Buddhists (here) and the supernatural

Rev Hellfire

I was going to ask this in the "Is it possible to be an atheist and a Buddhist" thread but its off topic enough to maybe warrant its own thread.

I'm curious as to how many people here are 'lifestyle' Buddhists as opposed to those who actually believe in the more non- corporeal elements of buddhism.

For example most people here prefix their following of Buddhism with a statement of their atheist belief. Which is fine by me, but I'm curious as to where they stand on such issues as reincarnation, karma, dharma as non-worldly truth and other such beliefs.

Asiaprod

I am a life-style Buddhist, have been for 23 years. I believe very much in reincarnation, karma. Would need you to clarify what you mean by dharma as non-worldly truth and other such beliefs before I could reply. I am atheist in my belief of God(s). I say this because in Buddhism, we have people who do believe in God(s), who don't believe in God(s), and who don't know, or who just are not bothered if there are or not.
Nice question by the way.

The Mad Hatter

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I was going to ask this in the "Is it possible to be an atheist and a Buddhist" thread but its off topic enough to maybe warrant its own thread.

I'm curious as to how many people here are 'lifestyle' Buddhists as opposed to those who actually believe in the more non- corporeal elements of buddhism.

For example most people here prefix their following of Buddhism with a statement of their atheist belief. Which is fine by me, but I'm curious as to where they stand on such issues as reincarnation, karma, dharma as non-worldly truth and other such beliefs.

Just for the record, those beliefs don't have anything to do with atheism.

Someone can not believe in god and still believe in the supernatural.

Edit: Yes, I know it seems a contradiction, but there you go.

Asiaprod

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Someone can not believe in god and still believe in the supernatural.

Edit: Yes, I know it seems a contradiction, but there you go.

Hum, not so sure I agree with you here. This may well depend on how you define supernatural. If you look in the dictionary, spiritual pertains to an order of existence beyond the scientifically visible universe.[1] Religious miracles are typically supernatural claims, as are spells and curses, divination, the belief that there is an afterlife for the dead, and innumerable others.

One could make a case for saying that reincarnation fits into this.

Rev Hellfire

Asiaprod wrote: »

Would need you to clarify what you mean by dharma as non-worldly truth and other such beliefs before I could reply.

Well I guess you could look at Dharma as your own spiritual realization and fortitude as a means of protection against lower rebirth and general spiritual dangers present. This could come through self-realization or the study of scriptures.

To be honest my intend really isn't to critic the individual beliefs of the Buddhist faith, but rather to understand how people reconcile the scientific centred view point people claim as the reason for their atheism with the obvious spiritual and supernatural side of the Buddhist faith.

The Mad Hatter

Asiaprod wrote: »

Hum, not so sure I agree with you here. This may well depend on how you define supernatural. If you look in the dictionary, spiritual pertains to an order of existence beyond the scientifically visible universe.[1] Religious miracles are typically supernatural claims, as are spells and curses, divination, the belief that there is an afterlife for the dead, and innumerable others.

One could make a case for saying that reincarnation fits into this.

Fits into supernatural, you mean? If so, then that's what I'm getting at. Atheist means no-god. While it often extends to rationality and general skepticism, that's not invariably the case.

Asiaprod

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

To be honest my intend really isn't to critic the individual beliefs of the Buddhist faith, but rather to understand how people reconcile the scientific centred view point people claim as the reason for their atheism with the obvious spiritual and supernatural side of the Buddhist faith.

Nice question. I am going to post the same (long and winded) answer I gave to this in the A&A forum to use as a starting place. Please feel free to comment/question it further. Its a very interesting topic. And thanks

I thought I would take a stab at explaining my own understanding and position on the place of God(s) in my belief system and why I call myself an Atheistic Buddhist. Bear in mind that they are my own thoughts and do not represent the thoughts of all the different schools.

Traditional Buddhism taught that either there are no gods or, if there are, they aren’t worth bothering with — but people being people, gods have been added to Buddhist practice over the centuries. They aren’t creator gods like we find in Western religion, but they are considered to be gods nonetheless i.e, entities that reside in a plane of existence that is removed from the earthly plain and is subject to its own laws and physics. These God(s) are said to enjoy the fruits of good karma in a paradise until their karma runs out and they are reborn in a lower realm to start all over again. And that is a key point, these Gods must be reborn as humans to attain enlightenment. Enlightenment has never been clearly defined as it is considered to be beyond the abilities of earthly mortals to describe or understand it.

