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

[camerata]

Not becoming a Buddhist because some Buddhists don't practise the teachings properly is like not trying to stop smoking because other smokers can't quit. i.e. it makes little sense. When I got interested in Buddhism, what other people did or didn't do wasn't a factor. What was important was what I would gain from it, and I assumed that would be zero unless I was motivated.

Buddhism is training the mind, and that doesn't happen unless you actually - in speech and action - try to follow the teachings.

As for helping the poor, saving the world, etc, the Theravada proposition is that we have to start with ourselves. Once our own selfishness is sorted out, there will be a horizontal and vertical (i.e. through teaching our children) ripple effect on others. Obviously this process would be very gradual, and it probably doesn't meet the Western need for instant gratification, but there's nothing in Buddhism that says you (the lay practitioner) can't open up a soup kitchen if you want. Mahayana probably leans more towards this kind of "engaged" practice, but I think it is a matter of individual preference.

[rockyysdt]

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.

Are you judging The Buddhas teachings or are your judging a nations idea of what the Buddha taught?

Also, if I gave one the answer to something why would one judge its efficacy on whether people are motivated to practice it.

Here is an example of such logic:

A work colleague lives poorly.

He is 25 kg overweight, he eats fatty, highly refined food, with very little fresh fruit and vegetables.

His waste line is 50% greater than his chest line.

His has an office job and doesn't exercise.

He smokes 20 - 25 cigarettes a day.

When you work close to him you can hear him weasing.

He has had a flu like cough for as long as I've known him.

He drinks about 10 cups of coffee a day.

I suggested that he:

Exercise regulalry.

Eat a balanced diet with lots of fresh fruit and vegetables.

Refrain from smoking.

Exercise regularly.

Enter a weight loss program.

Attend his doctor for medical advise.

We know, on average, that most of these recommendations will improve his health and increase his longevity.

His answer:

I'm healthy and happy with my life.

I could get hit by a bus tommorrow.

He even proudly boasts that he visits a gym three times a week (to facilitate his young sons gym course) but just observes and ducks out for smokes.

Because these recommendations don't motivate him to perform them, does that make them invalid/wrong/false?

The Buddha taught a practice.

Practices don't work, unless you regularly practice them.

Before you can practice them, you need to know what they are.

Depending on your conditioning, you may have an aversion to practice.

Those with an aversion (or delusion) will always find fault with something.

Can I ask you a question?

Do you believe that the practices the Buddha taught are false, because many who purport to be Buddhist display the opposite characteristics of what Buddhism teaches?

If you do, then it's like judging the principal of mathematics on the outcome of those sitting for a mathematics exam.

Using this logic one can say, if most fail the exam, them mathematics is false/wrong.

When in reality most probably failed due to no/lack of study and low understanding or aptitude.

Regardless of whether people might comprehend mathematics, it is still a valid science.

Edited March 8, 2013 by rockyysdt

[Fookhaht]

Not becoming a Buddhist because some Buddhists don't practise the teachings properly is like not trying to stop smoking because other smokers can't quit. i.e. it makes little sense. When I got interested in Buddhism, what other people did or didn't do wasn't a factor. What was important was what I would gain from it, and I assumed that would be zero unless I was motivated.

However, that is precisely the argument the OP uses for elevating Buddhism above the other "--isms," by pointing out the barbarities of their followers even if their behavior runs counter to the teachings of their founders.

Logically, you and the OP are trying to have it both ways. The two arguments are mutually exclusive.

[Fookhaht]

Can I ask you a question?

Do you believe that the practices the Buddha taught are false, because ....

Careful, you are extrapolating my comments well beyond their intention or meaning. Do a search on the word "false," in my comments. Something that lacks the power to motivate or change may not necessarily be false. I personally agree with quite a few precepts of this philosophy, but it doesn't go deep enough to change mankind's root problems.

[camerata]

I never said anything about Buddhism being better than another religion or system.

[Fookhaht]

.

... the Theravada proposition is that we have to start with ourselves. Once our own selfishness is sorted out, there will be a horizontal and vertical...ripple effect on others. ...

Aye matey, there's the rub. I haven't seen that selfishness sorted out yet by the bulk of its adherents. Still waiting to see the "ripple" effect on this society of 70 million souls. Meanwhile, pretty disillusioned by the the results I observe.

