Why is Buddhism so popular in the West?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IAmAKaur
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
These are just theological differences. Everyone thinks their own beliefs are superior. Nothing weird here.

But if some text talks about a woman not allowed to grab genitals during a fight - now that’s weird. And then there is horrific, cruel stuff that we should not even discuss (this is all in the OT).

Buddhist texts are relatively clean in this sense.
Ah, that weird stuff. Nothing beats the ol’ smash the babies on the rocks or Jacob losing the wrestling duel because the mysterious man touched him on the thigh or Ehud killing Eglon while the latter was (possibly) on the toilet though. But then again I’m interested in bits of stories such as Virabhadra beheading Daksha and throwing his severed head on the sacrificial fire or Indra kicking Sarama on the stomach for drinking up the milk offered to her by the Panis or Izanagi chopping his newborn son (the god of fire) to pieces for burning his wife Izanami to death during delivery or Shakyamuni in a past life being moved with pity and offering himself to be eaten by a starving tigress.
 
Ah, that weird stuff. Nothing beats the ol’ smash the babies on the rocks or Jacob losing the wrestling duel because the mysterious man touched him on the thigh or Ehud killing Eglon while the latter was (possibly) on the toilet though. But then again I’m interested in bits of stories such as Virabhadra beheading Daksha and throwing his severed head on the sacrificial fire or Indra kicking Sarama on the stomach for drinking up the milk offered to her by the Panis or Izanagi chopping his newborn son (the god of fire) to pieces for burning his wife Izanami to death during delivery or Shakyamuni in a past life being moved with pity and offering himself to be eaten by a starving tigress.
Yes that is what I am talking about. Buddhism does not have that much of it. The one you cite from Buddhism of Shakyamuni offering his body is not weird at all, it is rather sweet. (The other stories - Indra/Virabhadra are from Hinduism, I don’t know who Izanagi is - but never mind)
 
Ah, that weird stuff. Nothing beats the ol’ smash the babies on the rocks or Jacob losing the wrestling duel because the mysterious man touched him on the thigh or Ehud killing Eglon while the latter was (possibly) on the toilet though. But then again I’m interested in bits of stories such as Virabhadra beheading Daksha and throwing his severed head on the sacrificial fire or Indra kicking Sarama on the stomach for drinking up the milk offered to her by the Panis or Izanagi chopping his newborn son (the god of fire) to pieces for burning his wife Izanami to death during delivery or Shakyamuni in a past life being moved with pity and offering himself to be eaten by a starving tigress.
Wow :coolinoff:, two long sentences without any proper punctuations or anything :eek: :D. Was therefore a bit hard to understand I must admit. Wouldn’t it be easier to somehow break down the sentences a bit? 😃 Not trying to be a grammar nerd, it’s just that this post seems to be a bit messed up :). By the way, I know you were not talking to me.
 
I’m asking this question in part because it seems that whilst churches are closing at a rate never seen before (often sold for housing or other purposes), and whilst atheistic and anti-religious belief is also rising, it seems odd that another religion, Buddhism, is growing at a massive rate.

So, why is it Buddhism has become such a phenomena in the West? What is attracting so many people at a time when more traditional forms of religion seem to be getting older in terms of average congregational age and smaller in terms of attendance size?

EDIT: My intention in asking this question isn’t intentionally disrespectful towards Buddhists, as I firmly believe in the free practice of all religions and see valid points and teachings in all religions aside from my own.
Buddhism became popular in the west because people are searching for a religion that justifies their behavior with no eternal consequences.
 
I wish I could’ve asked my dearly departed grandmother why she converted from buddhism to Catholicism. When I heard she converted, I was happy, but at the time, I said to myself, “Well, I suppose Catholicism is better than nothing.” Now I see she was ahead of me and the rest of my family.

There seems to be an element of mysticism and serenity that attracts people. That we cannot control the world but can hope for a “higher level of existence” seems to give people a sense of peace. Maybe I’m wrong.

But what is more mystical and mysterious than God who loves humanity and became human to redeem all of us? And, priests allow the True Presence of Christ our God in the appearance of bread for our nourishment as we make pilgrimage on earth. And our God is Three Persons in One, One in Three. And our final destination is Beatific Vision/theosis/sanctification and to become “gods” since we were made in the image of God, creator of all things, beyond the universe, establisher of the rules of physics, known and unknown. And there’s more since no mind can conceive of what is in store for those who love and follow God.
 
