Questions on Buddhism - answered by a Buddhist!

[Trumble]

OK, since everybody else non-muslim seems to have had a go perhaps it's time I did. Especially after seeing the Harun Yahya movie on Buddhism.

I'll kick off with the very basics, then throw it open to anything. The only thing I would say is Buddhism can be found in many varieties and in many cultural settings, and I know very little about many of them. If somebody asked, for example, why a certain ritual is performed at a certain monastery somewhere in Tibet the answer is likely to be "I haven't got a clue"!

The Basics (with a little commentary)

The Buddha taught that there are four fundamental truths, which came to be known as the 'Four Noble Truths'.

They are;

Life means suffering

'Suffering', the usual translation, is a little strong but in this context the only real alternative, 'dissatisfaction' (which I actually prefer) is maybe a little weak. The actual word in Pali is dukkha which is increasingly used directly. What is meant is not 'suffering' in the sense of permanent pain and misery (although in many cases that can be the result) but a sense of dissatifaction about things not being the way you want them to be. If you think about it, they very rarely are, the vast majority of people have constant useless thoughts about wanting that car, not this one, their house not my house, his bank balance not mine, and so on.


The cause of suffering is attachment

Following on from above the cause of that suffering is desirous attachment. All of it comes from wanting things we don't have, and from being mentally attached to the idea of having those things. Right through life we are unceasingly dragged around by such attachments from one unsatisfactory state of life to the next.

Again, a little example. Imagine (which shouldn't stretch many of you too far!) that you hate your job. You want another, different, job, you really want it. But no matter how hard you try to improve your skills, improve your qualifications, or just fail to get lucky, that job eludes you. Wouldn't you be happier if you didn't want it? I'll point out here that, contrary to the Harun Yahya interpretation. that doesn't mean you have to throw away any chance of getting that new job, or just sit back in apathy instead of improving the quality of life of yourself and your family. The important thing is not to do nothing, but simply not to get hung up on it if things don't go the way you want, and accept both that things are the way they are and that they are continuously changing whether you like it or not.


The cessation of suffering is attainable

Simply that this suffering can be ended, and the cycle broken.


and, the path to the cessation of suffering known as;

the Eightfold Path

The way to do it.


Right view

Essentially understanding the Four Noble Truths and cultivating the insightful wisdom that allows you to do so.


Right intention

Giving up selfish attitudes that lead to desire and replacing them with their opposites, such as cultivating the intention to bring happiness to all.


Right speech

Simply speaking words that are purposeful, beneficial to others and, of course, truthful.


Right action

Avoiding causing harm to others. This covers a wide range of 'don'ts' including killing, theft, improper sexual conduct and so-forth while also including the 'do's' such as helping and protecting those who need it.


Right livelihood

Earning a living in a way which does not contradict any of the above. Avoid occupations which involve physical violence, harm and deception, keeping business dealings honest and where possible of service to others.

Another quick point on the Harun Yahya interpretation, this step on the Path clearly shows that it is not necessary to be a monk to practice Buddhism! As with all other religions with a monastic tradition the vast majority of Buddhists are not, and that was true even in the Buddha's time.


Right effort

Effort in spiritual practice, don't be lazy.


Right mindfulness

Paying close attention to what is happening right now, not clinging to the past or fantasizing about the future. Right now is all that there is.


Right concentration

Practice of meditation in order to develop deep insight into the nature of reality, and the method needed to stop suffering.


One more thing for now, the different types of Buddhism. There ARE different types because Buddhism is not based on any divine revelation, it is the teaching of men. Although the Buddha was the first and by far the most important teacher, there have been others who have added to and interpreted the original teachings in the light of their own insights. No sort of Buddhism is any more 'pure' than any other, although some may be closer to the 'original' teaching. Like everything in Buddhism there is no dictate, its just a case of 'suck it and see' and many Western Buddhists chose the path that makes the most sense to them.

Theravada Buddhism

The nearest, probably, to what the Buddha originally taught, based on what is known as the Pali Canon or Tipitaka. This is a large collection of literature containing the sutras or discourses attributed the Buddha, the rules of conduct for the Buddhist monastic community, and assorted commentary on the sutras. This is the type of Buddhism predominant in Thailand, Burma and Sri Lanka.

