Why Are You (Or Conversely, Why Are You Not) A Buddhist?

[hermespan]

I always admired the critical book series 'Why I am not a X'.

I also respect the good in all religious and philosophical traditions, also recognizing their limitations.

BTW, I am not a Budhhist. And the reason I am not us because I think I could not conscientiously keep the five (?) lay vows. Buddhism, at least what is commonly referred (somewhat inaccurately) as Theravada, is deceptively simple but also very challenging -- IMHO.

And its strength, I believe is in its tolerance (while still being a missionary religion-not something I am keen on personally, as that, at least Mahayana schools, and particularly sects, is akin to Crosstianity). A Tibetan Buddhist friend in Melaka hangs out with sone Kashmiri Muslims there. Their islamocentric world view is chauvantistic to the extreme. But in his 'Buddhist' acceptance he does not speak his mind when they preach to his face against his own religion. His monk teacher recommends that he not bear it silently, but tactfully point out where they could be 'incomplete in their understanding'

Looking at history and theology I think that it is inaccurate to say that sll religions are equal. And a religion that destroys indigenous ones, and in the process slaughters and taxes the 'non-believing' population and classifies to what degree they are infidels-- I have no patience for that religion.

For Buddhism I do.

[HeavyDrinker]

Because I refuse to live my life by some invisible man's ideals.

Religion is a cop out to facing up to your own moral responsibilities. You don't need Buddha or any icon to live a good and just life.

[hermespan]

Because I refuse to live my life by some invisible man's ideals.

Religion is a cop out to facing up to your own moral responsibilities. You don't need Buddha or any icon to live a good and just life.

A reasonable response. Others less caustic too please.

As a humanist agnostic I see the truth in what heavy hrinker says. However, I am a closet believer. I think it's in my genes. Rationally I see no ultimate value in religion. However, in practice, I am ready to worship trees and the invisible man.

[transam]

All religious stuff was written by a bloke that nobody knew. Nothing regarding any religion has come from beyond our planet. Everything that folk still follow was written by a bloke. Sadly in this day and age some folk kill the innocent cos of something written by a bloke centuries ago.

Buddhism was still written by a bloke, an idea, but this stuff folk follow as if some higher being created it and controls their lives. Me, not happy with that.

[Morakot]

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Mahatma Gandhi

[hermespan]

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Mahatma Gandhi

Great quote. And much the same could be said about every religion's followers.

I am reminded of my previous employer, a sincere Pakistani Seventh Day Adventist. He calls himself a follower of Christ, but thinks it is a presumption to call himself a 'Christian', to elevate himself by association. And he is critical of his iwn church. As indeed is a very bright and humble Catholic priest in Cambodia who is a well-known French author and also a critic of his church.

Despite my use of the word 'Crosstianity', I have no issue with Christians--many, perhaps most, of whom I find to be sincere human beings. Pethaps we cultural Christians and Jews have resentments about the religions who we feel failed us.

[HeavyDrinker]

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Mahatma Gandhi

As are all followers of 'holy' men, Gandhi included....

[Bosse137]

Actually,I never understood why some people feel the need to put a lable on them self (and others)! We are what we are,with or without a stamp on the forehead.To me,religions are rubbish.As I do not regard Buddhism as a religion but more like a philosophy, I can symphatise with most of it`s "teachings".But that is as far as it goes...By the way,I have no problem with "religious"people of any sort,as long as they not see as their mission to kill others or act as if they are the creem of the earth.

[camerata]

What interests me about Buddhism is that it offers a path to understanding yourself (i.e. how the mind works), to personal growth and to reducing the stress/suffering of life. This is much more than just living a good life and having a moral compass.

No one can keep the 5 precepts perfectly except an arahant, so you do your best. It's from trying to keep them that the benefit is gained and mindfulness is developed.

As for following the Buddha, who is long gone, I don't see any problem with this. We follow teachers, dead or alive, because of their teachings, and the Buddha knew more about how the human mind works than any psychiatrist today.

