Buddhism Is Not What You Think
Here’s the pop quiz: who saw the moonwalking bear?
It’s a trick of sorts, of course. By asking you to be aware of the white team passing the basketballs, I led you away from whatever else was going on. (And yes, some of you didn’t get caught and some of you have seen this before.) But it shows you how what we’re thinking affects what we see. When we’re caught up in a thought, we’re missing things.
Buddhism at its heart is a way to escape from what we think, and a collection of techniques that help us make our escape.
Gautama Siddhartha, the man who first saw through to how to see things as they are, spent six years doing every kind of yoga and ascetic denial he could find, hoping to find The Answer. After giving up on that, and having a bath and lunch, he sat down to figure it out. And did. And it’s a good thing, or I’d have nothing to write about. But the story goes that he was walking down the road and ran into someone who saw him, happy and serene and completely untroubled. This person asked “Are you a God?”
Siddhartha said, “No, I’m not a God.”
“Are you a saint?”
“No, I’m no saint.”
“But there’s something special about you — what is it?”
Siddhartha thought about it for a moment, and answered, “I am awake.” The root in Sanskrit for “to awaken” is budh- — so he’s known now as the Buddha: the guy who woke up.
Charlie, I find this all very interesting and continue to read through your essays. Since you mentioned the Victorian hippies (loved that) I fully understand what you mean by Undecorated Buddha, which I like better than Undocumented. I’m always looking for enlightenment and this will be a cool adventure.
Thanks!
Sally
So is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy?
If it’s a religion, then who created the universe? Or perhaps the question should be, is the universe a creation at all?
You know, that’s a good question.
I really should stop there, but I can’t. Basically, there are fourteen questions that Buddha refused to asnwer, saying they aren’t productive in liberating yourself from suffering.
You just asked one of them.
What I think is that in Buddhist terms, there’s always karma and vipaka, action and consequences of that action. If the Universe was created, then there was something before the universe that had to act to create it. There had to be something before that that gave It the idea, So in Buddhist terms, the “real” universe of action and consequence is not created; we just happen to be living on something transitory that was.
But the right answer in Buddhism is “Don’t bother your pretty little head with those questions.”
As to whether it’s a “religion” or a “philosophy”, I thihk the answer is “probably.”
…a ‘religious’ philosophy or a ‘philosophical’ religion’?
Yes.
> But the right answer in Buddhism is “Don’t bother your pretty little head with those questions.”
That’s going to be my answer from now on whenever someone asks me a question I can’t or don’t want to answer.
If it’s good enough for Buddha, it’s good enough for me.
The new old standard in metaphysical discourse.
Hey, it’s got the Buddha’s approval. Remember, the Buddha’s aim was to solve the problem of suffering, not the problem of where the universe came from. Anything that doesn’t help solve the problem of suffering he just didn’t want to speculate about. The Kamala Sutra deals with that some too.
Fine. So why should anyone pretend that Buddhism leads us to any sort of higher truth?
Define “higher truth”? Buddhism says what Buddhism says. Siddhartha said “speculating about this stuff is not conducive to peace of mind.” Teleology and eschatology are down the hall.
> Siddhartha said “speculating about this stuff is not conducive to peace of mind.”
Problem is, that’s a truth-claim too. How did Siddhartha know that this is not conducive to peace of mind? He can speak for his own; can he speak for mine?
See above, the Kamala Sutra part.
Charlie, I think I’ve got it down.
1. Nobody can assert an absolute truth.
2. Except Buddha.
3. Why?
4. Don’t bother your pretty little head about why.
Nope. Buddha can’t assert an absolute truth either. Remember, he’s the one who said “don’t buy it until you’ve examined it yourself.”
Think of it like this, maybe: Buddha’s a math teacher, and in class you ask him “is Truth Beauty?”
Of course, the answer to that question, even if the teacher could answer it, wouldn’t tell you how to integrate e^x dx.
