Thoughts On Buddhism

[tariki]

I've not really mastered any of it. Maybe a lot of what is worthwhile begins when we try and fail and acknowledge it. That is when "mercy" can unfold, towards ourselves and then others.

 

Perhaps "success" is more problematic....(perfection, more so)

 

Anyway, comparing any two faiths, I find just listing various moral injunctions and ideals found in them falls short of doing them justice, and comparing each list with another fairly pointless. The ideals are always found in a context. I just find the Buddhist context more to my liking, especially the Pure Land version.

 

One particular Buddhist "context".............that the teachings are to be seen as a raft, for crossing over, not for grasping.

[matt67]

Can someone explain some thing to me about Buddhism. I recently read Buddhism: A Non-theistic Religion by Helmuth von Glasenapp which was written in 1954. I found it to be a concise and informative overview of Buddhism. I was surprised to find out that the atheistic arguments made today are not new.

 

I'll accept the notion that Buddhism doesn't accept the existence in a god like we in the west see god as the creator and ruler of everything. I do not really get the Buddhist acceptance of "gods" (devas) and "demons" though. Are these simply enlightened beings who have perhaps millions of lives? Also the author likens them to angels and saints, who may require a certain some veneration but who do not intercede the way we might expect angels or saint to.

 

Also, I appreciated the author's talking about how several Buddhist school deal with the authenticity of the Buddha's sayings in the various "scriptures." It seems they had this debate about the historicity of their beliefs much sooner than we in the west did with all the debate on the historical jesus. It also seems that Buddha was raised to the same level of a god as time went by, which makes me wonder sometimes about how Jesus was lifted up by the end of the first century.

[tariki]

Matt, I think we need to get away from any thought that "Buddhism" is some monolithic whole that "thinks" one thing and no other, whether about the "gods", the "devas" or anything else. Think how difficult it would be to answer a query such as "just how does Christianity understand the Second Coming of Jesus". How would anyone start? With the Catholic Church or the Jehovah's Witnesses?

 

Those in my own Pure Land way embrace a wide spectrum of understandings of Amida. From Amida as "Him out to the West" and "His" Pure Land as where "He" will take us when we die...............to Amida as the personification of Reality-as-is, Suchness, and where the Pure Land is here, now, for those with eyes to see. And, of course, all points in between!

 

The point is, no one is seen to be "right", this in the sense that ultimately truth is ineffable - that it can be lived/experienced but not "thought". At any one time our grasp of things is only a raft, for crossing over, not for for grasping.

 

As I understand it, Buddhism does not seek primarily to understand or to "believe" in Gods or devas in any particular way, just as it does not see the Buddha's enlightenment experience as some sort of solution to our problems by believing in it. It seeks rather to evoke an existential and empirical participation in such an experience.

 

Just as in Christianity, St Paul's, "Not I, but Christ lives in me" is a beacon and a truth, irrespective of any thought St Paul may or may not have had concerning Christ's "return" at some future time.

 

Sorry if such an answer seems obscure, or not even an answer at all. But the bottom line is, there are only individual Buddhists, "Buddhism" is an abstraction!

 

All the best

[matt67]

"Matt, I think we need to get away from any thought that "Buddhism" is some monolithic whole that "thinks" one thing and no other, whether about the "gods", the "devas" or anything else." If Buddhism was an "abstraction" then there wouldn't be schools of thought.

 

I'm also thinking of Buddhists like the Dalai Lama and his belief in the Bardo planes and all the demons, etc. that exist - not abstractly from what I gather. We can deconstruct Buddhism until there is nothing left of it, like we've done to Christianity. Is that what being PC is all about? Buddhists claim this about their gods and heavens and hells, despite holding an overall atheistic view. And that can differentiate them from Jainists and Hindus. I'm just wondering what they are supposed to represent. According to the author of the book I mentioned, they are likened to angels or saints in the West. Is that accurate? I'm not saying Buddhists are wrong.

MOST christians believe in a literal Second Coming. Pure Land Buddhism believes in a "heaven" like place for "believers". Why should I believe Amida? My point really then is given that karma and reincarnation are "real" or are they abstractions too, there needs to be some concrete set of beliefs in supranatural figures. This is what Buddhists say about what they believe. Even Confucius and Lao Tze accepted the reality of supranatural beings.

 

Buddhism and Hinduism are as monolithic as Western traditions in that they define themselves as part of a tradition. The 4 Noble Truths and the eightfold Path are dogmatic. Karma and reincarnation are the "laws" that govern the Buddha and his worldview, despite his proclamations. Why should we accept those as true but accept their worldview?

[Mike]

Like anything else, Buddhism is a unity in diversity. There are "de-mythologized" (quotes intentional) approaches that have grown within Buddhism itself. I think specifically of the Kyoto school; the philosophical legacies of Suzuki, Abe, Nishitani, Nishida. In any religion we can deconstruct some aspects and bring others into distinct focus. It is healthy, I think, to have a range of elements with a range of difference emphases. To say there's "nothing left" after what amounts to "de-mythologization" is not objective. What's left are ontological and epistemological elements of profound importance. Ideas like bodhisattvas do correspond to somewhat to "saints," the round of samsara has immediate applications as well as "supernatural." Even deconstruction is not the end of the story -- it can introduce new avenues. Both traditional Buddhism and Christianity have developed their own methods in deconstruction (shunyata and apophatic theology respectively).

 

I've kept "de-mythologization" in quotes because other Buddhists and Christians will disagree that their views are myth. You are correct, the supra-normal is part of the vision of these religious traditions; I don't mind this. To suggest otherwise is to ignore a substantial part of the tradition. However, to focus on these to the exclusion of other substantial aspects -- those aspects charged with potential for profound dialogue and philosophical insight, I think is wholly unwarranted. Your post seems to assume that Buddhism has no philosophy as philosophy and practice as practice that are distinguishable from its supernatural elements. The 4 Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path as such are a method of diagnosis and prognosis, and not dogma.

 

If this were true, it could not have produced the literature that it has, literature that has almost universal application for the psyche of the human being. So too with Christianity. "Myth" can express and reinforce some very profound metaphysical insights. Or myth can be seen not as myth but real. Indeed, karma and rebirth are seen as real in Buddhism. Does this close the door to dialogue and mutual influence? Not in my experience.

 

I also think it is needful to say that most Buddhists are cultural Buddhists, just like most Christians are cultural Christians. As essential as meditation is to Buddhist philosophy and the teachings of the Buddha, most Buddhists don't meditate. Not even all monks meditate. When a religion grows interdependently with a broader culture, many variables and ambiguities are bound to present themselves. We know this from Christianity, too. So even though two people may identify as Buddhist or Christian, there can be profound -- deeply profound -- differences in what that means. Your average twice-per-year church goer whose religion is a matter of cultural identity is not going to have the same perspective as, say, N.T. Wright. Strangely, the former may feel more certain of what he believes than Bishop Wright, who has approached his faith with all the subtle categories of an intellectual and scholar. The same holds true for Buddhism or any other major religion.

 

Peace,

Mike

[matt67]

The 4 Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path cut right to the heart of things, just like Jesus' words, which is what I think he means that he comes bearing a sword. That image of him coming in the clouds in the Book of Revelation, which I don't take literally, evokes the same message. Too bad people take that literally.

[JenellYB]

yes, I think that is excellent metaphor.

 

Jenell