Mahayana Buddhism

Effectively, everything but the above (with one exception, I'll come to later). Various teachings that evolved sometime after the Pali Canon was set down on paper that include everything from 'Pure Land' Buddhism to Zen. There are some important core Mahayana beliefs, such as the idea of the Bodhisattva (an enlightened being who vows to delay their own final entry to Nirvana in order to help all sentient beings) are known to all Buddhists, as are the most significant Mahayana sutras. Various forms of the Mahayana are practiced in China, Vietnam, Korea and Japan.

Vajrayāna Buddhism

Essentially (but a little simplistically) Buddhism influenced by the Indian Tantric traditions. Found mainly in Tibet and Nepal, although it is perhaps also the most popular type in the West these days.

OK, any questions on that lot or anything else?



Oh, one final thing. My own, personal (and constantly evolving), belief network incorporates both a significant Daoist element and even a few things best described as 'New Age'. I'll do my utmost to keep those out of any discussions to avoid total confusion, but if anyone should pick me up doing otherwise please feel free to give me a virtual slap on the wrist.

[Les_Nubian]

As an ex-Buddhist, I can tell you, this is great. I'm just glad you've found your way, whatever that may be. As long as it's peaceful and logical for you. Great.

[chris4336]

Okay this might be the dumbest question ever but do you believe in God?

[Trumble]

Okay this might be the dumbest question ever but do you believe in God?

LOL... I've hit dodgy ground already! I'll have to split this in two, Buddhists in general and me personally.

I don't, or at least in the sense that Jews, muslims and Christians believe in God. I don't think there is an independently intelligent, omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent Creator. I do believe that there is a fundamental unity of some description, for which 'God' is as good a name as anything, from which we and everything are born, and to which we return. Tao is the word that sums it up best (although I have a few personal bolt-ons), but I'll let people look that up for themselves to avoid getting distracted.

Buddhists, generally, do not believe in the Islamic conception of God - one that is independent of the universe and created it. There are some who believe being a monotheist and a Buddhist are not incompatible, but that is not a belief I share as I think some of the core beliefs are mutually contradictory. It's accurate to say, perhaps, that some Buddhist practices (such as meditation) are not incompatible with monotheism.

You will come across many 'gods' in Buddhist literature and practice, particularly in the later forms, and according to local traditions, many of which are influenced by other beliefs such as Hinduism or Shinto. It is important to get these in context. Most are symbolic, in some form or other, of particular aspects of reality or spiritual practice and progress. To the extent that they are considered 'real' entities they are best considered as 'spirit beings' of some sort, non-human intelligent sentients who (generally) are rather higher up the spiritual ladder. The essential point, though, is that such 'gods', are subject to exactly the same processes of cause and effect (birth, decay, death, rebirth) as everything else in the universe, including us. Albeit over rather different time-scales!

[Pygoscelis]

2 questions.

1. The Dahlai Llama. Is he Budhist? I'm almost certain he is but I forget. If so, is he some kind of high clergy? And if not, why is he famous?

2. Buddhism, the way you have described it, sounds more like philosophy than religion. Can a buddhist be completely materalist without any belief in gods or any other supernatural force in the universe? I haven't seen a contradiction to that in your posting so far.

[جوري]

1-Do you attend those butter festivals to celebrate Buddha? what other festivals do you have and what do they celebrate?
2-Would you be considered a devout practicing Buddhist by other Buddhists?
3-Does Buddhism evolve with the times? The new chic........ made even more so by Richard Gere?
4- has Buddhism lost its charm like Kabala with all those celebrities....
5- Do you think the Dali Lama enjoys his status just a tad too much as opposed to previous dali lamas?
6- what happens after current dali lama expires? who will take his place?
7- What happens to you after you die? how are your dead buried?
8- can you eat anything you want or are there dietary restrictions?

[Trumble]

1. The Dahlai Llama. Is he Budhist? I'm almost certain he is but I forget. If so, is he some kind of high clergy? And if not, why is he famous?

