Buddhism... why not?

[Otherright]

As with many of the Buddha's sayings, he never elaborated, leaving others to fill in the blanks. I have read several versions of the sexual misconduct precept. Others including:


The Third Precept says we should avoid sexual misconduct. What is Sexul misconduct?

and

Five Precepts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Buddhism revises their interpretations just like any religion with the progression of society.

That's because Buddhism lacks the dogmatic structures that are akin to Abrahamic religions. Its all about you and your interpretation.

 

[Otherright]

Cause leads to effect. Just because the effects are permanent doesn't mean the thing which receives the effect is permanent. You kick a door, the door receives the kick, but it may be broken in the process, becoming something new. You are just the result of cause and effect. Calling it "karma" leads people to believe it's a higher, more "spiritual" principle than it is. Same with rebirth. Everything is being reborn (changed) due to the karma (causation) imposed on it.

Yes, you can create Karmic chains without having to resort to mysticism.

 

[Otherright]

@Penguin you are bold
I think that's a pretty simplistic description of Buddhism. In a similar vein, you could say that Christianity is about "loving God and being nice to other people". I think that in both cases, the devil's in the details.

You are absolutely correct.

In practice, Buddhism can have some rather negative aspects to it. For instance, in many cases, "refraining from sexual misconduct" is taken as a prohibition on homosexuality.

That depends on the practitioner. I take it more liberally. No coercion or force. Not used for control. No sex with someone spoken for or someone who can't consent. Why? All those things lead to suffering, or can. Judging homosexuality, would lead to suffering, so it isn't included. Besides, no harm could come from it, IMO.

Also, and this is just my personal opinion, I think that in some cases, the Four Noble Truths can lead to a detachment from the world. Personally, I'm not so sure that suffering is something to be avoided altogether. I think that suffering should certainly be minimized where possible, but at the same time, I think that a certain amount of suffering is a necessary side effect of going after worthwhile goals. IOW, if we eliminate all suffering, we're worse for it.

Very good point. I think it depends on the way the person views it. If I cheat on my wife, will it cause suffering. Yep. OK, I'll avoid that. If I stay up for two days working on this presentation to get this promotion, will it cause suffering. Yep, but its worth it.

This may be a faulty interpretation on my part, but it almost seems to me that the Four Noble Truths suggest that we should avoid caring about other people and things. This is something that doesn't hold any appeal at all for me.

Again, this is how you view it, and I understand your point. I love my wife, and I am attached to her. She does cause suffering in my life, to a degree (if you come across this, don't read into that honey, I'm just making a point). But do I suffer more without her? I think I would, so I'm willing to take the suffering.

I recognize that I have attachments, and while some of them may be unhealthy, I think that many of them are good... and even if they bring me suffering, they also bring me joy and benefit. I have no interest in giving these ones up.

Oh, I hadn't read this yet. Take what I just said, and move it down here.


I'm fine with examining Buddhism and picking and choosing aspects of it to incorporate it into my life, but I don't think I'd ever want to be a full-out Buddhist. The only thing that would do it for me is if I became convinced that Buddhist belief was based in truth, but so far that hasn't happened.

If you meet 100 buddhist, you'll find 100 forms of buddhism. Take what you will. Metta.

 

[Otherright]

Honestly, because the terms are vague and unpleasant to me.

Like anatta, for example. No-self. Somehow this no-self isn't eternal, doesn't reincarnate but somehow goes through a type of rebirth, and somehow one's prior negative karma catches up with one at birth even though there's no prior self and no current self.

Anatta actually refers to the egoless self, the impermanent. You are not the say person you were 5 years ago, and you won't be the same as you are now 5 years from now. You are in a constant state of change. This is Buddhism's way of saying there is no fixed "soul", just the stream of consciousness.

 

[Otherright]

That is because the notion of self is a functional illusion. We do individually die. But life goes on with different people. People ("selves") are not at all eternal, and we do not get to be reborn as individuals, because the very existence of individuals is an illusion in the first place.

Rebirth occurs, but it has no significant, meaningful ties to either previous, present or future individuals.

As for the precepts, they are not prohibitions, just advice.

Are you Theravedic? You sound Theravedic.

 

[Otherright]

Yeah - I guess I should've put a disclaimer on that. Most of my exposure to Buddhism has been from my brother- and sister-in-law, which I should realize is a pretty small sample and not representative of Buddhism in general.

I've seen a trend that bugs me: some Westerners talk about Buddhism (and other religions like Jainism) as some sort of benign, harmless thing. I think that the reality is much more complex than that, and that its lack of harmful influence in the West has more to do with it being (in the West, anyhow) a small minority religion without much influence anyhow than with Buddhism being inherently harmless.

In reality, I think that Buddhism is just as complex and varied as any other religion, and, depending on the Buddhist, Buddhist beliefs run the gamut from being generally positive to being very negative indeed.

You are exactly right, it does indeed run the gamut. But in the end, it is genuinely up to the practitioner. I'd never agree with all the things the Buddha said, but I don't deify him either. I like the fact that he said not to.

