Ten misconceptions about Buddhism

[camerata]

Tricycle is currently running a series of blogs on 10 Misconceptions of Buddhism, listed here: http://www.tricycle.com/blog/10-misconceptions-about-buddhism

There have been three so far, and interesting points are raised in all of them.

1. All Buddhists meditate

Meditation is often identified as the central practice of Buddhism. However, the majority of Buddhists throughout history have not meditated. Meditation has traditionally been considered a monastic practice, and even then as a specialty only of certain monks. It is only since the 20th century that the practice of meditation has begun to be widely practiced by laypeople.

2. The primary form of Buddhist meditation is mindfulness

In fact, there are hundreds of forms of Buddhist meditation, some for developing deep states of concentration and mental bliss, some for analyzing the constituents of mind and body to find that there is no self, some for meeting the Buddha face-to-face. The practice of mindfulness as it is taught in America today began in Burma in the early 20th century.

3. All Buddhists are vegetarians

Bhikshu, the Sanskrit term translated as “monk,” literally means “beggar.” Buddhist monks and nuns originally begged for their daily meal (some still do) and therefore were supposed to eat whatever was offered to them, including meat. According to some sources, the bout of dysentery that the Buddha suffered before he entered nirvana occurred after he ate pork. In the centuries after the Buddha’s death, vegetarianism began to be promoted in some Buddhist texts. However, even today not all Buddhist monks and nuns are vegetarians. For example, in China they are; in Tibet they are not.

[camerata]

4. All Buddhists are pacifists

One sometimes hears people say, “A war has never been fought in the name of Buddhism.” Exactly what “in the name of Buddhism” means is debatable. Not debatable is that Buddhists over the centuries have engaged in violent acts, including warfare, and have also condoned such acts.

[dutchguest]

Not only that some Buddhists have their own holy wars, but in America some people seem to think that you can use Buddhist practices to make better soldiers:

I read somewhere that the American army want to use meditation as a means to make the soldiers more able to handle the stresses of warfare.

I fear there may be some unexpected side effects when the soldiers in their foxholes start losing their hate for the enemy and begin to see more clearly what a madness the whole thing is.

[fabianfred]

I would tend to suggest that anyone not trying to keep the five basic precepts is only play-acting and not really Buddhist. So making war or killing would mean you are not a Buddhist ...just pretending to be one.

Actually this is where it gets confusing... because Buddhism gets compared with other religions, or even called a religion.

The Buddha never wanted to start a religion .... they get started by people... after their founder has gone on.

The Buddha only taught the Dhamma ... the Truth.... the true Dhamma which is natural laws ...always existing ...always working on all beings ... whether they know or understand or believe in them or not.

By being a follower of the Buddha and his teachings about the Dhamma you will be called a Buddhist ...but actually you could do so without taking part in the religious bits... going to temples and joining in ceremonies etc.

Many Buddhists do not really understand the Dhamma or even study it or even bother much about the precepts, but enjoy the rites and rituals.

They might turn violent and make war ... but a Dhamma follower would not.

[fabianfred]

Dutchguest ... meditation is not an exclusive of Buddhism. It is practiced in many forms and religions and traditions and in all ages ... but only by following the methods laid down by the Buddha is it able to bring one to Nibbana.

[rhythmworx]

What form of Buddhism is this thread about?

[VincentRJ]

Not only that some Buddhists have their own holy wars, but in America some people seem to think that you can use Buddhist practices to make better soldiers:

I read somewhere that the American army want to use meditation as a means to make the soldiers more able to handle the stresses of warfare.

I fear there may be some unexpected side effects when the soldiers in their foxholes start losing their hate for the enemy and begin to see more clearly what a madness the whole thing is.

That's an interesting point. One rather unpredictable consequence of any combat situation in a war is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The fact that soldiers can suffer from this, to varying degrees after a serious conflict, for the rest of their lives sometimes, should not be surprising.

In developed countries, we try to bring up our children as good citizens who are well-behaved and have consideration for others. Even when a family is not devoutly Christian, the parents, the school system and the general social environment, will usually tend to indirectly emphasise basic Christian principles which are also common to Buddhism and other religions, such as refraining from killing and harmful violence, doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, and so on. If the wording of 'love thy enemy' and 'love thy neighbour' is a bit strong or extreme, then at least most people get the message that we should strive to understand and empathise with our enemies and any neighbours who might present a threat.

