Those who used to be Buddhist

[TheAtheist]

There is another rail; one can call it the Middle Way. This is the rail of people who actually read the suttas and practice the teachings in an effort to realized awakening. This group is the one that is actually growing in the west.

Oh i’d contend that the Stephen Batchelor-esque crowd has quite a growing following within Western Buddhism, fueled by those who have in fact read the suttas (or sutras…but let’s leave that issue aside shall we?) and a little too much DT Suzuki and Alan Watts and then decide to go off and interpret it in a manner that runs into conflict with traditionalists.

They make for a rather interesting group to the collection of “new atheists” that have cropped up in the past decade.

 

[mikelionheart]

A basic book that talks clearly about Buddhism is Karen Armstrong’s work, “Buddha”. It is fairly short and like all her books on religion, well written and interesting.

Another book which is an excellent overview is “What the Buddha Taught” by Walpola Rahula. The best thing about this book, other than its accuracy, is that it’s free online. Here is the link. dhammaweb.net/books/Dr_Walpola_Rahula_What_the_Buddha_Taught.pdf

I have read some of Williams work and what he taught in his class on Buddhist studies is a form of Buddhism called Mahayana. The differences between Mahayana Buddhism that Professor Williams taught and Theravada which is the oldest form of Buddhism is well covered in the thread “Ask a Buddhist”.

I’ve read Armstrong’s book it’s very good.

The Rahula (wasn’t that the Buddha’s son’s name?) book I’ve never heard of but sounds good.

Williams’ speciality was/is Vajrayana (mostly, as well as other Mahayana) and he is an excellent Tibetan scholar.

Personally I always preferred Theravada despite having most contact with Zen due to the lack of Theravada activity where I live.

 

[mikelionheart]

Just a few comments: how is rebirth/reincarnation any less sensical than any idea of after-life existence? (Actually, that’s a rhetorical question: no need to comment back on that.)

I meant, specifically, Buddhist teaching on reincarnation. Hindu teaching, with its belief in atman, makes sense. Buddhist reincarnation, with its belief in anatman, I find makes no sense. I’ve heard a thousand attempts by Buddhists to explain it but just don’t buy them.

 

[JaKael02]

For those who used to follow Buddhism, what made you change to Catholicism?

A mystical experience occurred to me. The result was that God would do the work, I’d just respond. Eastern religions required effort to move forward.

Buddhism requires great effort on behalf of the follower in order to bear fruit. But Buddhism is not grace-based, it’s a religion sprung from natural law and natural effort to obtain spiritual fruit.

Catholicism requires great effort on behalf of the follower in order to beat fruit. But Catholicism is God-given, we just respond to the gift.

Kindly,

James

 

[notself]

Oh i’d contend that the Stephen Batchelor-esque crowd has quite a growing following within Western Buddhism, fueled by those who have in fact read the suttas (or sutras…but let’s leave that issue aside shall we?) and a little too much DT Suzuki and Alan Watts and then decide to go off and interpret it in a manner that runs into conflict with traditionalists.

They make for a rather interesting group to the collection of “new atheists” that have cropped up in the past decade.

Blind faith in rebirth or any other teaching is not required. One studies and obtains knowledge but it’s through practice that one gains realization. While I don’t believe in rebirth, I am not rejecting the concept. I think many who follow my tradition would find themselves in a similar situation. Certainly the Buddhists who posted on E-sangha and are now posting on Dhamma Wheel and Dharma Wheel would either believe in rebirth or are open to the idea.

You are correct there is a growing group of atheists who study Buddhism for its ethical teachings and to develop the mind. I think that’s great.

 

[notself]

I meant, specifically, Buddhist teaching on reincarnation. Hindu teaching, with its belief in atman, makes sense. Buddhist reincarnation, with its belief in anatman, I find makes no sense. I’ve heard a thousand attempts by Buddhists to explain it but just don’t buy them.

Buddhism isn’t for everybody. Some people get it and some people don’t.

 

[TheAtheist]

Blind faith in rebirth or any other teaching is not required.

Now isn’t that always dependent on the tradition one is emanating out of?

ex. The logic behind Pure Land Buddhism falls apart without the concept of Reincarnation.

Although for those particular groups who do believe in such things, i’m not quite sure they’d use the language you’ve deployed, ie: “blind faith.”

think many who follow my tradition would find themselves in a similar situation.

As i’ve said before notself, you are a Theravadan through and through.

And as I’ve also said before - the viewpoint is duly noted…along with the other viewpoints.

You are correct there is a growing group of atheists who study Buddhism for its ethical teachings and to develop the mind. I think that’s great.

That’s a very…charitable way of putting it.

 

[notself]

Now isn’t that always dependent on the tradition one is emanating out of?

ex. The logic behind Pure Land Buddhism falls apart without the concept of Reincarnation.