The Dalai Lama is a Buddhist, yes. He is the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists both in Tibet and around the world. He currently lives in exile in India, and has done since the Chinese invasion of Tibet. More on him in my reply to PurestAmbrosia below.

2. Buddhism, the way you have described it, sounds more like philosophy than religion. Can a buddhist be completely materalist without any belief in gods or any other supernatural force in the universe? I haven't seen a contradiction to that in your posting so far.

It is certainly as much philosophy as religion, although despite claims to the contrary it IS a religion (unless religion is incorrectly defined as requiring God or Gods). As to completely materialist, probably not. Although there are some striking parallels with modern physics (I'll say a little more on that later) there is still a large faith element, and many fundamental Buddhist beliefs in the way the universe works cannot be proved or demonstrated scientifically, and are unlikely ever to be. There is no requirement for God or gods though, nor anything 'supernatural', although some 'gods' do crop up in some traditions as I explained earlier.

1-Do you attend those butter festivals to celebrate Buddha? what other festivals do you have and what do they celebrate?

No, I don't. I don't think many Westerners do unless they are attached to a particular monastery, or something similar, which I am not. The only time I have is when I happened to be on a retreat at a Zen monastery at the time. There are many assorted festivals, some of which are particular to certain countries, and all of which are celebrated in duifferent ways in different places. There's a list HERE

2-Would you be considered a devout practicing Buddhist by other Buddhists?

There's 'devout' and 'devout'! I have a family and 'normal' job, but I guess probably yes, certainly in the West. I spend a fair amount of time in direct meditation practice, but none in any sort of devotional practice except a few preliminaries at assorted Buddhist meditation groups.

3-Does Buddhism evolve with the times? The new chic........ made even more so by Richard Gere?

It certainly evolves with the times in many respects, although the core beliefs do not. I don't really think the 'new chic' is of much relevance.. there are plenty of celebs who have 'found' Christianity, Islam, Scientology, assorted types of Hinduism and as you say, Kabbalah. I think the '60s were of much more importance in that respect, when there was a big surge of interest in all the Eastern religions, much of which hung around and grew.

4- has Buddhism lost its charm like Kabala with all those celebrities....

No, I don't think so. I don't think many Buddhists take much notice, to be honest.

5- Do you think the Dali Lama enjoys his status just a tad too much as opposed to previous dali lamas?

No, because he is in a position his predecessors were not in. I think that his increased status isn't really dependent on his religious position and beliefs, but on his statesmanship and firm adherence to non-violence despite the Chinese occupation of Tibet. Add to that his popular writings and successful attempts to spread Buddhist knowledge and belief, and admittedly increased media exposure I think that status is well justified.

6- what happens after current dali lama expires? who will take his place?

Theory, or practice? Traditionally, the monks would scour the land to identify his re-incarnated successor, but it's more than likely he will be whisked off to be brainwashed into a Chinese guided stooge.

7- What happens to you after you die? how are your dead buried?

According to local tradition. Buddhism has no specific requirements in that respect.

8- can you eat anything you want or are there dietary restrictions?

Nothing is enforced, but the great majority of lay Buddhists are vegetarian. In a monastery or similar the rules would enforce vegetarianism, and no popping out for steak and chips! There are a very few exceptions in and around the Himalayas where a vegetarian diet simply isn't practical as livestock herding is the only viable form of agriculture.

[chris4336]

This is very cool thanks for answering the questions...

Can you elaborate on the reincarnation a little?

Could you mabye tell us a little about Budda - do you believe he was devinly guided or just very enlightened or something else?

[Trumble]

Can you elaborate on the reincarnation a little?

Sure. It's a good topic and one that is frequently misunderstood, mainly due to confusion with the Hindu concept which is actually rather different although (in Sanskrit) it uses the same terminology, particularly karma, but the meaning is rather different. 'Reincarnation', actually isn't the right word applied to Buddhism, 'rebirth' is better. Be warned, though, there really isn't an easy explanation of this, and any attempt to do so usually completely distorts the concepts involved.

