Buddhism=psychology?

[kungfu cowboy]

I have begun to study Buddhism. The first book I just finished, which I thought was really well written, is "Buddhism Made Plain", by Antony Fernando.

From what I understand of it, and these are points the author made plain, it seems that the TRUE (not the popular religion) teachings of Buddha (and also Christ, I think) do not concern themselves with a God or an afterlife. Fine by me, but then how is it considerd a religion without a deity? Isn't it "merely" posive thinking, or ancient psychology? I highly respect what he has written, and find much wisdom in it, but don't see how self-help equals religion.

[honorisc]

The more everyone else is wrong, the more you seem right.

If a lot of people are trying to apply it, it might be called religion to further the ends of those who seek support~.

To many, the Actual doesn't matter. There is Religion. And there is what is Called Religion.~

Very some such, perhaps might have been, likely say some, some not.

[prana]

Buddhism = psychology (yes)
Buddhism = religion (not technically)
Buddhism = science of mind (yes)
BUddhism = understanding at experience level (yes)

[kungfu cowboy]

So basically, according to Buddha we are supposed to accept things as they are, realize everything pretty much sucks, or will suck at some future time, and there ain't no getting around it? Bummer.

I do think he developed an amazingly positive and humane philosophy, and it is something to strive for towards personal development; but I want answers to the questions he ignores. Which is everything outside the realm of the mind.

And I think its sad if the author is correct about popular religion adding nirvana as an actual afterlife, and whatever else makes them happy, because apparently Buddha didn't mean it that way, and to add stuff just to make people go "Yay! After I die I have a place to hang! I am no longer scared to die so much!" is nothing but an inappropriate lie, and very lame and sad.

[Scott R. Brown]

Cowboy,

I don’t have the time to go into too much detail right now, because I am at work. Buddha did not address the afterlife because that was not what he was concerned about. He did not intend to start a religion, but to address the cause of suffering in the world and devise a means of releiving that suffering. The Four noble truths have been compared to a doctor’s visit.

1) Life is suffering = Statement of the problem
2) Suffering is caused by desire = Diagnosis of the problem
3) Suffering can be eliminated = Prognosis of the problem
4) Suffering can be eliminated by following the 8-fold path = Prescription for healing.

Buddha believed that to address occult, afterlife or psychic matters would distract one from what was truly important in life which is to eliminate suffering. Everything that has been added to Buddhism is an after-thought by those that came after him to address the emotional need of humans to know these things. They are not truly important. The need to have reassurance is an emotional need that would resolve of itself if the individual would address and resolve the casue of suffering in himself.

If you have any specific questions or principles you do not understand, post them and others and I would be happy to give our views.

Your comment about just accepting life as it is is not entirely correct. I will address it tonight when I get off work.

Sincerely,

Scott

[HuangKaiVun]

No kungfucowboy, Buddha did not create a religion of attrition nor atheism.

Buddha's way was that of BALANCE. Suffering and joy - both are NECESSARY parts of life.

As far as the deity part, we as humans are every bit a part of the totality of REALITY as are the chairs we sit on and the air we breathe.

To a Buddhist like me, God does not exist outside of US.

[Scott R. Brown]

Cowboy,

Buddha’s original philosophy was about learning to free oneself from the bonds of suffering. This was to be done by realizing that desire causes our suffering. The suffering he is addressing is psychological suffering. The desire he speaks of is simply wanting what we cannot or do not have. Whenever I want something I cannot have I experience internal stresses cause by that desire. This results in anxiety, anger, frustration, unhappiness depression, etc.

Humans have the tendency to expect life to conform to our wishes, which is somewhat ridiculous because even simple experiences will demonstrate to us that life does not care what we want; life was not put here for our personal conveniance. It is our responsibility to conform ourselves with the process of life. In China this is called following the Tao. That is, bringing ourselves into accord with the natural rhythms and flow of life. We are not guaranteed success, or riches, or true friends or anything else. Any time we depend on such things for our happiness and lose them, we experience an emotional crisis. This is depending on transitory phenomena for our wellbeing.

This does not mean that we have to be passive, sit back and take whatever life dishes out. It means that we are to not depend our happiness upon what the world system provides us. All these things are fleeting and impermanent and therefore illusion. When I depend on others to make me feel valuable as a person, or I depend on money to make me feel secure or free, I am depending on transitory phenomena. When these things are removed from my life I experience emotional pain and personal dissonance. We are responsible for creating our own suffering through the state of mind that we choose to have. When we live in the world, but are not emotionally attached to the processes and events that occur, we are free. We experience an abundance of energy because we are not dissipating our energy on transitory emotional phenomena.

