Converting To Buddhism

[SeerObserver]

If you were in a group suddenly transported to foxholes in Afghanistan and the Taliban were coming to kill you (or worse), who do you think would have the easier death - you, the atheist, the Christian evangelist or the Thai with a bunch of amulets round his neck? Makes you think, doesn't it?

Definitely. It makes me find the merit (pun) in some things that are outside of the box, so to speak. We are often quick to criticize this and that, often strongly implying (if not outright saying) that our practice is right and others' is wrong. If someone can use a tool that is not akusala kamma to help guide them in their practice, then we should really let it be without unconstructive criticism.

[rockyysdt]

Thais look to animism/Brahmanism/astrology for help (i.e. psychological security) in the present life.

Isn't their security false as it's founded on superstition?

Is it sound to seek psychological security based on things which aren't true?

Doesn't false security negate the need to search for the truth?

Doesn't the support of animism/Brahmanism/astrology come undone when you look at some of the detail?

If you were in a group suddenly transported to foxholes in Afghanistan and the Taliban were coming to kill you (or worse), who do you think would have the easier death - you, the atheist, the Christian evangelist or the Thai with a bunch of amulets round his neck? Makes you think, doesn't it?

Me - Fear

Atheist - Fear

Christian - Depends on how true to his faith - Calmn to Fear

Thai with a bunch of amulet - Calm to Fear (maybe not so sure!)

Edited April 14, 2009 by rockyysdt

[SeerObserver]

Thais look to animism/Brahmanism/astrology for help (i.e. psychological security) in the present life.

Isn't their security false as it's founded on superstition?

Is it sound to seek psychological security based on things which aren't true?

Doesn't false security negate the need to search for the truth?

Doesn't the support of animism/Brahmanism/astrology come undone when you look at some of the detail?

The principle you are emphasizing here can apply. There are even thoughts that saddha in certain things cultivates a temperament for that and will yield fruit in that you will continue to be misguided for some time. False security negating the need to search for truth is also a slippery slope.

[Groongthep]

If you were in a group suddenly transported to foxholes in Afghanistan and the Taliban were coming to kill you (or worse), who do you think would have the easier death - you, the atheist, the Christian evangelist or the Thai with a bunch of amulets round his neck? Makes you think, doesn't it?

Me - Fear

Atheist - Fear

Christian - Depends on how true to his faith - Calmn to Fear

Thai with a bunch of amulet - Calm to Fear (maybe not so sure!)

I don't think "faith" or belief in anything would necessarily determine how one would react to imminent doom. It seems to me that acceptance is the key to whether one confronts death with fear or with calm. Having faith that a better life/existence awaits you after death would certainly be an important factor in the ease of how one faces death but it is not the only factor. Did you ever see the clandestine youtube clip of Saddam Hussein's execution? We can't be sure if he was a devout Muslim or not but judging by the incredibly evil and cruel acts he committed during his life I think its a pretty good bet that he was not, yet he faced his death in the most calm and cool manner imaginable. He knew he was going to die and he accepted that there was nothing he could do about it. He showed no fear.

Without trying to sound too cliche, I think it goes to show that it's not how we die that is important but how we live. And if one has lived a good life, then faith in either Karma or God will help us stand a better chance of accepting death with it comes. But as Saddam showed even those with no faith can face death easily if they simply accept it.

Edited April 14, 2009 by Groongthep

[camerata]

Isn't their security false as it's founded on superstition?

Is it sound to seek psychological security based on things which aren't true?

How can security be "false" if it works? It's just a subjective psychological state. Thais haven't signed any contract saying they'll follow doctrinal Buddhism. They just want a way out of suffering. They are not involved in a "search for truth." They want results!

The Dhamma offers a lot in easing the suffering of everyday life, but you have to put a lot into it. In those situations you usually have some control, i.e. you can choose to act according to the Eightfold Path and see the results. However, the Dhamma is not so good for those extreme crises, like being told you've got cancer and 3 months to live - where you have no control at all. To have equanimity in such a situation you need to have been practising seriously for many, many years. Many people need some psychological support for the crises where they have no control at all and need some quick results. Who can blame them if they have faith in an amulet? As Ajahn Chah said (probably talking about rice farmers), "Thais don't practise in the wrong way, they just practise at a low level, a level they understand."