Buddha’s saying “that’s a question for a class in another department.”
Does the world exist outside of us, or does the world exist within our mind? If you think it exists within our mind, within our awareness, then this answer might be helpful.
I once asked a similar question to a Lama…”How did it all begin?”…His answer….”it was your first thought of ‘me’, ‘I am’…that is how it began”…..
We are our own creator….
Not recognizing intrinsic awareness from the beginning, (fundamental ignorance), we mistook its emptiness for a ‘self” and its radiance for ‘other’….(dualistic awareness)
To get an intellectual understanding of what he meant requires study and contemplating……realization can only arise through meditation.
You might find this book helpful…..
Everyday Consciousness And Primordial Awareness, by Thrangu Rinpoche,
ISBN 978-1559393799
For more in depth and difficult reading, try:
Maitreya’s Distinguishing Phenomena And Pure Being, ISBN-13: 978-1559392150
And Good Luck
Nagarjuna and yogacara would lead us to say “we create the universe and destroy it every instant.”
I find it useful to look at Buddhism not as a religion or philosophy, but as a spiritual technology. Does this make sense to anyone else?
Not to me, sorry.
“Spirituality” is a pretty broad umbrella, granted. But it seems to me that most of what calls itself spirituality is simply religion minus the accountability.
Or even as a kind of psychological counseling, yeah.
Charlie,
I suggest you read, “What Makes You Not a Buddhist”, by Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse, ISBN-13: 978-1590305706.
I got it last night, read the first few pages, and it looks excellent. Thanks for the recommendation!
I read a goodly chunk of Buddhism. (It was my way to rebel as a kid. I had no intention of doing the cliche rebellions of drinking booze or taking drugs.)
In the end, I found it absurd, and I could complain all day about the bogusness of it. But you know what? If I do (and I have done so on this site) I’ll just get the same crap I always get: “Oh, THAT’S not what Buddhism is about. You have it all wrong.” Same line I also get from Libertarians and Satanists: “Whoever told you what we’re all about is all wrong. You got told the wrong version of it.”
I read the works of Alexandra David-Neel, but apparently she’s not Buddhist enough or something.
Well, she’s a nice example of the Victorian hippies I was talking about, although since she died in 1969 I guess that’s a little unfair. Maybe more of an Edwardian hippie? But it’s not like there’s an Official Buddhism to which one should conform; I do think she was off on some points, but good on others.
I mean, what the hell, I first learned about Buddhism from Lobsang Rampa.
If you’d like to complain about the bogusness of it, though, go ahead. I need a new topic every week.
I took a Comparative Religions course where one of the students was an actual Buddhist “Priest” (he wanted more information about other religions. Nice guy!). Quite an eye-opener about Buddhism. For example, they are not necessarily pacifist. They will never bring offense onto you, but if you attack them, they will kick your ass.
I like these folks.
My Aikido sensei is also a Buddhist priest. Neither discipline is pacifist.
Your self imposed mission was anticipated by many incredibly erudite and terribly knowledgeable people decades ago for the same reasons. There are many wonderful books and tracts available at any bookstore. That you seem to be unaware you are following a very well trodden path makes me a bit dubious of what you intend. But who knows, perhaps you have new insights on the subject. BTW if you meet Charlie Martin in the street, kill him. Yes, that is a compliment.
If you meet me on the street I’m already dead.
A Buddist is a like an Episcopalian, they are both basically polite, but there are no answers to be found from either of them.
What was the question?
And who was asking?
And why do we need to know?
I was watching for the man in the gorilla suit (I have seen this idea previously in a UCSD video, I think). The inability to notice things has more to do with the way attention works in the brain than it has to do with being spiritually out of touch right? Another well known example is professional pickpockets:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pIU1uZlH-o
The inability to notice things has more to do with the way attention works in the brain than it has to do with being spiritually out of touch right?
Does it?
I think the answer may be hiding inside that word “spiritual”.
