhi’, versus ‘Nirvana’, but even that point is going to be pretty debatable. I suspect you are thinking of ‘Parinirvana’, that is, the physical death of an enlightened being, with no further rebirth to occur.
So Olivesmarch4th knows exactly what she’s talking about, and made a good, short description of a commonly held mainstream view of Buddhism, Samsara and Nirvana. Unfortunately, I don’t have access to my library right now, because I suspect Olivesmarch4th has read Thich Nhat Hanh, and that I could find more direct and relevant quotes in his works.
I have to say, I found your comments a bit snarky, Chief Pedant, and suggest that you owe Olivesmarch4th an apology.
I am sorry.
Very sorry. I get a little surly when any religion starts to pretend they have some sort of Real Insight (aka Enlightenment) that has no substance in science and it turns out they are just using words that sound Deep but convey nothing (as in, “I am Reborn, moment by moment” or “There is no self, you’re constantly being reborn, except when you die, and then it’s even more so”). Then they get pinworms, or something, and it turns out they haven’t been Reborn at all; same old digestive tract and the next day the pinworms are still there, and they won’t achieve happiness without mebendezole. OM…
(Fortunately, you can pretty much say whatever you want to Buddhists b/c they just Zen it out.)
I do have a question, though, for the Buddhist:
What fundamental thing/approach/belief/creed/behaviour makes one a Buddhist, without which one is not a Buddhist and with which one is definitely a Buddhist?
I say this without rancor - it was pretty obvious that your underlying issue is with the generalized notion of Religion. So long as buddhism is a “philosophy” without any of this “silly sky unicorn crap” it’s ok - But Buddhism-as-religion must by definition = Sky Unicorn Crap, and anyone who denies this isn’t a true Buddhist. Watching the argument was like watching someone wrestle water.
I think, Chief Pedant the primary error in your understanding is well demonstrated by your “pinworm” argument. You seem to argue that Buddhism is the sort of thing that one follows in hopes that “Enlightenment” will cure their pinworms - the standard attempt to directly transpose one religion on another. It doesn’t work here.
One Buddhist might get the pinworms treated by a doctor. Another Buddhist might decide not to. If a disciple were to ask their mentor what to do, the mentor would likely use the situation as an opportunity to teach some aspect of the 8-Fold path. This would include meditaiton, but not with the idea that meditation would kill the pinworms. Just help the student (theoretically) along their path w/r/t pinworms.
In essence, they only way an infection of pinworms should affect a Buddhist’s path is that they are on it.
Similarly, Buddhism isn’t concerned with being enlightened about the Universe - for that, clearly science is the best tool. Enlightenment has nothing to do with the Universe. But science isn’t great at answering how resolve conflict/pain/stress.
That’s why I’m fond of Buddhism (particularly the Zen flavor) as a Way.
In answer to your specific quesiton: IMHO look to the first post: 4 truths, 8 paths.
i think that buddhism and science are compatible philosophies because at the core of both is attempting to be objective.
Well, thanks, Attack. You saved me some work there. Yeah, love me some Thich Nhat Hanh.
Did you get my metaphor about a stubbed toe, though? Does that explanation make sense?
You seem to interpret the Buddhist concept of happiness as being free from pain. That’s not the case at all. Pain is a part of life and no amount of meditation will prevent it.
Pinworms no doubt suck, but there are more skillful ways than others in dealing with having them, you know what I mean? Mentally we resist unpleasant experiences until the act of resistance actually makes the experience worse. We bemoan our fate, catastrophize about the future, and generally feel sorry for ourselves. Rather than merely writhing in the agony of physical pain, we add all these layers that intensify the unpleasant nature of the experience. The more we can accept the inevitability of contracting an intestinal parasite, and extend compassion to ourselves for having to experience it, the less likely we are to suffer while we’re waiting for the mebendezole to kick in.
Your point, though, is exactly why Zen Masters hit their enlightened students with sticks – to point out that they had a long way to go in accepting the inevitability of pain. It’s easy to say you’ve achieved enlightenment when you’re curled up with a good book on a sunny beach, but what happens when it’s 6am and you’re shoveling a foot of snow off the top of your car for the tenth time this Winter? How do you choose to react?
It’s not a mundane insight, and it’s not a magic thing, either – as I stated before, this stuff is heavily grounded in cognitive behavioral theory and has been proven to help those suffering with mental illness. I’m talking about very pragmatic stuff here, very realistic stuff. There is no deeper meaning–this is it. This world with its inevitable injustice and pain is going to exist whether we want it or not, so we might as well just accept it.
One thing I have noticed, though, is that people who intentionally seek out Buddhism and identify with it really do have to be experienced sufferers. My husband is a perfectly content person, I would argue he’s achieved far more enlightenment than myself and he’s never meditated a day in his life. Things just don’t bother him. He gets upset, but he doesn’t dwell. He doesn’t suffer. He’s just wired that way.
But some of us… some of us are born (or in my case, made) neurotic. We are cursed with these brains constantly trying to undermine everything we do. We are trapped in the samsara of our own thought processes. We struggle every moment with attachment and aversion, with self-judgment, self-hatred, guilt, etc. If you don’t, well you’ve probably already figured it out. Buddha said, ‘‘work out your own salvation,’’ and he was a skeptic too. Not a god, just a man who experimented with myriad ways of approaching the question of suffering and finally found the answer he was looking for.
To answer your question, my understanding is that what makes Buddhism Buddhism is a belief in the Four Noble Truths. According to wikipedia another commonality is belief in the Buddha, the Dharma (scripture) and the Sangha (the community.) What constitutes ‘‘scripture’’ is debatable, because there are thousands of Buddhist texts and not all Buddhists agree on which ones count.
i think buddhism is a philosophy because it can be followed without any spiritual aspects. claim can be made that spiritual aspects are there in some schools because of its transition from or introduction to an existing culture and that those spiritual aspects are metaphorical.
buddhism can be practiced for its effect alone in this life at this time and be beneficial.
My understanding was that Buddhism was a philosophy, as it lacked dogma.
elbows it depends on what definition of “dogma” you use. A quick perusal of “dogma” definitions from web sources shows only a few definitions that would split Buddhism off from religion.
Surely the Four Divine Truths and Eightfold Path meet the definition of “authoritative principle held to be an absolute truth”, at least according to Buddhists. If the definition requires “authorization” from some sort of central body (E.G. a Church) then Buddhism is non-dogmatic.