Ideally, anyone who relies on amulets and astronomy should grow out of it as their understanding of the Dhamma deepens.

I know the Dhamma is often described as "the absolute truth," but in my experience people who see Buddhism as a search for truth rather than a way out of suffering just seem to go round in circles because it's impossible to define the truth. On the other hand, it's quite easy to experience a reduction in stress/suffering and be aware of it.

[rockyysdt]

I don't think "faith" or belief in anything would necessarily determine how one would react to imminent doom. It seems to me that acceptance is the key to whether one confronts death with fear or with calm. Having faith that a better life/existence awaits you after death would certainly be an important factor in the ease of how one faces death but it is not the only factor. Did you ever see the clandestine youtube clip of Saddam Hussein's execution? We can't be sure if he was a devout Muslim or not but judging by the incredibly evil and cruel acts he committed during his life I think its a pretty good bet that he was not, yet he faced his death in the most calm and cool manner imaginable. He knew he was going to die and he accepted that there was nothing he could do about it. He showed no fear.

Without trying to sound too cliche, I think it goes to show that it's not how we die that is important but how we live. And if one has lived a good life, then faith in either Karma or God will help us stand a better chance of accepting death with it comes. But as Saddam showed even those with no faith can face death easily if they simply accept it.

I suspect most of us never face our mortality.

Poor lifestyle resulting in reduced quality & length of life is indicative of this.

Your description of death is very insightful.

My thoughts on Hussein:

Faced with death his ego convinced him into thinking that he was righteous & that Allah would receive him.

Anything else would yield massive distress.

My thoughts on a Christian who shows distress at impending death:

The strength of his position is totally based on faith.

Fear shows he has doubts.

Edited April 14, 2009 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

How can security be "false" if it works? It's just a subjective psychological state. Thais haven't signed any contract saying they'll follow doctrinal Buddhism. They just want a way out of suffering. They are not involved in a "search for truth." They want results!

Isn't it like saying "they reduce their mental suffering by living a lie or turning a blind eye to reality".

I suppose there is no clear cut answer but I'm not sure.

If I'm given a vest which offers no protection but told it is bullet proof, I may expose myself to risk.

It may reduce my mental suffering in battle but may cause my death.

On the other hand, if I'm not given an easy way out wouldn't I be more likely to seek the correct way.

The Dhamma offers a lot in easing the suffering of everyday life, but you have to put a lot into it. In those situations you usually have some control, i.e. you can choose to act according to the Eightfold Path and see the results. However, the Dhamma is not so good for those extreme crises, like being told you've got cancer and 3 months to live - where you have no control at all. To have equanimity in such a situation you need to have been practising seriously for many, many years. Many people need some psychological support for the crises where they have no control at all and need some quick results. Who can blame them if they have faith in an amulet?

Ideally, anyone who relies on amulets and astronomy should grow out of it as their understanding of the Dhamma deepens.

I know the Dhamma is often described as "the absolute truth," but in my experience people who see Buddhism as a search for truth rather than a way out of suffering just seem to go round in circles because it's impossible to define the truth. On the other hand, it's quite easy to experience a reduction in stress/suffering and be aware of it.

Doesn't following Dhamma involve effort?

If those in authority endorse superstition, & animism, won't that facilitate an easy path which leads to a dead end?

As Ajahn Chah said (probably talking about rice farmers), "Thais don't practise in the wrong way, they just practise at a low level, a level they understand."

When he said this, wasn't he describing the way which was before he introduced his teachings?

Once his teachings were formulated, then shouldn't they take over?

Edited April 14, 2009 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

Isn't it like saying "they reduce their mental suffering by living a lie or turning a blind eye to reality".

The reality is their mental state. They don't really care how it's arrived at. It's like a placebo. If you had no medicine left you wouldn't deny a patient the placebo, knowing it could save his life.

This is a bit different from guarantees of physical security, which can easily be proven ineffective.