Does it mean to err is human? What is interesting is how technology allows people to exceed the limitations of the human mind. Technology is advancing exponentially meaning peoples’ capabilities will increase exponentially when tied to technology (as we see with the video).
I think the hangup is in the word “spiritual”. Buddhism isn’t “spiritual” because Buddhism doesn’t believe in “spirit”. It’s really just a syllogism: there’s this observation, and that leads to these consequences, which leads to these consequences, and on and on. We focus our attention on the ball and don’t see the bear: this by “clinging” to the ball, we get the (admittedly minor) embarrassment of realizing we missed the bear.
This too needs a whole article. You guys are certainly helping me figure out what I need to write.
Japanese Buddhists were a major force in the genocide in China and the torture of US, AUS, UK, and Chinese civilians in WW2
The decrypts of Japan intelligence prove that Buddhists temples in California were -in fact-spy agencies for Japan
German Catholics and Lutherans were a major force in the genocide of the Jews.
What was your point again?
What you have just said is so stupefyingly, dishonestly false it beggars belief. Do you honestly not think the major force behind the Holocaust is Nazism? you think it is those 2 German the denominations?
or Christianity generally?
were you thinking that guy saying something true but irrelevant justified you in saying something stupid?
Do you imagine the the vast majority of Germans participating in the Holocaust weren’t Catholic or Lutheran? Why?
conclusory much? why?
I think Nazis tried to create their own religion based on race (Arian supremacy) and on pagan rituals. They certainly weren’t basing their beliefs on Christian supremacy or Christian beliefs. The Nazis came to power promising to turn around the economy. Then they started taking away freedoms (e.g., guns) and punishing dissent. It is fine to say the people involved came mostly from Christian backgrounds but then it should also be noted there were an estimated 5 million non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust, probably mostly Christian. In addition thousands of Christian clergy were killed in the Holocaust.
If the -ist sins, does it necessarily mean that the -ism is to blame?
Using your standard here, we can blame Buddhism for the Cambodian holocaust, right?
You’re almost getting it: I answered something true but irrelevant with something equally true but irrelevant and asked what point her was trying to make. What point do you think he was trying to make?
Fair enough. Let’s just stipulate that an idea or a set of ideals is not responsible for the people who verbally espouse them. If people of a certain -ism behave in a depraved manner, before blaming the -ism, we need to establish some sort of link between the behavior and the -ism.
We have German Lutherans to thank for emphasizing the Biblical concept of human depravity. We certainly didn’t need (some of) them to prove it. Or Cambodian Buddhists either, for that matter.
Well, remember that Pol Pot was educated both as a Buddhist and as a Roman Catholic, and then violently suppressed both Buddhism and Catholicism, so I’m not sure it’s quite fair to drag Cambodian Buddhists in either. It’s a pretty common opinion hereabouts that progressivism and communism are religious beliefs anyway, why does it matter whet these people were before conversion.
But I’m still wondering what you guys think the point was.
> But I’m still wondering what you guys think the point was.
I can’t speak for the other guys in this thread.
> Well, remember that Pol Pot was educated both as a Buddhist and as a Roman Catholic, and then violently suppressed both Buddhism and Catholicism, so I’m not sure it’s quite fair to drag Cambodian Buddhists in either.
All I have been saying is, if you can indict Christianity for Nazi sins, we can drag in Cambodian Buddhists for Khmer Rouge sins. And vice versa.
There is no practical doubt that many self-identified German Lutherans and Catholics behaved shamefully during the Holocaust (even if all they did was stand by and let it happen). But they could not have done so while at the same time following Christian teachings. I’m not a student of Buddhism but I will give it the benefit of any conceivable doubt and stipulate it doesn’t actually advocate murdering a fourth of the population.
An idea is not responsible for the person who only purports to adhere to it.
> It’s a pretty common opinion hereabouts that progressivism and communism are religious beliefs anyway, why does it matter whet these people were before conversion.