Buddha did not address the afterlife, god, mystical experience, etc. because these are phenomena that cannot be proven to others and have no real bearing upon happiness or the elimination of suffering. For example: the fear of no afterlife, or fear of hell, or hope for a pleasant afterlife comes from an emotional need to be reassured about the continuance and condition of our identity after death. When an individual feels in this manner, their comfort or happiness is dependent upon a fact or phenomena that cannot be proven or experienced until one dies. No matter what an individual chooses to believe in this life, it is only a belief and cannot be proven until they die. So why become preoccupied with phenomena that are ultimately un-provable when there is an attitude of life one can cultivate that will make such concerns unimportant. These fears only bring dissonance and unhappiness. The consequence of attaining Buddhahood or nirvana resolves these concerns for the individual.

Further, these concerns are based upon the illusion of an individual identity that continues. This is an illusory perception. We are not what we believe ourselves to be. Our personal identities are based upon the continuum of time. We appear to ourselves to be the same person as we live our life. This is because the process of growth occurs in a manner such that our personal identity experiences no drastic, sudden changes. Imagine if you were 5 years old and woke up one morning and you were the person you were when you were 15 years old. Without the process of time you would experience a mental breakdown because you would have thoughts and memories that you have not experienced as a process, they would have appeared suddenly and you would not recognize yourself as you. You would think you were someone else. Who you were at age 5 is related to whom you were at age 15 years and age 20 years and at age 50 years, but you are not the same identity. You have changed over time. You are related to each of those identities, but you are not those identities.

Who we truly are is that something, often called the super-ego or higher-self or atman (in Hinduism) that transcends the limitation of who we believe ourselves to be. Think of it as: Our true identity is the pallet upon which we paint our lives and we confuse the painting which is transitory with the pallet which is eternal.

I hope some of this addresses your concerns.

Scott

[o]

Scott,
Where do you get your views about Buddhism?

[Scott R. Brown]

O,

30 years of introspecting, meditating, thinking, praying, reading, questioning, analyzing and applying.

Sincerely,

Scott

[Kung Lek]

Scott, I have to say that you have a suprisingly western view of Buddhism.

Not to be annoying, but the Buddha did definitely speak of the afterlife, spirituality and even hell.

Buddhism in China also attached "merits" and "demerits" to an individual based upon whether or not good deeds were accomplished or forgone.

Although the Buddha Guatama detached himself, in the end his teachings became a bonafide doctrinezed and dogmatic religion. visit a temple and it is there plain to see. Ritual without understanding, hierarchies of monks, and so on.

The desire to attain Nirvana is still a desire, yes?

I'm sorry, but I think that what you have stated can be equated to putting a "pop-psychology" spin on what "Buddhism" is.

Buddhism is no more "psychology" than catholicism and as a "religion" holds no more merit than any other. Sub categories of all religions are there to break from the main and to express a different interpretaion of the words given by various "masters" such as the buddha, and buddha befores him and after him as well as any other so called illuminated teacher.

Don't get me wrong, Live and let live is a great concept no matter who says it.
But the lesson in Buddhism regarding ending suffering via quelling ones desire is only ONE lesson he gave and is not the hefty meat and potatoes of the religion.

peace

Kung Lek

Martial Arts Links

[Scott R. Brown]

Kun Lek,

I do not take offense, but thank you for your concern for my feelings.

Being a westerner it would be impossible for me to have any other perspective.

I may not have made myself clear or we have very different ways of understanding.

I strongly and vehemently disagree with the belief in merits and demerits. The Zen/Chan perspective poo poos that concept completely as well as true Christian thought. See the Book of Romans for Paul’s perspective on the matter.

It is important to understand that it was men not Buddha that formed the bona fide doctrines and dogma of Buddhism and Christianity for that matter. None, it could be argued, were Buddhas or Christs or had their level of understanding.

Also it is important to understand that religions eventually seek to become political powers and then no longer are able to promote the true teachings because the true teachings are neither popular nor lend themselves to political control, The truly wise separate themselves emotionally, not always physically, from the world system and are thus not controllable. Which is the purpose of political organizations, that is, to control the populous.

__________________________________________________

“Buddhism is no more "psychology" than catholicism and as a "religion" holds no more merit than any other. Sub categories of all religions are there to break from the main and to express a different interpretaion of the words given by various "masters" such as the buddha, and buddha befores him and after him as well as any other so called illuminated teacher.”
__________________________________________________

I agree totally, however there is a difference between a religion and the path one follows to discover the truth. The two are not synonymous. The deeper meanings in most major religions will still guide one to the truth, however the popular practice of all religions do not benefit the true seeker on their journey.

