Some questions and points on Buddhism

crybaby

I have been wandering around now for a fair aul chunk of my life without being attached to any sort of real religious group which I suppose is the best way to put it. Now the philosophy of Buddhism interests me alot due to the lack of belief in a God like figure, so I decided pick up a book and do me some reading because I dont want to barge into something half assed without understanding it properly

Now the first thing that struck me and actually made me stop reading the book and come on here and start typing was the section on the concept of "The Eight Great Narakas". I had a vague understanding of the concept of rebirth in Buddishm but I didnt understand that there was a belief in a hell here are some quotes from it and I am taking these from the Penguin published "Buddisht Scriptures"

By force they make the adulterer climb that simbali tree of metal, flaming, sharp-pointed and with thorns sixteen finger-lengths long.

Metal-toothed, huge bodies, blazing fearsome females, embracing him, feed on the one who steals another's wife

Those who steal others' property again and again feed on the red-hot iron balls, they drink molten copper

Theres plenty more in that particular section the rest of it is divided into sections on Animals, Ghosts, Ghouls, Human Beings, Demi Gods and Gods which I wont bother going into at the moment. The thing that initially attracted me to Buddhism was its sense of it being a philosophy to live your life through without being chained down by silly fairytales that make me turn away from Christianity but surely these are just as bad? So I suppose really I want to know what Buddishts on this forum think of the quotes, whether they believe them to be true, whether they believe in the concept of hell or if they turn away from the nastier side of Buddishm and leave out these bits?

According to the book the writing is entitled "Illumination of the five realms of existence" and is "perhaps" written in Cambodia around the 14th century. In the introduction to the writing it appears to be saying that it is pretty much a dictation of what "The Completley Awakened One" said.

Asiaprod

crybaby wrote:

I want to know what Buddishts on this forum think of the quotes, whether they believe them to be true, whether they believe in the concept of hell or if they turn away from the nastier side of Buddishm and leave out these bits?

Interesting question. The Nakata have to do more with Cosmology, which is not something that on my path I have a great interest in other than for historical purposes. I see these quotes as metaphors, warnings if you like of what could befall one. Hell for me is here and now, as are the other existences of Hunger, Fear, Learning, Realization, and on up the scale.
One of the nice things about Buddhism is that it too evolves as people evolve. Examples given xxxx years ago to press home a point, may not be appropriate in this day and age. In relation to the nastier side of Buddhism, there is none, only a nastier side to humanity,
Sorry I cannot give you a better answer.

coffee_cake

Some of the places where buddhism is popular had their own local myths which got attached on to it, I think. Some of them are quite odd. Some are also up to interpretation. There are people who take the "hungry ghosts" thing literally and some figuratively. On a quick glance, this looks to me like one of those cases.

Zoeann

I just started reading Lopez's Buddhist Scriptures and was doing a search for commentary on this scripture. I see that this thread is from a while ago so I’m not sure if you still check it but I do have some thoughts.

Lopez mentions in the introduction that Buddhism is a very hard term to define. Like most religions there are many sects that vary dramatically over geography and time. This scripture comes from 14th century Cambodia where most Buddhists practice Theravada Buddhism. Theravada is very different from the Buddhism of Tibet, Japan, America and elsewhere.

In the west we practice a unique kind of Buddhism. One that often ignores the traditions, history, ritual and cosmology of other forms of Buddhism. I happen to like the western style, that emphasises meditation and ethics. Western Buddhism is very new and just developing itself as we speak.

I agree with Asiaprod that the cosmology is interesting in terms of the history of Buddhism. Most Buddhist traditions do have a similar cosmology like “The Wheel of Life”. Right now I am searching for a similar scripture from Tibetan Buddhism to see how it differs (if anyone has one please let me know). I have a really hard time with the sexism in Theravada Buddhism. It exists in other sects as well, but the Theravada tradition seems to keep alive a particularly vicious outlook on women. That said Theravada exists in many countries: Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia. And the practices of Buddhism also vary depending on the specific monastery or teacher. So its unfair to make generalizations. There are also many things I love about the buddhism in Southeast Asia.