[rockyysdt]

Can I ask you a question?

Do you believe that the practices the Buddha taught are false, because ....

Careful, you are extrapolating my comments well beyond their intention or meaning. Do a search on the word "false," in my comments. Something that lacks the power to motivate or change may not necessarily be false. I personally agree with quite a few precepts of this philosophy, but it doesn't go deep enough to change mankind's root problems.

Perhaps this is down to my conditioning.

Don't you personally dismiss Buddhism based on the lack of up take of its correct practice?

Aren't you indirectly suggesting that unless it includes some power to motivate its use, then you won't adopt it?

[Fookhaht]

I never said anything about Buddhism being better than another religion or system.

Puleeeeze, my semantically-challenged friend: You said that you have no patience for some of the other religions that....blah, blah, blah (list of hateful things follows); but for Buddism you DO have the patience. If that's not the revelation of your elevated opinion of this philophy, embodying the concept of "better," than what is it?

[rockyysdt]

.

... the Theravada proposition is that we have to start with ourselves. Once our own selfishness is sorted out, there will be a horizontal and vertical...ripple effect on others. ...

Aye matey, there's the rub. I haven't seen that selfishness sorted out yet by the bulk of its adherents. Still waiting to see the "ripple" effect on this society of 70 million souls. Meanwhile, pretty disillusioned by the the results I observe.

The problem is that it requires effort.

[nidieunimaitre]

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.

We could also mention that small incident in Kampuchea some years ago.

It was not in the name of buddha no, but buddhism did not seem to pacify them.

(I am talking about the killing fields).

And then there was Sri Lanka, a civil war ending with the massacre of 100.000 hindus - not really mindfull was it?

And before someone mentions the horors caused by devout christians, well that is exactly my point: all religions behave in the same way. And the same goes for "religious" type filosofies, such as communism.

[Fookhaht]

Don't you personally dismiss Buddhism based on the lack of up take of its correct practice?

I don't "dismiss it," I just see better alternatives out their that are much more powerful motivators for mankind in general.

Aren't you indirectly suggesting that unless it includes some power to motivate its use, then you won't adopt it?

Yes. Any philosophy or religion that lacks that power doesn't attract me in the least. To me, motivational force is required for any religion/philosophy to make a difference in mankind's existence. I'm not saying it's wrong or false. I'm just saying I'm not attracted to adopt it. Perhaps personal preference, but I know hundreds of Thais who have similarly rejected this philosophy for precisely the same reason.

[Fookhaht]

.

... the Theravada proposition is that we have to start with ourselves. Once our own selfishness is sorted out, there will be a horizontal and vertical...ripple effect on others. ...

Aye matey, there's the rub. I haven't seen that selfishness sorted out yet by the bulk of its adherents. Still waiting to see the "ripple" effect on this society of 70 million souls. Meanwhile, pretty disillusioned by the the results I observe.

The problem is that it requires effort.

Precisely. And effort requires motivation. And motivation requires a powerful source. Buddhism, in my observation, does not provide that Prime Mover.

[Fookhaht]

We could also mention that small incident in Kampuchea some years ago.

It was not in the name of buddha no, but buddhism did not seem to pacify them.

(I am talking about the killing fields).

And then there was Sri Lanka, a civil war ending with the massacre of 100.000 hindus - not really mindfull was it?

And before someone mentions the horors caused by devout christians, well that is exactly my point: all religions behave in the same way. And the same goes for "religious" type filosofies, such as communism.

I believe a strong point could be made for these excesses being committed by those who ran counter to the teachings of their founders. Even that "evil" communism. I believe Marx would have been aghast at the millions dead and impoverished by the philosophy he helped to birth.

[Fookhaht]

...all religions behave in the same way. And the same goes for "religious" type filosofies, such as communism....

I would be more comfortable if you said "....many adherents of all religions behave in the same way...." These excesses usually are symptomatic of the radicalisation of the said philosophies/religions.

I have some wonderful Muslim friends who are peace-loving and tolerant. In my observation and opinion, they represent the bulk of Muslims, worldwide. Unfortunately, it's the radical elements which gain the notoriety because of their bombastic, terrifying and closed-minded behavior.

