Western vs Eastern Buddhism

[Rick O'Shez]

Spiny, are you in that first group?

Not really, and I find the whole debate rather tedious, I think it's missing the point. People argue about whether Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy but IMO it's neither.

 

[George-ananda]

I do not flat out completely reject the idea of a reincarnating soul, based on the fact that I don't know for certain if its true or false, but I tend to dismiss it personally as I give greater emphasis to both Anattā / Not-Self and Suññatā / Emptiness.

I believe the soul is compatible with 'Anatta' in that even the soul is ultimately not permanent (but holds as an individual essence for many, many experiences).

I do lean towards the position that reality is ultimately a product of cosmic creativity, which could very well be a sort of world-consciousness. So while my understanding of reincarnation is in turn informed by my understanding of Anattā and Suññatā, I do hold some views that go hand-in-hand with traditional Dharmic understanding.

There are three main 'theories' that I formulated and hold regarding the basic idea of transmigration of the reality-essence:

(1) The Physical Transmigration.
This is arguably the materialist understanding. Everything in the physical reality arises and disintegrates, rearranges and transforms and arises and disintegrates again. Different iterations of the same essence, repeating and transforming, ever since the world blew into existence. Thats one way to see Samsara, and I don't think its false just because it has a materialist viewpoint.

(2) The Idea-body Transmigration.
This is arguably the psychological understanding. Reincarnating could be seen as ideas and personality-fragments circulating throughout the social realm: the doctrines that we accept and allow to shape our worldviews, the ideas we learn and accept from others, the behaviors that we come to emulate, the compulsions that transmigrate as idea-behaviour patterns...they all are exchanged by people all the time. When we inherit somebody else's worldview, you could say that there is a 'little rebirth' right there - and in Buddha's words, the new iteration would be "not entirely different, but not entirely the same" as the original. And, often this idea-body transmigration is very clearly driven by desire, clinging and skillfulness, just as Buddha espoused.

(3) The Consciousness Transmigrating.
This is arguably the idealist understanding, and the one found in traditional schools of Buddhism and other Indian religions. That is that there is one whole cosmic consciousness / cosmic creativity that reincarnates throughout reality. The idea is fairly simple and accepted by myself. I don't attribute personality to this cosmic consciousness, though, as personality is something that arises in conjunction with bodily senses and experience. A cosmic consciousness would not have these.

However, I do think that all these three 'theories' can coexist and I personally hold them all as valid. If there is a cosmic consciousness / cosmic creativity, then everything, including the physical realm and the human ideas, are a by-product of it. Therefore, they are not three separate viewpoints as much as they are three aspects of one viewpoint. The Western Buddhists who like to focus on (1) or (2) instead of (3) just focus on a different aspect of the Buddhist reality. I tend to look at all three and hold all three as personal views of mine, mutually valid, but for Buddhist practice and pursuit of Nibbana I feel that (2) is the most crucial.

Do any of these allow for what the west would call life after death? i.e. The continuation of consciousness of the individual as described in several fields of paranormal research such as Near Death Experiences.

My personal view is without such continuation all this Buddhist learning is depressing and would lead me to nihilism.

 

[George-ananda]

My studies and very brief time as a monk were with Eastern Buddhists from SE Asian refugee communities, personally I believe in reincarnation and some kind of soul, which is not Therevada Buddhist, maybe more Hindu in concept. And I'm very anti materialistic.

I am basically on the same page. I think a key point I want to make is that the 'soul' and 'annata' are compatible beliefs. I understand the soul to be impermanent but lasting as an individual for many, many experiences until Moksha/Nirvana is finally reached.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Well it depends which tradition you ask. If you ask the Shingon and some Tendai Buddhists (particularly the Shingon Buddhists), there is more to be contemplated on the nature of Mahāvairocana Buddha and various concepts associated with it and its relation to Dharmakāya (Truth Body). For example, the Japanese monk Dohen of the Japanese Shingon tradition posited that Mahāvairocana is the Dharmakāya and the basis of all beings and phenomena. Its all very confusing, and there is definitely Hindu influences in the Vajrayāna school, part of which Shingon is.