To compel a young man who has been brought up in such an environment, to join the armed forces and be taught the exact opposite of those Christian-based principles, is asking for trouble.

I would think that teaching soldiers Buddhist or Yoga meditation practices would have to be a good thing. It might result in some soldiers becoming aware of the insanity behind their situation and cause them to understand more clearly that they are not suited to a life of armed conflict.

It might also help some soldiers to concentrate more clearly when they are under bombardment, or during combat, so that they can avoid wild, panicky and indiscriminate retaliation that can so often result in the death of innocent women and children, that can be the cause of PTSD in later life, so I imagine.

I'm grateful that I've never been required to do National Service, or join any Armed Forces, but I do recall my father occasionally weeping when a very old man, as he recalled events that occurred many years ago when he was in the army during WW II.

[fabianfred]

What form of Buddhism is this thread about?

Being Thai we are mainly about Theravada as practiced in Thailand.. but the Tricycle magazine is supposed to be all denominations of Buddhism.

[camerata]

5. Buddhism is a philosophy and not a religion

Separating philosophy from religion does not work well in the case of Buddhism. Trying to tease apart these two strands of the dispensation would have seemed a futile endeavor to most Buddhists over the long history of the tradition. We in the West need to get over this false dichotomy, which has no significance in speaking about Buddhism or other Asian religions.

[dutchguest]

I agree with these last words: we in the west have developed science and have included philosophy under that label. In many respects the development of science was a reaction on the superstitions of religion. Science -like the evolution theory of Darwin- often stood in direct contradiction to religious doctrines and was one of the main reasons of the secularisation of society.

In reaction on this secularisation and a growing materialism there is now beginning to grow the idea that with the total rejection of the organised religions we might have thrown away the baby with the bathing water.

On a more individual level spirituality and a going back to the roots of religions, the actual teachings of the founders, are i.m.o. a growing phenomenon in the west. Science, logic, rationalizing, especially the positivistic kind of scientism, also have its limitations. May be especially in the west we are living too much exclusively in the mind and identify too much with the mind and its delusive games.

On a deeper level as well science, philosophy, as religion may come from the same source: humanity in search of truth and giving meaning to the world and himself. It seems that there are great similarities between the quantum-theory and the most profound teachings of buddhism.

[fabianfred]

Buddhism being about 'Life, the Universe & everything' it isn't really about being a religion started by the Buddha. Since what he really wanted to do is spread The Dhamma, the truth about life and everything. It gets called a religion after him but that really just confuses the issue.

He is really just one of an infinite number of Buddhas... and they all teach exactly the same Dhamma ... because there is only one Ultimate truth... not many.

[rockyysdt]

Buddhism being about 'Life, the Universe & everything' it isn't really about being a religion started by the Buddha. Since what he really wanted to do is spread The Dhamma, the truth about life and everything. It gets called a religion after him but that really just confuses the issue.

He is really just one of an infinite number of Buddhas... and they all teach exactly the same Dhamma ... because there is only one Ultimate truth... not many.

A common phenomenum I find with religions is that the one followed is the truth and all others are religions.

There are others with equal conviction who follow different teachings.

The biggest issue with Dhamma is its dilution/interpretation over the centuries.

This post is not intended to diminish what the Buddha taught in any way.

[fabianfred]

Buddhism being about 'Life, the Universe & everything' it isn't really about being a religion started by the Buddha. Since what he really wanted to do is spread The Dhamma, the truth about life and everything. It gets called a religion after him but that really just confuses the issue.

He is really just one of an infinite number of Buddhas... and they all teach exactly the same Dhamma ... because there is only one Ultimate truth... not many.

A common phenomenum I find with religions is that the one followed is the truth and all others are religions.

There are others with equal conviction who follow different teachings.

The biggest issue with Dhamma is its dilution/interpretation over the centuries.

This post is not intended to diminish what the Buddha taught in any way.

Of course, everyone believes that their beliefs are correct and others are wrong ... nobody believes in something they believe is wrong.

