Buddhism

[DragonLady]

*Insert "alleged" at all the right places. The alleged historical Buddha, his alleged teachings, what he allegedly taught, etc.

Why alleged? Isn't it pretty well established he was a real person? It's my understanding that most of his life was chronicled (at least orally), and that the sites of his birth and death are well known?

 

[Chanakya]

Why alleged? Isn't it pretty well established he was a real person? It's my understanding that most of his life was chronicled (at least orally), and that the sites of his birth and death are well known?

The chronicling proper was done long after the man passed away, so who knows how much of what was chronicled was actually what the man had actually said?

But you're right, I haven't heard any serious doubts voiced about his existence, ever.

In any case the personal history of the Buddha is, to me, of only passing interest. It isn't central to what Buddha allegedly taught (or to what he taught, without the "allegedly", if you prefer it that way). His teachings are impacted not one shred by the man's actually having lived or not, or by his having taught what he did or not. Unlike Jesus, for instance, or Muhammad (PBUH), the personal details of the Buddha don't impact his core teachings in any way. At least that's my understanding, how I look at it.

 

[DragonLady]

Well, allegedly, he's the author of one of my favorite quotes:

“There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth: not going all the way, and not starting.”

I remind myself of it often.

 

[Dancing David]

What I find really fascinating about the Buddha was that he was able to talk of "no self" at a time when the actual knowledge then extant came nowhere close to suggesting that our "self" might be wholly fictional. (Not just in the sense that we're actually emanations of something infinitely bigger, that sort of thought did exist obviously, but in the sense, simply, that there simply isn't a "we".)

HOW did the man, in the total absence of any kind of knowledge (neurological or otherwise) that might suggest such a thing, arrive at this remarkable conclusion? Not just as speculation, but allegedly with such surety that he based his entire life around that notion?

That, to me, is the enduring "mystery" about the Buddha, and Buddhism. Might that suggest that there might be something in his "method" after all?

It might have been after the snails covered their head to protect him from the sun.

 

[Dancing David]

We haven’t interacted before this, Dancing David, but I’ve gone through many of your posts on this forum, especially on Buddhism, including threads going back a very long way. You seem very knowledgeable on this subject, Buddhism I mean, the secular portions of it.

What you say there, in the part I’ve quoted, you may have meant merely in jest, it is sometimes difficult to tell from purely textual conversation. If that is the case, then please ignore the rest of my post.



In case you meant that literally, then I find this sort of talk very off-putting. They say this sort of thing in all kinds of mystic literature, be it Sufi, or Buddhist, or Hindu, or even Christian mystic. I find this kind of obscurantism bordering on the disingenuous. It lets you say all kinds of profound-sounding things without in fact actually saying anything at all. A very convenient cover for lack of knowledge.

In my experience, while obscurantism is part and parcel of most mystic systems, these deep-sounding nothings are uttered most often by the Daoists as well as the (neo-)Advaitins. I’m afraid I’m with vittoricq on this one : if you’ve really got something to say, either in terms of a concept or construct, or in terms of some perception, or in terms of some world-view, then no matter how complex it is, if you know what you’re talking about then you’re usually able, if you take the trouble, to actually talk about it. Perhaps indirectly, perhaps in a very simplified manner, perhaps with the aid of an overabundance of analogies, whatever, but if you know what you’re talking about then you’ll usually be able to convey it fairly well even to the layperson. If all you say is apparently incomprehensible gibberish, then probably what you have to begin with is itself incomprehensible gibberish.

Incidentally, I keep on saying “you”. I don’t mean “you” personally, naturally, I meant that generally. That’s one difficulty I have with Daoism, what little I’ve read and heard about it. No one seems to be able to say what exactly it is, or even, at a more practical level, what it is for and why you should strive for it, without going all circular-logic about it. That goes for some neo-Advaitins as well, although not so much for (traditional) Advaita proper. Other “systems”, religions, at least you can understand what they are saying (although you’ll probably not agree with them) ; even Zen, although it has all those mind-bending koans etc as part of its formalized method, the fundamental base of the system is clear enough, you know what they’re at, basically. But with Daoism, the root of it is so very obscure and ultimately unitelligible that you don’t even know whether to agree or not. You have no option but to step over it and leave it without really understanding it at all.