If your interested in Buddhism (but less interested in the history and mythology and more interested in the philosophy as it applies to you today) you might want to check out books by Robert Thurman, Pema Chodron, Mark Epstien, or Jack Kornfield. You might also like Zen more, which I know nothing about.

Good luck. Don’t give up after the first scripture in a book of somewhat random texts. You’ll probably find what you are looking for.

Axle_of_Elvis

Zoeann, you make a lot of interesting points, but I worry a bit about your assertion that "In the west we practice a unique kind of Buddhism. One that often ignores the traditions, history, ritual and cosmology of other forms of Buddhism." This is an opinion I find a lot of western 'Buddhists' hold, but it is really wise for Buddhists to jettison parts of the teaching they don't like? And is it even necessary?

I can see why people may find 'fairy stories' about Gods and demons to be a bit off-putting, but the fact is that the Buddha never denied their existence. When questioned about it he refused to answer on the grounds that researching such metaphysical topics was not going to bring a person any closer to enlightenment. So whether you choose to believe in gods or not is in fact irrelevant to Buddhist practice. It has nothing to do with practice of the dhamma.

And what is practice of the dhamma? It isn't an intellectual exercise, that's for sure, and has nothing to do with the mind. You can't simply decide to become more compassionate, more patient, more forgiving. It only happens through long practice of meditation and devotion under a qualified teacher; qualified teachers who have been trained in the traditional methods handed down through generations in the east which are only now slowly filtering through to the 'western' world. However, a 'unique' religion which 'ignores the traditions, history, and ritual' of Buddhism surely, by definition, is not Buddhism.

But whatever path you follow, Buddhist or otherwise, coming to intellectual opinions about the existence or otherwise of metaphysical entities will never make you happier or more compassionate. Neither will reading books.

Zoeann

Hi Axis of Evil,
You also make some interesting points. I would like to start by saying that my comment about Buddhism in the west being: “One that often ignores the traditions, history, ritual and cosmology of other forms of Buddhism” is an observation. I don't think I was “coming to intellectual opinions about the existence or otherwise of metaphysical entities”. Rather I was mentioning that some Buddhist teachers don’t focus on the metaphysical. And for some people that path might make more sense.

I happen to really respect the Tibetan Buddhist pantheon, cosmology, mythology, history, ritual, folktales, songs and cultural. The metaphysical side of Buddhism is so different in different parts of the world. However some people have a real block when it comes to the metaphysical. Personally I don’t think that block needs to stop them for seeking knowledge about Buddhist practice. Like you said the most important thing is to practice. And it’s good to know what you are practicing. Some of us are not lucky enough to have found the right teacher yet. In the mean time we have books, lecturers, communities and other ways to begin to learn. As far as books go…Many monks in Tibet, India, Nepal and other parts of the world spend a good deal of time memorizing books. Many monasteries have their own printing presses. In most Buddhist traditions you gain great merit by copying books and preserving books of scriptures and teachings. There is also a great Buddhist tradition of debate in which monks and nuns vigorously discuss the teachings. These debates are often public and include great theatrical movements and sounds.

Some Buddhist say that there are two wings to the bird: Compassion and Wisdom. Understanding the meaning of what I practice is very important for me. However maybe there are forms of Buddhism where that is not important. For 2500 years the teachings have evolved in different areas of the world in different ways. There are many forms of Buddhism.

You ask if it is wise for Buddhist to jettison parts of the teaching they don’t like. I think that depends. If you are coming from Burma where the Junta has strict rules about the practice of Buddhism and will jail people for not obeying their version of Buddhist law, then you might want to question what parts of the religion you want to accept and what parts you don’t. If you live in an area of the world where Buddhist teachers say that women are lower rebirth, then you might want to question that part of the teaching. If you live in China where the role of the Dalai Lama has been denounced for decades, and all of sudden this year the atheist government wants to be in charge of choosing the next reincarnation, then you might want to question that approach to Buddhism.

I’m sorry you are offended by Buddhists that don’t approach Buddhism in the same way that you do. You seem angry about it. It might be a helpful to talk to your own Buddhist teacher about it.