Unfortunately, it's not the radical elements (are there any?) in Buddhism which gut this philosophy of its power to motivate and change lives. Here in Thailand, it's the mainstream.

P.S. I look back on the last page or so, and realize I have really over-posted. My apologies. I'll let it rest awhile and give others a chance to say their piece/peace and give their further rebuttals or support.

Edited March 8, 2013 by Fookhaht

[Jawnie]

Buddhism proposes the ideal that each person can perfect their own character, why this is beneficial, and the benefits of trying for it. It also provides numerous methods for accomplishing this. There are many people who say human perfection is not possible, but Buddhists teachings say that it is.

Even though the sutras were spoken by the Buddha many centuries ago, there have always been, and continue to be, individuals with the same level of attainment of the Buddha to interpret the sutras in accordance with the cultural conditions of any given time. Moreover, additional teachings, beyond the sutras, exist which aim at human perfection. The five precepts are part of the process of self-perfection because there is a moral and ethical dimension to perfection. Finally, Buddhism says it is up to individual alone to achieve perfection. That there is a need for a teacher or guru is because individuals need guidance and counseling to properly accomplish the goal or not get sidetracked.

Edited March 8, 2013 by Jawnie

[nidieunimaitre]

QUOTE:

"Buddhism proposes the ideal that each person can perfect their own character"

A religion / philosophy that does not address the gap between rich and poor, perpetuates the gap.

You are poor, accept it, it is the punishment for what you did in your previous life.

You are poor, accept it, you will be compensated in your next life.

You are poor, accept it, through study you can learn to be poor but happy.

As Bertolt Brecht said: Erst kommt das Fressen, dann kommt die Moral /// First comes a full stomach, then comes ethics

[camerata]

I never said anything about Buddhism being better than another religion or system.

Puleeeeze, my semantically-challenged friend: You said that you have no patience for some of the other religions that....blah, blah, blah (list of hateful things follows); but for Buddism you DO have the patience. If that's not the revelation of your elevated opinion of this philophy, embodying the concept of "better," than what is it?

The OP said that, not me.

[camerata]

One post has been deleted. Stay on topic, please.

[camerata]

.

... the Theravada proposition is that we have to start with ourselves. Once our own selfishness is sorted out, there will be a horizontal and vertical...ripple effect on others. ...

Aye matey, there's the rub. I haven't seen that selfishness sorted out yet by the bulk of its adherents. Still waiting to see the "ripple" effect on this society of 70 million souls. Meanwhile, pretty disillusioned by the the results I observe.

The problem is that it requires effort.

Precisely. And effort requires motivation. And motivation requires a powerful source. Buddhism, in my observation, does not provide that Prime Mover.

The motivation doesn't come from Buddhism as an institution and popular tradition, it comes from the Buddha's teachings and your own needs. Typically, the way Westerners get into it is they read some of the teachings (probably because of their own specific needs) and find something that fits their needs. Then they try practising it, and find that it works. This is rather different from just being "born a Buddhist."

[Fookhaht]

I never said anything about Buddhism being better than another religion or system.

Puleeeeze, my semantically-challenged friend: You said that you have no patience for some of the other religions that....blah, blah, blah (list of hateful things follows); but for Buddism you DO have the patience. If that's not the revelation of your elevated opinion of this philophy, embodying the concept of "better," than what is it?

The OP said that, not me.

Sorry, my comments were addressing the OP's remarks.

[camerata]

.

... the Theravada proposition is that we have to start with ourselves. Once our own selfishness is sorted out, there will be a horizontal and vertical...ripple effect on others. ...

Aye matey, there's the rub. I haven't seen that selfishness sorted out yet by the bulk of its adherents. Still waiting to see the "ripple" effect on this society of 70 million souls. Meanwhile, pretty disillusioned by the the results I observe.

Selfishness doesn't get sorted out by simply being an adherent of the tradition, it gets sorted out by being a serious practitioner (of the Dhamma). Being a nominal Buddhist doesn't really get you very far. Like I said, it's a slow process.

[Jawnie]

Quotes:

"A religion / philosophy that does not address the gap between rich and poor, perpetuates the gap."