In Sanskrit the word Nirvana translates at atheism and means disbelief in a creator god. It does not require disbelief in anything else that might be a "god," but for many anything less than a creator isn't a genuine god in the first place. Hindu philosophy rejects the existence of a creator god, making them explicitly atheistic from a Hindu perspective. This doesn't make them naturalistic, but it does make them as atheistic as any belief system, philosophy, or religion from the perspective of religious theists in the West. Buddhism, which is regarded by many to be an atheistic religion, is no different. Its scriptures or writings either do not promote or actively reject the existence of a creator god, the existence of "lesser" gods as any source of morality, or that humans owe any duties to any gods. At the same time, the scriptures or writings do accept the existence of supernatural beings which some might described as gods. Some Buddhists today do believe in the existence of such beings and are considered theists. Others dismiss these beings and are considered atheists. Since there is nothing about Buddhism which requires belief in gods, atheism in Buddhism is an easy position to maintain. There is no almighty God in Buddhism, there is no one to hand out rewards or punishments on a Judgement Day. Therefore, Buddhism is strictly not a religion in the context of being a faith and worship owing allegiance/dependence to a supernatural being.

The Buddha himself rejected metaphysical speculation as a matter of principle, and his teachings (we prefer the term Guidelines) focused entirely on practical ways to end suffering. But he did not explicitly rule out the existence of God(s), in short, he was not concerned with God(s). According to history, shortly after his death a devotional element formed within Buddhism. Buildings were erected to contain his relics and pilgrimmages were made to places where he had walked. The next development saw the acceptance of past and future Buddhas, a variety of celestial Buddhas or Bodhisatvas if you like. They came to be revered and looked to for assistance on the path to enlightenment. An example of this would be the highly devotional Pure Land Buddhism; Pure Land Buddhists revere and call on the name of the Amitabha Buddha to grant them entrance to a paradisiacal "Pure Land" after death. As Buddhism spread into other cultures with existing religious beliefs, local deities and religious practices were incorporated into the Buddhist system (kind of like evolution in action). Another example of this evolution would be Tibetan Buddhism and its cosmology which features a vast number of divine beings with their own families and consorts. These beings are considered as symbolic representations of the psychic life by some or accepted as realities by other. There are six realms of existence in the Tibetan cosmology, one of which is the realm of the gods. And once again, these gods enjoy the fruits of good karma in a paradise until their karma runs out and they are reborn in a lower realm. In fact, gods must be reborn as humans to attain enlightenment.

I am of the Nichiren Shoshu school of Buddhism and have practiced this Buddhism for 24 years. We do not accept the concept of God(s). We do however accept the existence of for want of a better term celestial Buddhas or Bodhisatvas. The role played by these entities is that of teachers, guides or protecters in our own search for enlightenment. We don't pray to them as creator gods like we find in Western religion, we accord them respect and seek to lean from them. The spiritual way this help might manifest itself could be during meditation (our format is chanting, same as the Tibetan and other schools) when we may get a flash of insight into an issue or aspect of ourselves that we are struggling to understand. In this action (Chanting), during the prayer aspect we symbolically call upon them for protection and guidance in our search, but we never ever consider them to be Gods in any shape of form that will change our destiny. We alone are responsible for changing this aspect of our life. There is no get out of jail free card. They started like we did, as humans, and evolved in their practice to a different plane of conciseness. In view of the above I describe my faith in Buddhism as atheistic in the sense that I deny the existence of an eternal creator God, while also recognizing that there are theistic or devotional elements. Another spiritual aspect that I and many I know incorporate into out faith is the use of the Iching as a method of understanding the external forces at play in our life.

Sorry if this is not as accurate, hole proof or clinically provable as others might like it to be, and for its length. As always, personal faith, experience and results play a big part in what i believe. What I hope it does do is roughly explain why a Buddhist can with a very clear conscience declare to be Atheistic, Theistic or a combination of both.

Rev Hellfire

Nice post there Asiaprod. I think I can understand clearly where you're coming from. Though for the purposes of clarity I might get you to expand on one point, which relates directly to the core of my question.

