Afterlife (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, December 03, 2011, 18:22 (4717 days ago) @ dhw

MATT: For the Buddha... I do think he really did believe in Karma in the Hindu sense... remember that he was originally training to become a Brahmin. But the understanding of his words have clearly been transformed to mean different things to different people... and these things are all also true. The history of Buddhism parallels many other religions, in that there have been several breaks and schisms required as times change and the religion is forced to adapt to new conditions. Thankfully, it was built with adaptation in mind...

As you say, this applies to most religions. And when teachings have been passed down orally for centuries, who knows what was said originally? Ancient texts are just as unreliable, since we often don’t know who wrote them, or when they were written, but we do know that the records of events and statements have all passed through the filter of a subjective and fallible author, that language changes down through the centuries, and that translation and interpretation entail more subjective filtering. All the major religions are capable of adapting to new conditions, and the texts can always be twisted to allow for whatever slant is needed. That’s why you find so many different branches, and why down through the ages there have always been devout believers practising slavery, apartheid, and cold-blooded murder. I’m not sure, though, that Buddhism has ever been associated with such inhumane practices – you will know better than I do. But then Buddhism has always seemed to me more of a philosophy than a religion.

The words of yours I marked in red I will return to.

Buddhism was passed down orally for several generations. I have ALWAYS loved Hanh for his pointing out directly that we cannot accept any account of Buddha's teaching as immediately authentic. When you read his commentaries he is always quick to point out that some of the writings that refer to "all the multitudes of gods and goddesses" are important mystic alliteration.

But there have been rough patches. The Tibetan Empire was a militaristic kindgdom, somehow founded on Buddhism, though quite obviously NOT Buddhist at all.

And yes... it even happens in modern times.

As to the question of philosophy vs. religion, I've often heard this--from almost everyone I've met that's learned a little about it. I've fallen to considering it a religion. Here's why:

Philosophies rarely inculcate tradition upon its adherents. The hardest part for me as a practicing Buddhist, is that I find no real meaning in the Japanese trappings of what I practice. We chant in Chinese, often with no real understanding of the words. (There are always translations, but I still don't understand why these its important to chant in Chinese.) I often chuckle, because Buddhism is supposed to adapt to the needs and beliefs of differing cultures, but in my experience, walking into a Zen shrine is like walking into another world. And then there is a practice where, as time goes on you create your own mendicant's robe. These things, in my opinion, get in the way of the meaning of the practice, and if I could have access to a different method of practice, I would.

Stoicism of course is Western tradition's closest analog, but again, I don't recall there being a set of cultural "hand me downs" that would make it really a religion.

So... I both agree and disagree with "Buddhism as philosophy." Maybe the thread that I wish I practiced would be more philosophy, but I feel it is definitely more religious.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"