Which could, perhaps, merely be a long-winded way of saying only that I myself don’t understand Daoism, nothing more. (Although I do understand, somewhat, the other systems that I’ve read about, so perhaps it isn’t just me.)

If you’ve any views about this I’d love to know. (And if you’d said that only jokingly, and not really meant it seriously, then I’m sorry for going off on this tangential and lengthy derail!)



This thread has already gotten derailed somewhat, and I realize I am pushing it further away from the OP’s question. Perhaps a separate thread? Except I’m only requesting for your views about this one aspect, specifically about your understanding of the Dao in light of what I’m asking, and perhaps that won’t take more than one post from you?

Hi,
I was cutting partsceptic off at the pass, to characterize daoism as a cultural practice is an easy although often a strange journey.

However the blanket statements that partsceptic was making about the dao and daoism itself were my target. The writings on the dao are interesting in that dao is discussed but never defined. At least in tehe arlier texts.

I did not mean to put you off, more just challenge partsceptic

 

[PartSkeptic]

I am certainly NOT derailing this thread.

IMO I am adding clarity to some of the woo-like-speak I am reading here.

You guys don't like your illusions of Buddhism (or Hinduism or Taoism) to be challenged? Tough. You tell me I am wrong but do not say why. Yeah right.

From where I sit, some of you want a secular religion, with its mystery and mystique. You want to improve your life, but not your soul.

Having brought some clarity, I can start answering the OP. Which I will.

 

[Hokulele]

Have you?

I was trying to get an online free download of the Pali Canon.

Yes, I have read the Pali Canon, the 4 Vedas, 2 of the Gitas, the Tao de Ching, and the collected writings attributed to Chuang Tzu. In addition, I have read the bible in its entirety in two different translations, several of the non-canonical acts, the Quran, the Tanakh, books by Shinto priests, and a very interesting book by a Vodou priest.

So yes, when I discuss various religions, their origins, and their central tenets, I am basing it on the actual texts, not what I want them to mean to fit my own personal beliefs.

Based on what you have written about Buddhism, it looks like you are desperately trying to warp it to conform to your personal experiences, rather than accepting it for what it is. At its core, Buddhism is about accepting the fact that the universe isn't fair, and learning to deal with it. Your suffering isn't because you were a bad person in your previous life, nor because you are a bad person now, it is just because life is like that. In a nutshell, Buddhism can be boiled down to, "It is what it is, deal with it!"

It then gives you some advice on how to deal with it. Note that none of the supernatural elements can be appealed to to intervene on your behalf, they are just as unfair as the rest of life. Granted, people have grafted this onto Buddhism (Kannon, for example), but people will often drift into irrationality to cope with their issues, as that is far easier than coming to terms with existence as it is.

 

[Hokulele]

Incidentally, I keep on saying “you”. I don’t mean “you” personally, naturally, I meant that generally. That’s one difficulty I have with Daoism, what little I’ve read and heard about it. No one seems to be able to say what exactly it is, or even, at a more practical level, what it is for and why you should strive for it, without going all circular-logic about it. That goes for some neo-Advaitins as well, although not so much for (traditional) Advaita proper. Other “systems”, religions, at least you can understand what they are saying (although you’ll probably not agree with them) ; even Zen, although it has all those mind-bending koans etc as part of its formalized method, the fundamental base of the system is clear enough, you know what they’re at, basically. But with Daoism, the root of it is so very obscure and ultimately unitelligible that you don’t even know whether to agree or not. You have no option but to step over it and leave it without really understanding it at all.

Which could, perhaps, merely be a long-winded way of saying only that I myself don’t understand Daoism, nothing more. (Although I do understand, somewhat, the other systems that I’ve read about, so perhaps it isn’t just me.)

If you’ve any views about this I’d love to know. (And if you’d said that only jokingly, and not really meant it seriously, then I’m sorry for going off on this tangential and lengthy derail!)

As usual, I strongly recommend reading the Tao de Ching (it really is an easy read, regardless of the mystique around it), and I recommend even more strongly reading the collected works of Chuang Tzu. He is one of the few religious/philosophical writers who approach things from a humorous slant. Most of his teachings are in parable form, and poke fun at his co-philosophers. Many of the things he says are meant to be parody or satire of religion, rather than beliefs.

