For those who have distanced themselves from Buddhism -- How come?
Hi.
If you have ever been involved with Buddhism in any way, to any degree, and have since distanced yourself from it:
How come? What was it that made you distance yourself from it?
Did you have trouble finding closure afterwards?
How did you have find closure afterwards?
Or anything else that could be of interest, if you feel so inclined to share.
Myself, I had been around Buddhism for about 20 years. I've always felt like an intruder anyway, and eventually, couldn't take it anymore. What made me despair is that keeping the five precepts pretty much makes one a loser or at least a target for scorn in our society (and by many Buddhists as well, actually). What made me hopeless about Buddhism is that its epistemology is, essentially, a self-fulfilling prophecy: first, one takes some premises for granted; then one acts in line with those premises; and then one "sees" that those premises "are true". The final straw was that some notable Buddhists that I knew were/are avid Trumpistas.
If you have ever been involved with Buddhism in any way, to any degree, and have since distanced yourself from it:
How come? What was it that made you distance yourself from it?
Did you have trouble finding closure afterwards?
How did you have find closure afterwards?
Or anything else that could be of interest, if you feel so inclined to share.
Myself, I had been around Buddhism for about 20 years. I've always felt like an intruder anyway, and eventually, couldn't take it anymore. What made me despair is that keeping the five precepts pretty much makes one a loser or at least a target for scorn in our society (and by many Buddhists as well, actually). What made me hopeless about Buddhism is that its epistemology is, essentially, a self-fulfilling prophecy: first, one takes some premises for granted; then one acts in line with those premises; and then one "sees" that those premises "are true". The final straw was that some notable Buddhists that I knew were/are avid Trumpistas.
Comments (89)
That's not the first noble truth ...
The Buddha didn't say that life is just suffering and nothing else.
Two things: immaturity (18-19) and Zen was not philosophically interesting or engaging enough for me to commit daily to zazen.
Not at all.
No commitment, no loss (or closure needed).
Some resources on the first noble truth:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca1/index.html
and
Life Isn't Just Suffering
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/lifeisnt.html
Pardon me? Nagarjuna is a Patriarch and lays out the philosophy. I struggle to see how a philosophy that solves all problems of philosophy can be uninteresting or unengaging.
Perhaps you didn't delve into the philosophy, as in Zen it is not emphasised. . . .
What made me despair is that keeping the five precepts pretty much makes one a loser or at least a target for scorn in our society (and by many Buddhists as well, actually).
No need to worry. The five precepts are impossible to keep without Higher Realization.and impossible not to keep once armed with it. It all happens in its own time if you maintain a practice. In Zen it is not even necessary to think about ethics.and precepts. These sort themselves out naturally as insight deepens. As Sadhguru says somewhere on youtube when asked about this, addictions and bad habits can only be overcome by Higher Consciousness. Buddhism proposes that we should not be too hard on ourselves. The precets assume a certain level of commitment and realisation are already in place. Most people identifying as Buddhist do not keep the precepts, but recognise them as the natural outcome of the dissipation of ignorance.
Same in psychology. Some treatments ask us to adopt a certain behaviour in order to change our mind-set, some to change our mind-set in order to change our behaviour. . .
This is a misunderstanding. The route you describe is one approach. But it is possible to describe and prove the epistemology in logic, and Buddhism NEVER asks us to take some premise for granted. The approach you suggest is a practical method, not the way in which Buddhism explains or justifies its epistemology. Of course, until we know that knowing is fundamental we can only assume it, but the assumption is unnecessary to discovering the facts.
Even if you take no premises for granted you'll end up knowing the truth about epistemology.
I share your horror. But remember that anyone can call themselves a Buddhist. I'm amazed also that any Christian could support this man, but then anyone can call themselves a Christian.
I assumed the OP was hoping for some responses, so wrote something a little reassuring. .
Why do you ask?
Yes, you're right. And by the time I had become acquainted with 'Buddhism as a philosophy', I had committed myself to studying contemporary philosophy from an almost Hellenistic perspective (encountering Pierre Hadot's work some years later confirmed this approach for me). By then, as a hybrid Pyrrhonian-Epicurean with strong affinities for absurdism & (early) pragmatism, there was no need to revisit Zen practice. Also, simultaneously learning to appreciate Jazz from the roots to its fruits, as they say, helped me to fulfill my philosophical study as a "spiritual exercise" so deeply that nearly four decades later it still sustains me. Perhaps Buddhism would have done so as well but it just didn't take back then; had I not went for Zen, who knows? No regrets. As I don't recall who said it: many paths lead up that dark mountain to its summit.