The sources you accept as true report that the Buddha addressed the afterlife etc. Mine asserted he did not. We could then bicker back and forth about who’s sources are the correct ones. Ultimately, it does not matter, because the truth is, it does not matter whether there is an afterlife or not. Belief in an afterlife is not pertinent to attaining realization. It is the emotional attachment of the individual that makes it important. I addressed it in my above post. It is unimportant whether you accept it or not it as the truth and whether you or I or anyone else believes it or not will not change the truth of the matter. But I do not expect you to take my word for it, nor should you. If you are a sincere and persistent seeker, you will realize it on your own eventually.

I am always at your service.

Sincerely,

Scott

[prana]

Karma, as explained by Buddha, is the cause and effect of rebirth and the cycle of life.

Definitely connotations about afterlife and the reason to choose a better rebirth ie. in Nibbana

But he never said to believe it, simply experience it by meditating on the breath and Vipasyana.

[Ryu]

Hey I didn't know this was here!
:( and sadly I can't stay long.

Hmmm I'll try a little bit of posting.
Well there's very good knowledge going on in this thread first of all. Scott has some great knowledge as does Kung Lek, and others.

Buddhism, if we are talking about the original Theravada school of thought does has a very "psychological, self-help" aspect to its teachings. Basically, the doctrine of "by ourselves evil is done, by ourselves goodness is done," tends to hint at the major philosophy of it. Our ability to find the causes and the treatments to suffering are up to us. While Nirvana is not seen as a "God" or anything in the sense western minds think of it, Nirvana is still Nothingness which IS something. From a lot of my studies I am tending to believe that Nirvana was their way of understanding that one could not truly phathom what lies beyond so to speak. Remember that Buddha was an Indian prince, and the major religion at that time was Hinduism. Buddha himself believed in an afterlife, I truly think, but the "divine message" he recieved was that people tend to look for "outside" influence too much instead of doing things themselves.

Mahayana Buddhism added the religious aspects of their respective cultures towards the religion, and also were the first to introduce the "Boddhisattva" into the teachings. Basically a Boddhisattva is a being who is ready to cross over into Nirvana, but who comes back to "earth" to lead others towards it (and that doesn't mean Evangelically LOL) The Boddhisattva is a being with such unyielding compassion, empathy, and wisdom that he is actually a "part" of the "divine" or a part of the beyond.
Putting this philo with the likes of Jesus Christ and God gives some very interesting things to contemplate. However it's my own little spin.

Remember that because Buddhism is a middle path, it tries to see all things from ways cleared of extremes. And that means that the obsession to never be extreme with something is also an extreme in itself.
While it is true that Buddhism seems to claim that "God" is within us, we must understand that we have to look at things from a much larger picture. If "God" is only within or without, we again have extremes.
If "God" can be at the same time within and without, a part and seperate, Outside and Inside, it becomes a bit easier to believe the phrase "God is omnipotent and within everything"

Anyway that's my take on it for now.
Remember too that a lot of this is my own thoughts and philosophies from my various studies.
I rarely regurgitate things I simply "learn"
The challenge is to find out what YOU think.

Ryu




"One who takes pride in shallow knowledge or understanding is like a monkey who delights in adorning itself with garbage."

[Scott R. Brown]

Ryu,

Very informative. Thank you for the contribution.

Sincerely,

Scott

[kungfu cowboy]

Thanks to everybody, especially Scott for sharing your insight. I am enjoying learning about Buddhist thought. A question I have is, is it fair to the originator or a philosophy to alter it to suit ones needs, or does that alter the truth (whatever that means) of their teachings? Shouldn't there be one defining form? If not, at what point then does function abandon the form?

Scott wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> We are responsible for creating our own suffering through the state of mind that we choose to have. When we live in the world, but are not emotionally attached to the processes and events that occur, we are free.

[/quote]

I see the mechanism at work here, the mind is a powerful tool, but I am wondering on whose terms it works. It seems to me to use this method of detachment one has to give up valid emotion, or at best have a dry sentimental sorrowful/happy wistfulness. It seems a little like a defeat to me. While I see how this might relieve suffering sort of, it seems more like becoming an emotional mute. Can't one embrace what feelings one has, and also realize the impermanance of it all? It might be quite a bit sadder, more bittersweet, but it is being honest at least.