kirk5a wrote:I'm still waiting for the provocative part. Buddhism isn't a "belief-based" religion.
kirk5a wrote:Like what beliefs, for example?
rowyourboat wrote:So, what you think only westerners have figured how the universe works and all easterns 'believe' are wrong?
Ben wrote:MN 60: Apannaka Sutta
Regardless if one believes or disbelieves kamma and rebirth, if one engages in skilful action one will enjoy the fruits of skilful action (here and now).
The Buddha did not try and tell his interlocutors tht they were wrong. He just led them through a rational argument to the conclusion that it was of benefit to engage in skilful action over non-skilful action.
Further, I think its a mistake to characterise "Asian" Buddhism as somehow deficient and its patronising.
Jhana4 wrote:If you don't believe me, read this sutta. It was my inspiration for this thread. It is all about death and building merit.
Jhana4 wrote:what many westerners make of it (you reap what you sow, in this life)
Jhana4 wrote:I just have not been able to find support in the suttas for the cool sounding interpretations westerners have.
Jhana4 wrote:In the few weeks I have been here I have been surprised to find many westerners who have taken on the religious beliefs of Buddhism. I don't mean some of the more sober, rational views that seem connect with ordinary life.
Jhana4 wrote:It would make more sense to come across intelligent, thoughtful, otherwise modern Asians doing this. You grow up in a culture where a set of beliefs are dominant and those beliefs seep into you, giving you a propensity to accept them.
Jhana4 wrote:I think human beings have a drive toward "religion", by that I mean having/making a mental map of the world, a map they can relate to and one that offers some comfort.
Jhana4 wrote:I also think, like S.N. Goenka ( who would not agree with these thoughts ), that people are wrongfully impressed by sensations. Sensations are just sensations. Sensations are not descriptions of reality. Just because a person is depressed doesn't mean their life is that bad. Just because a person feels confident, doesn't mean s/he has ability. That is just how they feel.
My opinion is that many people think If they feel something, they have found something real.
Jhana4 wrote:I'm guessing these two things are behind "the new orthodoxy/myth set" of most Westerners ( may not be true for everyone ). I've experienced many powerful sensations through meditation over the years. I've read some of the less questionable ( by western secular standards) Buddhist beliefs and I have felt a psychological/emotional gravity towards calling myself a Buddhist when combined with those strong sensations giving a "sense of reality" to things.
Jhana4 wrote:I also think many westerners reconcile with some of the more unfounded beliefs of Buddhism by using generous interpretations of those beliefs. I've been finding this harder to do by actually reading the suttas and seeing what is emphasized there.
Jhana4 wrote:I realize things get lost in translation, but even allowing for that I just have not been able to find support in the suttas for the cool sounding interpretations westerners have.
No offense or disrespect to anyone. I'm just thinking out loud and I put this thread in a section reserved for provocative topic
Jhana4 wrote:... I believe that the best quality answers are to be found in the sciences.
gabrielbranbury wrote:Jhana4 wrote:In the few weeks I have been here I have been surprised to find many westerners who have taken on the religious beliefs of Buddhism. I don't mean some of the more sober, rational views that seem connect with ordinary life.
Do realize how conceited this sounds? Are you are the arbiter of what is sober and rational?
Goofaholix wrote:I think the western view on Kamma tends to correspond much more closely to the teachings on Conditionality (idappaccayata) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... e.html#ida that we find in the canon.
Kamma, Idappaccayata, and Paticcasumpada all seem to be interrelated teachings to me and when people talk about Kamma they may well using the most well known word and be referring to some or all three.
I understand a belief of Kamma was well established in the audiences the Buddha taught, wheras Idappaccayata and Paticcasumpada were the Buddhas very own teaching.
A good way to teach new concepts would be to use as an example a concept that is already ingrained in the culture and understood by the audience.
Obviously the OP wasn't just about Kamma but I think it gives an example of how looking at one teaching in isolation can result in a blinkered view wheras looking at interrelationship of various teachings gives a different perspective. One advantage westerners have in not having the cultural upbringing is the opportunity to do that objectively.
Users browsing this forum: Sam Vara and 3 guests