Way of the Mind Forum

I just came across the following quote the Dalai Lama made:

"If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."

I am not Tibetan Buddhist, but I would agree with this. I find this an interesting statement given the conversations about the God-centric religions.

What are your thoughts?

I thought Buddhism was an atheistic religion? Or is that only particular types/sects/groups?

I think this is one reason why many younger people turn to Buddhism, is because it offers peace and flexibility without the "YOU DIE, YOU DIE AND YOU GO TO HELL" of some parts of Christianity.

Jim: interesting. I think I've seen the Dalai Lama say something similar to that one; I think it had to do with reincarnation ("if science proves it doesn't happen, we'll change... but I think it will be very hard to disprove it" (not exact quote, but the meaning was that)).

I've read Wikipedia and other sources of info, but since you're an "inside source", please tell us: did Buddhism originally have gods or anything to be worshipped?

And how is it today? Do most Buddhist sects worship something these days, or not?

This is not a "let him answer and trap himself". I really want to know.

First, you have always been up front in your posts - both on the blog and on here - so I would not assume you to be trying to trip me up!

As an "inside source" I have to say that I can't speak for all Buddhists by any means. I don't say that as a cop-out, but as a reflection of Buddhism itself. My understanding is that in the beginning, and now, there are no "gods" we worship. If we worship anything (and I use this term loosely), it is the primacy of our own experience.

The Buddha is/was nothing more than a human being who recognized the 4 truths of existence (the Buddhist word for it - I won't argue the use of the word "truth" here). 1-Life is suffering ( not as negative as it sounds!); 2-Attachment is the cause of suffering; 3-Suffering can be ended; and 4-The path to end suffering.

All of the Buddhist texts I have read harken back to these principles. Additionally, we are not taught to worship anyone outside of us in the pursuit of this. You may have heard the statement, "If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him." This (on a simplistic level) only means that if you meet something outside yourself that purports to "teach you" then you must turn from it. Of course, then we go on to say that 'nothing is outside.'

If you go into a Buddhist temple today you will see people bowing to representations of the Buddha or the various Bodhisattvas (enlightened beings whose goal is to help others become enlightened) - but what they are bowing to (at least what I have been taught, and believe) is that since we recognize that we are all already enlightened (although we don't usually realize it or act in a way that accepts this) then we are really bowing to ourselves.

Why I said earlier I can't speak for all Buddhists its because one thing that Buddhism has done throughout the years is that as it enters each new culture it adapts to the culture. It maintains the basic tenets, but the practices and trappings often reflect the new culture. That is why Tibetan Buddhism and Zen Buddhism look different. I happen to practice Zen and, while the group I practice with still maintains many of the Japanese traditions, it is slowly adapting to the culture in the U.S.

Are there Buddhists out there that might disagree with my characterizations? Probably. And this is not to say that there have not been disagreements among Buddhists either. But I will say that, to the best of my knowledge, there have been no crusades, holy wars, or jihads started by Buddhists. (Although that does not mean Buddhists have not participated in fighting or other such activities.)

The more I write, the more I realize I can add. However, I'll stop here for now and allow others to chime in and/or ask other questions. I must stress I am not an expert - although practicing for over 10 years, there is much I am still learning.

XTimmy -

I have never heard it described as thus, but if you are using atheistic to mean no belief in a god then I would say you are probably correct. However, I will also say that there are probably groups that believe in some things that might be construed to be gods as we have talked about.

I also agree with your comment on why it is appealing. To me it was because it was about improving myself - not about pleasing someone else.

Heh, sorry. I have been playing Phoenix Wright 2 almost continuously for the last 3 days or so; it's an adventure game where you play a defense attorney, and a big part of it is catching witnesses in contradictions. For some reason, I almost believed that you would be expecting me to do something like that... Uh... never mind.

As to the rest of your (excellent) reply, I have a few questions indeed...

"Life is suffering" sounds negative indeed - both because it's the opposite of what I believe (life is what we make of it), and because it sounds frighteningly like what a great many Christians believe. Not all of them, just the "rapture-obsessed", "this world is the devil's" / "this life is just a test, the next life is the real thing" kind.

If you could explain what Buddhists mean by that, I'd appreciate it.

As to "attachment is the cause of suffering", does that mean that we shouldn't care about anyone or anything? That we should be "detached" from everything? I can understand that, for instance, when you suffer a loss, you suffer because you were "attached" to that loss. Is that what you mean by "attachment"?

Thanks again, by the way.

