Let's talk about Buddhism

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

Any practicing Buddhists aboard?

I’m curious about this religion. I have questions. I like it, on the whole. What’s not to like about the message of compassion? (Not that this is exclusive to Buddhism, of course.) And the Buddhist concepts of emptiness and no-self serve well, it seems to me, to provide a perspective on life that’s often elusive in our hectic material world. To a point, at least. Logically extended, however, what purpose life? How, that is to ask, does Buddhism significantly differ from…well, from existentialism? Meaning seems to go missing. (Probably it is just my understanding that is missing.)

Life, Buddhism says, is suffering. Desire is suffering. The only way of escape is to rise above desire, to rise above life. At least with existentialism, Sisyphus can be imagined happy. Does Buddhism allow for this with samsara? The goal, it seems to me, is simply to get out. Reaching nirvana means an escape from life to the perfection of nothingness. Why shouldn’t this seem particularly bleak to me?

I’m also curious about the concept of reincarnation. Most of Buddhism seems philosophical to me (more so than, say, Christianity, outside of the field of apologetics). It’s more a way of regarding the world than it is a mythos. It’s logical. One concept leads naturally to the next. And yet reincarnation just sort of comes out of left field. What’s the justification for this within Buddhist thought? Was it revelation from Siddhartha, or is there something else?

Also, there doesn’t seem to be any kind of governing agent to the universe in Buddhism, and yet there is the concept of karma. Is it Buddhist belief, therefore, that the universe itself is intelligent? Is it its own governing agent? Are Buddhists pantheists?

My questions are sincere. (One needs to keep one’s mind open, you know.)

2

Geeze, Rainey. I do believe that is the most questions I’ve ever seen in any OP. :laughing: I’m not Buddhist, but from my Taoist background, I’ll address a question or two…

The emphasis on suffering is a bit over-played in western culture. Suffering in the best sense of the concept isn’t any more than clinging to the illusions (maya) presented to us. The question of what is purpose is really a non-question. To the extent that one chases purpose, there is suffering. So it isn’t a matter of “escaping” life, but of letting all the illusions fade away. You don’t escape anything but the shackles of illusion. You’re still here.

So what do we do in our spare time? We make the present as meaningful as we can within our capacities. See directly, act directly. Leave fear and anxiety and chasing certainty behind and just be. Questions of who am I? Why am I here? aren’t questions, but traps of the mind that perpetuate the illusions called suffering.

OK. I’ve painted with a 4" house brush, and there is much to be nuanced - not to know, but to understand. It’s a long journey.

Consider: Think of those times where hours passed and you weren’t thinking about thinking. You were just doing those things necessary to keep everything in trim… :wink: In those times, the sum total of you wasn’t you, it was just doing.

3

Rainey, I’d love to respond with some depth when I can. I’m a practicing Buddhist.

4

Thanks, JT. I’m thinking more in terms of overall meaning than individual purpose. What makes a Buddhist worldview more than just a gussied up version of existentialism?

In purpose, there is suffering. Is suffering a bad thing? A thing to be avoided at all costs?

To the Buddhist, if I am understanding it properly, it is, in fact, very much a question of escaping life. This is what the journey to nirvana is all about. I’m taking this concept nirvana to be more than just metaphor. Buddhists hope for a very real way out of samsara (endless birth and rebirth into the world).

I’m with you on keeping everything trim, however. It’s what appeals to me about Buddhism.

5

Thanks, anon!

Take your time. There’s no hurry.

6

Rainey,

Perhaps I have missed the point, but for me, the issue is, or should be, about how the individual explore’s and come’s to terms with their spiritual nature. I guess one could easily say that any method of inquiry can generate a religion. Most have done exactly that. In that sense, all religions are simply a “gussied up” version of a philosophical perspective. Of course, that assumes that there is a perspectival core at the base of all religions that at once provides a universe>human explanation. Most religions lead one away from their core.

If one wishes to explore “gussied up”, look at the message of Jesus of Nazareth and what religion has done with it. #-o

“The way is broad and level, but people delight in tortuous paths.”

I’m dragging this off on a tangent so I’ll shut up…

Go Anon!

