Farangs And Buddhism

[jumnien]

I can honestly say that my enlightenment and awakening began on May 25th, 1995 in Forest Knolls, California. I was released from a suffering I would not wish on my worst enemy. I was rocketed into a fourth dimension of existence I had never before known. I remember this transformation every day of my life and live in a state of gratitude!

Yes, there are higher experiences of enlightenment than mine. Of that, I am sure. But, mine is mine, and I keep doing what I've been doing in hopes of keep getting what I've been getting. Don't knock it til you try it. Or try something else. There are many paths, buddhism is just a another spiritual tool. Does it work for everyone? - I don't know...

[Grover]

Dhamma verified from experience.

There are many instances in the suttas.

All mythology until experienced or observed. Are there no examples since then?

I'm happy to answer your questions as best as I can, but behind this line of questions, what is it you really want to know ?

[fabianfred]

I was brought up in a catholic family... but even at 6 years old in catechism class I thought it odd when they instructed us to repeat after them... 'I believe in God...I believe in the holy Ghost...etc.' thinking ..."how can they tell me what I believe??"

but when I joined the army at 15 and was no longer at home I decided to wait and look around for something I could believe in.

I enjoyed reading the books by Dennis Wheatley... and that is where I first came across the supernatural and reincarnation... now here was something which made sense...

next I found the books of Lobsang Rampa and learned about Tibet and Buddhism... I then considered myself a Buddhist... what a great weight was lifted off my shoulders... I didn't have to be a success in this life (according to others standards)... I didn't have to be rich... there were plenty of other lives to be those if necessary.... I wasn't constricted by the thought of only a single lifetime anymore

I carried on that way... reading a few books here and there... then my last posting before retirement from the army was in HongKong.... from there I visited Thailand.... went to my first temple... saw my first monks.... gave food on morning alms-round for the first time....wow!...I'm home.

I bought many more books in Thailand and started to learn the language too... retired and came to live in thailand... now I can read the Thai books too...

One of the meditators at the temple seeing how good my Thai is and how I don't want to leave said that i was probably a Thai in earlier lives, but had been reborn in the West... now found my way home again.

[sabaijai]

I was brought up in a catholic family... but even at 6 years old in catechism class I thought it odd when they instructed us to repeat after them... 'I believe in God...I believe in the holy Ghost...etc.' thinking ..."how can they tell me what I believe??"

but when I joined the army at 15 and was no longer at home I decided to wait and look around for something I could believe in.

I enjoyed reading the books by Dennis Wheatley... and that is where I first came across the supernatural and reincarnation... now here was something which made sense...

next I found the books of Lobsang Rampa and learned about Tibet and Buddhism... I then considered myself a Buddhist... what a great weight was lifted off my shoulders... I didn't have to be a success in this life (according to others standards)... I didn't have to be rich... there were plenty of other lives to be those if necessary.... I wasn't constricted by the thought of only a single lifetime anymore

I carried on that way... reading a few books here and there... then my last posting before retirement from the army was in HongKong.... from there I visited Thailand.... went to my first temple... saw my first monks.... gave food on morning alms-round for the first time....wow!...I'm home.

I bought many more books in Thailand and started to learn the language too... retired and came to live in thailand... now I can read the Thai books too...

One of the meditators at the temple seeing how good my Thai is and how I don't want to leave said that i was probably a Thai in earlier lives, but had been reborn in the West... now found my way home again.

Welcome home ...

[Austhaied]

Life is what happens to you when you're busy making other plans (John Lennon). That's what i have truly come to realize through Buddhism.

You can't change the world but can change the way you see it. That was quoted to me by a farang monk in Issan years ago.

All in all i am much more in control and aware of "what is what" than i was before i delved into The Dhamma.

[fabianfred]

Welcome home ...

ขอบคุณครับ

[sabaijai]

Welcome home ...

ขอบคุณครับ

บ่เป็นหยังดอก

[OxfordWill]

How can I pursue what is real when I'm just doing what I'm told to do according to third hand reports of what someone who may have existed said, rather than look at real truths revealed to my own eyes?

Its not worthwhile having this argument in this way, your issue here is not with Buddhism, not with doctrine, not with a form of buddhism, but rather with religious belief in any sense. You're expressing a rationalist ideal here, so I ask myself why it is you are also interested in Buddhism and spirituality. If I were to be presumptious, I might hazard a guess that such an inquiry by someone such as yourself (so long as my assumptions are correct) would never lead you to any satisfying answers/insights/conslusions. Then again Im basing this on two sentences of yours, striking as they were to me.