If those in authority endorse superstition, & animism, won't that facilitate an easy path which leads to a dead end?

But it doesn't lead to a dead end in the eyes of the believers, it leads to psychological security, which is what they want.

When he said this, wasn't he describing the way which was before he introduced his teachings?

Once his teachings were formulated, then shouldn't they take over?

Apparently they didn't. They stuck with what they'd been taught since birth.

[camerata]

Definitely. It makes me find the merit (pun) in some things that are outside of the box, so to speak. We are often quick to criticize this and that, often strongly implying (if not outright saying) that our practice is right and others' is wrong. If someone can use a tool that is not akusala kamma to help guide them in their practice, then we should really let it be without unconstructive criticism.

To look at it from a slightly different perspective, the Buddha said that attachment to views is a monk's worst hindrance. To me, that means even if I'm absolutely sure I'm right, I should never speak or act as if I'm right and the other guy is wrong. To criticize on the basis that I know I'm right is unskillful - even if I really am right!

[jts-khorat]

Always been wondering about farangs who convert to Buddhism. My impression is that Thai people tend to chuckle a bit about it, the thruth seeking farang wandering about in orange. An exception would be westerners who made it very high up in the clerical hierarchy, became abbott of a temple for instance. Mostly I believe they are Americans, and a few Germans.

Buddism is not a profilerating religion like Christianity or Islam, though it does accept converts, unlike for instance Jewism.

During my 18 years in Thailand, it hardly ever happened that anybody suggested that I should become a Buddhist.

Your thoughts on this?

It might be an interesting fact to know that the first push of Buddhism into the west was in the 1880s, mainly coming from Sri Lanka with the British but also with Germans; in certain circles it was already then quite fashionable to partake in the mystery of the far east with some people being quite serious about it: to learn languages like Pali and Sanskrit without proper text books must have been a very hard thing to do.

I read just recently that actually a large part of "our" western understanding of Buddhism as a non-religious philosophy (without demons, hel_l states, etc) comes of the view proposed by those early western Buddhists and their understanding of Buddhism.

Thus, foreigners converting to Buddhism or practicing it more (or less) seriously is not a new development, but it has just been forgotten as having such a long tradition (both Thais and foreigners being ignorant alike in this regard).

As an example some more reading on Ven. Nyanatiloka in Sri Lanka: http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=43,4202,0,0,1,0

Maybe also of interest that Buddha was actually declared a Christian saint in 1585 after a legend about the enlightenment of Buddha from Arabic sources (source: http://www.wisdom-books.com/FocusDetail.asp?FocusRef=9 ); besides that lots more mentioning of contacts between western philosophy and Buddhism.

[Groongthep]

Thus, foreigners converting to Buddhism or practicing it more (or less) seriously is not a new development, but it has just been forgotten as having such a long tradition (both Thais and foreigners being ignorant alike in this regard).

I would have to respectfully disagree. There are many Westerners who are quite knowledgeable of the history of Buddhism in the West. Material on this subject is readily available in most all large libraries, bookstores and on the web.

[rockyysdt]

To look at it from a slightly different perspective, the Buddha said that attachment to views is a monk's worst hindrance. To me, that means even if I'm absolutely sure I'm right, I should never speak or act as if I'm right and the other guy is wrong. To criticize on the basis that I know I'm right is unskillful - even if I really am right!

But wouldn't you be expressing Buddha's view or position not yours?

Edited April 15, 2009 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

The reality is their mental state. They don't really care how it's arrived at. It's like a placebo. If you had no medicine left you wouldn't deny a patient the placebo, knowing it could save his life.

Perhaps we're in agreement but don't know it.

If they knew it was a placebo would they still be keen?

But it doesn't lead to a dead end in the eyes of the believers, it leads to psychological security, which is what they want.

Isn't "what they want (perceived)", different from "discovering their evolutionary path to enlightenment"?

Wouldn't Buddha's true teachings offer greater psychological security (placebo) than animism & superstition?

[camerata]

To look at it from a slightly different perspective, the Buddha said that attachment to views is a monk's worst hindrance. To me, that means even if I'm absolutely sure I'm right, I should never speak or act as if I'm right and the other guy is wrong. To criticize on the basis that I know I'm right is unskillful - even if I really am right!