Ah, so it's the four truths of existence (is it also referred to as "the four simple truths"?).
Trying to revitalize my old knowledge of Buddhism, do the Zen Buddhist follow the Eightfold Path (If possible could you list it? All I can remember is "Right Action")?
I sound like an unenlightened tourist here, but I remember being fascinated by Buddhism as a fourteen year old, and I'm trying to remember the stuff I learnt.

Ok... I hate to sound repetitive, but I'm not the expert. Here's my take - life is suffering refers to the idea that we want what we can't have. We look outside ourselves for the answers. We wish we could change the past. We wish "if only the future would be different." And so on. Instead of focusing on the here and now. It focuses on the idea that the suffering we experience is self-imposed. We create our own "hell" (to borrow from Christianity) on earth - not because earth is hell, but because of our expectations of what things should be like.

It is really the opposite of what you say - it is about recognizing that the here and now, and all that entails, is worth experiencing. Yes, some Buddhists believe in reincarnation - but not as an escape from their current life, but as a reminder that our actions now have consequences, although we may not know when those consequences will occur. In my particular Sangha (community) reincarnation is not really stressed or discussed, my teacher feels (and I agree with him) that too much discussion about reincarnation takes away from what is happening right now in front of us. If I understand what you mean by your philosophy of "life is what you make of it," then it means much the same thing. You will suffer if you spend all your mental energy on things you cannot control and ignore that which is happening around you. You will enjoy life if you focus on those things that are meaningful.

Yes... and no. The Noble Truths are koans in and of themselves (zen riddles which often have different levels of interpretation). On one level there is non-attachment in the sense that I do not dwell on things. I do not focus on what I can't have, and yes - when my wife dies, not to spend the rest of my life thinking how wonderful it was when she was alive and ignore living the rest of my life. On the other hand, Buddhists see everything as completely connected - a vast One. So in that sense, non-attachment means that I am not attached to the idea that my wife, my daughter, my car, etc. is separate from me. When they are hurt, I am sad, when they are happy, I am happy - but because I see them as one with me. So, in reality, I am not detached - I am supremely attached... but as soon as I see that I put a separation between myself and them. How can we be 'attached' if we are one and the same? How can we speak of non-attachment if there is no separation?

See how this can go around and around? I know it probably won't hold up to TX's logic, but Buddhists would see that as an attachment as well. This is a hard one to describe, and I am doing a poor job, I know - but I think this explains it as well as I can.

All I ask is that no one judge all of Buddhism based on my imperfect explanation. There are tons of much better writers on the subject that can be found in many bookstores (although I will be the first one to say - don't take my word for it, if you want to truly understand you have to experience it).

Actually, they are called the Four Noble Truths:

1. Life is suffering.
2. Desire is the cause of suffering.
3. Suffering can be ceased.
4. The way to stop suffering is the Eightfold Path.
   

The Eightfold Path is:

1. Right View
2. Right Thought
3. Right Speech
4. Right Action
5. Right Livelihood
6. Right Effort
7. Right Mindfulness
8. Right Contemplation
   

Yes, my understanding is that all Buddhists practice (on some level) the Eightfold Path since it is essentially an outgrowth of the 4 Noble Truths.

I think one thing that drew me to Buddhism is the fact that they are not seeking converts. They provide teachings if you want them, but they fully respect if you decide it is not for you. There is no talk of your going to hell or being reincarnated as a cockroach if you choose a different path.

From what I know of buddhism, I can offer a view.
1. I live in LA, and was very poor for a long time. EVERY religion out there has followers who FEED off of the poor. Free work for your sins! Seriousely, Xianity, The Unification church, Judaism, ESPECIALLY the fuckin' Scientologists. Not budhism. And (I think I posted this somewhere on WOTM before) When I went to a budhist temple here, one of my first questions was about the bowing to LITTERAL golden statues, the prophesor there told me it was a reminder of... something. Shit I forgot... but it was nothing about the golden part of it. Esencially, you could be bowing to nothing.

Hmm, this is making me curious. Kren, any more details? Jim, any ideas?

In Buddhism we are taught that each of us is already the realized Buddha. We are already enlightened. "Perfect, whole, complete as we are," is how one of my teachers said it.

Bowing to the Buddha (or Bodhisattva, depending on the statue) is merely a physical manifestation of bowing to oneself. There is no "other," so bowing to a statue is not bowing to something outside yourself. I remember my teacher talking about how bowing was so hard for Americans (my branch of Buddhism is Zen - lately from Japan - where bowing is part of the culture). Mainly because we (as Americans) tended to look at bowing as some sort of submission to someone else. He made it clear that this was wrong-thinking.

He did say it could be seen as submission to oneself, but he thought it was better to think of it as expressing reverence for the Buddha-nature already present in oneself.