7

Yes, but Buddhism appears to be a gussied up version of a very particular kind of philosophical perspective; namely, existentialism. I am hoping it is more than that. Existentialism has never completely appealed to me, although on the surface it has much to recommend it. But of course on the surface is where it remains. I sense Buddhism runs deeper, but I am not sure how or by how much.

Your tangent is a good one. I have no disagreement with your idea of coming to terms with one’s spiritual nature. In the process, one discovers others who have done the same, some that have built entire religions. Talk about tangents. But you have to pay attention to them, don’t you? At least a little, just in case someone’s stumbled upon a truth or two? Paul might have had something interesting to say about Jesus’s message. So might Pat Robertson. Their respective takes might lead back to the core or they might lead away from the core or they might create their own cores. But what are you gonna do? I’m not so sure the way is as broad and level as might be believed.

8

Since Buddhism pre-dates Existentialism by a good bit, I think you have you chain of influence reversed :slight_smile:

Here is a quick slide-show that highlights some similarities and differences between Buddhism and Existentialism. Since there are different kinds of Buddhism, there are no doubt some points of disagreement. For example, I can see a discussion starting about the claim that Buddhism has a strong “good/evil” distinction that is absent in Existentialism. That would be difficult to apply within the context of Chan/Zen Buddhism. Especially American varieties that are more philosophical.

A bigger difference, and this is rather critical, is that the goal of Existentialism is to create meaning from meaninglessness whereas Buddhism seeks to eliminate the meaningful/meaningless distinction. Eliminating suffering by constructing a narrative is a very un-Buddhist thing.

9

Exactly. Particularly since Nietzsche and gang read quite a bit about eastern philosophies.

I also have a giggle when I hear the term ‘new age’ religion. It’s the Judeo/Christian/Islamic religions which are the new age religions, hence so much of their doctrines draw from pre history/pagan sources – not vice versa.

10

Thanks, Wenren. For the record, it never occurred to me that Buddhism has in any way been “influenced” by existentialism. That would be silly. I’m drawing comparisons, or rather it seems to me that comparisons are difficult not to draw.

I’m not big on chasing links and prefer discussion instead, but maybe I’ll get around to the slideshow. In the meantime, does one eliminate the meaningful/meaningless distinction with Buddhism, or does one simply eliminate “meaningful”, thus rendering everything meaningless by so doing, even if that is not the intent? I’m not seeing how saying things are not one or the other makes the question of meaning go away. Can meaning (or meaningless) simply be ignored? Or does Buddhism allow at least for relative meaning? Meaning to the observer or experiencer, if you will? Or is even that to be negated in the ideal sense of Buddhism? And if so, how is that materially different than a state of meaningless?

11

Real Buddhism isn’t a religion (and wasn’t even considered to be one until recent incentives to make it into one). A religion is specifically a method for maintaining the gathering as a cohesive group. Buddhism hasn’t anything to do with that.

Buddhism’s ontology is not what defines it. It is entirely about removing one’s own suffering through removing its conceptual cause within. It is a personal philosophy, not a societal philosophy and very largely based on reasoning; “if one wants for nothing, one is free from struggle”. The names they use to identify the ontological elements are not relevant or to be worshiped as sacred. It is merely a method to accomplish a goal appended with attempts to explain how and why it works to people who have yet to experience it. But it has 2500 years worth of people doing what people do to everything they hear about; distort it into holy doctrine, preach it, and pray to it.

I have yet to find anyone who understands what it is really about down deep until they have actually experienced it properly (very rare). Gautama commented after 40 years and 100 direct disciples, that only one actually understood (or so it is said).

12

That’s. . . not at all true and I get really bothered when people suggest that. Buddhism was very much used as a means of control throughout the sinosphere, at the very least. It’s easy to argue beyond that sphere as well. The “what is religion” debate is reasonable since “religion” in Europe is different from “religion” in China. So what? Are we to define one as such and the other as not? That seems extremely paternalistic to me. And that sort of neo-colonialism is shit. At best it represents Orientalism. It gets more racist from there.

What is “real Buddhism” and who determines what “real Buddhism” is? I can think of some fascist groups in Japan and Thailand that have a lot to say on that issue.

13

Hey Rainey,

It’s 13 slides and takes about five minutes to flip through. I’d copy and paste the basic points but, well, the format doesn’t allow for that.