To look at rebirth you first need to look at what Buddhists consider people actually consist of, which is a physical, material body (obviously) and various aspects of sensory perception and mental activity; they are called the 'five skandhas', but I won't get too technical. All of them, though, are constantly changing and at any one point in time it is them, and them alone, that make up us. We are therefore constantly changing and quite literally are a different person one moment to the next, although the differences may appear only slight. It is essential to realise that there is no enduring 'soul', or ego-personality in Buddhism. That's why reincarnation is inaccurate; according to the literal meaning of that word ("to be made flesh again") there is nothing to be reincarnated.

While alive, each new, slightly different 'personality' is determined by the previous one, and various outside factors, in a continuous stream of cause and effect. After death, the process simply continues, but the effect this time is a rebirth, a new life different from the old one but conditioned by it. Again, I will repeat it is not a 'soul' being reborn. There is no enduring entity apart from that ever-changing stream of conciousness.

What can you be reborn as? Well, pretty much anything, and that's where all the stuff about being reborn as animals and such comes from. Exactly what (the effect) is determined by the nature of the previous consciousness stream (the cause), and the more highly developed spiritually it is the "further up the ladder" the rebirth will be. But it is not a 'personality' or soul that is reborn. 'I' will not be reborn as a fly, or a human, or a spirit being because there is no 'I' left. A human rebirth is considered desirable because that offers the best chance of spiritual progress and eventual escape from the cycle of rebirth.. but that is the spiritual progress of the new being, not the old one, who no longer exists except as a causal 'memory'.

Could you mabye tell us a little about Budda - do you believe he was devinly guided or just very enlightened or something else?

I won't go through his life story as that's something that's very easy to just Google up. I'd recommend http://www.buddhanet.net as a good source of information, and a place to start enquiries.

Do I believe he was divinely guided? No, because I don't believe there was any divinity to guide him. An essential point about Buddhism is that it is a religion of self-effort. Nobody, or nothing, else will do the work for you through prayer or otherwise in achieving enlightenment or reaching Nirvana (the equivalent of heaven or Paradise if you like, although its not a close analogy). Teachers such as the Buddha help, but they can only guide you, not provide instant answers. The Buddha was 'ripe' for Enlightenment, but only as a result of many previous lifetimes of strenuous effort on his part.

[Trumble]

Can a buddhist be completely materalist without any belief in gods or any other supernatural force in the universe?

Just a little more on that. It's pretty well known, I think, that there are some pretty remarkable parallels between quantum physics and cosmology, and Buddhism. Not to mention psychology and Buddhism. I won't list any as they are easy enough to read up on (there's a brief book list at the end of the post, and plenty on the 'net), and to be honest I struggle just to understand a lot of the physics when I read it and simply don't feel qualified to try and reproduce it, let alone answer questions. Many physicists are 'attracted' to Buddhism by reason of those parallels, although that certainly doesn't mean they all rush off to become Buddhists!

In view of recent discussions regarding the Qur'an, though, it's a good idea to get such parallels in context. There are two overall themes. The first is that many ideas of modern physics fit seemlessly into a Buddhist cosmology; it accomodates them easily. Second, that several essential Buddhist doctrines can be directly equated to ideas in physics, ranging from generally accepted theories to some of the wilder cosmological hypotheses and speculation. From the Buddhist, rather than the physics, angle the doctrines and the direct experience involved with them can be seen as the direct experience or visualization of the scientific ideas as reality rather than just as mathematical concepts.

What such discussions are not, though, is any claim that the Buddha was aware of modern quantum and cosmological ideas long before their time. He was not. What he may have had is insights into those ideas via his own direct experience, being able to percieve in real terms what the physicists' math says happens. They might just be the same ideas approached from a different direction.

Reading List

The Tao of Physics - Fritjof Capra

The Quantum and the Lotus - Matthieu Ricard & Trinh Xuan Thuan

Buddhism and Science: Breaking New Ground - B. Alan Wallace (ed.)

[AvarAllahNoor]

Great - I respect all religions, but find the concept of 'No God' difficult to grasp in Buddhism.

