Studying a little bit about original Buddhism

[Colleen1]

At heart, there are no snowcapped mountains or blissful verandas for the Buddhist practitioner, just everyday, mundane life lived under a new philosophical rubric. The heart of Buddhism is dependent origination - namely that no thing exists on its own but is in constant flux - and from this proceeds the philosophy of sunyata, or emptiness: there is neither existence nor non-existence, just flux, emptiness. The logical, practical end result is that I neither exist nor non-exist, you neither exist nor non-exist, and this moment neither exists nor non-exists.

At heart, Buddhism is an utterly hopeless philosophy -

I agree that many of these religions are romanticized and that the reality of them is far different. Consider how the basis of the beliefs simply fall apart philosophically. It's what brought me back to belief in one God and christianity.

 

[Protoevangel]

The occasion for a spiritual director and a small class is rare.

In the absence of a monastic or starets, your priest is your spiritual director. You have to pop your head out of it's shell and talk to him. He can't know your needs without you taking the initiative to talk to him about them. No one can take that first step but you. Excuses and hiding in your home/cave/hole/shell are not helpful or even neutral, they are absolutely destructive.

I have confidence in your ability to do this, Wesley. I know how uncomfortable it is, but you are stronger than you think. With God's grace, go.

 

[ProScribe]

In the absence of a monastic or starets, your priest is your spiritual director. You have to pop your head out of it's shell and talk to him. He can't know your needs without you taking the initiative to talk to him about them. No one can take that first step but you. Excuses and hiding in your home/cave/hole/shell are not helpful or even neutral, they are absolutely destructive.

I have confidence in your ability to do this, Wesley. I know how uncomfortable it is, but you are stronger than you think. With God's grace, go.

I did that yesterday.

 

[ProScribe]

I know quite a bit about Buddhism because I was Buddhist...once.

Buddhism sounds great on the surface, in books, and in discussion. Plus, it's exotic-ness is also a big attraction for some. We see images of Zen masters and Tibetan lamas in peaceful meditation, surrounded by snowcapped mountains or an otherwise blissful aura, and we think, "I want that!" And sure, what person doesn't want peace? What person doesn't want health of mind and body?

At heart, there are no snowcapped mountains or blissful verandas for the Buddhist practitioner, just everyday, mundane life lived under a new philosophical rubric. The heart of Buddhism is dependent origination - namely that no thing exists on its own but is in constant flux - and from this proceeds the philosophy of sunyata, or emptiness: there is neither existence nor non-existence, just flux, emptiness. The logical, practical end result is that I neither exist nor non-exist, you neither exist nor non-exist, and this moment neither exists nor non-exists.

At heart, Buddhism is an utterly hopeless philosophy - and it takes great comfort in its hopelessness. No hope, no fear, nothing. Everything is a delusion of the mind. Love is a delusion, comfort is a delusion, peace is a delusion, Buddha is a delusion, even the mind is a delusion: it's all mind but there is nothing that can be strictly labelled as "mind." And when you die, you're not actually dying, but the mind thinks it is dying. And, considering that dependent origination is at the epicenter of Buddhism, the cause and effect of "death" is rebirth. Just think: as a Buddhist, you believe that your mother, your father, your siblings, everyone in the world whom you love or has loved you will die and possibly be reborn as a cockroach. And there is likely possibility that you, too, will be reborn as something less-than-human. And it's not like you take rebirth as a cat and continue with the same hopes, dreams, personality, progress that you've accumulated in this life: nope, completely erased, and you assume the "personality" of whatever you're born as. Only those who achieve enlightenment and become Buddhas can transcend rebirth - but Buddhists will tell you that there hasn't been a Buddha in centuries, so that means your chances at escaping rebirth are extremely slim to nil.

So, on the surface, Buddhism seems like a surefire way to shirk personal morality and/or any repercussion for our way of life - but it's not and the repercussions do not include a God who loves us and pursues even into hell. In Buddhism, you're utterly alone, trapped like a monkey in a cell, a victim of mind.