Same for Nazism. To become a Nazi, one would have to shed his Christian beliefs. Nazism puts the State in God’s place. As Jesus said, a man cannot serve two masters. (I like Jonah Goldberg’s discussion of Fascism, that it is not the opposite of Communism, but a heresy of it. Where the purist vision of Communism reveres the utopian worker’s paradise to be, Fascism reveres the State; it’s sort of an alloy of two very unalike things: 19th century Nationalism and Marxism.) Nazism taught the Germans that they were a pure, proud, noble race of people whose only problem was they were enslaved by other nationalities, Jews in particular.
The Bible, on the other hand, teaches that all men, Jew and Gentile alike, are totally depraved. The heart is deceitful in all things. All our righteousness is as filthy rags. There is no one who is righteous, no, not one. I do the things I should not do and don’t do the things I should do — who can save me? The Bible is full of talk just like that. The Lord’s grace and direct intervention in our lives is required for any man to be anything more. Without divine intervention, man is just dust, and shall return to dust.
This sounds pessimistic. But it is accurate. By contrast, when I brushed up on Shinto, it struck me that the first sentence I read was that Shinto assumes man to be basically good. So then, how do we explain the Rape of Nanking?
Likewise, leftism in all its various forms presumes man to be basically good, just in need of a little of (their) help. Where there is evil, the left will always explain it as a failure of “the system” and “the environment” and “faulty institutions” — everything but human nature — and things would get a lot better once the reins of power were handed over to the leftists. It only sounds odd that the greatest massacres in human history were perpetrated by people who believe humanity is basically good. That’s what happens to your calculus when your basic assumptions are wrong.
if your point was that Christianity is to the Holocaust as Bhuddism is to the Bataan Death March I am gobsmacked you did not write it that way; but instead wrote it the way you wrote it.
Funny thing is, I’d say you’re almost getting it, Charlie.
Seeing the irrelevancy of his fact pointed out is sufficient to vitiate any point he may have thought he was making–because it does vitiate it. What should concern you which is without relevance?
You sure you’re awake?
When I consider stupid and religious, a holy rolling snake handler who doesn’t get the critter back in the basket first comes to mind. When I consider pretentious and religious, now I look at the accomplishments to goals ratio of Buddhism, and the relief of human suffering.
Hm. So you’re saying that what you said was actually a silly non sequitur and I was dumb to respond?
Okay, works for me.
No.
My reply was a reply to you. It was below and indented from your comment.
I was expressing amazement and disgust you chose to respond the way you did.
If you meant what your words mean on their face, it was reprehensible. If you meant to hold up a mirror to Victor–do you think anyone able to write the comment in the first place can metaphorically recognize themselves in a mirror? Really?
Why you chose to do anything other than point the irrelevance of what Victor wrote is beyond me. What you wrote was unintelligent or vile.
My replies have been on point to that.
Buddhism isn’t a religion per se. Its not a belief system – there is no Credo (literally “I believe” in Latin). Its more of an operating system. Follow the 8 basic instructions (the eightfold path) and you’re doing it right.
I was interested in Buddhism mainly because of accountability (with ref to the comment before) – you can’t do bad things, repent on your deathbed and get into heaven. Everything you did in your past lives, and in this life, impacts you now and always going forward – its like spending money you don’t have – you get into a (karmic) debt that must be repaid. Or you gain merit (credit) by doing good things. There’s a certain logic to it all that makes more sense to physicists and engineers than most religions – possibly why so many physicists end up becoming Buddhist or at lest appreciating its tenets.
although of course I am open to challenge and education on all i’ve just said!