Although for those particular groups who do believe in such things, i’m not quite sure they’d use the language you’ve deployed, ie: “blind faith.”

As i’ve said before notself, you are a Theravadan through and through.

And as I’ve also said before - the viewpoint is duly noted…along with the other viewpoints.

That’s a very…charitable way of putting it.

I agree that more than any other form of Buddhism, Pure Land does fall apart without rebirth. By blind faith, I mean belief without understanding or realization. In Theravada one is not expected to truly understand or realize rebirth until one has realized the meaning of anatta. This happens in the initial stages of awakening. Pure Land requires blind faith because without it there is no reason to chant Amitābha Buddha if there is no rebirth into the Pure Land.

I don’t understand your last two comments. What do you mean by “Theravada through and through”?

Why do you think I am being charitable by my statement that atheists studying and practicing Buddhist teaching, whether one believes in rebirth or not, is a good thing. Why would it be anything else?

 

[mikelionheart]

Buddhism isn’t for everybody. Some people get it and some people don’t.

I did get it.

Which is why I was a Buddhist for 5 years.

 

[TheAtheist]

I don’t understand your last two comments. What do you mean by “Theravada through and through”?

Simply that your understanding of what is Buddhism is conditioned by your acceptance of your tradition - which is no different from any other person.

Consider that more of a reminder to myself.

Why do you think I am being charitable by my statement that atheists studying and practicing Buddhist teaching, whether one believes in rebirth or not, is a good thing. Why would it be anything else?

To which i shall refer you back to your Dharma Wheel compatriots as this is not exactly the appropriate forum for that discussion.

 

[TheAtheist]

The Rahula (wasn’t that the Buddha’s son’s name?) book I’ve never heard of but sounds good.

Rahula - either meaning obstacle or a name given in praise of a moon god.
The “What the Buddha Taught” book by the author Rahula tends to be considered a standard work amongst Pali scholars and Theravadans.

Williams’ speciality was/is Vajrayana (mostly, as well as other Mahayana) and he is an excellent Tibetan scholar.

Williams conversion was considered quite surprising amongst certain circles, although if i recall correctly from one of the lectures he delivered about the matter a primary reason for it was his inability to meditate.

However, he is an excellent scholar.

 

[notself]

TheAtheist;9772703]Simply that your understanding of what is Buddhism is conditioned by your acceptance of your tradition - which is no different from any other person.

Consider that more of a reminder to myself.

You’re right. Everything is conditioned by experience. My selection of Theravada was conditioned by my basic personality and by my experience of being raised Catholic.

To which i shall refer you back to your Dharma Wheel compatriots as this is not exactly the appropriate forum for that discussion.

This is a bit cryptic for me. Can you explain?

 

[WonderWorld]

Thank you all for replying, I’m trying to figure out a lot out in my life, I’ve been reading a lot about Buddhism this year, but always keep feeling pulled towards my Catholic roots, but there are many things that bother me on both ends… I just want to find the truth, but everything is so complicated.

 

[notself]

Thank you all for replying, I’m trying to figure out a lot out in my life, I’ve been reading a lot about Buddhism this year, but always keep feeling pulled towards my Catholic roots, but there are many things that bother me on both ends… I just want to find the truth, but everything is so complicated.

Start with your roots. Don’t look elsewhere until you understand Catholicism. Send a PM to Vouthon and to AdamPeter. They will help you study Catholicism from a very sophisticated level. Vouthon has been studying the Catholic Mystics which may answer some of your questions and today AdamPeter is being ordained as a Dominican monk. They are most likely around your age. What is needed during a time of confusion is what the Buddha called “excellent friends”. Find some excellent Catholic friends.

Put Buddhism aside.

 

[kbwall]

I was never really Buddhist, but I did ascribe to Eastern religion/philosophy. I was leaning closer to Hinduism than Buddhism, but really I was neither, and more believed in a eclectic blend of things. I will say why I left though, since that’s relatively close to Buddhism.

The biggest reason is the culture barrier. The religion is not very convert friendly, and many of them are actively hostile to converts. This alone put me at unease. If one believes that the religion is the truth and one benefits from following it, wouldn’t you want your religion to spread? I realize they don’t believe in steep penalties for error (if you mess up, you’ll be reborn to try again), but still.

Another thing, which is very similar to the reason I left Protestantism, is their lack of an official stance on any one issue. If you did this, that’s ok, but you can do this too. You can believe or do almost anything.

They’re concept of the afterlife turned me away too. For one thing, the concept of justice is to be reborn in another life, so you can learn from your errors. But since nobody accurately remembers their past lives, your memories get wiped every single time, so not much learning going on. And the ultimate goal is to escape the life/death cycle and go into nothing-ness. I found fading into nothing after death to be terrifying, close to some Christians’ interpretation of Hell, not as some goal I should be working for.

