Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of all religions I'm closest to Buddhism so here's my two cents.
I really do think that Buddhism is profoundly atheistic in its spirit. Your suffering and liberation from it is in your hands and your hands alone-- that is clear in most schools of Buddhism. There may be god or gods as far as Buddhism is concerned but if they don't do anything at all for you they're irrelevant. God is as relevant to a neo-Buddhist like me as whether or not there are bacteria on Mars.
The thing that I'm most uneasy with about Buddhism is reincarnation. It's right there with immaculate conception and walking on water as far as plausibility goes. However, Zen, for instance, doesn't place importance on reincarnation and neither do many Western Buddhists. I think that it's an artifact of Buddha's environment-- the whole Indian world view revolved around reincarnation and even Buddha couldn't step away from it.
To me Buddhism is all about freeing oneself from delusions and impulses and seeing myself and the world for real. That will uncomplicate my life, as well as make me act in accordance with reality. One who sees clearly and is unobstructed by mental and emotional baggage can enjoy life more and be a more agreeable member of society. I can't see how a god or gods come into this at all.
Of all religions I'm closest to Buddhism so here's my two cents.
I really do think that Buddhism is profoundly atheistic in its spirit. Your suffering and liberation from it is in your hands and your hands alone-- that is clear in most schools of Buddhism. There may be god or gods as far as Buddhism is concerned but if they don't do anything at all for you they're irrelevant. God is as relevant to a neo-Buddhist like me as whether or not there are bacteria on Mars. .
Buddhism is not atheism, more like ontological agnosticism. In the same way Taoism is not atheism. Buddhism is most definitely not compatible with materialism, if one is a materialist atheist (most are). Materialism says only things you see and sense are real- Buddhism says NONE of those things are real in themselves, and you can't really know the true nature of any of them. The only thing you can know are your own thoughts, feelings, and sensations.
You say the suffering and liberation is in your hands? But just what are these things you call "your" hands, anyways? Are they your hands really? If you had no hands, would you cease to exist? Are you your body?
There are Buddhas and Bodhisattvas in Buddhism because everybody needs heroes. My favorite is Kuan Yin / Avalokiteshvara, the Bodhisattva of compassion. If the mind is really all that is real, and I believe in something... why should it not be true for me? Deity worship is silly to some, to other people it is profoundly important. Deities can represent our pure intentions given form. You can decide for yourself.
Also, science is another story that people tell each other. Buddhism says stories are just stories, they are not Reality. Just because science say something can't be so, does not make it so. Certain Buddhist prayers it can help to have a very strong desire, even a belief, to help other beings through the practice. If you believe it is a waste of time or silly, you can be hampering your progress. Even Buddhism can have faith.
I'm just asking because I think I may be a Buddhist if there are no prerequisites for belief in the supernatural or acknowledgement that the existing schools of Buddhism can tell me precisely what is right.
Buddha is not a god, he is simply someone who became enlightened.
You don't pray to Buddha, you meditate with Buddha.
Why have a likeness/image/icon? To remind you that one person made it and achieved enlightenment. It'd be no different than having a poster or photo of your hero hanging on the wall.
Buddhism doesn't tell you what is right, but it does suggest what is wrong.
For example, to abstain from alcohol would be wrong in that it causes suffering. You would be missing out on some of the most simple pleasures in life, like a big plate of Fettuccine Alfredo and glass of Chianti, or an ice cold beer on a hot afternoon, or a glass of wine sitting on the couch reading a book on a cold snowy evening.
On the other hand, over-indulgence in alcohol leads to suffering. You endanger your health, perform poorly at work, it negatively affects your relationships, and can endanger the safety of others.
You have to walk the path between abstinence and over-indulgence, and only you know where that path lies.
So, Zen will accept me as I am? Is Zen really a philosophy?
Ok, for the short version of this, No. Zen is a perspective, not necessarily a shared pattern of thought. The "Zen" of one person is not the same as the "Zen" of another.
"A Zen student told Ummon: :"Brilliancy of Buddha luminates the whole universe." Before he finished the phrase Ummon asked: "You are reciting another's poem, are you not?" "Yes," answered the Student. "You are sidetracked," said Ummon.
For example, to abstain from alcohol would be wrong in that it causes suffering. You would be missing out on some of the most simple pleasures in life, like a big plate of Fettuccine Alfredo and glass of Chianti, or an ice cold beer on a hot afternoon, or a glass of wine sitting on the couch reading a book on a cold snowy evening.