Wow :coolinoff:, two long sentences without any proper punctuations or anything :eek: :D. Was therefore a bit hard to understand I must admit. Wouldn’t it be easier to somehow break down the sentences a bit? 😃 Not trying to be a grammar nerd, it’s just that this post seems to be a bit messed up :). By the way, I know you were not talking to me.
Sorry 'bout that. When I’m not going into longwinded lectures nobody ever listens to (look at my other posts; seriously :p) I tend to write run-on sentences, particularly if I’m writing from my stream of consciousness. 😃
 
Buddhism became popular in the west because people are searching for a religion that justifies their behavior with no eternal consequences.
I don’t know about these people, but I do know that Buddhism at least doesn’t also tolerate evil behavior. They may not have a concept of an eternal Hell as we Christians do, but well, being reborn as some inferior life form and continuing to be caught in the cycle of death and rebirth for their evil karma (as per Buddhist belief) should also worry these people. 🤷
 
I don’t know about these people, but I do know that Buddhism at least doesn’t also tolerate evil behavior. They may not have a concept of an eternal Hell as we Christians do, but well, being reborn as some inferior life form and continuing to be caught in the cycle of death and rebirth for their evil karma (as per Buddhist belief) should also worry these people. 🤷
Sorry, but one face with doing it over again until they get it right is not nearly the same thing as one faced with spending eternity in hell.
 
I don’t know about these people, but I do know that Buddhism at least doesn’t also tolerate evil behavior. They may not have a concept of an eternal Hell as we Christians do, but well, being reborn as some inferior life form and continuing to be caught in the cycle of death and rebirth for their evil karma (as per Buddhist belief) should also worry these people. 🤷
Is there a Buddhist thought on how worms, for instance, make moral choices?
 
what is your point? I’m not sure exactly which book you’re referring to? What do you mean? I’m sorry, just extremely puzzled here what you are specifically talking about…
Sorry, my question is since you seem to have an interest in buddhism, you may have read books on the subject (I havent though I have read snippets over peoples shoulders on my train ride to work). You therefore may have read books that have chapters titled “self-something” as I have seen, so I was wondering if you had? And do you find that aspect appealing in some way?
 
Sorry, my question is since you seem to have an interest in buddhism, you may have read books on the subject (I havent though I have read snippets over peoples shoulders on my train ride to work). You therefore may have read books that have chapters titled “self-something” as I have seen, so I was wondering if you had? And do you find that aspect appealing in some way?
No, I haven’t heard of that book actually, at least not anything named specifically “self-something”. I’m sure it would be interesting to read though. Is it an actual title of the book, or is the word “something” just a replacement for a word you did not catch? If it was an actual title, I could easily order it on amazon.

To answer your second question, I’m not sure whether I will find the book or the aspect described in it interesting until I first read it though. It’s hard to for me to give my opinion on a book which I haven’t yet read.
But if you’re talking about whether the concept of “self” appeals to me, yeah it does in a way.
 
I don’t know about these people, but I do know that Buddhism at least doesn’t also tolerate evil behavior. They may not have a concept of an eternal Hell as we Christians do, but well, being reborn as some inferior life form and continuing to be caught in the cycle of death and rebirth for their evil karma (as per Buddhist belief) should also worry these people. 🤷
There are sixteen Buddhist hells, eight hot and eight cold. All are unpleasant to varying degrees and all are temporary. The temporary nature allows for graded punishments, a multiple murderer will get a longer time in a hell than someone who only kills once.

The Christian version, where everyone gets exactly the same sentence, no matter what their crime, is not see as just by Buddhists.

Of course, the downside is that all the heavens (27 of them IIRC) are temporary as well. 😦

rossum
 
There are sixteen Buddhist hells, eight hot and eight cold. All are unpleasant to varying degrees and all are temporary. The temporary nature allows for graded punishments, a multiple murderer will get a longer time in a hell than someone who only kills once.

The Christian version, where everyone gets exactly the same sentence, no matter what their crime, is not see as just by Buddhists.

Of course, the downside is that all the heavens (27 of them IIRC) are temporary as well. 😦

rossum
The Buddhist heavens between lifetimes may be temporary, but after you have achieved Nirvana (or as in the case of Hinduism, Moksha) you no longer need to reincarnate any more. This state of liberation/bliss is then permanent.
 
There are sixteen Buddhist hells, eight hot and eight cold. All are unpleasant to varying degrees and all are temporary. The temporary nature allows for graded punishments, a multiple murderer will get a longer time in a hell than someone who only kills once.

The Christian version, where everyone gets exactly the same sentence, no matter what their crime, is not see as just by Buddhists.
Yes, Naraka right? In the East Asian version (地獄, Chinese: Diyu, Japanese: Jigoku) BTW - an amalgam of the Buddhist Naraka and local Chinese beliefs - Hellseighteen.

