Do you have a source that that? For example one of the “seven factorsof enlightenment” is said to be joy so I doubt that Buddhism considers all joy to be an illusion.
Buddha came to the conclusion that suffering didn’t lead to wisdom. Which, so long as we’re still paying attention to the OP, is a valuable lesson non-believers can learn from Buddhism. I think we’ve all known people who experienced pain without actually learning something from the experience.
Seriously, I thought it was pretty obvious I was aware that the desire was the problem. The Slurpee was just what I chose to use as an example.
Edit: Dammit, I haven’t had a Slurpee in more than a decade. Now I want one and I don’t live in a state with a 7-11. Darn you, Four Noble Truths!
Yes, but I think what other posters are disagreeing with is your assumption that Buddhism automatically equates joy with desire as something to be surmounted:
Yes, attachment does lead to suffering, but no, joy does not necessarily imply attachment (although for most of us non-experts in non-attachment, it’s very hard to separate the two). As Lantern pointed out, Buddhists
In other words, to paraphrase Gyrate:
“If you have a Slurpee, enjoy drinking your Slurpee. If you do not have a Slurpee, do not desire a Slurpee. It is the desire, not the enjoyment, that causes suffering.”
“See? We told you so.” 
True, if a little pedantic, and totally missing the point about people who have no religious belief.
All slurpees aside, I’ve been an armchair Buddhist [Shambhala Tradition] for many years, [Read recovering from Catholicism], and first of all we cannot be all lumped into the same singing bowl. What can non-believers learn from Buddhism? Well, one of the current mainstream theories is to simply learn the principle of Sufficiency. What does it mean to live a sufficient life?
Let’s back up slightly and I will put this in as simple terms as possible - [I’m not very good at Sanskrit anyway] - but the modern, western view of the world is based on consumption [all religious beliefs aside] - and it has been since Gautama Buddha sat under the Bodi tree [around 500 BC.] Buddha simple means awake…and as a westerner, I may think that I am awake: My eyes are open, I am typing on my laptop, and I am moving through daily life. However, in it’s most simple terms, awake truly means aware of life. Aware of our reactions and relations to wealth, health, healing, inter-personal relationships, love and earth.
Buddhism does not worship anything in the common sense of the word worship, however, Buddhists are seeking and do seek to be awake in life. Meditation is one path to awakenment [my word] and is a very fruitful tool for an individual to use in their daily lives. It allows us to slow down for a moment, open our airways and concentrate on the breath. This brings us to the present moment: when we are present we are more attentive to all facets of our life including: interpersonal relationships, money management, love, our place on this rock, and other life around us.
All life - sentient or not - is “sacred”, it holds value in that it is alive. The four noble truths - if you read into them support the role of the awakened individual moving through this life. What are their benefits? Well now we come back to sufficiency and understanding what we as human beings need on a daily basis - and more importantly, what we do not need on a daily basis (attachment means not only to things, but to ideas and beliefs as well). My first education about this came when I began to sit everyday for 20-minutes, I began to feel an openness that I had not felt in many years - a letting go to the natural, uninhibited life force that moved me throughout the day. This awareness is the cornerstone of Buddhism and it moves through every person on the planet effortlessly.
I do not have time to go into it right now, but I will come back to this thread and most more…but in the end [of this post] Buddhism can teach non-believers that living a sufficient life means re-learning how to breath - in fact, it means to first be aware that we are breathing. Seems simple? Well, ask yourself how often you have simply listened to yourself breathe?
Great article on the question: Is Buddhism a Religion. it gives some great explanations about Buddhism.
I think one of the biggest problems with the question posed here is that the differences among Buddhist traditions are quite large. Even within Thai Buddhism, two sincere believers will often come to opposite conclusions about something, and yet neither would be regarded as wrong.
Buddhism, at least the forms that I am somewhat familiar with, lacks any strong dogma. About the only thing that I think all Buddhists would agree on is that meditation and joining the monkhood are good things to do. But perhaps I overstate.
I am a strong Atheist, but I am actually quite attracted to the non-supernatural aspects of Thai Buddhism. The problem is that taking out the supernatural from Thai Buddhism is like trying to extract the flesh from a watermelon without opening it first. There are good seeds in there, but is it really worth the effort?
Absolutely. I’ve been with a couple of different Buddhist groups over the years, and many seminars. There are many semantic rephrasings out there of the 4 noble truths but, IMO, as written they should be observational truths instead of assertive truths.
The versions I prefer are closer to this:
- Suffering exists
- A cause of suffering exists
- A solution to suffering exists
- A solution is the eightfold path
Shown slightly differently here:
Disclaimer: I’m atheist. I’m not formally Buddhist, nor do I believe in the spiritual reincarnation mystic portions. My personal moral philosophy most closely follows the 4 truths and 8-fold path.
Sorry, what point is that? I have no idea what you’re referring to.
One teaching is the difference between belief/non belief in a deity and practice / non practice in a religion and how they are not synonymous nor interchangeable nor from one you should assume the other.
I suppose in that respect there’s a similar problem to that which athiests might have with the Abrahamic religions; lessening problems or victories of one life on the promise of betterment in the next. Things can get better, despite the fact that the assumption requires that your personal standards of superiority are made unworkable by this future ideal. It’s an illogical motivation.
Buddhism claims you can taste this higher happiness while you are still alive. While I haven’t reached Nirvana yet, I’m a lot happier now than I was before I discovered the Dharma.
I spend little time in my spiritual practice looking at some future ideal. I look closely at my actions, my motivations, my intentions, my beliefs, to see what I’m doing to cause myself suffering and stress in the present moment. Then I let go of those things which are causing me stress.