"One must imagine Sisyphus happy."
:death: :flower:
Hmm. The long post is not linked to yours, and the short one quotes you and you've replied. I'm a little confused. No matter.
No. I replied because you asked for 'anything else of interest', and so I tried to suggest your reasons for having problems with Buddhism were poor. . .
I see we have very different ideas about what constitutes a study of philosophy.
From this remark, I suspect for you "a study of philosophy" entails seeking something that transcends the human condition (i.e. a rational – reliably methodical – way to go beyond human reason) like "ultimate truth", no? Elaborate.
Of course, Buddhists will typically say that I have distanced myself from Buddhism "for the wrong reasons" or that my "reasons for having problems with Buddhism were poor". Always blame me, what else.
But there were also Buddhists who told me flat out that I had no interest in the Dharma and that my time would be better spent in other pursuits.
For me a study of philosophy must be a study of metaphysics, where metaphysics is approached as a science of logic. It's not nearly as much fun as listening to Miles Davis, but it does allow one to understand the philosophical foundation of Zen and see that it works.
Might it be true that you're distancing yourself from the people calling themselves Buddhists who you've met, rather than the teachings? I gained the impression that you had no complaints about the doctrine, only the fools you had encountered. From what you say they sound like fools to me. Even fools are allowed to become Buddhists. Perhaps you would like Zen. You don't have to even meet another Buddhist.
An interest in the Dharma is an interest in your own life and death, happiness and well-being, so I refuse to believe you're not interested, or that you're time could be better spent. However, it might be better spent in more congenial company, by the sound of it, and perhaps another tradition would be more appealing. . .
Of course Miles is more than fun. Can't disagree about that. I speak as a musician.
My point is simply that in metaphysics there is no choice of paths. There is only the results of logic and reason, and we cannot simply take or leave them. These results lead to Spinoza's world, or something very like it. . . . .
Nonsense. If that were the case in metaphysics, then there'd be wide consensus, or agreement, of long standing on those "results", which there never has been.
Yes. This is what is so difficult to get across. There is a firm consensus. It states that all the theories that academic philosophers can think of don't work. It does not state that the view i;m endorsing doesn't work, because the consensus is that the metaphysical basis of mysticism is not worth getting to know.
But I'll bow out.now. Thanks for the chat. .
There isn't one without the other.
Maybe they are fools, but maybe they know the truth. Maybe the teachings in the Pali Canon were never meant to be taken at face value.
Like you say:
Quoting FrancisRay
If they knew the truth of the Pali canon they would not behave in the way you describe.
I wonder if you we're with a Theravada group. They are a bit touchy, since their Buddhism has a strong element of faith and dogma. I forgot this, since for me Buddhism is the Mahayana.
No matter. Thanks for the chat. . . . .
Have you taken the Secondary Bodhisattva Vows?
I've taken no vows. I'm not a Buddhist. .. .
Then how can you say I misunderstood Buddhism??
One doesn't have to be a Buddhist to endorse its teachings. The Buddha was not a Buddhist.
. ,
Emptiness?
The only non-faith based consensus is scientific where this is reduced to a mere brain state, though a beneficial one, in its depatterning affect on the mind and in reducing existential angst. Can jazz do that? There’s no consensus at all on faith based metaphysics like rebirth, karma, department origination, etc etc.
You're right to say there is not yet a consensus. However, it is demonstrable that mysticism endorses a non-dual description of Reality. This translates into metaphysics as a neutral metaphysical position.
This is not a speculation. Unless nonduality is the basis of the 'mystical' teachings then the knowledge claims it makes would not be possible. Hence sects that do not endorse the nondual teachings usually stress the need for faith, while those that do stress the importance of replacing faith with knowledge.
. .
You're right also about emptiness bei9ng the basis of the metaphysics. I prefer the word 'Unity' since it's more helpful in logic, but either way we end up with a neutral theory. .
No arguments here. But note that authentic Yoga is a science by Popper's definition. . .
Not sure what you mean here.
.
Any description of reality is necessarily dualistic. Mysticism endorses transcendence.
Quoting FrancisRay
Fixed that for ya.
I've only had a rather shallow experience of the kind were talking about, but even though whole-hog realization may be something to write home about, it ain't the end-all be-all that it's cracked up to be. After enlightenment, the dishes, as the saying goes. It is certainly not anything worth building an entire religion around, and that is exactly why Buddhism is so unpopular. Not to suggest that religions need to be built around anything of substance.
That's confused.