[Morakot]

What interests me about Buddhism is that it offers a path to understanding yourself (i.e. how the mind works), to personal growth and to reducing the stress/suffering of life. This is much more than just living a good life and having a moral compass.

No one can keep the 5 precepts perfectly except an arahant, so you do your best. It's from trying to keep them that the benefit is gained and mindfulness is developed.

As for following the Buddha, who is long gone, I don't see any problem with this. We follow teachers, dead or alive, because of their teachings, and the Buddha knew more about how the human mind works than any psychiatrist today.

In this view, Buddhism is a moral philosophy not a religion.

Edited March 8, 2013 by Morakot

[rockyysdt]

BTW, I am not a Budhhist. And the reason I am not us because I think I
could not conscientiously keep the five (?) lay vows. Buddhism, at least
what is commonly referred (somewhat inaccurately) as Theravada, is
deceptively simple but also very challenging -- IMHO.

Is this the only reason why you don't adopt Buddhist practice?

It would be interesting to learn your background and current beliefs.

This may help explain your stance.

[villagefarang]

What is so difficult about keeping the 5 precepts? I have no time for magic, superstition, religion or gods of any form, but those “5” as stated, are just not that difficult.

Edited March 8, 2013 by villagefarang

[transam]

What interests me about Buddhism is that it offers a path to understanding yourself (i.e. how the mind works), to personal growth and to reducing the stress/suffering of life. This is much more than just living a good life and having a moral compass.

No one can keep the 5 precepts perfectly except an arahant, so you do your best. It's from trying to keep them that the benefit is gained and mindfulness is developed.

As for following the Buddha, who is long gone, I don't see any problem with this. We follow teachers, dead or alive, because of their teachings, and the Buddha knew more about how the human mind works than any psychiatrist today.

In this view, Buddhism is a moral philosophy not a religion.

But still has a controlling affect on folk. My Buddhist mrs talks of a God up there..

[meadish_sweetball]

Many people who are born here are nominally Buddhists, but do not even try to keep the precepts, nor do they meditate or attempt to be mindful in everyday life to the best of their ability. They do the things that they saw their parents and elders do when growing up, some of which are based on Buddhist concepts (many Thais are great at giving and try hard not to cause upset with their speech or actions, for example), but ultimately, they just tend to get on with their lives in Samsara. There are exceptions, of course, and it's great when you come across somebody who is.

Still, I would not base my idea of Buddhism on the average Thai off the street.

If you want to know what it's about, learn the basics and apply it in your life. Give it an honest go, see if it makes a difference. If it doesn't, carry on.

[camerata]

What interests me about Buddhism is that it offers a path to understanding yourself (i.e. how the mind works), to personal growth and to reducing the stress/suffering of life. This is much more than just living a good life and having a moral compass.

No one can keep the 5 precepts perfectly except an arahant, so you do your best. It's from trying to keep them that the benefit is gained and mindfulness is developed.

As for following the Buddha, who is long gone, I don't see any problem with this. We follow teachers, dead or alive, because of their teachings, and the Buddha knew more about how the human mind works than any psychiatrist today.

In this view, Buddhism is a moral philosophy not a religion.

I think of it as self-applied psychology with the aim of reducing or eliminating dukkha, but it also provides a good moral framework for living.

[nidieunimaitre]

QUOTE:

"many Thais are great at giving and try hard not to cause upset with their speech or actions, for example"

Have you ever heard about red and yellow shirts? coupists? politicians? hit and run? etc?

Of course, it is basically the same all over the world, all this is not typical thai or typical buddhism.

Therefore I state that buddhism is not different from any other religion.

[camerata]

What interests me about Buddhism is that it offers a path to understanding yourself (i.e. how the mind works), to personal growth and to reducing the stress/suffering of life. This is much more than just living a good life and having a moral compass.