Some of the teachings attributed to him are obviously influenced by Hinduism. If I get a hint of otherly realms and Devas and such, I skip it. I guess you have to call me a Secular Buddhist. I do believe in reincarnation. Now, what gets reincarnated, is another thing, but I don't agree with the Theravedic teachings. Why? I don't like them, but its their interpretation. That to me is the most appealing aspect of it, I don't have to. It isn't either or, it just is.

My favorite Koan is "If you meet the Buddha, kill him." Its all about me and my perception. I have to walk my path, you have to walk yours.

 

[Otherright]

@ Painted Wolf you are bold:
You need to learn more about it then... If you are alive right now, you have done something to earn the pain and misery of another life. The only way to break the cycle of unending misery is to do as they say.

The only way to end the cycle is to follow your path. If you do this with wisdom and love, you can break the cycle.

Basic human morality is pretty basic... but the details are where you find the problems.

You are right. Address those problems in your life and you will lessen your suffering.

Who decides what is sentient?

Let's call it things that are alive and capable of some type of reasoning then.

These two are pretty mundane... though one could quibble about the nature of lies.

You can quibble about the nature of truth as well. That was the subject of one of my Epistemology classes.

Depends on the sect of Buddhism you are talking about, some do have gods.

No, they don't. Buddhism is non-theistic. If you have come across such, you are seeing the result of Hinduism merging with Buddhism. This was common in the writings that originate in the 9th-14th centuries.

I don't know about others, but I'm not Buddhist because I already follow those precepts under my current faith. I also don't do reincarnation, or the idea that life is something bad.

I do believe in reincarnation, but not in the classical western sense of the phenomenon. I agree that life isn't something that is necessarily bad. I think that is a misconception, but it is suffering, and you should try to lessen it.

 

[painted wolf]

@ Painted Wolf you are bold:

He who dares spins. Granted, sometimes I bite my own tail, but hey... it wouldn't be a learning experience otherwise.

You need to learn more about it then... If you are alive right now, you have done something to earn the pain and misery of another life. The only way to break the cycle of unending misery is to do as they say.

The only way to end the cycle is to follow your path. If you do this with wisdom and love, you can break the cycle.

Many paths up the mountain... but some claim shorter paths than others.

Basic human morality is pretty basic... but the details are where you find the problems.

You are right. Address those problems in your life and you will lessen your suffering.

Find what you have to be thankful for and you will forget to suffer.

Who decides what is sentient?

Let's call it things that are alive and capable of some type of reasoning then.

Sorry, my faith makes no distinctions... everything is worthy of the same respect. How do you judge who can and can't reason? A plant responds to danger as much as an animal does... but our senses are too limited to see it.

These two are pretty mundane... though one could quibble about the nature of lies.

You can quibble about the nature of truth as well. That was the subject of one of my Epistemology classes.

Exactly... it's sounds nice to have a "don't do this" rule on paper... but reality isn't black and white.

Depends on the sect of Buddhism you are talking about, some do have gods.

No, they don't. Buddhism is non-theistic. If you have come across such, you are seeing the result of Hinduism merging with Buddhism. This was common in the writings that originate in the 9th-14th centuries.

They don't have supreme creator god, but the Theravada school mentions the gods and they are mentioned in some of the oldest Buddhist scriptures such as the Pali Canon.
Plus, among some Mahayana Buddhists the Buddha is essentially considered a god, come to Earth to save people... with supernatural powers even.

Like all religions Buddhism is not a monolith, there are totally atheistic schools of thought and there are ones that aren't.

I don't know about others, but I'm not Buddhist because I already follow those precepts under my current faith. I also don't do reincarnation, or the idea that life is something bad.

I do believe in reincarnation, but not in the classical western sense of the phenomenon. I agree that life isn't something that is necessarily bad. I think that is a misconception, but it is suffering, and you should try to lessen it.

I only suffer if I let myself... life is a challenge, but everything worthwhile is.

wa:do

 

[LuisDantas]

Are you Theravedic? You sound Theravedic.

My initial exposition to formal Buddhism instruction was in the Theravada school, yes. Although I don't think that makes much of a difference in this regard, and I have been exposed to Jodo Shinshu, Vajrayana and Zen since.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Very good point. I think it depends on the way the person views it. If I cheat on my wife, will it cause suffering. Yep. OK, I'll avoid that.

I was thinking of it more in terms of "if my wife and I have attachment toward each other, then we'll both suffer when we're apart. Better to avoid the attachment, then." That's the sort of thing I disagree with: I'm more interested in creating the best net positive than I am in eliminating all negatives, because I think that to do so, I'd have to also eliminate the great positives that come with negative side effects, and I think I'd be worse off for it.

Again, this is how you view it, and I understand your point. I love my wife, and I am attached to her. She does cause suffering in my life, to a degree (if you come across this, don't read into that honey, I'm just making a point). But do I suffer more without her? I think I would, so I'm willing to take the suffering.

But is this view the one put forward by Buddhism? It seems to me that the approach you describe goes directly against the Four Noble Truths.

 

[fenrisx]

My initial exposition to formal Buddhism instruction was in the Theravada school, yes. Although I don't think that makes much of a difference in this regard, and I have been exposed to Jodo Shinshu, Vajrayana and Zen since.

my exposure to dharma came in through shugendo and lately shin buddhism, making my exposure predominately japanese...