"First comes a full stomach, then comes ethics"

This is not how Buddhism is oriented. Perhaps this is what the poster thinks Buddhism should be, but it isn't.

Edited March 8, 2013 by Jawnie

[Fookhaht]

Quotes:

"A religion / philosophy that does not address the gap between rich and poor, perpetuates the gap."

"First comes a full stomach, then comes ethics"

This is not how Buddhism is oriented. Perhaps this is what the poster thinks Buddhism should be, but it isn't.

I believe you just made the poster's point. He is contending that this is how Buddhism SHOULD be oriented.

[Bosse137]

The OP asks,why one is,or not,a Buddhist.Shouldn`t we first of all have a definition of what a Buddhist is? Is it someone born in a Buddhist country,a person who likes Buddhism better than any other "religion" or perhaps anyone who just states that he is a Buddhist.I myself falls into the second category;can I rightly call myself a Buddhist? Not that I care,but for the record. In other words,what criteria does one have to live up to in order to label oneself,or somebody else for that matter,a Buddhist? I know for example one religion,to which you can "convert" at a drop of a hat...

[Jawnie]

A Buddhist is someone who formally takes refuge. It's a short ceremony conducted by a priest, monk, lama, etc., someone authorized to give refuge vows. Many people are put off by organized religion, but some things are just that way. Resistance to the idea of formal religion and 'authorized priests' is very common in the West. Subscribing to organized religion, however, doesn't automatically make a person bad or any less spiritually-minded.

In any case, one takes refuge vows and commits to following the Three Jewels: Buddha, Dharma, Sangha. If one takes refuge as a layperson, they take on the five vows the OP mentioned. In some traditions, refuge vows are repeated every day, or on every ceremony day, etc.

This makes a person a Buddhist. Whether they study the teaching and undertake the practices is another matter entirely. Children born into Buddhist families and cultures, like any other person, typically adopt the religion of the family but may never have an individualized experience of it and only know what they've been told. They are Buddhist, however, because they would have take refuge sometime along the way, probably when they were eight years old at the earliest.

[Bosse137]

Jawnie,very informative,thanks!

[fabianfred]

I was brought up as a Catholic, but found it difficult to believe what i was told to. Once away from home I bumped into Buddhism and felt immediately that it was right for me. I like Buddhism because it follows natural laws and is above all logical. We are not expected to believe anything at all. If we fail to recognise the truth when shown it, that is our own fault, not the fault of the truth. If we fail to practice what is of benefit to ourself and others then we just stay in the cycle of life and death, until we get it right and escape. We have got it wrong so far, which is why we are still here.

After many years now since meeting Buddhism I have unshakeable conviction that it is the truth.

[nidieunimaitre]

I said:

"A religion / philosophy that does not address the gap between rich and poor, perpetuates the gap."

"First comes a full stomach, then comes ethics"

QUOTE:

This is not how Buddhism is oriented. Perhaps this is what the poster thinks Buddhism should be, but it isn't.

Terribul misunderstanding!

I do not think that buddhism should be that way.

I am not telling buddhist what their religion / philosophy should be.

I was only answering the OP, who asked why are you a buddhist (or not).

This is why I am not a buddhist: the absence of a social dimension.

And by the way:

Most buddhists outside this forum do not practice buddhist principles. That does not mean buddhist principles are therefore wrong.

I never said that.

Same goes for believers in real communism, real free market, etc.

I reject buddhism NOT because of the behaviour of most of its followers, I reject buddhism because of NO social relevance.

[camerata]

For determining who might be a Buddhist, see the post Am I a Buddhist? from our 2005 archive.

[Fookhaht]

I was brought up as a Catholic, but found it difficult to believe what i was told to. Once away from home I bumped into Buddhism and felt immediately that it was right for me. I like Buddhism because it follows natural laws and is above all logical. We are not expected to believe anything at all. If we fail to recognise the truth when shown it, that is our own fault, not the fault of the truth. If we fail to practice what is of benefit to ourself and others then we just stay in the cycle of life and death, until we get it right and escape. We have got it wrong so far, which is why we are still here.

After many years now since meeting Buddhism I have unshakeable conviction that it is the truth.

In Buddhism, who or what is the arbitrer of truth?