Also you say you have many Gods like the hindus, this is due to the influence of hindusim, they try to absorb all religions. Including Sikhism, which they've failed and and have resorted to try to eradicate it instead. But that's another story.

[snakelegs]

buddhism flatly rejected the caste system - true?
were they violently persecuted by the hindus in the early days? if so, was it simply because of their position on the caste system?
what does the zen (i think?) saying "if you meet the buddha on the road, kill him" mean to you?
thanks very much for this thread.

[north_malaysian]

Do Buddhists worship Gauthama Buddha as 'God'?

[Trumble]

buddhism flatly rejected the caste system - true?

The Buddha was a severe critic of it, certainly. 'Buddhism', though, cannot always be seperated from 'Buddhists', and much the same is true of every religion. Cultural factors can be very ingrained, sometimes, and while Buddhism itself does 'reject' it that doesn't mean some Buddhists didn't practice it, historically if not today. You will probably be aware that there are many converts today, both to Buddhism and to Islam, principally because the people concerned wish to totally reject that system.

were they violently persecuted by the hindus in the early days? if so, was it simply because of their position on the caste system?

I don't know, is the simple answer, as I'm not familiar enough with the history. This is what Wikipedia has to say, though;

While the exact cause of the decline of Buddhism in India is disputed, it is known that the mingling of Hindu and Buddhist societies in India and the rise of Hindu Vedanta movements began to compete against Buddhism. Many believe that Hinduism's adaptation to Buddhism resulted in Buddhism's rapid decline while others point to the aggressive attitudes adopted by various Hindu kings. Particularly important were Hinduism's revival movements such as the adoption of the Buddha into the Hindu pantheon, Advaita Vedanta and the Bhakti movement, both of which showed the influence of Buddhist thought. Buddhism's influence on Bhakti movement in particular emphasized more Buddhist concepts of spiritual merit rather than caste as well as the Mahayana Buddhist concepts of love and self sacrifice. Mahayana Buddhist schools at the common level was far more devotional. Some scholars believe that the influence of Bhakti was synergistic with oppressive caste and social situations, in that Bhakti made conversion to Hinduism a more comfortable alternative for oppressed Buddhists.

When Islam arrived in India, it sought conversion from, not assimilation to or integration with, the already present religions. The new Muslim rulers left in place the Brahmin-controlled caste system that reinforced Hindu social norms [6]. Under Sufi influence, the pressures of caste and with no political support structure left in place to resist social mores many converted to Islam in the Bengal region. However, the destruction of many monasteries and stupas resulted in the Buddhist order being almost entirely eradicated, because most of the tradition was kept up by monks, not lay-people.

what does the zen (i think?) saying "if you meet the buddha on the road, kill him" mean to you?

Yes, it's from the Chinese Zen master Linji. It actually has multiple layers of meaning, none of which, of course suggest that if you literally bumped into Siddhartha Guatama you should stick a knife in him! The Buddha was long dead by Linji's time!

The main point of the saying is that the idea of the Buddha and Buddhism are attachments as well, and just as unreal in the sense of having an independent existence as everything else in the cosmos. As the ultimate aim of Buddhist practice is to discard all attachment, sooner or later those must go to. The concepts of 'Buddha', 'Buddhism' and the Buddhist teachings are sort of spiritual crutches.. you need them at first but, as when your broken leg is healed, they can be thrown away when no longer required - indeed you must throw them away to walk properly. 'Meeting the Buddha' is the point at which you no longer need him. It is not the end of the journey, but a barrier that must be pushed aside as you press on. Needless to say, this represents a very advanced state of spiritual practice!

[Trumble]

Do Buddhists worship Gauthama Buddha as 'God'?

No. Although certain devotional ritual can give that impression, and frequently did to the first Westerners to encounter Buddhism. Buddhist 'worship' is simply a show of respect, not offering praise and offerings in return for favours, or 'prayer' in the Christian sense, for example.

All Buddhists accept that Gautama was man, not God. He was only different because of his advanced state of spiritual development, but all men and women have the potential to become Buddhas.