This is a negative representation. of course I get the impression that people who learn about religion through their college courses do not experience the fullness of it but was just a secondary class/elective.

 

[Protoevangel]

I did that yesterday.

Very good. Maybe if you make this a regular occurrence, you can start trusting the Orthodox Church again, as the Ark of Salvation that she truly is.

 

[Epistemes]

This is a negative representation. of course I get the impression that people who learn about religion through their college courses do not experience the fullness of it but was just a secondary class/elective.

Go over to dharmawheel.net, post what I said and just see how "negative" the Buddhists there think it actually is. You'll find, rather, that many will say, "Yes, that is more or less true" with some brief revisions based on which school they follow. Much of what I say is based on the Mahayana and Vajrayana schools, so a Theraviadist would disagree with certain elements; however, even within the Mahayana, Dzogchen emphasizes things slightly differently as compared to Zen, and Pure Land is an almost wholly other matter.

I still have a link to Dharma Wheel, so go ahead, I'll check in every now and then and see how wrong I am.

 

[Faithful Skeptic]

This is a negative representation. of course I get the impression that people who learn about religion through their college courses do not experience the fullness of it but was just a secondary class/elective.

I'm the one that had it as a course, though, I am a philosophy major so it wasn't just a random elective for me. Epistemes actually begins that post by stating that he is a former Buddhist. That also explains why (I think) he does a much better job at explaining the problems than I do.

 

[gracefullamb]

This is a negative representation. of course I get the impression that people who learn about religion through their college courses do not experience the fullness of it but was just a secondary class/elective.

You might want to go back and reread that post. Epistemes' information on Buddhism does not come from a college course as a secondary class/ elective, it comes from him having once been Buddhist which would mean he did experience the fullness of that religion. You might want to consider taking that to heart since it seems you are going to do what you always do and ignore your fellow Orthodox that plea with you to speak to your priest and quit being your own spiritual father and isolating yourself from other Orthodox.

 

[ProScribe]

Go over to dharmawheel.net, post what I said and just see how "negative" the Buddhists there think it actually is. You'll find, rather, that many will say, "Yes, that is more or less true" with some brief revisions based on which school they follow. Much of what I say is based on the Mahayana and Vajrayana schools, so a Theraviadist would disagree with certain elements; however, even within the Mahayana, Dzogchen emphasizes things slightly differently as compared to Zen, and Pure Land is an almost wholly other matter.

I still have a link to Dharma Wheel, so go ahead, I'll check in every now and then and see how wrong I am.

Ok, I'll go check out Dharma Wheel • Index page thanks for the reference

 

[ArmyMatt]

you could prolly check out the Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy podcast on AFR by Fr Andrew Damick. I am pretty sure one of his talks is on Buddhism.

 

[buzuxi02]

Proscribe,

Is 'original' buddhism a particular school? Or do you mean you will read stuff on it and pick and choose whats the most ancient sources?

I remember asking a person from Sri Lanka something about buddhism. As Sri Lankans practise Theravada buddhism she made a disclaimer to me as most westerners only heard of tibetan buddhism:

"We dont have the fat bhudda, our bhudda is different from theirs". She was a nominal believer bu i thought it was funny the way she said it.

 

[ProScribe]

Proscribe,

Is 'original' buddhism a particular school? Or do you mean you will read stuff on it and pick and choose whats the most ancient sources?

'original' in this case would mean the real Buddha and his assistant/disciple from which the earliest school was founded.

 

[Epistemes]

'original' in this case would mean the real Buddha and his assistant/disciple from which the earliest school was founded.

Good luck, but such a search will be in vain.

You're approaching Buddhism in a highly ecclesial manner, trying to see parallels between Buddha and Christ and their various disciples.
You're not the first to do so, but such an approach is flawed.