Asiaprod wrote: »

We do however accept the existence of for want of a better term celestial Buddhas or Bodhisatvas. The role played by these entities is that of teachers, guides or protecters in our own search for enlightenment. We don't pray to them as creator gods like we find in Western religion, we accord them respect and seek to lean from them. The spiritual way this help might manifest itself could be during meditation (our format is chanting, same as the Tibetan and other schools) when we may get a flash of insight into an issue or aspect of ourselves that we are struggling to understand.

I'm assuming these are supernatural agents, and not passive ones in that while they may not pick you up and set you on the right path they can provide a helpful nudge in the correct direction. You still have to do the work, but they can assist in guidance.

It is such agents which many atheists I'm imagining would reject for the same reasons they reject the possibility of a god. Which can be viewed as just a being with some additional attributes.

Asiaprod wrote:

Since there is nothing about Buddhism which requires belief in gods, atheism in Buddhism is an easy position to maintain. There is no almighty God in Buddhism, there is no one to hand out rewards or punishments on a Judgement Day. Therefore, Buddhism is strictly not a religion in the context of being a faith and worship owing allegiance/dependence to a supernatural being.

The definition of a religion is a little bit broader than swearing allegiance to singe or group of gods. Most dictionaries include a definition similar to the following:
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

Buddhism qualifies even without gods, since it is a set of agreed beliefs and practices. Religion isn't synonymous with the Abrahamic deities. While the quoted reference doesn't contain any reference to the supernatural it is also an element commonly attributed to religion and is again present in Buddhism.

Asiaprod

Nice post there Asiaprod. I think I can understand clearly where you're coming from.

Thank you, it was enjoyable to think it out and write it down, I am glad it went part way to answering your question. It certainly gave me the opportunity to get some things strait in my own head. Like I said, I am no expert and am still learning.

I'm assuming these are supernatural agents, and not passive ones in that while they may not pick you up and set you on the right path they can provide a helpful nudge in the correct direction. You still have to do the work, but they can assist in guidance.

Yes, thats the way I see it.

It is such agents which many atheists I'm imagining would reject for the same reasons they reject the possibility of a god. Which can be viewed as just a being with some additional attributes.

I know, and there is not much I can do to change that comprehension. What I can say is that these same agents were once the same as you or I. The religious state that God became man, became god. The Buddhist states that man became an agent, became man again. This is a very different approach. This approach does not place the concept of an agent as something outside the sphere of humanity, it places the agent firmly within our own sphere, i.e. that is every human alive has the potential to become an agent. The same agent as we discussed that while they may not pick you up and set you on the right path they can provide a helpful nudge in the correct direction...you still have to do the work, but they can assist in guidance.

I think the Atheist view point in relation to the western concept of God, and the social interaction that can/are be caused by these western religions, have actually served an injustice in that they may prevent the Atheists from accepting or opening their mind to the fact that there are other systems or explanations in place that do/appear to work for some of us.

The definition of a religion is a little bit broader than swearing allegiance to singe or group of gods. Most dictionaries include a definition similar to the following:

I assume were are referring to "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

Buddhism qualifies even without gods, since it is a set of agreed beliefs and practices. Religion isn't synonymous with the Abrahamic deities. While the quoted reference doesn't contain any reference to the supernatural it is also an element commonly attributed to religion and is again present in Buddhism.

I can concede this point comfortably. By that definition, it would appear that one could call Buddhism a religion. However, the stigma that is attached to the word religion by virtue of how many religions have acted to propagate, and once one has joined, to control/maintain/keep those that profess to follow that faith, will forever prevent me from accepting that Buddhism is a religion. Once the stigma I mentioned has been removed, I will accept people defining Buddhism as a religion. Till that day, I will maintain that Buddhism is a Philosophy with an attached spirituality:).

Rev Hellfire

Well since it’s just me and you in this discussion ( the others are hiding ).
I’ll address a few questions to you in particular, although with the hope others might offer their own perspective.

If we take for example Christianity many people would hold to the belief that to qualify as a Christian you must a) believe in a monotheistic god and b) believe that the Christ was his/its son (part of yet external to said deity).
Others may hold a less rigid definition that to declare yourself a Christian you need only follow the teaching of the biblical Christ. I’m sure if I offered such a view in the Christianity forum I would be greeted to howls of disagreement.