What I did like about it though was the meditation aspects and the eternal search for truth. However, now I see that while they may be searching for the Truth, the Catholics have it handed to them.

Another thing I did like is the fact that their idea of sin is actually very close to that of Catholic, even if they don’t agree on what is and is not sin. The Buddhists lack a final judgement deity, and so they see sin as intrinsically harmful and will naturally carry you into whatever life you may live. Similar thing with the Catholics, sin isn’t evil and pave the road to Hell because God arbitrarily deemed it so, sin does that simply because of the nature of sin and that’s what sin does. Jesus Christ wipes away our sin though, as long as we are repentant and accept Him.

 

[Agni]

For one thing, the concept of justice is to be reborn in another life, so you can learn from your errors. But since nobody accurately remembers their past lives, your memories get wiped every single time, so not much learning going on.

You don’t need to remember the details of your past lives. Whatever sins, limitations, and shortcomings you have in this life, are the ones you had in past lives, so the idea is to work in overcoming what’s right in front of you.

The purpose in having multiple lives is not to remember them, but to go beyond them, to not be bound by them, and to enter into the state that is beyond birth and death.

 

[Izdaari]

Like kbwall, I was never really a Buddhist, but more into an eclectic blend of Eastern ideas, in my case primarily Zen and philosophical Taoism. But I never became Catholic either. I’m in an Anglo-Catholic Episcopal church now, and that’s as close as I’ve ever come to it, and as close as I expect to come.

In Zen and Taoism, I found pieces of the cosmic jigsaw puzzle that I didn’t have before. And armed with a slightly larger view of the puzzle, I was able to see my own childhood faith tradition (generic Christianity), much like the Dalai Lama said, as being worthy of further investigation and possibly even true. It took a few years, and some reading of Lewis, Tolkien and MacDonald, but I found my way back into the Christian fold. (I don’t take any credit: I know God was leading me all the way.)

 

[billcu1]

I was never really Buddhist, but I did ascribe to Eastern religion/philosophy. I was leaning closer to Hinduism than Buddhism, but really I was neither, and more believed in a eclectic blend of things. I will say why I left though, since that’s relatively close to Buddhism.

The biggest reason is the culture barrier. The religion is not very convert friendly, and many of them are actively hostile to converts. This alone put me at unease. If one believes that the religion is the truth and one benefits from following it, wouldn’t you want your religion to spread? I realize they don’t believe in steep penalties for error (if you mess up, you’ll be reborn to try again), but still.

Another thing, which is very similar to the reason I left Protestantism, is their lack of an official stance on any one issue. If you did this, that’s ok, but you can do this too. You can believe or do almost anything.

They’re concept of the afterlife turned me away too. For one thing, the concept of justice is to be reborn in another life, so you can learn from your errors. But since nobody accurately remembers their past lives, your memories get wiped every single time, so not much learning going on. And the ultimate goal is to escape the life/death cycle and go into nothing-ness. I found fading into nothing after death to be terrifying, close to some Christians’ interpretation of Hell, not as some goal I should be working for.

What I did like about it though was the meditation aspects and the eternal search for truth. However, now I see that while they may be searching for the Truth, the Catholics have it handed to them.

Another thing I did like is the fact that their idea of sin is actually very close to that of Catholic, even if they don’t agree on what is and is not sin. The Buddhists lack a final judgement deity, and so they see sin as intrinsically harmful and will naturally carry you into whatever life you may live. Similar thing with the Catholics, sin isn’t evil and pave the road to Hell because God arbitrarily deemed it so, sin does that simply because of the nature of sin and that’s what sin does. Jesus Christ wipes away our sin though, as long as we are repentant and accept Him.

The memories are still there and they can be accessed. As far as nothingness It’s not what you think. no-thingness as opposed to some-thingness. Where god is. It’s his desire for us to be just like him. You wasn’t taught very well or misunderstood things.

B

 

[kbwall]

The memories are still there and they can be accessed. As far as nothingness It’s not what you think. no-thingness as opposed to some-thingness. Where god is. It’s his desire for us to be just like him. You wasn’t taught very well or misunderstood things.

B

Yeah, I know I didn’t understand things 100%, which is why I didn’t advance any further in that religion than I did (one shouldn’t follow something if they don’t understand it). I don’t concern myself too much with trying to understand it, since I no longer follow what that religion teaches, and I don’t seek to. I’m happy right in Catholicism.

 

[billcu1]

Yeah, I know I didn’t understand things 100%, which is why I didn’t advance any further in that religion than I did (one shouldn’t follow something if they don’t understand it). I don’t concern myself too much with trying to understand it, since I no longer follow what that religion teaches, and I don’t seek to. I’m happy right in Catholicism.

Well I am a buddhist scholar Hindu scholar and a catholic. So I guess I can say your in the right place. Reasoning and philosophy isn’t for all. But if you are interested in catholic philosophy you might look at summa theologica by THomas Aquinas.