Axle_of_Elvis

Zoeann,

Thanks for your reply. I don't know why you accuse me of being angry: I thought we were just engaging in the "Buddhist tradition of debate" which you wrote about.

And I'm not offended by people who approach Buddhism in a different way to myself. Certainly everyone, Buddhist or non-Buddhist, is free to take as much or as little from the dhamma as they find helpful in their own life. But I certainly do question the need for a "unique", "western" Buddhism. And if such a pseudo-Buddhism "often ignores the traditions, history, ritual" of the dhamma, then it may be a helpful practice, and should be evaluated on it's own merits, but claiming that it is Buddhim only serves to distort the nature of what the Buddha taught.

I say this because I see a lot of writers and teachers claiming that they have created a new form of Buddhism suitable for westerners, devoid of all the cosmology, ritual and bowing of traditional buddhism which, they claim, may be all very well for easterners but not for educated Europeans and Westerners. The implication here is that easterners are superstitious, servile and badly educated, and that the dhamma is faulty and needs to be improved. Now, I stress, I'm not for a moment accusing you, Zoeann, of holding this opinion, but I think that your reference to a "unique, western" Buddhism could be misinterpreted.

Also, you say that there may be occassions when it is necessary to depart from the Buddhist tradition, giving the example of the Burmese junta and the Chinese communist party. I'm confused as to what your point is. Neither the Burmese junta nor the CCP are Buddhist teachers, nor do they claim to be, so I hardly see how disobeying them could constitute a challenge to the Buddhist tradition.

However, if you want to raise the issue of the Japanese Zen leaders' complicity in the war crimes of World War II, or traditional Buddhist teachings on the role of women in the sangha; there we do have areas of Buddhist tradition where some frank and open debate might be useful: and I'd be really glad to hear your thoughts about these areas.

Zoeann

Axis of Evil,
I appreciate the opportunity you have created for me to write out some thoughts on Buddhism. I deeply enjoy and benefit greatly from discussing the dharma and Buddhist tradition. I’ve tried a few times to post a reply but haven’t been able to because of some technology problem. Maybe I will need to post this reply in sections.

I am happy to hear that you are interested in the Buddhist tradition of debate. Discussing Buddhism helps me understand it better. When you said the dharma “isn't an intellectual exercise, that's for sure, and has nothing to do with the mind.” I was confused. I’ve always learned that Buddhism is a science of the mind. It’s all about understanding and cultivating the mind. Further more it sounded like you were dismissing the use of intellectual exercise such as debate, reading books, reciting mantras & scriptures to deepen your relationship to dharma. A relationship that leads to happiness.

Because you are such a proponent of strictly adhering to Buddhist tradition, I am a bit shocked that you feel so comfortable proclaiming who is a true Buddhist and who is a pseudo Buddhist. I thought the right to make that distinction was reserved for the great masters, which you very well might be. I am a simple student of Dharma and am not in a position to slander respected Buddhist teachers by calling them pseudo Buddhists. Especially when the Buddha’s core teachings of ethics, meditation and wisdom are upheld.

I am sure you know the many stories about slander from various Buddhist traditions. I am particularly struck by the story of a wise monk named Chiko who harshly slanders a novice named Gyogi only to find out that Gyogi was a Bodhisattva. Because of this, two attendants of Yama bring him to a burning hell. Its the hell where one is forced to embrace scalding pillars of iron and copper. Pillars that melt the flesh until only the skeleton remains. Then the attendants of Yama bring you back to life only to relive the torture again and again. I am not sure how I feel about these hells. How do you feel about them?

Even with the threat of such hells I believe when basic human rights and freedoms of religion/speech/movement are denied to people it is important to confront and question the traditions of those who claim Buddhist authority.

In terms of who is a Buddhist and who is not a Buddhist…
The term Buddhist is hard to define in terms of tradition because there are so many forms of Buddhism. When you refer to “traditional Buddhism”, what are you referring to? Which traditions? In terms of history, ritual and cosmology there is a plethora of traditions. Sometimes these traditions are dramatically different in various Buddhist communities around the world. For example Theravada Buddhists teach that there can only be one Buddha in the universe at a time. While Mahayana Buddhists have stories about multiple Buddhas in the universe at the same time. Mahayana Buddhists practice the Bodhisattva Way, vowing to only become a Buddha when all other beings have also been liberated. Which is a very different goal from most Theravada Buddhists.