Many serious Zen students (including myself) do not consider themselves Buddhists. Buddhism was created by the historical Buddha as a guide for those who (for whatever reasons) could not realize the path without sequential teachings..
... because you don’t subscribe to its teachings, right?
Not really. Zen is the essence of Buddhism. The rest of Buddhism is all of the intellectual teachings that should lead to meditation (Zen means meditation in j.).
Generally speaking, Zen students are those who are the purists and wish to 'cut to the chase,' that is, if you get it (that meditation IS the path), what's the point of the rest? For many, the rest is very important and others never really get much into meditation at all,as Buddhism is a very nice religion in and of itself.
Although Zen students are technically Buddhists (I guess), many of us choose not to engage the intellectual parts any more than is necessary (only to keep us on track). A common "intellectual aid" in Zen would be the popularity of the Heart sutra, a short writing that comes about as close as you can (intellectually) to what Zen is about.
As synthesis points out, Buddhists have no need to identify as such. The most skilled Buddhist I know prefers to be thought of as a Taoist. He's also the most skllled Taoist I know.
If I had to state my affiliations I'd say I'm a Buddhist, a Taoist, a Christian, a Sufi, a Kabbalist, and a Hindu. Its all the same teaching underneath the clutter. I don't call myself any of these things since I'm a lazy practitioner.and it would be misleading and hypocritical to do so.
Besides, the adjective 'Buddhist' is pretty meaningless. It includes the greatest masters and the most naive beginners. .
. . . , . .
Yes..Subject-predicate language cannot capture the truth. It remains the case the mystics endorse a nondual description or reality. This states that true words seem paradoxical, and even then cannot avoid an implied dualism. . . .
Ahem. I'm afraid you fixed nothing. Knowledge is Realisation. . . .
I feel you;d do well to hold off with your views and just study the facts. It's not sensible to have a shallow experience and then form views about how important it is.
As for religion, you must be speaking about Theravada. The Mahayana is not a religion in the common sense of the word. I do not endorse the Theravada approach since it has no metaphysical foundation.and appears to be faith-based.
If Buddhism is unpopular because it is a religion,then this just goes to show how poorly it is understood. But its an odd comment seeing that Buddhism is the most popular religion on the planet at this time.
. .
For the mystic view on organised religion check out Sadhguru or Alan Watts on youtube. They advise us to rise above it. .
In a word, meaning. Now try to tell me that zen is meaningless, I haven’t had a good laugh yet today.
I know a lot about Africa but have never been there and haven’t experienced it. For all I know it may not actually exist.
Quoting FrancisRay
It’s sensible to have a grandiose view of something without any evidence of its grandiosity?
Exactly. Knowledge is going there,
I don't know what you mean by 'grandiose view'. If you mean what I you mean it would be idiotic. .
You (and most) are confused because the conversation goes back and forth between the intellectual (Zen has meaning) and the non-intellectual (Zen does not exist).
I am not sure why some people get it and others don't (as an aside, it was one of the only questions I ever asked my teacher and he just shrugged his shoulders, as well). Regardless, it's just the way it is.
And by all means, have a good laugh!
??? I've never gone there. I have a lot of knowledge about Africa.
Quoting FrancisRay
Exactly. There's nothing grand about it.
Fixed that for ya.
Not quite.
Intellectual - Zen exists.
Non-intellectual - nothing (intellectual) exists.
All realization is personal and much of it manifests much later in life.
Non-intellectual would be, well, literally non-intellectual. Even saying that something does and does not exist is unmistakably intellectual. It has purpose and meaning.
I give up. Maybe synthesis will have more luck.
.
The topic is an invitation to express our disillusionment with Buddhism and I too wish synth the best of luck with that endeavor.
Some of your responses come across as really condescending.
And then again, some of your responses come across as incredibly condescending.
There are 500,000,000 Buddhists in the world.
As I noted, there are 0.5 billion Buddhists. There are 2.4 billion Christians.
It ain't on the top three list.
One of the many benefits of Zen and the art of 'getting it'.
i was trying to point out that I see no rejection of Buddhism. All I see is a rejection o some Buddhists. The OP does not indicate that he understands the doctrine.or the method.
But if he wants to distance himself that's his business. It dosn't seem to be a philosophical matter. . .
Sorry about that. I tend to be blunt.
Blunt is fine. Condescending is rhetorical rather than philosophical. And it starts unnecessary and unproductive scuffles.
I suspect that nothing would convince you otherwise. Am I right? Be honest.
I don't know what your agenda is but it doesn't interest me. If you want to show me I'm missing the point then show me where the OP has made a complaint against Buddhism. Maybe I missed something,.