I find the trikaya doctrine hard to fathom, but as I observed earlier Buddhism is pluralistic and diverse and difficult to generalise about.

 

[George-ananda]

Not really, and I find the whole debate rather tedious, I think it's missing the point. People argue about whether Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy but IMO it's neither.

I guess we then have a different perspective on the importance of these questions. I want to understand the Big Picture of it all from the individuals perspective.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I want to understand the Big Picture of it all from the individuals perspective.

I don't think Buddhist practice is about taking on a set of beliefs, it's more like getting rid of them.

 

[George-ananda]

I don't think Buddhist practice is about taking on a set of beliefs, it's more like getting rid of them.

I guess that is not the kind of Buddhism that I would want to involve myself in. I need some basic questions answered first and I have found eastern masters of the Hindu tradition and Theosophical traditions present us with the best answers our minds can grasp.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I need some basic questions answered first and I have found eastern masters of the Hindu tradition and Theosophical traditions present us with the best answers our minds can grasp.

I'm not convinced that such answers can be provided by somebody else.

 

[George-ananda]

I'm not convinced that such answers can be provided by somebody else.

Again, our difference. I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that there are advanced souls that incarnate to teach (one I have studied in great detail).

 

[Twilight Hue]

It apparently is for a lot of people.

That's true.

Yet It would be interesting to see how such views and notions came about in the first place, when Buddhism has no such discernment anywhere as it relates to ongoing practice and meditations.

How then does one apply rebirth and reincarnation with Buddhism when in actuality there was never any real birth and death to be had upon realisation ? A bit like seeking one's original face when in actuality where no such defined critera exists, but an insistence persists nonetheless.

Same as eastern/western Buddhism. Whatever that is. ;0]

I suppose it's just as well when you think about it. Things like this really needs to run it's course until one understands the nature by which we define our experiences through expressions like rebirth/reincarnation, east/west, yada yada.

Yoda bo tepp ......

 

[Leftimies]

I believe the soul is compatible with 'Anatta' in that even the soul is ultimately not permanent (but holds as an individual essence for many, many experiences).

Do any of these allow for what the west would call life after death? i.e. The continuation of consciousness of the individual as described in several fields of paranormal research such as Near Death Experiences.

My personal view is without such continuation all this Buddhist learning is depressing and would lead me to nihilism.

In your assertion regarding Anatta, your views sound a bit like those of the early Pudgalavāda branch of Buddhism. They did say that, while the notion of Anatta is true, there exists a person within certain set of boundaries.

However, all the early Buddhist texts and schools do make the distinction that there is no permanent consciousness that transmigrates. That there is no individual soul that reincarnates. On the topic of life after death, I don't know nothing about. I wont say it is true, nor will I say its untrue.

Well, there is a certain quality of nihilism to Buddhism. But its not 'negative nihilism', I think its 'positive nihilism' in that despite everything being so gloomy, we can display loving kindness to one another. Compassion while accepting the harsh reality as it is. From what I can gather from my initial inquiry into the 'core teachings' (which I don't claim are definitely the 'core', this is only my opinion) that I summarized under an eight-point list in an earlier post, Buddhism was never a 'comfort religion'. It was never, it seems, in its agenda to comfort people but to instruct them how to end suffering by their own merit and how to attain greater knowledge through attaining lordship over one's own senses and thoughts (this state of superiority over sensory experience and thoughts is probably what is referred to as 'Nibbana' - again, I don't claim that this necessarily is the case, but my understanding). Buddha also taught methods of concentration.

Buddhism is depressing a lot of times. But through unrelentless practice of Karuṇā to other living beings, not failing to show compassion or loving kindness to even one, it becomes a very beautiful religion. Perhaps precisely because despite its nihilist understanding of reality, compassion still prevails.

 

[George-ananda]

. On the topic of life after death, I don't know nothing about. I wont say it is true, nor will I say its untrue.

Just a side comment. that I wonder why so many learned people are not more interested in this question. I think the common answer is that 'we can never really know anything' but from my decades of study I do not believe that to be true. I think a very clear picture emerges with cumulative evidence.