No one can keep the 5 precepts perfectly except an arahant, so you do your best. It's from trying to keep them that the benefit is gained and mindfulness is developed.

As for following the Buddha, who is long gone, I don't see any problem with this. We follow teachers, dead or alive, because of their teachings, and the Buddha knew more about how the human mind works than any psychiatrist today.

In this view, Buddhism is a moral philosophy not a religion.

But still has a controlling affect on folk. My Buddhist mrs talks of a God up there..

People practise it differently, but the OP was asking why we in this forum are Buddhists.

[TommoPhysicist]

I am a Buddhist, not a good Buddhist, but a knowledgeable Buddhist.

Stops all this Thai "You don't understand our culture BS"

Allows me to go one up by saying "No, you don't understand your culture" (also BS, but they have no set answer)

Allows me to always avoid buying alcohol or lady drinks for anyone.

"Phom saat-sa-na put, gin beer mai dai, gin whiskey mai dai"

Now some of you might suggest, my reasons aren't actually the best for being a Buddhist, but I would have to reply that almost every religion is driven by people leaping on the bandwagon of 'one-up-man-ship', so I'm no worse than everyone else. Buddhism in Thailand is the ultimate 'one-up-man-ship' game, because hardly anyone local knows anything at all about their own religion and that includes the monks. Minimal effort is required to be the top of the pile.

Edited March 8, 2013 by TommoPhysicist

[nidieunimaitre]

Buddhism seems to concentrate on the individual --- "how can I do the right thing for myself?'.

I do not see the social dimension of buddhism.

Is it possible for a person to reach enlightenment if he does not care for the poor?

[camerata]

Let's stick to the topic at hand - I'm sure we can do it without bashing the Thais and other religions.

Thanks.

[rockyysdt]

Buddhism seems to concentrate on the individual --- "how can I do the right thing for myself?'.

I do not see the social dimension of buddhism.

Is it possible for a person to reach enlightenment if he does not care for the poor?

Buddhism seems to concentrate on the individual --- "how can I do the right thing for myself?'.

I do not see the social dimension of buddhism.

Is it possible for a person to reach enlightenment if he does not care for the poor?

Are you sure N?

I thought that the Buddha taught to care for others.

One of the very earliest Buddhist teachings, in the Brahma Vihara's revolves around, not only caring for the poor, but the caring for all.

We needn't be poor to cared for.

The "four Divine Abidings which the Buddha taught to meditate on are:

• Metta (profuse friendliness - Desire for all beings to be well and happy).
• Karuna (Compassion - To feel anothers pain as though it were yours).
• Mudita (Sympathetic Joy - To rejoice at the virtue, happiness and success of others)
• Upekkha (Equanimity - To be unaffected by gain, loss, praise & blame.)

He taught that these should become the mind's constant dwelling places.

Our minds should become saturated with them.

For it's this that will allow us to free ourselves of ego.

These days I like to study how conditioning affects mankind.

We begin to be conditioned from the moment we are born.

By the time we are six, pretty well all our beliefs and lifes habits are well formed via our environment and primary carers.

This conditioning forms invisible bars which control our lives and dictate every decision and thought.

This is partly what the Buddha termed: Attachment to "aversion, delusion, & greed".

Is it possible that those who have an aversion to Buddhism or what the Buddha taught, is due to imprinted beliefs/conditioning?

Is it possible that rather than truly evaluating anything which one encounters in life, one refers to a conditioned belief and uses this to form ones response?

Is it possible that many don't really think, but refer to their imprinted conditioning (that which was downloaded into their subconscious by others)?

Is it possible that this is partially why many don't even know what the Buddha actually taught?

Is this why many live their entire lives controlled by their conditioning until their death?

What I've learned is that the Buddha taught a practice (not belief) which individuals can test for themselves.

A practice of awareness which can progress to very fine levels.

A practice which, through awareness allows one to experience for oneself, rather that refer to memory for a conditioned belief which one might be attached to.