The difference is that with Buddhism... you can prove it is true... by practice. Once you reach the fourth jhana you can see for yourself those past lives or different realms... but even those who do not reach that level can see the truth of the Three Characteristics of Compounded Existence (suffering, impermanence & non-self) in their meditation.

I have utmost faith and confidence in what I am told by ones I am sure are Arahants and when they describe these things I know they would not lie.

[rockyysdt]

Buddhism being about 'Life, the Universe & everything' it isn't really about being a religion started by the Buddha. Since what he really wanted to do is spread The Dhamma, the truth about life and everything. It gets called a religion after him but that really just confuses the issue.

He is really just one of an infinite number of Buddhas... and they all teach exactly the same Dhamma ... because there is only one Ultimate truth... not many.

A common phenomenum I find with religions is that the one followed is the truth and all others are religions.

There are others with equal conviction who follow different teachings.

The biggest issue with Dhamma is its dilution/interpretation over the centuries.

This post is not intended to diminish what the Buddha taught in any way.

Of course, everyone believes that their beliefs are correct and others are wrong ... nobody believes in something they believe is wrong.

The difference is that with Buddhism... you can prove it is true... by practice. Once you reach the fourth jhana you can see for yourself those past lives or different realms... but even those who do not reach that level can see the truth of the Three Characteristics of Compounded Existence (suffering, impermanence & non-self) in their meditation.

I have utmost faith and confidence in what I am told by ones I am sure are Arahants and when they describe these things I know they would not lie.

I'm not saying I don't follow a similar path to you.

I'm just saying that the " three characteristics " does not establish re birth person to person, realms of physical existence and stream entry with a soul/awareness exclusive to your lineage.

I remember in earlier posts that you were formerly of Christian faith.

During some of that period wasn't your faith also strong?

[camerata]

6. The Buddha was human and Buddhism has no place for the worship of gods

"Buddhism is famous in the West as an “atheistic religion,” in the sense that, unlike the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, it does not recognize a single creator deity. However, one should not assume from this that Buddhism has no gods. It has not one, but many."

[rockyysdt]

6. The Buddha was human and Buddhism has no place for the worship of gods

"Buddhism is famous in the West as an “atheistic religion,” in the sense that, unlike the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, it does not recognize a single creator deity. However, one should not assume from this that Buddhism has no gods. It has not one, but many."

Buddhism has gods in the sense that if they exist the Buddha places them in samsara with the rest of us.

This means that if gods exist they are also subject to the process of cycling through one rebirth after another.

This definition virtually demotes gods to an unlike god status.

Isn't the traditional god (Abrahamic) meant to be absolute, whereas devas are relative (conditioned and impermanent)?

So, although literally, Buddhism involves gods, these may have super human attributes, but aren't absolute gods in the normal sense.

If Buddhist devas are not absolute then doesn't "Buddhism is famous in the West as an “atheistic religion,” hold true?

Edited June 6, 2014 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

Tricycle has the burden of having to include all three schools of Buddhism when it discusses Buddhism in general, which can make things pretty confusing. The Buddha of the Lotus Sutra certainly seems like a god, so do the various Mahayana bodhisattvas who come down to earth and help people out.

I think most Westerners would think of a "god" as a being that can have an effect on peoples' earthly lives (punish them, protect them, reward them, bestow good fortune, etc). AFAIK, the devas and gods of the Pali Canon suttas appear either requesting dhamma teachings, petitioning the Buddha or dispensing advice - they never actually do anything. This doesn't seem very god-like to me. As far as I'm concerned, there aren't any gods in Theravada Buddhism.

It's interesting that the bible refers to God as "unbegat" - in other words, unconditioned.

[rockyysdt]

Tricycle has the burden of having to include all three schools of Buddhism when it discusses Buddhism in general, which can make things pretty confusing. The Buddha of the Lotus Sutra certainly seems like a god, so do the various Mahayana bodhisattvas who come down to earth and help people out.

I think most Westerners would think of a "god" as a being that can have an effect on peoples' earthly lives (punish them, protect them, reward them, bestow good fortune, etc). AFAIK, the devas and gods of the Pali Canon suttas appear either requesting dhamma teachings, petitioning the Buddha or dispensing advice - they never actually do anything. This doesn't seem very god-like to me. As far as I'm concerned, there aren't any gods in Theravada Buddhism.

