Why is Buddhism so popular in the West?

[patrick457]

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:

Nirvana is the ultimate state of blissful existence.

This reminds me of what I hear is the different emphases on goals between Theravada and Mahayana. The goal in Theravada AFAIK (I’ll admit I’m not too familiar with Theravada; perhaps our other posters can correct me) is indeed to attain nirvana/nibbana. In Mahayana, however, you have emphasis laid on the ‘bodhisattva way’ - in other words helping as many sentient beings as possible to be liberated from suffering and achieve buddhahood out of compassion for them (bodhicitta), sometimes even if that meant delaying one’s own buddhahood until this goal is completely achieved. Indeed in Mahayana seeking only one’s own personal release from suffering and attainment of nirvana is seen as too narrow a pursuit.

Going back to topic for a bit, I do notice that one of the forms of Buddhism that is getting ‘popular’ in (or at least, getting appropriated by) the West is Zen. Does D. T. Suzuki have something to do with that?

 

[MindNight]

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

Thank you rossum.

 

[IAmAKaur]

Buddhism became popular in the west because people are searching for a religion that justifies their behavior with no eternal consequences.

Is it that simple? Certainly for the more theistic forms of Buddhism there are rules as to conduct, same as any religion, and it does have some notion of divine punishment (via karma) for bad actions and reward for good. It may not be well-defined as Catholicism is, or particularly strict about it, but it’s there.

 

[rossum]

Is it that simple? Certainly for the more theistic forms of Buddhism there are rules as to conduct, same as any religion, and it does have some notion of divine punishment (via karma) for bad actions and reward for good. It may not be well-defined as Catholicism is, or particularly strict about it, but it’s there.

It is actually stricter than Catholicism. There is no equivalent of Confession or Indulgences to mitigate the effects of your actions. If you do the crime then you do the time. Basic Buddhist training covers considering carefully before acting. Once an action is taken it cannot be withdrawn.

The punishments are less severe – no punishment is eternal, but there is no avoiding the punishments. There is no sin, but neither is there forgiveness of sin. Actions have consequences, and those consequences cannot be avoided.

rossum

 

[MindNight]

The punishments are less severe – no punishment is eternal, but there is no avoiding the punishments. There is no sin, but neither is there forgiveness of sin. Actions have consequences, and those consequences cannot be avoided.

Hmmm, ok but then according to what you said here, the buddha himself would have had to face the consequences of all his past lives before he managed to reach nirvana. Since according to your belief, buddha was in his previous lives someone else, therefore all the bad consequences that he accumulated as another person would have had to be played out before he could reach nirvana. And knowing that the buddha was not so enlightened before being siddharta, he would have had to pay A LOT of depths from the previous lives, and knowing from the scriptures, he directly attained nirvana after meditating for 40 days or so? So what you said in your post contradicts the entire story of buddha then, because if buddhism were true, it would take him probably to witness at least another millions and millions and millions of years of bad karmic reactions before he attained perfection… See where I’m getting at?

 

[rossum]

Hmmm, ok but then according to what you said here, the buddha himself would have had to face the consequences of all his past lives before he managed to reach nirvana.

Both before and after. He died 45 years after he attained nirvana, and his death was due to his being born, which in turn was due to his not attaining nirvana in a previous life. By the time he was enlightened he did not have a great deal of karma left to work out, but there was a small amount remaining.

Since according to your belief, buddha was in his previous lives someone else, therefore all the bad consequences that he accumulated as another person would have had to be played out before he could reach nirvana.

Correct. His immediately prior life was in the Tushita heaven.

And knowing that the buddha was not so enlightened before being siddharta, he would have had to pay A LOT of depths from the previous lives, and knowing from the scriptures, he directly attained nirvana after meditating for 40 days or so?

The Buddha was predicted for enlightenment at least 30,000 years before he became enlightened. He was working on reducing the load for many many lifetimes prior to his last. His enlightenment took many lifetimes of work. Even in his last life, he spent six years between leaving home and attaining enlightenment.

So what you said in your post contradicts the entire story of buddha then, because if buddhism were true, it would take him probably to witness at least another millions and millions and millions of years of bad karmic reactions before he attained perfection… See where I’m getting at?