So to redirect the proposition back to Buddhism, do you believe you can discard the supernatural trappings of Buddhism, either by reinterpreting them into modern concepts or abandoning them completely?

By way of example if we take reincarnation and levels of enlightenment, this could be viewed as transitions a person may take in their single lifetime. Each transition upwards or downwards a indicator of their evolving mental self and ability to realise self control.

So are the concepts such as spiritual enlightenment and karma to name but two so central to the philosophy of Buddhism that once you lose these concepts you no longer are dealing with Buddhism but rather a something like humanities with some additional eastern trappings ?

Asiaprod

Well since it’s just me and you in this discussion ( the others are hiding ).

Maybe we frightened them away Hope they do join in. MeditationMom in particular who has a wealth of insight to offer.

If we take for example Christianity many people would hold to the belief that to qualify as a Christian you must a) believe in a monotheistic god and b) believe that the Christ was his/its son (part of yet external to said deity). Others may hold a less rigid definition that to declare yourself a Christian you need only follow the teaching of the biblical Christ. I’m sure if I offered such a view in the Christianity forum I would be greeted to howls of disagreement.

Well, I think there are very reasonable posters over there that could discuss this far better than I can. It might be that by conversing they open themselves up to all kinds comments and end up feeling they are continually defending their faith. This I am sure gets very tiring for them. Who knows, some of them might come over here to discuss it where I hold the BIG stick ;-) and nobody needs to defend their faith.

So to redirect the proposition back to Buddhism, do you believe you can discard the supernatural trappings of Buddhism, either by reinterpreting them into modern concepts or abandoning them completely?

Good question. I think that one of the interesting aspects of Buddhism is that it continues to evolve keeping pace with Human evolution. I have no idea how many different schools of Buddhism there are. As in any belief system you have traditionalists, then you have people like myself who actively seek and embrace change. I look to all the religions and beliefs to see what fits in with what I feel is correct based on my Buddhist practice and knowledge that grows year by year. As an example of an additive, take my study of the Iching. To most, this is seen as a method of divination, some would say fortune telling. To me its has proven to be something entirely different. In my case and the people who guided me in its use, it attempts to explain the external influence affecting me or present in my environment and how they interact with the issues I am dealing with. It shows me how different actions I may decide to take have the potential to lead to certain out comes. This tool provides me with the opportunity to really think and reflect on the outcome I want and thereby helps me to make the right decisions to achieve this. What many do not understand is that the Iching is also based on a lot of Buddhist, Confusion and Taoist principles. It is in a way like a treasure house of knowledge.

Now, going back to the original question "Do I believe one can discard the supernatural trappings of Buddhism, either by reinterpreting them into modern concepts or abandoning them completely." From a Buddhist perspective everyone, no matter be they Catholic, Muslim, Atheist or whatever faith or belief system they have, are all subject to the laws of cause and effect, Karma and rebirth/reincarnation. Nobody can escape these. Based on this belief, knowing that everyone will inevitably have to deal with these issues, what is really important is how one lives one's life. What good causes one makes, what bad causes one makes. Whither you believe in the supernatural aspect, the Karma aspect or the the rebirth aspect is not the issue here. Lets use an analogy. Give 20 people a digital camera and tell them to take a picture. All of them will produce an image. Give another 20 people the same camera, but this time include the instruction manual which they must read before they take their picture, I guarantee that these individuals will be in a much better position to produce outstanding images. The same with Buddhism, you can incorporate anything that helps you live a more meaningful life, but it will work better for you if you understand and accept the main beliefs also. These beliefs are more like the mechanics of life than they are a set ridged path that must be followed. Many I know would view them as guidelines. I believe that anything you can incorporate into you life that acts for good is beneficial. This is why Buddhists will always respect the right of any person to follow their own belief. That does not mean we agree with the system in question because the issue is not our acceptance, the issue is does that system provide the person with the means to live a more fulfilling and meaningful life. The break to the above would be the Buddhist priesthood who take on a set vows as part of their mission.

By way of example if we take reincarnation and levels of enlightenment, this could be viewed as transitions a person may take in their single lifetime. Each transition upwards or downwards an indicator of their evolving mental self and ability to realise self control.