Apparently being blunt is sometimes interpreted as being condescending, as we see here. .
Are you talking about this from above?
Quoting FrancisRay
I don't think that's particularly condescending. Or blunt for that matter. I guess I'd characterize it as rhetorical - casting doubt on the posters motive rather than the point at hand.
Sorry I misinterpreted what you were saying. I didn't realize that you were only referring to Baker in the OP. Anyway, Baker's criticism is that the doctrine is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I have an idea of what he means and don't disagree.
I don't understand your last message so suspect we're in the middle of a misunderstanding.
Let's rewind. I responded to OP because I felt he (let us assume) was distancing himself from Buddhism for a poor reason. I find it difficult to believe Buddhists would act in the way he describes, but if this was his experience then I must believe it. But why is this a reason for anybody to distance themselves from Buddhism?
If the OP is still around I'd like to ask him which branch of Buddhism he become involved with, since if it was with the Thevadans I'll apologise for getting involved and and say no more. They are unpredictable. If the OP is distancing himself from Theravada Buddhism then in my opinion this is a wise thing to do. But this would be for philosophical reasons, not for the reasons given here. .
My main point, if I remember right, was that anybody can call themself a Buddhist. If people distanced themselves from Christianity because of their disgust with the behaviour of people calling themselves Christians then it wouldn't be surprising. However, this is a philosophically unsound reason, since what we are actually saying is that very few of these people are what Jesus would call a Christian, while the few that might seem to qualify may be observed to behave better than the rest.
If the OP has a substantial disagreement with the teachings then this is a different matter, but It appears not..
. .. ,
No problem. I take it for granted that there will be at least five misunderstindings for every ten posts.
I don't understand how you arrive at this view, but It might depend on what you mean. If you predict that following the practices of Buddhism will lead you to realise your immortality and transcend life and death, and if this prediction becomes a belief that is sufficiently strong to lead you to do the work, and if you succeed in your goal, then this might be called a self -fulfilling prophecy.
But I doubt this is what you mean. Perhaps you could elaborate.
.
. .
Baker speaks of taking Buddhist premises for granted and then eventually coming to believe them. His meaning is unclear but it's pretty clear that he's referring to the 4NTs when he (assuming 'he' cuz I'm a lazy chauvinist) mentions 'premises'. It all hinges on the 1st NT so it is key. The first is that life is suffering or dissatisfaction, to put it bluntly. There's no way to view the situation, view life, where this is actually the case. Life is comprised of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. If you realize your immorality there's satisfaction and dissatisfaction. If you realize emptiness or your 'true nature' there's satisfaction and dissatisfaction. If we can see satisfaction as dissatisfaction then why can't we see it the other way around, or the way it actually appears to be?
To end of suffering is to end dissatisfaction. Dissatisfaction is suffering. . .
There would be three kinds of suffering. The third kind is conditioned states. This refers to a basic lack of satisfaction and a feeling that our expectations and standards are never met. It’s often caused by the fact that life in all its forms changes and is impermanent with no substance or inner core. Once one transcends substance and change there is no dissatisfaction.
You may not believe this, but this is the teachings and the experience of many people. In Buddhist texts the word 'suffering' is often translated as 'dissatisfaction'.
Scepticism is fair enough, but it has to be aimed at the actual teachings.
. . , .
You’re not being clear. First you say it’s a matter of belief, and that is of course the actual case, but then end in a kind of weasely way suggest misapprehension. The first noble truth isn’t part of the actual teachings of Buddhism???
The four NTs are central.
I'm not sure I'm seeing the objection. The world of pleasure and pain, satisfaction and dissatisfaction is the world of suffering. Are you saying otherwise?
Yes.
Life is comprised of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. If you realize your immorality there's satisfaction and dissatisfaction. If you realize emptiness or your 'true nature' there's satisfaction and dissatisfaction. If we can see satisfaction as dissatisfaction, or satisfaction/dissatisfaction as dissatisfaction, then why can't we see it the other way around, or the way it actually appears to be?
Do you not see that the idea is to transcend satisfaction/dissatisfaction? This is basic.
If not, then it might be better if I didn't argue but refer you to an authoritative explanation. I'll have a look for one later.
If your objection holds then all Buddhist are fools, and I suspect that even you would find this is a touch unlikely.
This is not a secret doctrine so I'm tempted to leave it to you to answer your own objection, but I'll try to find a helpful text when time allows. .
I’m not objecting to what Buddhists wish to believe. I’m merely pointing out, as does the OP, that it is belief.