[chownah]

I have been wanting to comment on the title of this thread ever since I first saw it but some how my thoughts had never jelled...until now....so I know this is rather late in the game...so.....it seems to me that the Buddha taught about the conditions of all people, not just Asians. His teacings are just as valid and valuable for farangs as for anyone else. So, I guess for me it seems a bit odd to talk about farangs and Buddhism since what the Buddha taught is about how existence works and not based on cultural characteristics at all. But most of you probably know this already so I'm probably just preaching to the choir.

chownah

[cdnvic]

How can I pursue what is real when I'm just doing what I'm told to do according to third hand reports of what someone who may have existed said, rather than look at real truths revealed to my own eyes?

Its not worthwhile having this argument in this way, your issue here is not with Buddhism, not with doctrine, not with a form of buddhism, but rather with religious belief in any sense. You're expressing a rationalist ideal here, so I ask myself why it is you are also interested in Buddhism and spirituality. If I were to be presumptious, I might hazard a guess that such an inquiry by someone such as yourself (so long as my assumptions are correct) would never lead you to any satisfying answers/insights/conslusions. Then again Im basing this on two sentences of yours, striking as they were to me.

I have no issue with Buddhism actually. I have issues with following rituals and orthodoxy just for the sake of it. The very strength of Buddhism in my opinion, lays with how in the absence of gods, monks, chanting, and temples it all still makes sense, for those things are just window dressing. This is why I take a dim view at Tibetan wizardry (refuse to call it Buddhism) and some of the ritualistic aspects of Theraveda, I just see no use for it. I also think orthodoxy allows people to accept too much through faith without discovering it for themselves. When this happens the keepers of the orthodoxy can shape Buddhism to suit their views.

I also think that not only are rationalism and Buddhism compatible, but are actually one in the same if you look deep enough.

[sabaijai]

I have been wanting to comment on the title of this thread ever since I first saw it but some how my thoughts had never jelled...until now....so I know this is rather late in the game...so.....it seems to me that the Buddha taught about the conditions of all people, not just Asians. His teacings are just as valid and valuable for farangs as for anyone else. So, I guess for me it seems a bit odd to talk about farangs and Buddhism since what the Buddha taught is about how existence works and not based on cultural characteristics at all. But most of you probably know this already so I'm probably just preaching to the choir.

chownah

Amen.

[OxfordWill]

Interesting reply, thanks. But are you not yourself a proponent of your very own orthodoxy in so dismissing all ritual and wizardry? If I am to take you literally on your assertion that a rationalist is a Buddhist, then I don't know why you bother using the term "buddhism" since it does nothing to describe the practices of a rationalist. Perhaps you have some sort of reductionist view in mind.. please share.

Presumably your form of Buddhism does not include the possibility of leaving this physical world and entering another physical world? Etc.

[cdnvic]

I don't dismiss all ritual, rather I see accepting it without understanding exactly why it's done and what it does is abandoning reason, and critical thinking for faith. Faith begets desire which begets misery. That's something that both Buddhism and my own deductive reasoning can agree on.

I don't see where Buddhism as I see it (I follow no orthodoxy, but my way of viewing it follows closer to the Zen school than anything), and rationalism are incompatible with each other. In fact rationalism requires ideas to stand on their own feet, which is all I'm saying people should do. Believing requires faith, knowing requires nothing.

As for leaving this physical world for another, my mind is open but unless I can prove it's possible I'm not about to go down the path of hoping it is.

[jumnien]

For those who believe in Rock 'N Roll, sitting front stage at a Rolling Stones concert is an awesome experience to be remembered for a lifetime. For the non-believers, the same experience is just loud, painful, obnoxious and ends in a huge traffic jam in the parking lot. It's pitiful to reduce all of human life to rationalism, especially in the arts and spirituality.

[cdnvic]

For those who believe in Rock 'N Roll, sitting front stage at a Rolling Stones concert is an awesome experience to be remembered for a lifetime. For the non-believers, the same experience is just loud, painful, obnoxious and ends in a huge traffic jam in the parking lot. It's pitiful to reduce all of human life to rationalism, especially in the arts and spirituality.

It's even more awesome when you understand how every note was created, how the temperature affects the sound, the craftsmanship that brings out the particular sound in a certain guitar, and what personal experiences inspired the songwriter.

Who is talking about non-believers? Is it any less pitiful to abandon thinking for blind faith?

[OxfordWill]

The way I see them as incompatible is that faith is necessarily irrational. That's not a controversial opinion either, its also the definition of the term "belief that is not based on proof". Proof can be logical proof or scientific proof but either way faith circumvents both.

I think what you call buddhism is not buddhism to anyone but yourself?

[cdnvic]

The way I see them as incompatible is that faith is necessarily irrational. That's not a controversial opinion either, its also the definition of the term "belief that is not based on proof". Proof can be logical proof or scientific proof but either way faith circumvents both.

I think what you call buddhism is not buddhism to anyone but yourself?