The problem with this is that it is not an example, in the broader sense it is a fact ;-). Now armed with an understanding of Buddhism and a belief in the system of Karma/reincarnation/rebirth one can then extrapolated the results of this process or betterment of one's self into what kind of life condition one has created for themself in their the next life time, and the next and the next, and so on. I will always remember the comment a Buddhist made to me that got me hooked on Buddhism. He told me that a Buddhist lives in the past, the present and can change the future. Come on I thought, how can that be possible. It can. By understanding and accepting cause & effect, Karama and rebirth. I can by looking at my current life get a good feeling for the causes and karma I created in my past life that led me to my current state, and by looking at my current life again I can make causes that will create a better life condition for me in my next. Sorry, this is heavy Buddhist study thrown in just to illustrate how reading the manual helps one to create better images.

So are the concepts such as spiritual enlightenment and karma to name but two so central to the philosophy of Buddhism that once you lose these concepts you no longer are dealing with Buddhism but rather a something like humanities with some additional eastern trappings ?

No, like I mentioned above with the camera analogy, its the difference in knowing how to use the camera properly and just knowing how to press the shutter.To a Buddhist, everyone is a Buddhist inside with the potential to attain enlightenment...even your good self And thanks for this discussion, it is very enjoyable for me to be able to discuss these thoughts and ideas with you and any others who pop in, or read them.

bou

I see Asiaprod has posted something while I was writing this post. I'll post it anyway saying as a I spent a while writing it.

I'm a buddhist buddhist. The term atheist doesn't sit well with me in that it can conjure up an image of someone who doesn't believe in anything other than the hard facts which they can plainly see before them. This would be quite contrary to my viewpoint. I do believe in the supernatural where there is both more and less to this world than we currently experience; more in that there is something about our being which goes beyond ordinary understanding; less in that much of the experiences we have and our understanding of the world are concepts and assumptions which have no real basis.

As Asiaprod points out, there are a variety of views and philosophies according to different traditions in Buddhism. All of them hold to some points in common and consider a certain set of the Buddha's teachings, i.e. the Pali Canon. Some include other texts as also being part of the word of the Buddha while others would dispute that. All would consider the Buddha as having attained the greatest level of enlightenment attainable which is the complete removal of suffering and all causes of suffering. All would have a belief in the word of the Buddha as describing truth and being a guidance on how to attain complete understanding of truth and freedom from suffering.

The first teaching given by the Buddha was on the Four Noble Truths which describe our current state of being, that there is suffering and that there are causes of suffering; that there is a possibility to end suffering completely and that there is a way to attain that cessation. If one takes this teaching to be true then one accepts that there is karma, the law of cause and effect, where our actions have consequences for our future. The cycle of rebirth is included within the understanding of karma. Our actions can bring results in this life and also in future lives. As Rev Hellfire suggests, yes, one could consider each moment to be a kind of reincarnation but there a core belief in reincarnation over countless lifetimes since beginningless time in which we have take birth as all kinds of beings

On a side note, many people dislike the idea of suffering which they hear in discussions of Buddhism. The word 'suffering' is a translation of 'dukkha' which is broader than the word suffering. It covers everything from mental and physical pain down to minor agitation, uneasiness and dissatisfaction. Try sitting still for a few minutes and see if your mind is still, comfortable and at ease. If you find that it isn't, that's part of what is ment by suffering. If something turns out a different way too how you expected and you are disappointed, that's also part of suffering.

So anyway, I think that buddhists in general will hold to, or at least be open to the possibility of, the ideas of karma, reincarnation, samsara, different realms of existence, nirvana and buddhas, impermenence and emptiness. These are fairly 'supernatural' ideas in that they postulate something about us and our world which is not conceptually verifiable fact and may even seem a little contrary to common sense. Views will vary between buddhist tradition on the philosophical interpretation of these ideas.

It was commented in the other thread on “being an atheist and a buddhist” that one can take bits and pieces of buddhist philosophy according to what you find reasonable. I think there can be some problems with this point of view in that if you choose some bits you like there can be a tendency to not really challenge your perspective and way of relating to the world and so not transform your way of being.