Everything said above is fundamentally wrong. One of the Five Precepts in Buddhism is avoid intoxication and/or intoxicants. You cannot apply the concept of dukkha (suffering arising from desire) to your example above, because a Buddhist would have let go of their desire for the Fettuccine and the alcohol in the first place!
Whomever wrote this is quite unfamiliar with Buddhism on the most fundamental level, however this was not the only wrong statement in this thread.
There are differences between the popular definition of Reincarnation and the Buddhist concept of Rebirth. I'm not a Buddhist master, so I won't attempt to explain, but there is a lot of good information out on the internet about it.
Reincarnation implies that a soul is coming back in a different form. Buddhists do not believe in the concept of a soul, and they must understand the concept of anatta or that there is no soul or self.
These are just corrections to what I saw as I browsed through this thread quickly.
Everything said above is fundamentally wrong. One of the Five Precepts in Buddhism is avoid intoxication and/or intoxicants. You cannot apply the concept of dukkha (suffering arising from desire) to your example above, because a Buddhist would have let go of their desire for the Fettuccine and the alcohol in the first place!
Whomever wrote this is quite unfamiliar with Buddhism on the most fundamental level, however this was not the only wrong statement in this thread.
There are differences between the popular definition of Reincarnation and the Buddhist concept of Rebirth. I'm not a Buddhist master, so I won't attempt to explain, but there is a lot of good information out on the internet about it.
Reincarnation implies that a soul is coming back in a different form. Buddhists do not believe in the concept of a soul, and they must understand the concept of anatta or that there is no soul or self.
These are just corrections to what I saw as I browsed through this thread quickly.
This is all very interesting. Are you a Buddhist and if so, what is your school?
I have done a lot of reading and I feel pretty attracted to the Soto school of Zen Buddhism but I do not practice zazen so by their standards, I don't qualify to call myself a Buddhist at all.
I have read all the writings of a young Zen monk, Brad Warner, and he often writes about how the Buddha ultimately never set definite standards regarding which precepts to follow or how strictly. I can't remember the exact reference but he mentioned a monk who would down about 80 ounces of beer during his talks to his sangha. Warner himself doesn't drink or condone drunkenness but he often points out that we should doubt everything including him and including Buddha himself.
There is no "qualification" for calling yourself a Buddhist other than doing your best to follow the principles of the 3 Refuges and the 5 Precepts. I don't know what "qualifications" you speak of, but you may be misinformed.
I, personally, am in a phase of researching, understanding, and working to apply the precepts to my life, so I believe that my intentions allow me to call myself a Buddhist (even though I have little desire to further categorize myself). I haven't chosen a school yet, because I am not done researching the history and schools to find the one that fits me at this point in my life. So far I've eliminated Zen, because I find that it is overly popular here in the West, along with Tibetan Buddhism, and a lot of the practitioners are Buddhists by name alone and couldn't explain the fundamentals of the practice with a map and a compass. I also find that a lot of students of Zen speak in Zenspeak or riddles, which I don't feel compelled to decode.
I understand that the Buddha did not speak in black and white rules about intoxicants, but you still cannot apply dukkha to acquiesce your desire to drink. Intoxicants impair your judgment, thus obscuring your path to enlightenment, and Buddhism is all about letting go of your desires (which cause suffering) on the path to enlightenment, right? Some schools of Buddhism (Mahayana I believe) emphasize practice without fanatical perfectionism, so I can see trying to find a middle way and having an occasional drink, but to rationalize that denying yourself the drink is self-inflicted suffering is pushing the boundaries.
There is no "qualification" for calling yourself a Buddhist other than doing your best to follow the principles of the 3 Refuges and the 5 Precepts. I don't know what "qualifications" you speak of, but you may be misinformed.
I already said that I am informed about what I am talking about.
In the Soto school of Zen (at least -- maybe in others, too) it is key to sit zazen regularly. If you do not sit, then you are not practicing.
I think it's a little strange that you eliminated Zen because it is "overly popular in the West". I like it simply because what I know about it makes more sense to me than any other form of Buddhism (not that I am very well-versed).
Anyway I see that you are just beginning your Buddhist path (if you choose one) so thanks for the "corrections" but I'm not concerned with deconstructing Buddhism to the extent that you seem to be. Maybe that's why I like Zen.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lots of Corrections To This Thread