Myself and millions of Chinese, and Japanese who practise Zen Buddhism.

I think you are reading alot into this that isn't there. The very fact that Buddhism does make sense when I hold it up to rational thought is what convinces me that it's the real thing. Look at the concept of Karma and you see Newton's third law explained more elegantly. Just because I think "praying to the Buddha" or otherwise deifying someone who never claimed to be a god is silly doesn't mean what I believe in is not Buddhism. In fact I don't believe that much of what goes on in Buddhism has much to do with Buddhism itself. I don't think the amulates and baubles hold any magic powers, nor can I find anything in the ancient Buddhist writings that suggest they might. I also don't think monks have any special powers to pick lucky numbers, names, or bring good luck. I fail to see how any of these things are related to Buddhism, other than the colour of the robe being worn.

If you read into Zen Buddhism (and I suggest you do) you will find it's philosophy revolves around freeing the mind from habit and preconceptions, discarding belief for direct knowledge. I see it as a Buddhism less tainted by the window dressings the older schools have acquired.

Edited June 10, 2007 by cdnvic

[OxfordWill]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[cdnvic]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Anytime

[sabaijai]

The way I see them as incompatible is that faith is necessarily irrational. That's not a controversial opinion either, its also the definition of the term "belief that is not based on proof". Proof can be logical proof or scientific proof but either way faith circumvents both.

I think what you call buddhism is not buddhism to anyone but yourself?

If you read into Zen Buddhism (and I suggest you do) you will find it's philosophy revolves around freeing the mind from habit and preconceptions, discarding belief for direct knowledge. I see it as a Buddhism less tainted by the window dressings the older schools have acquired.

Re 'freeing the mind from habit and preconceptions, discarding belief for direct knowledge,' Theravada Buddhism is exactly the same.

Re 'less tainted by the window dressings the older schools have acquired', I've spent some time in Zen monasteries and found just as much ritual - if not more (in fact in my experience, always more) - than in Theravada monasteries. More chanting, and many more rituals keyed to each meal.

All in all I find Theravada monasticism to have the least ritual of the three major schools of Buddhism. However in all traditions, ritual can also be seen as an opportunity to practice mindfulness.

[RedQualia]

I've stumbled into the Buddhism forums here, and find that I'm posting a bit. Thinking that perhaps I should introduce myself, and this thread seems as good as any. The thread is a bit dated, but invites response, nonetheless.

Ma used to make me go to church. Said it was good for me. She stopped doing this when I laid into the preacher one evening at the age of 13 or so. He had decided to present a bunch of nonsense having to do with why the theory of evolution was bogus. I took it upon myself to offer a rebuttal, right there in front of the present congregation. Ma decided I didn't have to go to church after that.

The crux of the "religious problem" for me, is simply this: I have never done well with those who have sought to tell me how I should think about some thing, without regard to reason or logic. Were a valid argument offered for Christianity, or Judaism, or Hinduism, or whirling dirvishes (as is offered for say, the theory of evolution), I'm sure I'd be happy to jump aboard. But this is never done. Instead, it always comes down to revelation: "Hey, man... I was walking around atop the mountain the other day, and guess what? This burning bush talked to me! Yeah, man, it was cool! And you know what? He gave me these ten 'commandment' things. Dude, you know that thing we've been doing? The burning bush said we gotta stop..." [in the voice of Tommy Chong, perhaps.]

The Upanishads, the Koran, the Tanakh, the King James Bible (filtered through a few thousand years of PC editing) are all little different. It comes down to the idea that one must have faith in whatever has been "revealed" by... Who the heck is it, anyway? Always seems to be some lunatic. The madman on the mountain.

I don't want to simply "have faith" that the world works the way that say, Abraham, said that it works (else I might be missing my first born). I don't want to trust that I'll have 40 or 70 virgins in the next life either, if I "just do this one thing" here and now. It's all "pie in the sky, by and by." Faith in something I consider so important simply is not sufficient. I cannot operate from faith alone about such things. Too, what sort of omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent entity would require one to have faith in the madman on the mountain? If such a being has something important to say, then it could surely cut to the chase and get to the point already. I know it's something of a misapplication of the term, but I think you'll understand anyway, when I say that "listen to the madman from the mountain" just doesn't seem compatible with the idea of "right thinking."

And so I've gone to some trouble to arrive at something more than faith. As evidence of that effort (and NOT as evidence of the least bit of sense or ability to think in the way I was taught), I have accumulated a BA in philosophy, and an MA in philosophy. I was accepted into the PhD program at SUNY Albany, where I planned to study artificial intelligence from within the philosophy department. That didn't work out in the end, 'cause I couldn't sell the house in California. I was later accepted into the PhD program in the philosophy department at Assumption University, in Bangkok. That didn't work so well either. Ma became deathly ill, and owing to that and other family problems, I had to return to the USA, where I've remained for far too long (Ma's still alive). I assume I am still an "official student" at ABAC, and can attend once I return. Although I must say that the fact that ABAC is Catholic bothers me enormously. I've done my time studying Augustine and Acquinas, thanks. I do not require more.