.Well, there is a certain quality of nihilism to Buddhism. But its not 'negative nihilism', I think its 'positive nihilism' in that despite everything being so gloomy, we can display loving kindness to one another. Compassion while accepting the harsh reality as it is. From what I can gather from my initial inquiry into the 'core teachings' (which I don't claim are definitely the 'core', this is only my opinion) that I summarized under an eight-point list in an earlier post, Buddhism was never a 'comfort religion'. It was never, it seems, in its agenda to comfort people but to instruct them how to end suffering by their own merit and how to attain greater knowledge through attaining lordship over one's own senses and thoughts (this state of superiority over sensory experience and thoughts is probably what is referred to as 'Nibbana' - again, I don't claim that this necessarily is the case, but my understanding). Buddha also taught methods of concentration.

Buddhism is depressing a lot of times. But through unrelentless practice of Karuṇā to other living beings, not failing to show compassion or loving kindness to even one, it becomes a very beautiful religion. Perhaps precisely because despite its nihilist understanding of reality, compassion still prevails.

It is true that if one believes that we are just short passing forms in an endless universe then we can still make the best of it. But I objectively don't think that characterization is true. I think our consciousness expands until we realize we are the universal consciousness with no need for nihilistic or depressing philosophies..

 

[Desert Snake]

Not really, and I find the whole debate rather tedious, I think it's missing the point. People argue about whether Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy but IMO it's neither.

So it isn't anything?

 

[Lyndon]

I posted this in the wrong thread;

Well just one difference I have observed, Western converts tend to be a little on the "spacy" side and rather eccentric, having experimented with drugs often extensively, Eastern Buddhists tend to be the ones that don't do drugs or alcohol within their culture, you could call them the "normies" of Asian culture, the total opposite of the Western Buddhists, on average I'm speaking, not everyone.

 

[Lyndon]

I posted this also in the Sam Harris thread by mistake;

This might be helpful, An Eastern Cambodian Buddhist and former monk explaining the basics of Buddhism from an Eastern perspective;

A visit to the Cambodian Buddhist Temple
January 2011
It was an exciting day, I got up early and around ten drove to the local Therevada Cambodian Temple in Loma Linda, California USA. We have one of the largest concentrations of refugee immigrants from Cambodia and Vietnam in the USA and at the temple things go on much the same way they do in Asia, white people like me a real rarity and there has been very little "westernization" of the Buddhas message. The monk who speaks good English was away so I talked for 1 1/2 hrs to an old friend who was one of the elders at the temple, attending almost every day and very knowledgeable on the Buddha as he had been a monk for ten years back in Cambodia, before starting a family.

The first thing I did was go over some facts about Buddhism, ideas I had been almost ridiculed for such as Buddha's being an advocate of vegetarianism, but I'll leave that for the bottom of this post. I questioned him on the most basic teaching of Buddhism, how important were the precepts etc. To the best of my recollection this is what he said in less broken English;mine;

"The most important, central teaching of the Buddha is Love, Love for those around us, and Love for everyone, then compassion for everyone' he went over and over this teaching, it was obvious he considers it much more important than following the rules like the precepts, I asked him about how important it was to follow the precepts, he thought very important,he really scoffed when I brought of the idea People calling themselves Buddhist who weren't bothering to keep the precepts, he thought that was bad. In his opinion he said"the most important precept is number 5, no drugs and alcohol, drunks are more likely to kill and break the other precepts, understanding the religion requires a clear mind and you cant get a clear mind when you are using drugs and alcohol" remember I was asking him which precepts were the most important to the beginner or Buddhist young person.