It's interesting that the bible refers to God as "unbegat" - in other words, unconditioned.

Your words fit into my thoughts (I must be mindful as mind is conditioned) regarding gods.

In fact unless a god is permanent and unconditioned (absolute/unbegal/not subject to samsara) then all he is is a being with superior/advanced powers to his subjects, just as we would be to an earthling of 50,000 years past.

Does this then confirm that Buddhism is atheistic?

[fabianfred]

Buddhism being about 'Life, the Universe & everything' it isn't really about being a religion started by the Buddha. Since what he really wanted to do is spread The Dhamma, the truth about life and everything. It gets called a religion after him but that really just confuses the issue.

He is really just one of an infinite number of Buddhas... and they all teach exactly the same Dhamma ... because there is only one Ultimate truth... not many.

A common phenomenum I find with religions is that the one followed is the truth and all others are religions.

There are others with equal conviction who follow different teachings.

The biggest issue with Dhamma is its dilution/interpretation over the centuries.

This post is not intended to diminish what the Buddha taught in any way.

Of course, everyone believes that their beliefs are correct and others are wrong ... nobody believes in something they believe is wrong.

The difference is that with Buddhism... you can prove it is true... by practice. Once you reach the fourth jhana you can see for yourself those past lives or different realms... but even those who do not reach that level can see the truth of the Three Characteristics of Compounded Existence (suffering, impermanence & non-self) in their meditation.

I have utmost faith and confidence in what I am told by ones I am sure are Arahants and when they describe these things I know they would not lie.

I'm not saying I don't follow a similar path to you.

I'm just saying that the " three characteristics " does not establish re birth person to person, realms of physical existence and stream entry with a soul/awareness exclusive to your lineage.

I remember in earlier posts that you were formerly of Christian faith.

During some of that period wasn't your faith also strong?

I was brought up us Catholic but even at five never believed in it. Once I joined the army at 15 and was free to do and think for myself I put it aside until i met Buddhism at 24 and knew this was right for me.

[camerata]

@rocky I guess it depends on the definition of "atheist." If it refers to God or a supreme being, Buddhism must be atheistic. If it refers to a god (i.e. "one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs") the doctrine of Theravada would seem to be atheistic but "popular Buddhism" may not be.

[camerata]

7. Zen rejects conventional Buddhism

Despite Zen’s own claim that it “does not rely on words and letters” (buli wenzi), most Zen monks have engaged in extensive study of Buddhist scriptures and primers of Zen before beginning their training in the meditation hall.

[bankei]

5. Buddhism is a philosophy and not a religion

Separating philosophy from religion does not work well in the case of Buddhism. Trying to tease apart these two strands of the dispensation would have seemed a futile endeavor to most Buddhists over the long history of the tradition. We in the West need to get over this false dichotomy, which has no significance in speaking about Buddhism or other Asian religions.

If this were the case there would be no temples, no priests or monks, no statues..

Bankei

[bankei]

6. The Buddha was human and Buddhism has no place for the worship of gods

"Buddhism is famous in the West as an “atheistic religion,” in the sense that, unlike the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, it does not recognize a single creator deity. However, one should not assume from this that Buddhism has no gods. It has not one, but many."

Try telling that to the millions of Buddhists to who the Buddha and the Bodhisattvas are gods with the power to grant wishes.Thais actually prey to the Buddha to get rich, pass exams and wins wars!

Bankei

[bankei]

7. Zen rejects conventional Buddhism

Despite Zen’s own claim that it “does not rely on words and letters” (buli wenzi), most Zen monks have engaged in extensive study of Buddhist scriptures and primers of Zen before beginning their training in the meditation hall.

Another good one!

Zen has more literature than all the other schools combined!!!

Zen monks also have cheat books for koans!

Bankei

[Fullstop]

5. Buddhism is a philosophy and not a religion.

It wasn't a religion ... until it got bastardised.

[Paulzed]

Why do buddhists worship images of the buddha when he himself instructed people not to?

[catweazle]

4. All Buddhists are pacifists

One sometimes hears people say, “A war has never been fought in the name of Buddhism.” Exactly what “in the name of Buddhism” means is debatable. Not debatable is that Buddhists over the centuries have engaged in violent acts, including warfare, and have also condoned such acts.