I think it might be a challenge for Buddhist teachers and students to have so many diverse Buddhist cosmologies and traditions coexisting in Western communities. There are so many different and contradictory Buddhist traditions arriving in the west all at once. Historically, in countries like Tibet, China, Korea, Thailand, Cambodia, and others the teachings arrived slowly. There was time for the teachers of each geographical region to figure out which traditions to keep and which would be “jettisoned”. They had time to integrate the local deities and needs into the Dharma. In each new place, new teachings and ways of understanding the dharma manifested. Since its beginning, Buddhism has evolved to suit the needs of the people in any given location. Buddhist traditions are location specific. Now that Buddhism is taking root in new locations, new unique traditions will evolve. I do not feel comfortable calling a practice ‘pseudo Buddhist’ because it lacks or has different mythologies, demons, magical creatures and hells that my form of Buddhism has. Do you practice a kind of Buddhism that has not evolved or changed ever?

As for racism and Buddhism…
In general I don’t think that the changes made to Buddhism in the west happen because educated westerners think they are above Asians. Rather changes happen naturally when Buddhism takes root in a new region. Buddhism changed when it arrived in SE Asia, Japan, Tibet, China and so on. It will change as it evolves in western countries as well. However, I do agree that racism exists in some, maybe many, western Buddhist communities. I feel that individuals and communities should openly discuss racism and should be aware of how racism impacts their religious institutions, schools, governments, personal relationships, choices and really all aspects of life. I agree that when someone dismisses another’s religious beliefs as “silly fairy stories” it is offensive and quite possibly racist.

Buddhism and ‘The State’
I understand why my comment about Burma and China might be confusing. Please allow me to explain my train of thought. I also want to add the disclaimer that I am not Burmese or Chinese and have not practiced Buddhism in those countries. However I am currently working with Burmese refugees in Thailand and have recently spent time in Tibet as well as in a Tibetan exile community. I have heard many first hand experiences and done some reading on the subject so I do have some thoughts.

In Lopez’s book, “Buddhist Scriptures” there is a passage that articulates what I am trying to say:
“In China, despite periods of persecution, a symbiotic relationship developed between imperial rule and the sangha, between state law and Buddhist law.”
In Burma, the government has supported the sangha by providing food, shelter and safety. Meanwhile it is widely believed that the lamas in the highest positions were hand chosen by the Junta. The relationship between sangha and state is usually a relationship between kings and priests/teachers (people very high up in the monastic hierarchy). Because of these traditional relationships the Burmese Buddhist community has been more or less complicit, even allowing some atrocities to happen in the name of Buddhism. The uprising last October in Burma was a bit of a surprise to the Junta because the highest lamas in the Buddhist institutions had not been questioning the Junta’s authority. Young Burmese monks did question that tradition by marching through the streets with their begging bowls turned over, a powerful symbolic act. This is an example of an important time to question a Buddhist tradition. Namely the tradition of Buddhist teachers having a close symbiotic relationship to the state.

As for China, The People’s Republic of China has claimed the authority to appoint the next Dalai Lama. When this happens Vajrayana Buddhists will face a challenge in terms of adhering to tradition. They will need to question an important traditional role and maybe make drastic changes. His Holiness the Dalai Lama has suggested that the Tibetan people might vote for or appoint the next Dalai Lama, a revolutionary change to tradition. Also in China, the Panchen Lama was kidnapped when he was a child and a new Panchan Lama was appointed by the Chinese government. I think it would be important for Chinese Buddhists to reject the government Panchen Lama despite his title. In China the government claims that it is the head of all organized religion including Buddhism and many Chinese Buddhists don’t reject that claim.

Traditions change. Buddhist traditions have already changed so many times in so many different places based on the needs of the local people.

The Buddha never wrote anything down. So the “facts” about what Buddha said are very unclear. We have to rely on how people memorize his words, and how those memorized stories were preserved hundreds of years later. Then we have to rely on translations and how teachers explain the practice and scriptures. All of this leaves a lot of room for error and adaptation.