And the color (golden or otherwise) has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Does that make sense?

Kren - I'm curious which temple in LA you went to. I have been to the Zen Center of LA, and the temple I attend is an offshoot of it in the San Jacinto mountains. I know there are other temples, though...

Wilshire. They have a garden which, when I was homeless, I greatly pondered sleeping in. But I thought better of it.

I just came across an article about the coexistence of Buddhism and science. An interesting read.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/12/...021912.php

I just have to say, as an “outside source” to whom Buddhism has been the only set of beliefs coming close to providing a comprehensive, practical, self-responsible, self-verifiable understandment of life’s daily paradoxes, that I subscribe to all the points that you so beautifully express in your "buddhism 101" post. Very well said!

Perhaps they have, as weeds grow in the best of gardens, but even then, there isn’t the same propensity for fundamentalism in Buddhism as in dualistic religions; Buddhism de-emphasizes the self, so there isn’t half the same ego-competition, under the pretence of “serving god”. And the battle is within, not without. A "Buddhistopia", is indeed possible, as Tibet seems to demonstrate.

Just complementing Jim’s excellent rendering of it all…

The word dukha has been translated most often as suffering, but does not have that precise meaning. Much closer would be “unsatisfactoriness”, (as opposed to sukha: ease, satisfaction, joy), and that is obvious if you really look at it. Happiness, as most people idealise it, meaning unending joy or bliss, is never attainable while we spin on the cartwheel of life. Life has a systematic way of not respecting our own agenda, as to how it should unfold. Our desires are never quite met, our possessions slip through our fingers, our goals elude us. There is always a remainder of unmet expectation. No matter how much we have, how much we attain, we always crave more, and no matter what, life can never fully satisfy our thirst. That’s a fact of life, and I don’t think anyone who has ever lived can deny it.

Again, there is a common misunderstanding of what is meant here. Notice that Jim didn’t translate the origin of suffering the way it is commonly mis-rendered: as desire (well, not the 1st time around, anyway ), but used the more correct one: attachment. Because attachment (=clinging), and desire, are two different things. Desire is a healthy, and much needed, function of our beings. Desire per se is not the culprit, what we can never allow ourselves to think is that by indulging in our desires we will find happiness. That is impossible, because the satisfaction of any desire, will always leave you craving for more. So it is ignorance, this misconception as to the role of desire, and to the real way to have your desires met, that is responsible for our inevitable unsatisfactoriness. But like the dog chewing on its own leg (a very lively classical illustration of this), we don’t realise we are feeding on our own blood. And it hasn’t changed much that this wise man, named Siddharta Gautama, one day has come to this conclusion, and made its life mission to spread its wisdom among humanity. Twenty-five centuries later, we continue to chew at an ever faster rate…

Since I just joined, and the questions have been more than 2 years old I wondered if it is ok to type in my 2 cents.

If we take off the myths surrounding Buddhism and studied the origin of Buddhism, there is some basic stuff. Buddha was born Gauthama who was a prince. During the time he lived, Hinduism had taken an ugly turn. The priest class or the Brahmins held power that could even threaten the king, and there was a wide distinction and dissatisfaction between the rich and the poor, which had a lot to do with the cast system that then prevailed.

During the time of Gauthama there existed atheistic philosophers called Lokayatas, also called charvakas. The young prince was perhaps disillusioned with the then religion of his world, and was an avid learner and a philosopher in his own times. But his philosophy is not of materialism with the charvakas followed, so perhaps, their philosophy set a path for him to follow and find his own.

Buddhism at its best does not follow or worship any god, but strives to be free of the cycle of life by being good. Though Buddhism believes in the cycle of rebirth, I am not sure if it is an original concept of Buddha himself. The concept of rebirth is a very hindu concept, a kind of threat used over the common man, telling him that he suffered a bad life now because of the sins of his previous birth, and if he did not live a correct and righteous life, he was sure to have a bad next life. My guess is that this rebirth concept seeped into buddhism later. When 2 religions meet, they tend to mix a little.

Then buddhism spread to other countries like China, Japan, Srilanka, and each culture adapted buddhism into its existing religion. So we have stories of monks who use spiritualism for battle, the various incarnations of buddha, and so on and so forth. As for the question about worshiping any idol or god- Perhaps an idealist will believe that there is no worship in buddhism, but in reality, I have been to Buddhagaya. There he is worshiped. He has become a god. Perhaps those who are educated in the ways of religion see the pitfalls of religion and see buddhism as something that is not, but for the average buddhist buddha is not a philosoper but god.