You know, it’s hard to answer that sensibly to some extent, because there is a lot of loading to asserting Credo. There is certainly a core set of beliefs that “makes you a Buddhist”. You take the Refuges: “I take refuge in the Buddha, I take refuge in the Dharma, I take refuge in the Sangha”. Pretty much every Buddhist believes the Four Noble Truths: That life is filled with frustrations, that the frustration arises from grasping, that there is an end to the frustration in finding an end to grasping, and that there are methods to learn not to grasp. But the Refuges aren’t as assertion of belief, they’re how you join the club, and the Four Noble Truths are beliefs in the same sense that F=ma is: a description of tested observations.
It’s a mistake to think of karma as a debt, though — karma is just “action”, and actions lead to vipaka, “consequences”. The whole thing about “accumulating merit” to erase a “karmic debt” doesn’t make sense in just the same way that being careful about my diet today doesn’t mean I have reversed having eaten chocolate in December. I may lose the 6.8 freaking pounds I gained overnight from eating one little damn chocolate bar, but the chocolate bar “karma” isn’t “repaid” — I just took new actions that had new consequences.
I dunno, maybe I shouldn’t be trying to answer before coffee. Anyway, I’m certainly planning to try to explain this stuff in greater detail; hang around and see Next Weeks Installment.
I don’t understand tying Buddhism to the Japanese Imperial Army. I thought the Japanese in 30s were more Shinto worshipers than Buddhist per se, and were motivated in fact more by an interpretation of Bushido plus a race-based concept of Japanese superiority. As well as the normal human traits of greed and ambition.
It is true that anti-Semitism was nurtured by the major Christian denominations in the 1800s, which in turn established a foundation for the National Socialists explicitly pagan anti-Semitism to manifest itself.
Buddhism is a soteriology, an action based path for enlightenment, thus it straddles the “place” that is occupied by philosophy and theology in Western culture. I took a year-long course in Buddhist scriptures as an undergrad, and was perpetually fascinated by how different Buddhist scholars through the ages had reproduced many of the concepts found in Western philosophy but not in the same order or as systematically. This is going back now 20 years and I can’t remember specific examples. Buddhism has always struck me as the hardest path to walk, if taken seriously. Trungpa made many excellent points that support this articles thesis in “Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism.” I’ve always avoided public discussion of Buddhism because here in the States, too many hippies and other cultural Marxists have corrupted and mutilated the practices and theory for the sake of adolescent rebellion and their idiotologies.
Congratulations, you used a word I had to look up. I don’t get new words very often. Thank you!
Yeah. Of course, first of all, Japanese don’t “do religion” like we do: you’re usually not “a Buddhist” or “a Shintoist”. They tend to Be Shinto for births and holidays, they like Western-style weddings, and Buddhist for funerals. But even then, the ideology that filled the place of Nazism during the war was State Shinto, which was much more of a fascist system than real Shinto.
> It is true that anti-Semitism was nurtured by the major Christian denominations in the 1800s, which in turn established a foundation for the National Socialists explicitly pagan anti-Semitism to manifest itself.
I will grant that many Christians were anti-Semites. However, I challenge the notion that Christian anti-Semitism served as a foundation for Nazism’s genocidal culture. For that, I think, you need to look into the philosophy of Richard Wagner and his son-in-law, the infamous Houston Stewart Chamberlain, whose writings profoundly affected Hitler.
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.”
That’s what I’d expect “Nobody Special” would say to the Emperor Obama–er–the Emperor of China, and it’s why our nation is in the mess it is. My “reason” and “common sense” is that I don’t want to work and I want everyone else to pay for my existence. Let’s not encourage this way of thinking.
But is it common sense? Who do you think is happier and has more peace of mind: someone with a job, or someone who doesn’t work?
Sasaki-roshi above is 105 years old and he still works every day.
I’ve tried to explain Buddhism to certain friends over the years (I’ve been following the Buddha for 44 years now), but coming out as Buddhist in the community I live in would be like coming out as gay a few years ago. Even so, I’ve been asked why I don’t wear robes when I meditate, why I don’t sit in a special position when I meditate (No way could I ever bend myself into the lotus position or anything like it), why I never shaved my head, why I believe in owning a gun, etc. etc. etc. I’ve explained that all that is Asian cultural baggage, and I’m not Asian. The principles taught by the Buddha are universal, or Buddhism could not have spread around the world as it has (much like Christianity).