By "original" I suspect you mean "authentic" - but what will be your criteria? Theravadists claim that they practice authentic Buddhism and that their Pali Canon (Tipitaka) is the earliest Buddhist scripture; however, some Chinese Buddhist sutras predate even the Tipitaka; and then there is the Vajrayana of Tibet which is believed to be the secret, advanced teachings of the Buddha; and there is Dzogchen which self-proclaims itself to be the end result of all Buddhist traditions; and then there are Buddhists who have no particular concern for the historic Buddha at all. The Buddha taught a lot of stuff to a lot of different types of people in 40 years, and that would probably include many yogis, sadhus and various other Hindu holy men who came to ask him questions, or to test his knowledge and wisdom. At the same time, simple farmers also came to him with their questions, their problems. My understanding is that when the Buddha spoke, so it is said, everyone understood him in their own language. I don't know if that is true, but I would not be surprised if he spoke to everyone according to their own understanding, and as we say figuratively, "spoke their language". So he very well may have discussed mantra and tantra with people, and prescribed practices for those for whom that was appropriate. Perhaps the Buddha did teach what is now practiced in all three Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana traditions and perhaps he did not (but nobody can prove what he actually said).

There is no such thing as apostolic succession in Buddhism. There is what the Buddha taught, and then there is the evolution of various institutions which preserve those teachings. Modifications were and have been made over the centuries for a variety of cultural expectations.

Rather than authentic, I suspect you're looking for a form of Buddhism (or any religion) that suits your sensibilities.

 

[ProScribe]

Good luck, but such a search will be in vain.

You're approaching Buddhism in a highly ecclesial manner, trying to see parallels between Buddha and Christ and their various disciples.
You're not the first to do so, but such an approach is flawed.

By "original" I suspect you mean "authentic" - but what will be your criteria? Theravadists claim that they practice authentic Buddhism and that their Pali Canon (Tipitaka) is the earliest Buddhist scripture; however, some Chinese Buddhist sutras predate even the Tipitaka; and then there is the Vajrayana of Tibet which is believed to be the secret, advanced teachings of the Buddha; and there is Dzogchen which self-proclaims itself to be the end result of all Buddhist traditions; and then there are Buddhists who have no particular concern for the historic Buddha at all. The Buddha taught a lot of stuff to a lot of different types of people in 40 years, and that would probably include many yogis, sadhus and various other Hindu holy men who came to ask him questions, or to test his knowledge and wisdom. At the same time, simple farmers also came to him with their questions, their problems. My understanding is that when the Buddha spoke, so it is said, everyone understood him in their own language. I don't know if that is true, but I would not be surprised if he spoke to everyone according to their own understanding, and as we say figuratively, "spoke their language". So he very well may have discussed mantra and tantra with people, and prescribed practices for those for whom that was appropriate. Perhaps the Buddha did teach what is now practiced in all three Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana traditions and perhaps he did not (but nobody can prove what he actually said).

There is no such thing as apostolic succession in Buddhism. There is what the Buddha taught, and then there is the evolution of various institutions which preserve those teachings. Modifications were and have been made over the centuries for a variety of cultural expectations.

Rather than authentic, I suspect you're looking for a form of Buddhism (or any religion) that suits your sensibilities.

I'm looking to become a real disciple of someone, and so far no one has met those expectations.

 

[Anhelyna]

DO you really mean that Our Lord God and Saviour , Jesus Christ Who gave His life for us , indeed He gave His life for you, is not someone that you would follow ?

Pro - when you spoke to the priest the other day , did you say this to him ?

 

[ProScribe]

DO you really mean that Our Lord God and Saviour , Jesus Christ Who gave His life for us , indeed He gave His life for you, is not someone that you would follow ?

Pro - when you spoke to the priest the other day , did you say this to him ?

We're all communicating over the Internet and not in person - so its easy to misunderstand what we mean.

 

[Anhelyna]

too right

I quote you from post 54

I'm looking to become a real disciple of someone, and so far no one has met those expectations.

 

[ProScribe]

And Jesus already has hundreds of thousands (if not more) of followers.

 

[Anhelyna]

Indeed He has - so why not you ?

 

[ProScribe]

I don't think we can follow Jesus (Literally) anymore but by heart or prayer.