It's OK though.

This is why Awakening or Enlightenment is so difficult.

Before one can even attempt to practice, one must be able to escape from the clutches of conditioning.

This conditioning might give one the excuse not to practice.

"Oh, it's just another religion".

Besides practice requires effort.

It's far easier to resort to belief.

Edited March 8, 2013 by rockyysdt

[nidieunimaitre]

Bashing? Where?

[nidieunimaitre]

rockyysdt,

I have read many of your posts.

I know that you take buddhism seriously.

But you are an exception, most buddhists don't.

And your interpretation of buddhism is an exception too.

And on top of that,in my opinion, we should NOT care for the poor...... we should change society, so that there are NO poor.

Is there room for that in your interpretation of buddhism?

[Bosse137]

rockyysdt,

I have read many of your posts.

I know that you take buddhism seriously.

But you are an exception, most buddhists don't.

And your interpretation of buddhism is an exception too.

And on top of that,in my opinion, we should NOT care for the poor...... we should change society, so that there are NO poor.

Is there room for that in your interpretation of buddhism?

Your last sentence conteins conflicting arguments.Why should we care about changening the society so there are no poor people,if,as you also said,we should not care about the poor...?

[rockyysdt]

rockyysdt,

I have read many of your posts.

I know that you take buddhism seriously.

But you are an exception, most buddhists don't.

And your interpretation of buddhism is an exception too.

And on top of that,in my opinion, we should NOT care for the poor...... we should change society, so that there are NO poor.

Is there room for that in your interpretation of buddhism?

Of course.

There are many forums for Karuna, & Metta.

This can be on a one on one basis, ranging all the way through to the many through political means.

I'm sure that while the ideal state might take a long time to achieve, ones compassion will cause us to do what we can on an individual level.

This not only extends to ones economic state, but also their emotional state, health, and safety.

As long as your heart is driving your endeavour.

Bathe yourself with Metta and Karuna and your actions will follow.

We can only theorise though.

It is one thing to talk about compassion, it's another to meditate on it for your entire wakeful days until you are suffused with it.

I liken it to being an Olympian.

If you want Gold then you must practice until Mindfulness/Awareness becomes your nature.

Interpretations needn't get in our way.

Afterall, the subtleties of interpretation are just another form of attachment.

I, like all, have many weaknesses and attachments.

The one positive thing in my life is that I have a logical practice which has the potential to allow me to grow and experience awareness.

Awareness of breath (breath is very profund and has the power to affect our mood and every level of being).

Awareness of body

Awareness of thoughts.

Awareness of feelings.

Awareness of the external world and how we relate to it.

One can't but enrich ones life on many levels with simple awareness.

The road map of practice is the eightfold path.

Not a religion, but a practice.

Don't be swayed by the way Buddhism might be practiced (negatively) by others.

Awareness gives us the tools to find out for ourselves, what the Buddha was teaching, not what others may have interpreted and/or handed down through custom.

The Buddhas teachings should be judged on that, and not on the beahavious or interpretation of others.

I speak generally here and don't aim this at any individual.

I myself have many attachments.

I strive to free myself of my conditioning.

Edited March 8, 2013 by rockyysdt

[nidieunimaitre]

rockyysdt,

I have read many of your posts.

I know that you take buddhism seriously.

But you are an exception, most buddhists don't.

And your interpretation of buddhism is an exception too.

And on top of that,in my opinion, we should NOT care for the poor...... we should change society, so that there are NO poor.

Is there room for that in your interpretation of buddhism?

Your last sentence conteins conflicting arguments.Why should we care about changening the society so there are no poor people,if,as you also said,we should not care about the poor...?

We should not have to care about the poor, because there should be no poor.

Our priority should be to erase poverty, not to help the poor.

Socialism <<<>>> paternalism

[Bosse137]

rockyysdt,

I have read many of your posts.

I know that you take buddhism seriously.

But you are an exception, most buddhists don't.