In the lowest Hell, Avīci (Sanskrit; 阿鼻地獄 Ābí-dìyù/Abi-jigoku or 無間地獄 Wújiàn dìyù/Muken-jigoku “no-interval hell”), people suffer ‘eternally’ - or more correctly, for a very long time (for innumerable kalpas or eons, specifically) that it might as well seem like eternity to a human. Ending up in Avīci (it would take one 2000 years to fall down into it, or so it is said) is no picnic either, as the torments there are so harsh (and so protracted) that even the upper hells will seem like heaven in comparison.

In the Journey to the West, the Tang emperor Taizong (reigned 626-649) is presented as falling grieviously ill and eventually dying due to a magical illness caused by the the ghost of a powerful river dragon who nursed a grievance against him. Fortunately, one of his courtiers had a friend in the underworld in the form of judge Cui Jue, who used his influence to remit the sentence upon Taizong (who was going to be sent to one of the Hells for the evil karma he accumulated during life) and allow him to live for twenty more years. As the emperor is on his way to return to the world of the living, Cui takes him on a tour of Diyu. Here is Cui’s description of Avīci:

The Hell of the Pool of Blood, the Avichi Hell, the Hell of the Steelyard Beam,
where skin is pulled away from the bone,
arms are broken and tendons cut.
because they killed for gain,
butchering living creatures,
they fell into these torments that will not end in a thousand years;
they will always lie here, never to escape.
Every one of them is tightly bound,
knotted and roped.
red-faced demons,
and black-faced demons,
are sent with their long halberds and short swords.
Ox-headed fiends,
and horse-faced fiends,
with iron clubs and brazen hammers,
beat them till their wincing faces flow with blood,
as they call on Heaven and Earth and get no answer.
Let no man alive have any illusions:
the devils carry out their orders and release nobody.
Good and evil will always be rewarded:
it is only a question of time.

The phrase Muken-jigoku is also appears now and again in Japanese Buddhism. Nichiren and his followers for instance have the belief which threatens the Avīci Hell to those who slander the Lotus Sutra or think it inferior to other sutras (when the Lotus Sutra is superior to them all) based on a passage from said sutra (chapter 3):

Of the Buddha’s presence in this world
Or after his parinirvāṇa, disparage this sutra,
And despise, hate, and hold grudges
Against the people who recite, copy, and preserve it.
When such people die,
They will go to the Avīci Hell,
And after spending a kalpa there,
Will be born in the same way
Again and again for innumerable kalpas.

The passage goes on to say that such people, after they have finally managed to come out of Avīci, will still suffer a lower rebirth as animals, then as giant snakes, then as physically-deformed humans - all the while being continually tormented and suffering throughout their rebirths. All because they have disparaged the Lotus Sutra. The Buddha then goes on to say to one of his disciples, Śāriputra (with whom he was engaging in a dialogue with), that “if one were to explain / the consequences of the errors / of those who disparage this sutra, / it would take more than a kalpa” and advises him to never expound this sutra “to those who have little wisdom,” but instead only to the wise and the virtuous who will be able to understand and accept it.

On a more popular note, the Ikkō-ikki - armed mobs of peasant farmers, Buddhist monks, Shinto priests and local nobles influenced by the militant Ikkō school (Pure Land; now defunct) who rebelled against samurai rule in the 16th century - used various banners carrying Buddhist slogans and chanted nembutsu while going to war. One of these - used in the province of Kaga - carried the words 進者往生極乐 退者无間地獄 “Advance [and be reborn into] paradise (lit. “ultimate bliss;” in other words Amitabha’s ‘pure land’); retreat [and fall into] Muken-jigoku.”
 
The Buddhist heavens between lifetimes may be temporary, but after you have achieved Nirvana (or as in the case of Hinduism, Moksha) you no longer need to reincarnate any more. This state of liberation/bliss is then permanent.
Nirvana is not one of the heavens, it can be attained in our current life. The Buddha attained nirvana age 35 and died age 80. For 45 years he was both living and preaching in North India and in nirvana.

rossum
 
Yes, Naraka right? In the East Asian version (地獄, Chinese: Diyu, Japanese: Jigoku) BTW - an amalgam of the Buddhist Naraka and local Chinese beliefs - there are eighteen Hells.
I took the number 16 from Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakosha, so that figure goes back to the Sarvastivada tradition.
In the lowest Hell, Avīci (Sanskrit; 阿鼻地獄 Ābí-dìyù/Abi-jigoku or 無間地獄 Wújiàn dìyù/Muken-jigoku “no-interval hell”), people suffer ‘eternally’ - or more correctly, for a very long time (for innumerable kalpas or eons, specifically) that it might as well seem like eternity to a human.
A better translation of “Avīci” is “unrelenting”, like the “no-interval” you mention. In other, lesser, hells there are short intervals of respite between the sufferings. In the Avīci Hell there are no intervals, so the suffering is continuous and unrelenting.

rossum
 
Rossum,

I have a huge question that I struggle with buddhism:

Namely: karma. Is the law of karma supposed to be a living entity or is it just the mechanics of the universe? Since if karma is not a living entity, then how does karma decide whether a certain action or thought is judged as good or bad? I mean, let’s say I kill someone, BUT I do it by accident. How does karma in this case for example diffrenciate between the intention of the person? What even is karma? If there is no god or a supernatural being which governs the universe, why does the universe reward good people and punish bad? I mean, let’s get philosophical here: Why does the law of karma even exist, if the universe is just an illusion?
 