For example, this line occurs in a passage describing a carpenter who walked by an enormous tree, considering its wood to be useless for anything practical.

"This tree is certainly good for nothing," said Tzu Chi. "This is why it has grown so large. Ah-ha! This is the sort of uselessness that sages live by."

One thing you have to realize, is that understanding that life is full of contradictions, and even embracing those contradictions, is part of the heart of Taoism. In the previous quote, the tree is useless to the woodcutter, but because of this, it is the largest tree in the district, so its useless provides a benefit to itself. The last sentence is an awareness of the benefit of uselessness as well as a poke at the people who spend their entire life being, well, useless!

You can think of Taoism as a system of accepting, not necessarily understanding, life as it is, and how to essentially "go with the flow". It is about learning what battles to pick, how to accept what can't be changed, and how to work with the circumstances you are given. For example, from the Tao de Ching, "The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful."

Probably my very favorite parable from Taoism is again from Chuang Tzu:

Cook Ting was cutting up an ox for Lord Wen-hui. As every touch of his hand, every heave of his shoulder, every move of his feet, every thrust of his knee — zip! zoop! He slithered the knife along with a zing, and all was in perfect rhythm, as though he were performing the dance of the Mulberry Grove or keeping time to the Ching-shou music.

“Ah, this is marvelous!” said Lord Wen-hui. “Imagine skill reaching such heights!”

Cook Ting laid down his knife and replied, “What I care about is the Way, which goes beyond skill. When I first began cutting up oxen, all I could see was the ox itself. After three years I no longer saw the whole ox. And now — now I go at it by spirit and don’t look with my eyes. Perception and understanding have come to a stop and spirit moves where it wants. I go along with the natural makeup, strike in the big hollows, guide the knife through the big openings, and following things as they are. So I never touch the smallest ligament or tendon, much less a main joint.

“A good cook changes his knife once a year — because he cuts. A mediocre cook changes his knife once a month — because he hacks. I’ve had this knife of mine for nineteen years and I’ve cut up thousands of oxen with it, and yet the blade is as good as though it had just come from the grindstone. There are spaces between the joints, and the blade of the knife has really no thickness. If you insert what has no thickness into such spaces, then there’s plenty of room — more than enough for the blade to play about it. That’s why after nineteen years the blade of my knife is still as good as when it first came from the grindstone.

“However, whenever I come to a complicated place, I size up the difficulties, tell myself to watch out and be careful, keep my eyes on what I’m doing, work very slowly, and move the knife with the greatest subtlety, until — flop! the whole thing comes apart like a clod of earth crumbling to the ground. I stand there holding the knife and look all around me, completely satisfied and reluctant to move on, and then I wipe off the knife and put it away.”

“Excellent!” said Lord Wen-hui. “I have heard the words of Cook Ting and learned how to care for life!”

 

[MikeG]

........You want to improve your life, but not your soul.........

I think you'd be hard pushed to find any of your interlocutors accepting the existence of the latter. So, you've just made up a meaningless slogan to try to strengthen your case. No-one will be surprised.

 

[Dancing David]

I am certainly NOT derailing this thread.

IMO I am adding clarity to some of the woo-like-speak I am reading here.

You guys don't like your illusions of Buddhism (or Hinduism or Taoism) to be challenged? Tough. You tell me I am wrong but do not say why. Yeah right.

From where I sit, some of you want a secular religion, with its mystery and mystique. You want to improve your life, but not your soul.

Having brought some clarity, I can start answering the OP. Which I will.

In buddhism as taught by the alleged historical buddha there is no soul, as syncreatic buddhism merged with the hindu and chinese traditions many odds things grew in the mahayana.

 

[Apathia]

In buddhism as taught by the alleged historical buddha there is no soul, as syncreatic buddhism merged with the hindu and chinese traditions many odds things grew in the mahayana.

Mahayana was the "bigger vehicle" with more room to put stuff.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Yes, I have read the Pali Canon, the 4 Vedas, 2 of the Gitas, the Tao de Ching, and the collected writings attributed to Chuang Tzu. In addition, I have read the bible in its entirety in two different translations, several of the non-canonical acts, the Quran, the Tanakh, books by Shinto priests, and a very interesting book by a Vodou priest.