There is the saying of the Buddha “As the wise test gold by burning, cutting and rubbing, so are you to accept my words after examining them and not merely out of regard for me”. I understand this to mean that you take things which the Buddha said and apply them to yourself in a whole-hearted way over an extended period of time to see how they affect you and how you relate to them as being true. Of course some things like karma and reincarnation are difficult to test without becoming a highly realised practitioner (I'm not there by any means) so I think one can leave them on the back burner to stew a while. You certainly can take some of the practical things which the Buddha advised and try to put them into practice throughout your whole day to day life. As a buddhist I think one should try to work on these practical things as much as possible and really test them through practising them fully. These are things like avoiding harming others, trying to benefit others, meditating regularly, developing mindfulness and awareness in daily activities, examining our mental habits, seeing how we project onto experiences, letting go of attachments and aversions.

Transforming our way of being and overcoming our mistaken perceptions – these are not trivial things to undertake and at all times our habitual mind is involved, manipulating things and trying its best not to change. For this reason, there is in Buddhism, one “takes refuge” in the Three Jewels, Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha as a support to assist you in overcoming the habitual misunderstanding mind. One works to develop a trust and confidence in the Buddha, his teachings (Dharma) and the community of practitioners (Sangha) so you have the strength to persevere in maintaining your practice and development. The trust and confidence are said to develop slowly over time as you continue to put into practice the teachings and verify their truth for yourself. At first there is interest inspired by reading and hearing teachings; then as you practice, you get small taste for what the teachings are saying and trust and confidence develop accordingly. With true realisation of the nature of mind and reality comes complete unshakeable confidence and trust.


Hope it hasn't rambled too far off the point.

Asiaprod

bou wrote: »

Hope it hasn't rambled too far off the point.

Not at all, and thanks for a great post and for taking part. I really enjoyed it.

I would just make one point.

It was commented in the other thread on “being an atheist and a buddhist” that one can take bits and pieces of buddhist philosophy according to what you find reasonable. I think there can be some problems with this point of view in that if you choose some bits you like there can be a tendency to not really challenge your perspective and way of relating to the world and so not transform your way of being.

I think the point you make is valid. What I was trying to imply in that comment was that not all feel the need, or have the desire, to accept everything in one shot. Therefore, it is a good practice to first take on board bits that resonate with oneself. As you apply these aspects in your life and see the positive results the hope is that your perspective will change and your enquiring mind will seek out more aspects to adopt.

Rev Hellfire

To a Buddhist, everyone is a Buddhist inside with the potential to attain enlightenment...

Which makes Buddhism synonymous with humanity? Though to use the camera analogy while everyone with a camera can take pictures, only those who actively pursue the art of photography can in reality be called a photographers.
Is there an equivalent level of study and commitment necessary to claim you are practitioner of Buddhism? Does it require a level introspection for example, which is commonly lacking in modern (western) society? Or perhaps to merely claim to be Buddhist is enough.

It was commented in the other thread on “being an atheist and a buddhist” that one can take bits and pieces of buddhist philosophy according to what you find reasonable. I think there can be some problems with this point of view in that if you choose some bits you like there can be a tendency to not really challenge your perspective and way of relating to the world and so not transform your way of being.

I think this is an issue, how much can you remove from something before it no longer remains. For example yoga is an important part of the Hindu religion, but no one would call themselves Hindu if they claimed to be atheist and simply performed yoga and other meditative practises.
If someone closes off the possibility of things which are not “conceptually verifiable fact” do they in a sense close themselves off from realising their Buddhist potential.

Saying that I realise that few people will suddenly have an epiphany but would reaching that point mark a major step in their development as a Buddhist ?
Ie. How compatible with a purely materialistic viewpoint is Buddhism.

Asiaprod

To a Buddhist, everyone is a Buddhist inside with the potential to attain enlightenment

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Which makes Buddhism synonymous with humanity? Though to use the camera analogy while everyone with a camera can take pictures, only those who actively pursue the art of photography can in reality be called a photographers.

Touche. In a way yes, though I would probably use the phrase inherent in humanity, but waiting to be unlocked.

Is there an equivalent level of study and commitment necessary to claim you are practitioner of Buddhism? Does it require a level introspection for example, which is commonly lacking in modern (western) society? Or perhaps to merely claim to be Buddhist is enough.