Now, your points are well-taken but they seem to be shifting the goalpost from “Is Buddhism Existenialism?” to “Is Buddhism Nihilism?” There has been a lot of work devoted to both of those questions and, personally, I think both those questions are worth exploring. Personally, I think Buddhism is very different from both Existentialism and Nihilism . . . but I also recognize how it can really look like both of them. Since the line between Existentialism and Nihilism is likewise blurry, I’m gonna ask that you imagine a triangle. The ends are “Existentialism” “Nihilism” and “Buddhism”. I want to emphasize this is a pedagogical exercise. But within the exercise, I’m going to ask you to clearly move between the discreet points. We’re not looking for synergy here, we are looking to clarify what these things mean so we can present appropriate objections.

You down?

14

And yet it seems more than this to me. The personal philosophy part is very interesting to me, but beyond that, there are the concepts of karma and reincarnation. There are the four noble truths and the eightfold path. There are deities, too. These elements sure seem religious to me. Or is it your position that these things have been somehow added to Buddhism, watered it down, taken it away from its roots? Admittedly I know very little about Buddhism’s history

15

The lines are blurry and the problem with clarification is that definitions depend on whom you’re talking to. I probably erred by bringing existentialism into the conversation in the first place. It was never my intent to examine Buddhism by comparing and contrasting it with other worldviews, though it’s difficult not to. So let’s back up and imagine we are looking at Buddhism on its own merits.

There is no purpose to the world. It just is. (Here’s where one can make the comparison, but let’s let it go.) Okay. So at this point, one can either try to derive some meaning for himself or he can shrug and say there really is no meaning and maybe the best thing to do is to kind of divorce oneself from the things “of” this world because the desire for them brings only suffering. This would be the Buddhist path, no? Buddhism, then, rather than being a life-affirming worldview is more of a life-denying worldview. Would that be safe to say?

16

Judge the path to sight of mind and you will never clearly see what you left behind.
And if you merely wish to go by what “they say”, the Secularists are the prophets of the day.

17

Okay.

Thanks, James S. Saint.

18

I keep peeking in here, though I still don’t have time to respond. But I’m intrigued by this emphasis on meaning and purpose. For contrast, Rainey, what would you say is the purpose of the world according to some other well known worldview? I’m inclined to say that Buddhism believes that purpose is discovered, rather than imposed, revealed (i.e. through “revelation”) or fabricated. Life is certainly not meaningless, according to any Buddhist school that I am aware of!

19

“Buddhism, then, rather than being a life-affirming worldview is more of a life-denying worldview. Would that be safe to say?”

“Samsara” is not a synonym for “life”. Buddhism is about learning to live life more fully. “Ego” is what makes your world smaller.

20

Rainey,

Nope. Just the opposite. It is the so-called life-affirming ideologies that destroy us. Letting go of all of that is life-affirming. There are several mini-threads running here and tying them together ain’t easy. Wenren has suggested that one must decide whether to discuss Buddhism as a complex idea or discuss how it is practiced - along with all the “religious” trappings. There might be some subtle differences. I’ll try to tackle one point.

You raised the issue of meaning/meaningless. I would suggest that there is only meaning. You are a sentient being and the only thing that seperates you from any other animal is your ability to assign meaning. To put it another way, you cannot not assign meaning. sine qua non But what is meaningful is a personal perspective. Yes, many can hold similar personal ideas of what is meaningful, but only in the most general way. How each of us expresses our personal notions of meaningful is always slightly different than the next person. If this were not so, there would only be ONE religion instead of hundreds with another thousand various permutations.

Since we’ve got the concept of meaningless, we can’t just make it disappear. But we can make it irrelevent by seeing that it is asking a question for which there is no answer. Is the universe meaningless? To pretend we know is foolishness - just as pretending that the universe is meaningful is foolishness. We have no way to answer that one way or the other. So it is quite possible that we should continue to find personal meaning even against a possible background of meaningless. Is that cold potatoes? Perhaps. But behind defining that which is meaningful or meaningless is the illusion that certainty is obtainable. Whether Buddhism, Taoism, or any of the other forms of eastern philosophy, constant evolving transformation is the state of state. What is meaningful requires YOU, your nature and nurture, all the life experiences that continually shape you. Of course, this may not have anything to do with religion… What was the question? :-k