That F=MA is just a belief for most people. But no Buddhist settles for beliefs. If we're going to settle for beliefs we're going to have to avoid Buddhism. A person attached to their beliefs will find it very painful practicing Buddhism, and they will be wasting their time. Perhaps this was part of the OP's problem.
There are thousands of links for 'suffering', but this one may be is as good as any. https://www.learnreligions.com/life-is-suffering-what-does-that-mean-450094
To believe that Buddhism is all about beliefs is to entirely miss the point of the whole thing. It's a belief that seems to arise because in the West our view of these things is conditioned by commonplace Christianity, and it endures only where the teachings are not known. To say that Buddhists rely on beliefs is is to say they ignore the Buddha;s teachings.
.
.
.
.
A more nuanced version of the 1st NT, or ‘Western conditioning’, doesn’t alter the fact of the matter that if your experience is the cessation of dukkha you wouldn’t seek it. You can only believe in it, same as many Buddhist tenets like rebirth and karma. Religions don’t work without metaphysics because authorities need special access that is not available to mundane folk.
I give up. I can only wonder where you pick up your ideas. See you around.
So Buddhists are not only believers, they’re quitters as well. You’re gonna need more grit to end the dukkha, dude. :victory:
As I said earlier, I don;t know what your agenda is but I don't want to play. I cannot be helpful so I might as well bow out.
If you were intereeted in the topic you wouldn't have so many misunderstandings of it.
Let's not kid ourselves, failure to explain suggests that you may not understand what you're talking about well enough to explain.
To clarify, he's not explaining my misunderstandings. He's not pointing out my errors and showing how it really is. Also alleges a clandestine agenda of some kind. I suppose because he believes that I'm not interested in truth and just want to play games. I do love games but I also value truth. Why not have both?! :razz:
I gave you a link to an explanation and you ignored it. I do not have the impression that you're interested in truth. If you were, you would have investigated this issue and noticed that your objection is misconceived.
When one is beyond time and space the issue of satisfaction and dissatisfaction does not arise. All categorical pairs of this kind are reduced. It's all there in the literature, and I have no wish to get into arguments over issues that can be settled by reference to it.
. .
I read it and charitably described it as "A more nuanced version of the 1st NT". It's only about a page long, written at the eighth grade level (middle school), and by a lay zen student with a bachelors degree in journalism. Worse still, in your opinion this explanation could be "as good as any".
Quoting FrancisRay
If you were interested in the truth, and capable, wouldn't you be willing and able to explain why my objection is misconceived?
Again, I’m not objecting to what Buddhists wish to believe. I’m merely pointing out, as does the OP, that it is belief.
Your article concludes with a quote from the Buddha promising "the cessation of dukkha". If this is not your experience then for you it is a belief. Only you could know if it's your experience, and there's no sense being shy about it. The Buddha wasn't shy about it.
Yes, the article was about eighth grade,and brief, and this is why I recommended it. Yet it seem to have gone over your head.
Of course the cessation of suffering is a belief or a disbelief unless it is a personal reality. That the sun will rise tomorrow is a belief unitl it becomes a reality. The point is that in both instances belief is transcended for knowledge. Generalities are always dangerous in philosophy. If you'd said 'some Buddhists' that would have indicated some understanding, .
Anyway, no point in going om. , . . .
The article or content wasn’t eight grade level, the writing was. Also, you said it could be “as good as any” and now you’re saying that it was selected for its simplicity. This makes you appear lacking in both discernment and honesty.
Quoting FrancisRay
So you believe that it’s not a more nuanced version of the 1st NT? The article is titled “ What the Buddha Meant by...” What’s it about then?
Quoting FrancisRay
Thank you! Was that so hard?
Quoting FrancisRay
Of course the difference is that we’ve all experienced the sun, and even if we hadn’t there’s mountains of evidence and scientific explanations for its existence.
Is there any evidence for the cessation of dukkha? Any Buddha’s alive today? Looks like all we got is some crusty old sutras and crustier old men in robes and painted smiles. Nothing wrong with that, it fulfills its purpose.
Quoting FrancisRay
So is the odd anti-intellectualism that some Buddhists seem to fall into.
:smirk: Pesky thing this evidence (sufficiently corroborating facts) business, especially when it's lacking. Tougher on too-good (woo)-to-be-true wishful tinkerers than most other earnest mumblers. You're always the bad guy when you ask for their bona fides (as if we're border guards or club bouncers demanding "your papers, your ID").
The beliefs of Buddhism like anatta,rebirth,and the organised aspects are horrible just like many other forms of organised religion. I distance myself from buddhism,but the Buddha,mysticism and real Zen are tremendous!