Thank you Krill the Unwashed. Two superior posts in my opinion. You're one of the best contributors I've seen on Religious Forums. Please stick around.
A couple more questions though. Where have you lived in your life and what is your ethnicity. I think you've said Thai ethnicity but something else you said made me not so clear. How did you attain such an excellent command of English?
What would you say would be the appeal of Buddhism for people with no belief in any form of life after death? i.e. versus not bothering with any discipline
Thank you G-A! I'll stick around
Ethnically my family is mixed with Thai & Chinese (Taiwanese to be specific, Hokkien to be even more specific!) But they lived in a province of Thailand which was captured by Thailand from Cambodia in about 1400 AD-ish. In the 60s-70s when Thailand wanted to join the UN, the UN forced Thailand to give this province back to the Khmer people or they can't join. So Thailand did, and my mother and her siblings were all born during the time when the province was a part of Cambodia, so they grew up only speaking Khmer and no Thai or Chinese. My grandparents and mom, aunts and uncles came here to America in the 80's.
I was actually born and raised in California. So I grew up speaking English, and hearing Khmer spoken by my mother, aunts, and uncles. So I speak only English as a first language, I understand and speak some Khmer. I like to spend my free time reading books on philosophy and other religions and about science, so I pick up a whole host of new words I end up using in trying to explain things to people. I like having a large vocabulary at my disposal because it makes expressing and articulating my ideas more precise. Some words just have more precision power than others. And the more precise your words are, the more effective your communication is. The more effective your communication, the better others around you will understand what you are trying to say
I prefer to communicate and share ideas rather than debate and get into these fights about who is right or wrong. One is more productive than the other.
I think your question has a few complex answers. What is the appeal people with no belief in an afterlife have with Buddhism? As opposed to just being secular like everybody else?
All my answers are personal answers and are not in any way "Buddhistic."
My first answer is that perhaps Buddhism has certain qualities which resonates with such types that have no belief in an afterlife.
Usually when we speak of people in the West with no belief in an afterlife, we are referring to the bi-product of a cultural/social phenomenon. The society in question would be Western, and the Culture would be "European," or "Old World."
In that Western/European culture the old time weltaschauung of the West is founded on Christian priciples and Christian beliefsets. So it's within that cultural matrix that the types of people you speak of come into being.
These people usually come into being by having an inner nature to reject that weltanschauung - worldview/world-model - and they are types who would question Christian ideals, doctrines, and world views.
So the first answer is that Buddhism has aspects that do appeal to such types inner character. For example critical Thinking was first developed and used by the Buddha. A rational approach to coming to an understanding of our world and self is an inherent "property" of Buddhism. In Mahayana (Chan Buddhism) it is said that the stronger your doubt and skepticism is, the greater your enlightenment
So, I don't see it as any surprise that types of people who challenge and question the dominant worldview and belief system of their culture would be drawn to Buddhism, in this respect.
Second answer would be that perhaps Buddhism offers some people who do not believe in any type of afterlife "Sanctuary?"
By that I mean that people who believe in a heaven have Christianity to seek refuge and sanctuary in where their worldviews and beliefs are safe. people who believe in paradise and 72 naked virgins have Islam as their Sanctuary
But the emerging body of people who are now skeptical, doubtful about, who question "old world" worldviews don't have a psychological sanctuary for their worldviews and beliefs. Buddhism might offer them such psychological sanctuary.
Third answer is Human Nature. Perhaps some people who are materialists and lack a belief in an afterlife - like all primates - need a tribe or troop or group to belong to. belong to here doesn't necessarily mean a physical belonging of close proximity. More of a psychological belonging. Where the person can feel they belong to something when they say: "I am a Buddhist." You don't get that same feel of belonging to something when you say: "I am a Secularist!"
Belief is a tricky word in Buddhism. Just like it is a tricky word in science. The objective of science is to basically come to an Understanding (Buddhi) of the Natural World of Phenomena, by observing, hypothesizing, testing, and so on. Once we gain an understanding of an aspect of our reality, it is no longer a matter of "belief."
For example, we don't have to believe that the world is round, we just know it, based on our Understanding of how our world is today. We also don't have to believe in things like the existence of the moon and sun, because they are obviously there in the sky. It's not a matter of belief. We don't say we believe in the theory of gravity. We just know gravity works! Belief doesn't fit in sciences. And it doesn't fit into Buddhism either.
The very word "believe" has the shadow meaning of clinging to something emotively. The word "Be-Lieve" comes from the old Germanic word "Ge-Lieben" which meant to "Be-Love." In other words, what we "believe" in, we "belove," or behold with emotion and passion. And it's this very "beholdment" - this clinging or craving emotively - that the Buddha says is the cause of suffering. You may ask: "How so?" I'll explain:
In 500 BC in India, you have a dominant religion called Brahmanism, in which human beings were separated into castes. You had the Brahmins up at the top and the lowly Sudras at the bottom.
So in that cultural matrix, it was taught that because of karma, you earned your lot in life, and that if you perform your castely duties, you may be reborn in the next life in a better caste. This is all great. But this cause a lot of misery and suffering for the sudras, who were treated badly. And so who is at fault for that suffering? The Brahminical system or the belief the sudras put into the system? The answer is both. It takes two to tango as they say.
Belief in god and the belief that god does not exist... the belief in rebirth and the belief that rebirth is not real are all beliefsets. They are things we can't prove either way, but we hold onto them - behold them, belove them - due to a passion, a conviction, a clinging... an attachment. It causes Dukkha, inner anguish, upsets us when other challenges our beliefs, we get angry... and in many cases we kill over disagreements in beliefs. Shi'ites versus Sunni. Catholic versus Protestants. Radical Islam versus everyone, and so on.
In Buddhism, one doesn't try to believe in something. It's like science. One tries instead to come to an understanding of the dharma/tao/way of the Natural World of Phenomena. And when we do come to that understanding (Buddhi) it no longer is a matter of belief, or faith. Not to believe in god or rebirth and not to believe such don't exist... but to try to come to an understanding (Buddhi) of them in some way, and to try to understand how they, if such exists, fits in with the rest of the Phenomenal World.
I personally don't like Materialism - the worldview - because its minimalistic in nature, and its prone to conviction. Thinking stops with conviction, because our minds become "convicts" of our own beliefs.