So yes, when I discuss various religions, their origins, and their central tenets, I am basing it on the actual texts, not what I want them to mean to fit my own personal beliefs.

Based on what you have written about Buddhism, it looks like you are desperately trying to warp it to conform to your personal experiences, rather than accepting it for what it is. At its core, Buddhism is about accepting the fact that the universe isn't fair, and learning to deal with it. Your suffering isn't because you were a bad person in your previous life, nor because you are a bad person now, it is just because life is like that. In a nutshell, Buddhism can be boiled down to, "It is what it is, deal with it!"

It then gives you some advice on how to deal with it. Note that none of the supernatural elements can be appealed to to intervene on your behalf, they are just as unfair as the rest of life. Granted, people have grafted this onto Buddhism (Kannon, for example), but people will often drift into irrationality to cope with their issues, as that is far easier than coming to terms with existence as it is.

I am impressed with your reading. And I agree with going to the basic texts.

How much interaction have you had by taking part?

As for making statements based on the texts, you do realize that you have to interpret them. Many sacred texts from most religions contain vagueness and contradiction, so claiming to to be "right" is a matter of opinion.

I agree that it appears that what Buddha taught initially was simple and had nothing to do with religion. The religion came from Hindu beliefs. But although he emphasized personal action and growth, he did not refute the Gods and the tenets of Hinduism. He taught ethics and morality and started the practice of monks and nuns who were devoted to his teachings.

They built "houses of worship" for the leaders of this religion, complete with a hierarchy.

With time, Buddhism transformed into a "proper" religion with spiritual beings and Gods, a meaning of life, and rituals and prayer.

So be specific and tell me where I have misinterpreted my various readings.

 

[PartSkeptic]

snip

I would like to open a new discussion, this time, as there are not many skeptical discussions debunking Buddhism, I would like to talk about it:


1- Buddhism has an idealistic psychology too. In which you blame the suffering of the person in the present for errors of the past (Karma)

snip

IMO you are mixing some concepts. "Idealistic psychology" is not an appropriate terminology. Karma is a concept. Suffering includes such things as birth, death, aging and sickness. None of us escape these physical pains. It is the degree of suffering that varies. Many of us impose our own mental torment upon ourselves, many through "wrong" desires.

Buddha taught that one can change their mental attitude so that people may not be distressed by afflictions and problems in life.

I stand to be corrected but it seems that Buddha, being a Hindu, accepted that he had past lives, and that his past lives affected his present life. He accepted Karma. He also accepted that one needs to grow spiritually in these various lives. His teachings were a "path" to help this growth.

His monks taught not only his teachings but Hindu concepts as well, including the various gods

To debunk this, one has to attack the concept of reincarnation. Proponents say that the memories are left behind, and what reincarnates is the "character" of the soul. Bad evolved character could mean bad decisions and hence suffering.

It is yet to be proven how our brains wire themselves to the degree of precision and built-in programming. Perhaps the evolving soul helps subtly.

 

[Hokulele]

I am impressed with your reading. And I agree with going to the basic texts.

How much interaction have you had by taking part?

Well, I still use Zen-inspired breath control meditation as a stress-coping mechanism, but I do not believe there is anything special, or supernatural, about that. I have participated in any number of religious rituals, but to be candid, I haven't believed in gods since I was a teenager.

I don't think you understand why I am interested in religion, religious beliefs, philosophy, or ritualistic behavior. I firmly do not believe that religion, or even philosophy, can teach us anything about the universe in which we find ourselves. At all.

I do believe that they can teach us an amazing amount about people. How they think (or fail to think), what they desire, what they fear, how they believe they should treat others, and how they will behave in ways antithetical to what they believe. It really is fascinating how religion can expose a person's deepest insecurities, and their noblest aspirations. Religious study can offer more insights into how people will react and respond to others, and new situations, than one would expect.

So although there are little things I have taken from many religions and incorporated into my own ethical stance, I can't say I have learned any truths regarding the universe, those I have learned through science.

As for making statements based on the texts, you do realize that you have to interpret them. Many sacred texts from most religions contain vagueness and contradiction, so claiming to to be "right" is a matter of opinion.

Is this comment based on personal experience, or what others have written about those sacred texts? Quite a number of them aren't as fuzzy and misleading as many claim, when you read them yourself. Boring, sure. And yes, many scriptures contain contradictions, but that applies to any human endeavor. Read any law code, recently?