[snakelegs]

Yes, it's from the Chinese Zen master Linji. It actually has multiple layers of meaning, none of which, of course suggest that if you literally bumped into Siddhartha Guatama you should stick a knife in him! The Buddha was long dead by Linji's time!

The main point of the saying is that the idea of the Buddha and Buddhism are attachments as well, and just as unreal in the sense of having an independent existence as everything else in the cosmos. As the ultimate aim of Buddhist practice is to discard all attachment, sooner or later those must go to. The concepts of 'Buddha', 'Buddhism' and the Buddhist teachings are sort of spiritual crutches.. you need them at first but, as when your broken leg is healed, they can be thrown away when no longer required - indeed you must throw them away to walk properly. 'Meeting the Buddha' is the point at which you no longer need him. It is not the end of the journey, but a barrier that must be pushed aside as you press on. Needless to say, this represents a very advanced state of spiritual practice!

thanks. this was pretty much the way i understood it. do you think it could also be interpreted that if you meet god and it is outside of you, it is an illusion - or is that reading something in to it that is not there? there is also some story about when you cross a river in a boat - you leave the boat behind when you reach the other side - not carry it with you. that seems similar in intent.
do various buddhist sects live in harmony with each other or are there antagonisms between them?
i have the impression that karma is often used to "blame the victim" (he deserves it because of his former lives). also, that it encourages people to accept oppression and social injustice rather than fight it. what are your thoughts on this?
thanks!

[Trumble]

this was pretty much the way i understood it. do you think it could also be interpreted that if you meet god and it is outside of you, it is an illusion - or is that reading something in to it that is not there?

That's reasonable. The real 'Buddha', as far as there is one, would lie within.

there is also some story about when you cross a river in a boat - you leave the boat behind when you reach the other side - not carry it with you. that seems similar in intent.

Yes, exactly the same point.

do various buddhist sects live in harmony with each other or are there antagonisms between them?

There certainly have been antagonisms and rivalrys. Not to much due to doctrinal differences but, as with all religions, Buddhists have not been immune to becoming involved in politics both religious and more wordly. It's not an area I know much about, but I certainly trouble at times particularly between some of the Tibetan sects.

i have the impression that karma is often used to "blame the victim" (he deserves it because of his former lives).

That's more a Hindu idea than a Buddhist one, although I suppose it is true to an extent. Buddhists would agree that what happened in previous lives conditions the circumstances of the present one but nobody would be 'blamed' as such as Buddhists don't believe their are independent and enduring entities, 'souls', to blame. If the 'victim' concerned required assistance it would be given with no thought of such things.

.... also, that it encourages people to accept oppression and social injustice rather than fight it. what are your thoughts on this?

Tricky one, but that is probably true. Buddhism is, by nature, pacifistic. Theoretically oppression and social injustice would also be 'accepted' in the sense that, like everything else, they have no real existence anyway outside of the constructs of our own minds. In practice, though, Buddhists are people not (yet) Buddhas and there are other ways of 'fighting' than using swords and guns. 'Passive resistance', as shown by Gandhi.. and the Buddhist monks who burned themselves to death in Vietnam, can often be more effective, anyway.

[*!~Faith~!*]

In my world religions class we are to answer this question. Was Buddha an enviormentalist?

[snakelegs]

thanks for your reply, trumble

[Trumble]

In my world religions class we are to answer this question. Was Buddha an enviormentalist?

Was Buddha? In his time nobody was a enviromentalist, yet in way everybody was. The technology today that leads to pollution was in the far future, and the human population was sufficiently small it didn't threaten the habitats of animals or chop down too many trees. I think that's pretty much true of other religious figures like Mohammed and Jesus, too, environmentalism just wasn't an issue.

I guess what the question is getting at is that the Buddha had both infinite compassion for all living things, and respected all forms of life. His philosophy would not have involved exploiting animals (he was a vegetarian, of course) and the environment in any way beyond that necessary for survival, and he would not have thought of the world around him as consisting of resources which people had some right to use ahead of other creatures.

Many present day Buddhists are also environmentalists, certainly.