You are correct, but you are forgetting that the Buddha started on his path many lifetimes before his last birth. He had done a great deal of the work before his last birth.

rossum

 

[MindNight]

The Buddha was predicted for enlightenment at least 30,000 years before he became enlightened

you mean, certain people could see the future, a bit like destiny? so how exactly did people manage to predict his enlightment, was it because of divine powers or what?

 

[rossum]

you mean, certain people could see the future, a bit like destiny? so how exactly did people manage to predict his enlightment, was it because of divine powers or what?

He was predicted by Dipankara Buddha, one of his predecessors. No divine power was involved, merely that Dipankara Buddha was enlightened.

rossum

 

[MindNight]

He was predicted by Dipankara Buddha, one of his predecessors. No divine power was involved, merely that Dipankara Buddha was enlightened.

Ah ok, so that means that Dipankara, because of his enlightment, was able to gain infinite knowledge (including of the future) to see things before they happen? So any master who is enlightment (attains nirvana) automatically knows everything there is to know about the universe? If the answer is yes, then I think I understand the whole concept now. Thank you. By the way, both of these questions are really the same, just phrased in two different ways.

 

[rossum]

Ah ok, so that means that Dipankara, because of his enlightment, was able to gain infinite knowledge (including of the future) to see things before they happen?

Infinite? I’m not sure. A lot of knowledge? Yes. Before it happens? Of course, we can all do that. I know that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow so I can know something of what will happen in the future. Other people may well have a more detailed knowledge than me – an astronomer could tell me when solar and lunar eclipses will happen, something I cannot do.

So any master who is enlightment (attains nirvana) automatically knows everything there is to know about the universe?

An enlightened master knows a lot more about the universe than I do. As to exactly how much more, you would have to ask an enlightened master.

rossum

 

[SteveVH]

Is it that simple? Certainly for the more theistic forms of Buddhism there are rules as to conduct, same as any religion, and it does have some notion of divine punishment (via karma) for bad actions and reward for good. It may not be well-defined as Catholicism is, or particularly strict about it, but it’s there.

No, it probably is not that simple. But I grew up in the era where it was “cool” to explore Buddhism along with a host of other eastern philosophies. Anything but Christianity; Buddhism, Baha’i, Hare Krishna… I knew many of these people and I can’t remember a single one who actually took it seriously, though they sure pretended to. It permitted them to live the way they were living and whether or not that was good or bad was completely relative. The prospect of karma catching up with one was a lot easier to live with than the judgment of God because in their eyes they were doing nothing wrong. They were the final moral authority.

 

[patrick457]

His immediately prior life was in the Tushita heaven.

It was actually said that Gotama’s immediate prior life was as the bodhisattva Setaketu; Tusita is also the place where the future buddha Metteya (Maitreya) is currently, isn’t it? Also, If I remember the stories in the Buddhist Jātakas are actually presented as accounts of the Buddha’s (and some related personages’) past lives, aren’t they?

 

[patrick457]

No, it probably is not that simple. But I grew up in the era where it was “cool” to explore Buddhism along with a host of other eastern philosophies. Anything but Christianity; Buddhism, Baha’i, Hare Krishna… I knew many of these people and I can’t remember a single one who actually took it seriously, though they sure pretended to. It permitted them to live the way they were living and whether or not that was good or bad was completely relative. The prospect of karma catching up with one was a lot easier to live with than the judgment of God because in their eyes they were doing nothing wrong. They were the final moral authority.

Just an off-side comment, but I personally think this is where the whole difference between Western and Eastern mentality would come into play.

 

[spring01]

As i have learned from some Buddhist friends, and from the Buddhism World Conference that I once attended out of curiosity, the religion focuses on the teaching on Death and Suffering in life, thus, the teaching is so simple that it can easily be infused into many conceptual thinking, including Western’s philosophy. I am not an expert in religions, but to my understanding, as per now, the core of Buddhism is more like the teaching the way of life of a perishable human being.

 

[rossum]

Tusita is also the place where the future buddha Metteya (Maitreya) is currently, isn’t it?

Correct. Gotama was in the Tushita heaven before his last birth. Maitreya is there now.

Also, If I remember the stories in the Buddhist Jātakas are actually presented as accounts of the Buddha’s (and some related personages’) past lives, aren’t they?

Correct. Most Western Buddhists treat them as a series of moral folk-tales, conveniently gathered together as stories of the past lives of the Buddha. They tend to be treated as useful parables rather than as accurate history. A number of them have antecedents or parallels in the Indian literature of the time.

rossum