I agree that it appears that what Buddha taught initially was simple and had nothing to do with religion. The religion came from Hindu beliefs. But although he emphasized personal action and growth, he did not refute the Gods and the tenets of Hinduism. He taught ethics and morality and started the practice of monks and nuns who were devoted to his teachings.

They built "houses of worship" for the leaders of this religion, complete with a hierarchy.

With time, Buddhism transformed into a "proper" religion with spiritual beings and Gods, a meaning of life, and rituals and prayer.

People will always tack on their own hopes and beliefs to any sort of teaching. Supernatural explanations are easy to fall back on, as they require very little effort, and absolutely no personal responsibility. This is the same reason why fad diets and pills will always have a market, when the sure way to lose weight is to eat less and exercise more.

So be specific and tell me where I have misinterpreted my various readings.

Everywhere you assumed these are truths about the nature of the universe, rather than the nature of the people writing them.

 

[SusanB-M1]

Yes, I have read the Pali Canon, the 4 Vedas, 2 of the Gitas, the Tao de Ching, and the collected writings attributed to Chuang Tzu. In addition, I have read the bible in its entirety in two different translations, several of the non-canonical acts, the Quran, the Tanakh, books by Shinto priests, and a very interesting book by a Vodou priest.

So yes, when I discuss various religions, their origins, and their central tenets, I am basing it on the actual texts, not what I want them to mean to fit my own personal beliefs.

Based on what you have written about Buddhism, it looks like you are desperately trying to warp it to conform to your personal experiences, rather than accepting it for what it is. At its core, Buddhism is about accepting the fact that the universe isn't fair, and learning to deal with it. Your suffering isn't because you were a bad person in your previous life, nor because you are a bad person now, it is just because life is like that. In a nutshell, Buddhism can be boiled down to, "It is what it is, deal with it!"

It then gives you some advice on how to deal with it. Note that none of the supernatural elements can be appealed to to intervene on your behalf, they are just as unfair as the rest of life. Granted, people have grafted this onto Buddhism (Kannon, for example), but people will often drift into irrationality to cope with their issues, as that is far easier than coming to terms with existence as it is.

Super post ... and much admiration for having read all those things. My reader recently finished reading me'A History of the World in 100 Objects' (from the British Museum) and we learnt all sorts of things about ancient China and the far East on the way through.

Edited to add: make that super posts, plural!

 

[Dancing David]

Mahayana was the "bigger vehicle" with more room to put stuff.

More junk in the trunk!

 

[Dancing David]

I stand to be corrected but it seems that Buddha, being a Hindu, accepted that he had past lives, and that his past lives affected his present life. He accepted Karma. He also accepted that one needs to grow spiritually in these various lives. His teachings were a "path" to help this growth.

The AHB rejected the atman, without an atman there is no reincarnation.

 

[Hokulele]

Super post ... and much admiration for having read all those things. My reader recently finished reading me'A History of the World in 100 Objects' (from the British Museum) and we learnt all sorts of things about ancient China and the far East on the way through.

Edited to add: make that super posts, plural!

Why, thank you kindly! That book sounds very interesting. I will have to see if I can scrounge up a copy.

 

[PartSkeptic]

The AHB rejected the atman, without an atman there is no reincarnation.

Could you point to some authority/sacred text to support your statement?

Atman = soul/self/ego?

How do you account for the belief that the Dalai Lama is a reincarnate?

Samsara (wandering or world) in Buddhism is the suffering-laden cycle of life, death and rebirth without beginning or end.

The Four Noble Truths aim to end this cycle by achieving enlightenment.
Amata or Amrta means "no death" or "deathlessness". This is the liberation from the wheel of existence. One no longer experiences "redeath"

It appears to me that this concept has dual meanings. One meaning is the impermanent mundane ego and one needs to overcome the attachment to that. The other is the ultimately real pure blissful Self in a State of Nirvana.

Some Buddhists have tied the two together and reject both – namely the Theravada Buddhists.

The Mahayana Buddhists affirm the metaphysical soul.

Maybe Hokulele can help us sort this out.

 

[DragonLady]

The AHB rejected the atman, without an atman there is no reincarnation.

I thought his idea was "You ARE a soul; you HAVE a body"?