It’s also a lot of work (as in, struggle to understand), at least in the beginning. It’s only later that you realize the art of letting go. It took me a long time to get that part.
I know what you mean. When I (stupidly) came out as Buddhist to the Chaplain in my Civil Air Patrol unit, I was summarily drummed out as CAP Cadet. As to the guns, that’s the “woo woo New Age” pseudo-Buddhism. Compare that to what HHDL said:
“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.”
Beating back some of the woowoo is one of my motivations here.
Ironically, when I attended boot camp at Parris Island in ’99, they offered a Buddhist service along with the Christian on Sundays. What would you advise if I was considering taking the plunge? I have some experience meditating with a Hindu sect, but realized a few years ago while re-reading Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind by Suzuki, that I’ve been a Buddhist for years and just wouldn’t admit it to myself.
Monkey, that’s the way it happened with me: I read the Four Noble Truths in Lobsang Rampa’s book, and said “Wow, I guess I’m a Buddhist.”
The best thing to do would be to dig up a local Buddhist teacher and learn basic meditation. I’d look for Shambhala or for a local Zen guy — basic sitting meditation is a good start. If you’re having trouble finding one, you can contact me via my Explorations site (explorations.chasrmartin.com) or on Facebook where I’m also facebook.com/chasrmartin and we’ll find a way to get you in contact.
Failing anything else, there are good descriptions of sitting meditation available; the only problem is that getting a good posture really helps, and it’s a little hard to get that from a written description.
Thank you for the information (and apologies for not having responded sooner).
I considered myself a Buddhist, or at least somewhat Buddhist, for three years, back in the 80s. I learned meditation and then zazen. I studied and sat regularly. I could sit for three hours without closing my eyes or moving. Heh. I had many spiritual experiences (though that’s not the point, I know), some positive, but some extremely negative.
I have been a Christian now for 25 years; a Catholic for six. I have my own opinions on what Buddhism is and isn’t. I know that once you’ve gone down the Eastern path and try to turn around, you end up deeply alone. Very few Christians have any idea what you are talking about, offer answers that are utterly inadequate, and the Buddhists say the real problem was you weren’t doing it right. And the people who have done both tend to be of the Joseph Campbell/William James varieties-of-religious-experience party.
One thing I’ve tried to do is understand what happened. Only one guy I know understood. I think I’ve got it now, but no one would believe me, anyway. Oh well.
Good luck, but beware. My two cents. I mean no offense.
There is a solitary path one must walk alone. This isn’t it.
I like “Unadorned Buddhism” as a title.
Yeah, thanks. It is a little more elegant that “Undecorated”.
Charlie,
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the two main assumptions behind all Buddhist thought that: (1) Life is Suffering AND that (2) Life and Death are a recursively cyclical process whereby one’s goal (nirvana, nibana, or however else its referred to) is to once and for all put a stop to this endless cycle of needless suffering and “blow out the candle” of one’s own continued reincarnation?
If this is so, doesn’t the acceptance of Buddhism require:
1) A belief in the reality of “Reincarnation” across lifetimes?
and
2)that “Life is Suffering” is a complete and sufficient description of what “life”‘s most essential feature and being is?
I explored quite a bit about Buddhism in my youth (even spent a year in a Thai monastery for foreigners, Wat Suan Mokkh), but ultimately had to reject it because I could not honestly believe in (1) and (2).
Would love to hear your own thoughts on these two points.
Not Kamala — Kalama (actually, Kālāma). Beware the spoonerism (sort of). I would nevertheless like to read your forthcoming book, but I don’t “do” Facebook; any information (publisher; date expected) on it elsewhere?