That is a tough question, as Bou pointed out "there are a variety of views and philosophies according to different traditions in Buddhism" so you will get many different answers to this. I can only give my view.
I believe it does require a level of introspection that is not so much lacking in modern (western) society as it is lets say dormant, unused or not taught, in particular, taught during the formative years when kids are growing up ( how many kids do you know that are taught to meditate?). It is very common in asia for young boys and girls to spend time studying in monasteries where respect for their culture, its people and nature is taught and instruction in meditation is given from a Buddhist perspective. Western society has its own parallels and these are geared towards western culture from the perspective of western religions. Having lived in asia for 26 years, the biggest difference I see between the east and the west is in the importance placed on, and public display of, respect for others. And funnily enough, Buddhism is founded on respect. That does not mean we do not have social issue over here too. It does not make here better that there. I would say it is not enough for a westerner to merely claim to be Buddhists without also having some of the grounding for Buddhism that is already inherent in asian society and culture. This does not prevent a Westerner freely adopting aspects of Buddhist philosophy, and adding to them as they progress. Buddhism is available for all everyone equally. I think it was during the Dali Lama's first trip to the US that he expressed his amazement as to why so many Westerners were expressing such a deep desire to both understand and practice Buddhism since it was not of their culture.

All this is even before we come to the question of what do Buddhists societies, cultures and the different schools require of individuals to enable them to claim to be Buddhist. I did not just wake up one morning and declare I was a Buddhist. I had to see it in the context of the asian culture, and in the way the people felt about it and acted, before I could feel that I also could fit into this belief. I then had to seek out a sect and school to join and apply. I had to study for a period of time, face a series of interviews and questioning session with my teachers before being accepted. The next step was to “Takes Refuge” in the Three Jewels, Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha as mentioned by Bou. Only after doing this was I accepted as a Buddhist. Of course I could have just read the Buddhist books, adopted some of the philosophy and gone happily on my way feeling I was a Buddhist. But would that have been enough for me to be a Buddhist. I don't think so. The action of "Taking Refuge" was the key action that I needed to take to really call myself a Buddhist. At that point I had made the commitment to BE a Buddhist. The same applies in Christianity if I am not mistaken, Baptism is the equivalent to Taking Refuge and marks one as a christian. The difference here of course is that I make the choice in full knowledge of what I am undertaking. THis taking refuge also applies to the offspring of Buddhist families, the kids also have to at the right time make their formal commitment to Buddhism by also Taking Refuge (I feel that all groups within Christianity would really do well in adopting this approach with Baptism).

I think this is an issue, how much can you remove from something before it no longer remains. For example yoga is an important part of the Hindu religion, but no one would call themselves Hindu if they claimed to be atheist and simply performed yoga and other meditative practises. If someone closes off the possibility of things which are not “conceptually verifiable fact” do they in a sense close themselves off from realising their Buddhist potential.

Not necessarily. What they may do is make the journey to realizing their potential a lot longer and more difficult. There is an accumulation effect in Buddhism. Just because they are Atheist in this life does not mean they cannot be Buddhist in a future life time. It is for this reason that I have said that anyone can very freely adopt aspects of Buddhist philosophy. They will serve one well. When the time, or lifetime is right, the person will make their own free choice to Take Refuge.

Saying that I realise that few people will suddenly have an epiphany but would reaching that point mark a major step in their development as a Buddhist.

Having an epiphany? I love that word. Yes it would. I had mine, others will have theirs.

How compatible with a purely materialistic viewpoint is Buddhism.

That is a whole other topic. Buddhism does not say that you are not allowed to be materialistic. It says that material possession, in particular, to the point where nothing matters other than what one posses, it not conducive to leading a happy and fulfilling live. Those that posses end up continually needing to posses and this inevitably leads to unhappiness. That these possessions are transient or impermanent...or words to that effect.

Once again, Please bear in mind that these are my thoughts, and not representative of others who will have their own take based on their level of practice, understanding and the traditions of their schools or teachers. The levels of understanding that you will see reflected in Bou and MeditaionMom's posts show a far deeper intellect in understanding the ideals, scriptures and philosophy than mine do. I am far behind them both in this respect. My insight or contribution is based at the level of Buddhism in Daily Life and how it helps me interact with those around me. Just like the Christian religions, we too have many varying ideas and beliefs, at times we may even appear to contradict or differ with each other, but it is the core beliefs that we share in common to that keep us all in the same family. We continue to learn from each other and grow in our beliefs.