And your interpretation of buddhism is an exception too.

And on top of that,in my opinion, we should NOT care for the poor...... we should change society, so that there are NO poor.

Is there room for that in your interpretation of buddhism?

Your last sentence conteins conflicting arguments.Why should we care about changening the society so there are no poor people,if,as you also said,we should not care about the poor...?

We should not have to care about the poor, because there should be no poor.

Our priority should be to erase poverty, not to help the poor.

Socialism <<<>>> paternalism

"Erase poverty".Sounds great,why didn`t I think of that! Perhaps you can also tell me HOW ?? I mean,in practical ways,not just in grand expessions..And until that is completed,just let the poor fend for themselves..Never mind if millions of children die of malnutrision and dicieses as long as we have our eys on the final goal;no poverty.Guess you are not a poor person youself,right?

[Fookhaht]

I am not a Buddhist because after living 10 years in Thailand, I see that this philosophy of life makes absolutely no difference in the honesty or compassion of the ordinary Thai person. All the teachings of Buddha are thrown out the window when it comes to self-centered behavior on the highways, in business or politics. The childless elderly and destitute people are left to fend for themselves with virtually no social nor religious safety nets. Cruelty to animals, women and primary students is rampant. A Buddhist sanctimoniously releases a fish back to the lake but then supports the industries that kills off endangered species and fosters medieval torture techniques on its national animal, the elephant.

Sorry, but the serious contradictions of daily life tell me that Buddhism just doesn't change the general life or behavior of a nation that prides itself on having 99% adherents to this philosophy.

One might say, "well you can't judge the teachings of Buddha by his followers." But I say, these people are not really followers because the philosophy seems to lack the power to motivate people to go against their basic selfish interests. Altruism, which I witnessed a lot in my home country, seems very scant here. Most of my Thai friends are motivated by money, power, and loyalty to one's own kin. My Thai friends span the social strata from farmer/laborer to highly-educated people in positions of authority.

Edited March 8, 2013 by Fookhaht

[nidieunimaitre]

rockyysdt,

I have read many of your posts.

I know that you take buddhism seriously.

But you are an exception, most buddhists don't.

And your interpretation of buddhism is an exception too.

And on top of that,in my opinion, we should NOT care for the poor...... we should change society, so that there are NO poor.

Is there room for that in your interpretation of buddhism?

Your last sentence conteins conflicting arguments.Why should we care about changening the society so there are no poor people,if,as you also said,we should not care about the poor...?

We should not have to care about the poor, because there should be no poor.

Our priority should be to erase poverty, not to help the poor.

Socialism <<<>>> paternalism

"Erase poverty".Sounds great,why didn`t I think of that! Perhaps you can also tell me HOW ?? I mean,in practical ways,not just in grand expessions..And until that is completed,just let the poor fend for themselves..Never mind if millions of children die of malnutrision and dicieses as long as we have our eys on the final goal;no poverty.Guess you are not a poor person youself,right?

oh boy

[Fookhaht]

The OP:

Looking at history and theology I think that it is inaccurate to say that sll religions are equal. And a religion that destroys indigenous ones, and in the process slaughters and taxes the 'non-believing' population and classifies to what degree they are infidels-- I have no patience for that religion.

For Buddhism I do.

I submit that your experience, observation, and understanding are then incomplete.

I have witnessed the ostracism from families and social circles of Thais who have converted to other religions, I have witnessed the vandalism of churches, wards and mosques by the people of Buddhist communities.

In my opinion, nothing seems to elevate Buddhism above all the other "-isms" foisted upon the human community.

**************************************************************************

By the way, I laud the OP, who obviously respects this philosophy, for opening up such a candid discussion by both adherents and skeptics. "Lord knows" the other "isms" are constantly batted-about in a hundred other threads on TV. It's good to try to give the host country's prevailing philosophy a go at it too. Equal time.

Edited March 8, 2013 by Fookhaht