What, no Mahayana Buddhists here?
One key thing about Buddhism is that the existence of the Buddha himself does not really matter. The truths that Buddhism teaches would still be true even if no one knew about them, much like, say, the existence of gravity was true before Newton. Most introductions to Buddhism start with a biography of the Buddha, as if he was special. But he wasn’t special (ETA: not special in the sense that he did not create the truth, most Buddhists would claim he was a special guy for other reasons, and I don’t disagree), he just happened to be the person in our historical records who not only achieved enlightenment but taught other people how to do it and serves as a preeminent example of what is possible. If we somehow managed to prove incontrovertibly that the Buddha as he is known did not exist, it would not be a crisis for Buddhism the way, say, proving Muhammad did not exist would be for Islam. It would just mean that the truth was arrived at in a different way then we thought. So, challenging the validity of the stories surrounding the historical Buddha, as many challenge the traditions surrounding the historical Jesus or Joseph Smith, is not a useful strategy.
In the Mahayana tradition, having Bodhisattvas (enlightened souls (A more Buddhist way to say it would be chains of thought-moments) (of maybe little-g gods) who choose to forsake Nirvana temporarily in order to help other people on earth achieve it because compassion must be a result of enlightenment) running around does lend itself to more of this criticism. They have to maintain a certain behavior, after all. When the 6th Dalai Lama proved to enjoy drinking and carousing with women, he was quickly exiled and “mysteriously” died on the way to Beijing. Not exactly what you would expect from the God of Compassion.
With this in mind, when we look at the Buddha, he did not restrict himself to limiting orthodoxy to what he happened to teach. There is a famous story where, walking with his groupies, he picks up some leaves and says, “The truths I have taught you are like the leaves in my hand. The truths I have not taught you are like leaves in the forest.” New truths that are discovered through scientific inquiries are not necessarily worrisome to Buddhists. So attacking Buddhists’ conception of the natural world is not really useful.
Perhaps the most viable criticism of Buddhism is one that plagues all belief systems - If this stuff is true, and you are following it, why are you still all messed up? Certainly in Buddhist cultures, the “bad monk” is not unknown. Mongolian Buddhist monks were almost comical in their notoriety. “Dob Dobs” were Tibetan Buddhist worker monks who my former Professor lovingly dubbed “punk monks.” But in Buddhism, again, the knowledge itself is the truth, independent of how many follow it, and it’s up to the individual to make a judgement on that level.
Another thing is that gods in Buddhist traditions can be omniscient and omnipresent, but they are typically not omnipotent. Lots of Buddhists pray to various gods for protection and favors but they don’t usually expect guaranteed results or perfect protection.
I’m under the impression that being a human, in Buddhist timelines, is something that happens really rarely in a person’s chain of moments. Because Karma is expended throughout a person’s life, someone living in a bad way, or even a normal way, would not just “come back” as a poor person but would be sent lower on the food chain, or even to one of the really low layers, where it takes a thousand eons to get back to being human. For many Buddhists, their aim is not even to get to enlightenment, but instead to get to one of the higher realms, where everything is awesome and you live for a really really really long time. These places are more of a vacation then a path to enlightenment, because if your life and everyone else’s is really awesome, it’s hard to really grasp the 4 noble truths and therefore harder to attain enlightenment than being a human is, which is sort of the sweet spot in the layers of different life.
One thing Buddhism offers to non-believers in the West, I think, is a worldview that rejects the concept of Self. A lot of non-religious (and religious too!) people are unaware how much of their worldview is shaped by philosophical movements and theological forces from the past that built the societies we lived in. If nothing else, Buddhism can expose preconceived notions as exactly that through its unfamiliar lens.
Is there any life left in this thread?
It gets more interesting to look at the different sects of Buddhism. When looking at the Zen sect, a practitioner starts skeptical and then at some point, there is an experience that is not quite explainable. By this time, a person has seen changes in their life but still knows there is a lot more work ahead.
Beliefs do not really change anything, it has to be experiential. For some, it was a traumatic experience that led to forming inappropriate habitual patterns of behavior. It takes time to undo that kind of experience.
as far as “messed up” monks, it takes a lot to reach the bottom of the mess. We have only the Buddha as an example of perfect of enlightenment, and even that was word of mouth.
btw, bodhisattva — soul is not quite right, enlightened being is better.
I believe the one thing Buddhism has in common with all other religions is that that they have found ways to access our store of nuero chemicals. Some religions use methods that seem to elevate the levels of euphoric chemicals while Buddhism does seem to use methods that promote a good healthy ballance. It does not take a genius to see how the different rituals practiced by the various churches affect the followers. The same applies to Buddhism. As far as I can tell they avoid the super highs thus leaving them less vulnerable to the super lows. Anything institution or person that has followers has found ways to access our nuero chemicals. Buddhism is no different in that respect.
Putting it that way raises the possibility of a sense-freak religion that seeks the highs and lows and that otherwise turns every value of Buddhism on its head.
Here’s a Zen koan I’ve never really understood:
Zen student: Master, I’ve been here three weeks. When do I start becoming enlightened?
Master: Have you had breakfast yet?
Student: Yes.
Master: Go and wash the bowl.
OK, I get it. What I don’t get is, if that’s all there is to enlightenment . . . why do you have to go to a monastery for it?
There is more to it. It is not unusual for it to take 6 years to pass your first koan.
and that is after 3 years of working with your breath. (that is as a lay student, I do not know about monks.)
lots of work being done on meditation and neuroscience. not so much access the chemicals but re-route the neuro pathways, change the firing of the chemical/ electrical synapses.