Rev Hellfire

Just to clarify one point while I chew on what you posted.

When I said

How compatible with a purely materialistic viewpoint is Buddhism.

I meant more rooted in hard observable science rather than materialist in the sense of cling to and seeking physical possessions. Though both yourself and bou have touched upon the topic.

My apologies for the miscommunication.

Asiaprod

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I meant more rooted in hard observable science rather than materialist in the sense of cling to and seeking physical possessions. Though both yourself and bou have touched upon the topic.
.

This is one question that I really do not feel able to give you an acceptable or accurate answer based on my limited knowledge. Also, I am not sure I really understand what you are asking. I see this question as "is Buddhism compatible (in-tune or reconcilable?) with beliefs that are rooted in hard observable science." Is that what you were asking? My immediate response would be along the lines of anything that observable science can teach us is of great value, and anything Buddhism can teach us is of great value. Its like the debate over acupuncture which has shown notable success in treating many conditions but which remains largely unsupported by the medical establishment that is resistant to researching it, as it is based on concepts very different from the Western scientific model. Autopsies have been performed, doctors have stated they can find no traces of the median line used in acupuncture yet it works. And doctors prescribe it.

I am going to request that Bou takes this on as I know you will get a better answer and that I am going to learn a lot from the answer. I am sure I will have input after that.

bou

I would say that a materialistic viewpoint is not completely compatible but the scientific viewpoint continues to evolve. The thread on The Heart Sutra relates to this. Buddhism focuses on mind, perception, experience and action as the central things to examine and work with. Not too much is said about the actual nature of reality which is said to be beyond description. The focus is on how we experience reality and how to work with that experience. My understanding of it is that our perception of an inherently existing external reality and an inherently existing self that experiences that reality is not a completely true. The perception relates to our habitual way of perceiving according to our past karma and the shared karma among us and others. It is said that the nature of things transcends this subject-object duality.

Modern physics seems to be tending towards some rather non-materialistic views of the nature of things so maybe that can be a little more compatible. The major stumbling block though is in the area of mind and awareness. Buddhism would hold these to be of great importance whereas a materialistic view would see them as merely emergent properties of complex physical systems.

Asiaprod, I've just written what I've heard and read and it may not be entirely correct or appropriate. I don't have a real understanding of these things as I haven't put it into practice enough.

Asiaprod

bou wrote: »

Asiaprod, I've just written what I've heard and read and it may not be entirely correct or appropriate. I don't have a real understanding of these things as I haven't put it into practice enough.

Your answer is fine with me, its better than I could offer and given me food for thought.

Modern physics seems to be tending towards some rather non-materialistic views of the nature of things so maybe that can be a little more compatible.

I think that was what I was trying to get at when I mentioned the position of acupuncture and how it was being recommended by the same people that could not accept it as it followed a different model. I definitely agree that the scientific viewpoint continues to evolve which is why I am not really sure that Buddhism should be viewed as an obstacle from the materialistic viewpoint.
I think that makes sense!

You also mentioned the "shared karma among us and others." I would be interested in hearing more on this aspect. My knowledge is quite limited here. I have heard mention of a countries' Karma, which I think I can grasp.

bou

On shared karma, I don't know much. I've heard it said that there is shared karma at different levels. All sentient beings have their own karmas but these karmas can be shared in common with others giving rise to a shared perception of reality. There are karmas between individuals, within a family, a town, a country a society, humanity, inhabitant of the earth and whatever else.

This relates to dependant origination where phenomena arise in dependence on causes and conditions. I get confused around the definition of the phrase "causes and conditions". Karmas are causes for experiences to arise and are generated through actions based on previous similar experiences. The karma ripens when are suitable conditions. When those conditions are met the karma ripens and manifests as experience. I think the 'conditions' relates to interdependence of circumstances. Each sentient being's experience is affected through interdependence by all other sentient beings. There is an infinite array of interconnected causes and conditions. We and our experiences are not independent but interdependent and impermanent. The shared karma thing is perhaps related to this interdependence.

Rev Hellfire

Just wanted to say thanks for the discussion, I think I got the answers I wanted from it.

Asiaprod

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Just wanted to say thanks for the discussion, I think I got the answers I wanted from it.

You are very welcome, any time.