But wouldn't you be expressing Buddha's view or position not yours?

This was the Buddha's advice to serious practitioners (i.e. monks). I'm following it because I tried it and found it to be effective.

[camerata]

If they knew it was a placebo would they still be keen?

I think you're missing the point a bit. You're saying that a lucky amulet or a placebo (same thing) is based on a lie and therefore somehow "wrong." I'm saying that if they are effective, they are "right" in the sense that they bring the desired results and reduce suffering. The results may be subjective, but they are still results. The amulet may not be authentic Buddhism and the placebo may not ne authentic medicine, but the sufferer doesn't care.

Isn't "what they want (perceived)", different from "discovering their evolutionary path to enlightenment"?

Sure, but not everyone is looking for enlightenment. As I mentioned before, most Thais see Buddhism and enlightenment as something they'll attain aeons in the future. It's two different things, relief from suffering now and nibbana in a gazillion years. We can't say that this is right or wrong, it's just the way it is.

Wouldn't Buddha's true teachings offer greater psychological security (placebo) than animism & superstition?

Have you tried? What do you think? For me personally, superstition offers nothing right now because I wasn't brought up to believe in it. But it's very different for the average Thai. It's also very different for the millions of otherwise rational people in the West who believe in God and heaven. It all depends on the individual.

[Groongthep]

For me personally, superstition offers nothing right now because I wasn't brought up to believe in it. But it's very different for the average Thai. It's also very different for the millions of otherwise rational people in the West who believe in God and heaven.

I don't think that this analogy is so good even though I do understand that you are referring to the majority of Christians in the West. There have been other threads on this forum discussing similar topics often trying to compare Christian, Muslim or Jewish concepts to Buddhist concepts. Most are like comparing apples and oranges, but not always.

To some in the West, the concept of God is interpreted as truth or nature or even, to use Buddhist terminology, Dharma. Likewise, heaven is perceived as any state after death that is higher than the present living state as resulting from the accumulation of good Karma. People in the West who believe in God and heaven in these terms are really perceiving the nature of religion very similarly (although not exactly the same) as do Buddhists. I have met some people with beliefs like this at Unitarian Universalist Churches.

Here's an interesting link if you're not already familiar with this group: Unitarian Churches Click on the "About Us" link at the top for a quick synopsis and history of their group. They are generally speaking a very progressive and (though I hate to use a politically charged term) liberal group of religious thinkers. Buddhist monks of different traditions are often invited to speak at their assemblies as Universalists are very open to to learning and accepting of all points of view when it comes to spirituality. I believe it is perfectly in line with the Buddha's teaching that we all should investigate his teachings through study and meditation on our own in the way best suited to our own nature in order to discover truth (or God or Dharma if you prefer) for ourselves.

I am not a member of the Unitarian Universalists but I do admire and respect their open mindedness. Likewise, my Buddhist practice (when I do practice; I have my shortcomings and certainly won't be claiming sainthood any time soon) tends to concentrate on meditation and study more than it does on ceremony, traditions and dogma. I do try to do my best to accept and respect the beliefs and practices of others however even though I may not agree with them.

Edited April 15, 2009 by Groongthep

[phetaroi]

My thoughts on a Christian who shows distress at impending death:

The strength of his position is totally based on faith.

Fear shows he has doubts.

I disagree here. I, for example, am not afraid to die. I am afraid of the intense pain that might accompany death. For example, I had one relative who instantly dropped dead of a heart attack...lucky him. I had others who had slow lingering deaths due to cancer...not the way I hope to go. I think there are many devout Christians who fear how they die, not that they die.

[camerata]

For me personally, superstition offers nothing right now because I wasn't brought up to believe in it. But it's very different for the average Thai. It's also very different for the millions of otherwise rational people in the West who believe in God and heaven.

I don't think that this analogy is so good even though I do understand that you are referring to the majority of Christians in the West.