Nirvana is not one of the heavens, it can be attained in our current life. The Buddha attained nirvana age 35 and died age 80. For 45 years he was both living and preaching in North India and in nirvana.

rossum
It is true that you can achieve nirvana while you are living. However once you die in that life, you no longer need to be reborn and come back to earth, Nirvana is assumed to be even better than heaven, beyond all heavens, but it is not describable. This is what Wikipedia has about nirvana:
A person can attain nirvāna without dying. When a person who has realized nirvāṇa dies, his death is referred as parinirvāṇa (Pali: parinibbana), his fully passing away, as his life was his last link to the cycle of death and rebirth (samsāra), and he will not be reborn again. What happens to a person after his parinirvāṇa cannot be known, as it is outside of all conceivable experience.
Nirvana is the ultimate state of blissful existence.
 
Rossum,

I have a huge question that I struggle with buddhism:

Namely: karma. Is the law of karma supposed to be a living entity or is it just the mechanics of the universe? Since if karma is not a living entity, then how does karma decide whether a certain action or thought is judged as good or bad? I mean, let’s say I kill someone, BUT I do it by accident. How does karma in this case for example diffrenciate between the intention of the person? What even is karma? If there is no god or a supernatural being which governs the universe, why does the universe reward good people and punish bad? I mean, let’s get philosophical here: Why does the law of karma even exist, if the universe is just an illusion?
The concept of karma exists in both Buddhism and Hinduism (actually all Indian religions), so let me try to answer this. The idea that the universe is an illusion (Maya) does not mean that it does not exist. It means that it is not the ultimate reality, that the way we perceive it, is not what it actually is. The way I think of it is that the universe is a vast stage (like in a theater) where each of us is acting a part. Karma is a system that ensures justice and equity within this theater of life between and among the actors. It should not be seen so much as a mechanism of reward and punishment, but as an instrument of teaching and growth. If you start out as a mean, selfish person, karma (after many, many lifetimes of pain and suffering) will eventually straighten you out.

Karma is a universal impersonal, mechanical law - almost like newton’s laws of motion or the law of gravity. Every thought, word or action of every person will lead to an equivalent effect - either in this lifetime or in some future lifetime.Karma also applies to groups, so every country, region, religion has its own karma.

If you kill somebody by accident, the karmic consequence will far smaller than if you actually intended it. Maybe you will have a small accident too in the future. The idea that karmic consequences have to be exactly the same as the original action is incorrect - it will just be equivalent (not necessarily exactly the same)
 
I have a huge question that I struggle with buddhism:

Namely: karma. Is the law of karma supposed to be a living entity or is it just the mechanics of the universe?
I think of karma as like gravity, like the mechanics of the universe. It is not a living entity. If you act in certain ways, then you can predict the results. If you throw a rock directly upwards, then it is going to land on your head. If you do not want to be hit on the head by a falling rock, then don’t throw rocks up into the air.

At its simplest, karma just means that actions have consequences. If you don’t like the consequences then don’t do the actions.
Since if karma is not a living entity, then how does karma decide whether a certain action or thought is judged as good or bad? I mean, let’s say I kill someone, BUT I do it by accident. How does karma in this case for example diffrenciate between the intention of the person?
Mental intention is very important for karma. All our conscious actions originate in the mind, hence we need to train our minds to only follow useful actions:

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with an evil mind then suffering will follow you,
as the wheel follows the draught ox.

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with a pure mind then happiness will follow you,
as a shadow that never leaves.

– Dhammapada 1:1-2

At one level, karma is like our habits. If we are in the habit of getting angry at every small thing, then we will live in an angry and hostile world, because we will project our internal anger onto everyone and everything else. If we change the habit, then we will change the way the world appears to us in a good way.
I mean, let’s get philosophical here: Why does the law of karma even exist, if the universe is just an illusion?
The universe is not an illusion. What is illusory is our mistaken ideas about what the universe is. A mirage does not contain any water, the water is all inside our head. However a mirage is something – nothing at all would not look like water. The problem with the mirage is not the mirage itself, the problem is our mistaken idea of what it is inside our heads. Hence the Buddhist emphasis on getting things right inside our heads.

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top