This might provide a little more clarity: http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/behind-dalai-lamas-holy-cloak/2007/05/22/1179601410290.html

Edited June 19, 2014 by catweazle

[Yann55]

4. All Buddhists are pacifists

One sometimes hears people say, “A war has never been fought in the name of Buddhism.” Exactly what “in the name of Buddhism” means is debatable. Not debatable is that Buddhists over the centuries have engaged in violent acts, including warfare, and have also condoned such acts.

This whole thread is remarkably interesting, thank you 'camerata' for bringing the material and for your wise comments as well.

Many things come to mind when reading your post and the subsequent replies. Point #4 is particularly challenging, in general but also in the light of recent events (Buddhist monks resorting to violence in Tibet, Sri Lanka and Myanmar, and here in Thailand a robed 'monk' heading a group of super violent men).

Would you agree that the tendency to condone violence in most religions is intricately connected with the notion of Truth with a capital T ?

Once a man thinks he has 'found the Truth', the almost inevitable consequences are :

- an understandable (if not exactly legitimate) urge to convince/convert others so that they too can bask in the ineffable Light

- a tendency from then on to divide the world into two categories, those who share his faith and those who don't

- an assumption that all those 'others' are necessarily 'in the wrong'

These three factors themselves may remain relatively inocuous, but are more likely to cristallize into dogmatic thinking which in turn inevitably leads to violent action, especially when faith merges with secular power.

We have innumerable illustrations of this pattern in the history of humanity (from the Crusades to 9/11 and the subsequent invasion of Iraq). The clerics decide what is 'right' and 'wrong' and the 'soldiers of God' translate it into military action.

In this field the specifity of Buddhism, because of its emphasis on impermanence and illusion, tends to 'nip the disease in the bud'. By teaching that there is no truth with a big T, it adresses the root of the problem. This fact would also explain why many won't call it a 'religion' and prefer the term 'philosophy' or 'ethics' or even 'lifestyle'.

But this, as you so rightly point out, doesn't stop human beings from being who they are and indeed Buddhists in the course of history have repeatedly engaged in violent action. However, and correct me if I'm wrong, they were/are not chanting 'we're doing this in the name of our faith and our God', unlike the Crusaders, the Jihadists ... and Georges W. Bush.

Edited June 19, 2014 by Yann55

[catweazle]

Why do buddhists worship images of the buddha when he himself instructed people not to?

Do any of the so-called "Buddhists" follow through with any of the instructions given anyway? In Thailand I haven't seen one, especially the monks seem to have a hidden agenda that instructs them to do exactly the opposite of what they teach. Time for reform and time for "believers" to wake up and stop bowing in front of persons who are nothing but a pretender in a colored robe, same goes for worshipping of idols, etc...

After all what I have learned here in my 20+ years in LOS, it appears that some of the biggest crooks take refuge in temples to either hide or try to wash themselves clean of their sins by doing a few years in a temple instead of a prison. Look into their eyes and be amazed of the filth hiding behind them.

So far we had Thai abbots collecting Mercedes limousines, travelling first class by air, owning thousands of Rai of land, abbots with huge bank accounts, gold, jewelry and other luxurious items stacked up to the roof, all paid with "alms", we had abbots and monks raping dogs (no joke!) and children, performing sodomy, sleeping with massage and bar girls, monks betting, gambling, bribing, even killing and robbing people... But still Thai people believe that this exact monk there, standing with his alm bowl in front of them in the morning is one of the good guys, someone to look up to, someone above them... It makes me sick at times, especially when I think about what a truly amazing life philosophy the true Buddhism really is.

Good question by the way! Let's disassemble the myth of Buddhism...

Edited June 19, 2014 by catweazle

[CharlesHH]

Common American take on this is that a religion requires a deity; Buddhism has none and is thus not a religion.

5. Buddhism is a philosophy and not a religion

Separating philosophy from religion does not work well in the case of Buddhism. Trying to tease apart these two strands of the dispensation would have seemed a futile endeavor to most Buddhists over the long history of the tradition. We in the West need to get over this false dichotomy, which has no significance in speaking about Buddhism or other Asian religions.