I was just trying to make the point that notions of "superstition" differ widely. To a Buddhist or a Hindu, God and the Virgin Mary might be a superstition. To many Christians, Buddhism is not only a superstition, but the work of Satan. So where is the "truth" that Rocky is implying and where is the "lie"? How do we know the Buddha really existed? How do we know the Pali Canon is what he said? This is why I think it's a good idea not to be attached to our view that we alone are on the right path.

[rockyysdt]

I was just trying to make the point that notions of "superstition" differ widely. To a Buddhist or a Hindu, God and the Virgin Mary might be a superstition. To many Christians, Buddhism is not only a superstition, but the work of Satan. So where is the "truth" that Rocky is implying and where is the "lie"? How do we know the Buddha really existed? How do we know the Pali Canon is what he said? This is why I think it's a good idea not to be attached to our view that we alone are on the right path.

Putting it this way I agree wholeheartedly.

It's just that I thought the Buddha taught a system which allows us to escape suffering as well as achieve enlightenment whilst still alive & that this can be verified through self experience.

This gives me greater placebo compared to faith in religion, as I have a chance to verify it through self experience in my lifetime even if it might be a low probability.

Where as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, & animistic Buddhism are religions which you either believe in or not.

You won't know their validity without first dying (life after death, or reincarnation etc) at which point you may or may not get a nasty surprise.

On a lighter note doesn't superstitious animistic Buddhism which encourages lucky charms & good luck facilitate risk taking such as gambling which is a scourge in Thailand?

Edited April 15, 2009 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

It's just that I thought the Buddha taught a system which allows us to escape suffering as well as achieve enlightenment whilst still alive & that this can be verified through self experience.

This gives me greater placebo compared to faith in religion, as I have a chance to verify it through self experience in my lifetime even if it might be a low probability.

Where as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, & animistic Buddhism are religions which you either believe in or not.

You won't know their validity without first dying (life after death, or reincarnation etc) at which point you may or may not get a nasty surprise.

Yes, and I think that's the way most farang Buddhists see it. But according to the Pali Canon, this is mainly what the Buddha taught to his monks. For the rest of the population he taught mostly generosity, virtue and a better rebirth next time around.

On a lighter note doesn't superstitious animistic Buddhism which encourages lucky charms & good luck facilitate risk taking such as gambling which is a scourge in Thailand?

Oddly enough, the only case I've heard of where Thais put themselves in harm's way because of faith in amulets was that incident a couple of years ago when Muslim youths were conned into attacking a police station.

I don't know about gambling. People do win the lottery after praying at the Erawan Shrine and there is the famous story of the woman who danced naked there to fulfill her vow to Brahma.

[rockyysdt]

Yes, and I think that's the way most farang Buddhists see it. But according to the Pali Canon, this is mainly what the Buddha taught to his monks. For the rest of the population he taught mostly generosity, virtue and a better rebirth next time around.

Is it possible that this was due to his limited resource?

He would have had a lot of work on his hands to guide a number of full time trainees (monks) who could then carry on the tradition before his passing.

I'd imagine it was vital that others became enlightened to create the Sangha.

[camerata]

Is it possible that this was due to his limited resource?

Not sure, really. The author of the book I read this in didn't speculate. It's a fact, though, that the majority of the Buddha's known disciples were Brahmins, merchants and townspeople, not peasants. Perhaps the Buddha's teachings on enlightenment were just too complex for the peasants.

I've come across one or two people who think that the whole of the "supernatural" side of Buddhism is a monkish fabrication concocted after the Buddha's death to draw in the common people and perpetuate the religion and the power of the Sangha.

[phetaroi]

I was just trying to make the point that notions of "superstition" differ widely. To a Buddhist or a Hindu, God and the Virgin Mary might be a superstition. To many Christians, Buddhism is not only a superstition, but the work of Satan. So where is the "truth" that Rocky is implying and where is the "lie"? How do we know the Buddha really existed? How do we know the Pali Canon is what he said? This is why I think it's a good idea not to be attached to our view that we alone are on the right path.

Excellent post.

There is, in fact, a healthy discussion "out there" about whether or not you can be both a Buddhist and a Christian. I believe the answer is yes, but there is great division in the concept.