So here's the deal: Much of Buddhism does not require that I accept it on faith. There is a core to Buddhism that is rather more scientific, and that invites criticism and even refutation, if such can be validly made. This is refreshing, to the point that it's difficult to believe it's actually a religion.

But then, that's just some sort of vague central core of Buddhism, lurking in the background of most of its 84,000 schools. In the same way as say, Christianity, Buddhism offers many different schools for many different kinds of thinking, and even non-thinking. That is, in a manner that's similar to say, Catholicism, there is a part of Buddhism that offers worship to the masses through symbolism, rather than through thinking. Applying gold leaf to a statue of the Buddha, for example, does not seem so dissimilar to praying the rosary, for example. The thoughts of lay Buddhists in the temples of Thailand are also extremely varied. Some believe they are praying to an actual god, or even a whole raft of gods, spirits, or whatever. For such people, the countryside is filled with good and bad spirits, black magic abounds, and the bigger the spirit house, the better. Former kings are gods as well, and then there's the statue of the woman in Nakhon Ratchasima, to whom so many pray.

This sort of thing surely does sound like religion. And who am I to deny such beliefs to lay people? Indeed, it's all a bit interesting, from an anthropological point of view. I might even like to apprentice myself to a Thai shaman somewhere, sometime. I mean, I really want to know and understand the causal relationships involved in shamanism, ala Carlos Castenada, I suppose. Abstractly, at least.

But Buddhism proper does not require me to believe that Buddha was a god. Nor does Buddhism require I believe in any god. And again, it invites critical and even scientific inspection. To this extent, and to the extent that I respect Buddhism (the ethical system works quite well) and feel that Buddhism respects me as well (Buddhists are more likely to accept atheism than Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc, and the latter will waste no time in telling me the error of my ways), might I be considered a Buddhist. Which is not to say I'm Buddhist at all. I mean, I seek no "refuge" (from what?), which means that I do not "go for refuge" to the Buddha, and I do not "go for refuge" to the dhamma, and I do not "go for refuge" to the Sangha (feel free to start a discussion on what "go for refuge" might mean, in fact).

And yet, a Thai temple is one of the few "religious" places in the world where I find that I can be in any way spiritual. I do not have to believe in a god at such a temple in order to feel a spiritual connection to "all that is." Nor do I feel the need to worry about what the rest of the "congregation" might think, nor a need to conform ("You better straighten up, boy, or you're a goin' ta HAYL!!! Oh, and umm, vote for Bush..."). I can even pray in a Thai temple, in my own atheistic (meditative) way, and well, it works for me.

Buddhism is the only thing even close to a religion (is it? isn't it? -- see other threads) that I can accept. It's the only one that comes close to accepting me...

[RedQualia]

I've done my time studying Augustine and Acquinas, thanks. I do not require more.

Ok, so I DO need remedial study in Aquinas... "You spell his name this way. You spell his name this way..."

Sorry. All I had to do was look at my bookshelf...

[camerata]

Which is not to say I'm Buddhist at all. I mean, I seek no "refuge" (from what?), which means that I do not "go for refuge" to the Buddha, and I do not "go for refuge" to the dhamma, and I do not "go for refuge" to the Sangha (feel free to start a discussion on what "go for refuge" might mean, in fact).

Hi RedQualia. You might like Ajahn Jagaro's essay, Am I a Buddhist?.

[RedQualia]

Which is not to say I'm Buddhist at all. I mean, I seek no "refuge" (from what?), which means that I do not "go for refuge" to the Buddha, and I do not "go for refuge" to the dhamma, and I do not "go for refuge" to the Sangha (feel free to start a discussion on what "go for refuge" might mean, in fact).

Hi RedQualia. You might like Ajahn Jagaro's essay, Am I a Buddhist?.

Thanks. I did see that earlier, and it was that which prompted me to discuss the matter of "going to refuge." "Refuge" is an interesting word, with stronger meanings and not so strong meanings. Maybe I'll stick something out there in a new thread having to do with this.

Although I've a strong interest in Buddhism, I suspect that I'm too much of a philosopher to be an actual Buddhist. Always hung up on the meanings of words, and analysis.

[manuchaomk]

As a Catholic I am completely satisfied about my lifestyle (following my Jesus) but I like that philosophy (Buddhism) and I respect all people believe and follow the signs of Buddha.

I will never walk alone....thanks Jesus.

...and share my compassion with you, Buddha.

Manu Dee