He agreed wholeheartedly that Buddhism promoted a simple life, not addicted to a lot of things , and that it was fairly conservative religion, not a lot of partying etc, although in southeast asian tradition they often have fairly festive "parties" or religious events at the temple, with lots of people, live bands, dancing and free food. I talked to him about being single and he mentioned"its better to be a monk all your life, having a wife and family makes it harder to be a good person because it splits your time. its good that your single, thats like being a monk, its easier to grow in the religion that way"

We talked at length about reincarnation and the soul. These Therevada people definitely believe in past lives, future lives and reincarnation and the soul, but he told me the soul dies with the body, its the Spirit that was before and reincarnates and always will be. I asked him about Boddhissatva, people who reincarnate back on earth repeatedly to help mankind, he definitely agreed with this teaching but had not heard the term Bodhisattva or I was pronouncing it wrong or something. I asked him about Buddha nature, is everyone born with a small Buddha nature that can grow and grow even into being a full Buddha, and that anyone can do that, he wholeheartedly agreed, though once again the term Buddha nature was of course something different in his language.(PS They do call it reincarnation, not rebirth, that's a Western concept)

On vegetarianism he said basically what I have recounted before"the Buddha himself was a vegetarian, but he didn't say everyone has to be one, but he definitely indicated it was better to be vegetarian, in my country we have meditation schools that are very strict and they are all vegetarian, also in Vietnam and China the Buddhist temples are almost all vegetarian. its very bad to kill animals, but we are allowed to buy meat killed by some one else and eat it, but this is not ideal,I would never kill any animal even a chicken or a fish, the ideal of the Buddha is be vegetarian, animals are just as good as people, anything that breathes deserves to be treated well especially animals, the Buddha came not just for people but the animals as well, the Buddha came for every living creature(sentient being) to benefit them all" Please believe me this is my best recollection of a conversation this morning with a venerated temple elder, not my own thought or words, as ive already put my thoughts in writing Ill leave it at that.

Lastly the issue of Lying, is it OK to lie to prevent a greater crime, he just didn't know one way or the other but agreed lying to prevent killing seemed right, but he didn't know what the scripture said, he had been a monk many years ago starting in his teens and he is approaching 70 now.That's all for now, thank you for your time. sincerely John

(John was my monk name, and my middle name, because they couldn't pronounce Lyndon.)

 

[Leftimies]

Just a side comment. that I wonder why so many learned people are not more interested in this question. I think the common answer is that 'we can never really know anything' but from my decades of study I do not believe that to be true. I think a very clear picture emerges with cumulative evidence.

It is true that if one believes that we are just short passing forms in an endless universe then we can still make the best of it. But I objectively don't think that characterization is true. I think our consciousness expands until we realize we are the universal consciousness with no need for nihilistic or depressing philosophies..

I am interested in the question born out of NDEs, of course. I just don't have the knowledge or expertise required - I am sure that research will prove it one way or another, eventually. As for the question of depressive nature of Buddhism - in a sense, considering yourself to be but a 'short passing form in an endless universe' is a comforting thought in itself. Its true that there are times when I wish I was ignorant of Buddhism, because of its depressive character, but ever since I understood the points it was making, it has become hard to unlearn. It is like trying to unlearn that Earth is round.

 

[George-ananda]

I am interested in the question born out of NDEs, of course. I just don't have the knowledge or expertise required - I am sure that research will prove it one way or another, eventually.

I see the NDE as pointing to things we don't understand. And I believe advanced souls/teachers can tell us a lot about that.

considering yourself to be but a 'short passing form in an endless universe' is a comforting thought in itself.

How so? (I don't feel that way when continuation to better states is an option out there too)

Its true that there are times when I wish I was ignorant of Buddhism, because of its depressive character, but ever since I understood the points it was making, it has become hard to unlearn. It is like trying to unlearn that Earth is round.

Well I think Buddhism is a good thing and see it as a positive practice promoting happiness. Except I just have an issue and don't agree with those Buddhists that don't believe we continue until reaching Nirvana/Moksha. Their views are what I consider nihilistic and depressing.

 

[crossfire]

.

I don't think Buddhist practice is about taking on a set of beliefs, it's more like getting rid of them.

People do have the tendency to just make stuff up when faced with something unknown. It can be a hard habit to break.

 

[psychoslice]

I would say, concepts, and rituals, and this is why I don't call myself a Buddhist, I am not that, I am the Buddha, like we all are.

Not really, and I find the whole debate rather tedious, I think it's missing the point. People argue about whether Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy but IMO it's neither.

Yep you are right on.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Buddhism was never a 'comfort religion'.

That's very true. Heavy on truth though.