Buddhism and Sexism:
As far as women in the sangha/cosmology/mythology/pantheon/and so on is concerned I feel very appreciative of how Buddhism has evolved so far in the west. In the United States, Buddhism and Feminism have been able to meet. Nuns, monks, and academics have been able to look to various Buddhist lineages, traditions and texts to find the core roots of sexism. Often the sexism that is perpetuated by monastic institutions is rooted in the cultural norms that existed in the region when Buddhism first arrived. Also as noted early, Buddha never wrote anything down so we have to rely on how people memorize his words and how his ideas were preserved which leaves room for integrating sexism (among other things) into formal teachings and scriptures. So I do think it is important, necessary and valuable to have a unique incarnation of Buddhism that does not emphasize sexist stories and practices. One that ignores (It would be better to say questions or rejects) the sexist traditions, histories, rituals and cosmology of other forms of Buddhism. Luckily there is a great wealth of scriptures that celebrate women reaching enlightenment.

On a totally friendly note, what’s with the name Axis of Evil? What kind of Buddhism do you practice?

Axle_of_Elvis

Zoeann thank you for that very interesting reply, I'd be really keen to hear more about your experiences among the Burmese and Tibetans. I have no experience of native Buddhist communities (all the Buddhists I know, like myself, are converts).

But in the meantime I will take up my soapbox again on one point: Buddhism is not an intellectual exercise. Reciting mantras is a great practice provided it is not treated as an intellectual exercise. And as for reading books, the sixth Patriarch of Zen was illiterate, which shows you how important reading is for attaining enlightenment.

You claim that you've 'always learned that Buddhism is a science of the mind', but this does not mean that Buddhism is an intellectual process. It's not. Chanting, reciting mantras and reading scripture are not intellectual exercises. Neither are meditation or bowing. Samsara is created by our minds; by our wrong understanding of the world. We cannot use a faulty mind to fix a faulty mind; as Charlotte Beck writes "The distortion in our minds distorts our efforts to correct the distortion." Transformation is what occurs when the thinking mind is stilled in concentration; the insight that follows is not an intellectual process. This takes great determination and great humility, but it doesn't require a great brain. If this were otherwise, only the highly intelligent could hope to become enlightened. Thankfully this is not the case.

I've met a lot of western practitioners who miss this point and who strive for intellectual understanding instead of cultivating awareness. We westerners are cursed with the belief that we can think or reason our way to heaven. To me this is a pity because this very point is the great jewel of hope that Buddhism offers to the world. This is the teaching that unites all true Buddhist traditions.

If you think that it 'a challenge for Buddhist teachers and students to have so many diverse Buddhist cosmologies and traditions coexisting in Western communities', how can you think that adding yet another 'unique' form of 'Western' Buddhims to the mix will improve the situation? While it's true that Buddhist practice has always adopted the cultural trappings of the new societies it has taken root in, the masters who brought Buddhism to new countries never proclaimed that they were creating a new, 'unique' Buddhism that ignored previous tradition; rather they proclaimed their fidelity to the tradition they inherited. This is true of Buddhist teachers in every country where the dharma has taken root. Only now that Buddhism moves west has this new development arisen, where people are trumpeting the creation of a new Buddhism which breaks with tradition. Why?

I felt a need to question this because it is an attitude without precedent in the example of the Buddhist elders (of all countries). Your point about the Burmese monks is well made, however when westerner Buddhists proclaim their independence of tradition I suspect that something different is going on. Respect for a valid, nurturing tradition, it seems to me, is part of the development of humility so important for cultivating the dharmic path. Eagerness to replace respect for tradition with the fruits of our own individualistic 'rational' thinking is a symptom of the western egotism of the intellect which is a real barrier to true growth.

I'm suddenly aware that ranting vehemently about the importance of humility is somewhat oxymoronic so maybe I'd better shut up now. I am a highly opinionated person, which is probably not the way a good Buddhist should be. And by the way, the name is not "Axis of Evil", it's "Axle_of_Elvis".