Freedomain Radio

    There are a lot of misconceptions in the western world when it comes to Buddhism.  Since most of us were raised in a "Christian household" as my mother called it, we see any religion as requiring us to believe in something because most of them actually do require us to believe in something in order to be a practicing member of said religion.  This is not the case with Buddhism.  Buddhism might assert certain beliefs such as reincarnation for instance, but such beliefs are not at all required for one to be a practicing Buddhist.  All that is required to practice Buddhism is to practice Buddhism.  Practicing Buddhism basically consists of being a moral person (or someone who practices universally preferable behavior), and meditating, which I personally have found to be an extremely beneficial practice.  This also means that there are really no dividing lines in Buddhism that would conflict with any other set of beliefs (although, most other religions tend to advocate behavior that would conflict with morality).  Therefore someone could conceivably be a Christian and a Buddhist at the same time, though being Christian might cause one to act immorally. 

    Since Buddhism requires no beliefs to practice it, Buddhism does not conflict in any way with atheism, because atheism is a fundamental lack of belief in forms that cannot be proven logically (God, Jesus, Ala, etc).  Buddhism is essentially an instruction manual for life, one which advocates morality, peace, tolerance, and understanding. 

    There are no rules in Buddhism, only optional guidelines.  No Buddhist would advocate punishment for any immoral act because the concept of Karma says that immoral acts contain their own inherent consequences and so punishment is futile.  Karma, when looked at objectively tends to hold true for the most part.  If you commit acts of violence against people they will retaliate, or the victims DRO will retaliate in their place.  But even if someone were to get away will an immoral act, the best course of action is not to retaliate, but simply to repair the damage done and to act preventively to avoid further acts of violence against ones self (purchasing an alarm system, avoiding bad neighborhoods, not socializing with unstable or violent people etc), which is also a concept that is taught by Buddhism.  So Karma is not so much an empirical truth, but a psychological tool to avoid people using violence to end violence (as a government would).

    Since Buddhism advocates non-violence, tolerance, and understanding, I believe the more wide-spread it becomes the less violent the world around us will become, and the closer we will be to achieving a stateless society. 
 

Here is a podcast that I have been listening to for about a year that has helped me understand the finer points of Buddhism as well as achieve a deeper understanding of certain aspects of life in general: Ajahn Brahm friday night talks.

If you find you disagree with any aspect of Buddhism or its practice, I welcome your responses.

Buddhism teaches a variety of things, but why are those particular things part of Buddhism? Or, more concretely, if we had never heard of Buddhism and were going to recreate it from scratch, how could we determine which things would be subject to guidelines?
 

but Buddhism, like most religions, has different sects with different beliefs. Are you Theravada?

TimothyLeary:

 Practicing Buddhism basically consists of being a moral person (or someone who practices universally preferable behavior), and meditating, which I personally have found to be an extremely beneficial practice. 

Well if its only about being a moral person and meditating, why not just do that? Why on earth would you want to associate yourself with all the other mystical nonsense by calling yourself a buddhist?

toth8:

but Buddhism, like most religions, has different sects with different beliefs. Are you Theravada?

Indeed, though as Ajahn Brahm said in one of his talks, the different sects of Buddhism are all pretty much the same.   

At the core christianity is pretty much the same too. Look at how different it is in practice.

Tuttle:

TimothyLeary:

 Practicing Buddhism basically consists of being a moral person (or someone who practices universally preferable behavior), and meditating, which I personally have found to be an extremely beneficial practice. 

Well if its only about being a moral person and meditating, why not just do that? Why on earth would you want to associate yourself with all the other mystical nonsense by calling yourself a buddhist?

I think the benefits of associating myself with Buddhism outweigh the few aspects of Buddhism that I disagree with.  I could simply be a moral person and practice meditation, but the finer points of such a practice would be unknown to me.  It is only through the vast wells of information that are available because of Buddhism that I am able to refine my meditation, and learn how to be a more moral person.  Buddhism just provides a road map for this practice, and allows for numerous others to be able to practice it as well, It's always easier to do something when you know you aren't alone.  The beauty of Buddhism is that you aren't required to believe all the mystical nonsense, you are simply encouraged to meditate and refrain from immoral behavior.  I am free to disagree with any part of Buddhism and I am not ostracized for it, nor does such disagreement keep me from being Buddhist.  There are aspects of Buddhism that I disagree with (such as reincarnation) but I hardly see such minor disagreements as grounds for discarding the entire philosophy or even disassociating myself from it.

CCS:

At the core christianity is pretty much the same too. Look at how different it is in practice.

Christianity is vastly different from Buddhism.  Christianity requires you to believe in God, requires you to go to church on Sunday, etc.  Buddhism does not require anything, it simply shows you through example (monks) how to live a virtuous and peaceful life.  The reason Christianity is so different in practice is that it inherently divides people by decreeing that a Christian cannot believe in any other philosophy of life other than their own, even science is shunned.  Buddhism does not threaten punishment for not being Buddhist, there is no Buddhist hell.  Christianity has some similarities to Buddhism, but these mostly have to do with morality, a universal concept.  Christianity is different in practice because of the principles that aren't it its core, principles like the first commandment, hell and Satan, and its constant animosity towards other belief systems.  If you want to see Buddhism in practice, go to a Buddhist monastery and talk to the monks.  Buddhist monks and nuns live Buddhism, and they are some of the happiest, kindest people you will ever meet.

Minsk:

Buddhism teaches a variety of things, but why are those particular things part of Buddhism? Or, more concretely, if we had never heard of Buddhism and were going to recreate it from scratch, how could we determine which things would be subject to guidelines?
 

Experience.  The guidelines put forth by Buddhism have to do with leading you toward happiness and eventually enlightenment.  They are basically the sum of a great many people's experiences that have been passed on as a how-to for life.  To recreate Buddhism from scratch would probably be impossible, given that you would have to live a very long time and experience a great many things in order to do so.  The great thing about Buddhism is that if you put it to practice in your life you can see the results for yourself, rather than simply being told that it will pay off after you die.  Buddhism encourages introspection, both of ones self, and of Buddhism.  It says "question me", rather than "have faith". 

I should have said the sects of christianity are all pretty much the same as the sects of budhism are. I didn't mean that they are the same as budhism. I appreciate buddhism. I lived next door to a wat and read extensively as well as experienced it first hand in Thailand. Ajarn is the thai word for teacher. Phra is the word for monk. christianity and budhism are the same in that followers of both believe in ghosts and magic strictly denied by the religions. Read Phra Peter Pannapadipo's books to get the reality of the practice instead of the teachings. It also has some good teaching in it related to experiences. I have met the monks sneaking out, stealing, and breaking most of the basic 12 precepts. Some were truely dedicated to it and I do think they were some of the happiest people I ever met. When you are in their presence you have a profound feeling that really makes you want to wai very high in respect to their compassion and joy. I have great respect for the Sangha in thailand but none for many of the monks. Many of the most respected abbots would agree with my position as they themselves stated in the editorials of the thai newspapers.

CCS:

I should have said the sects of christianity are all pretty much the same as the sects of budhism are. I didn't mean that they are the same as budhism. I appreciate buddhism. I lived next door to a wat and read extensively as well as experienced it first hand in Thailand. Ajarn is the thai word for teacher. Phra is the word for monk. christianity and budhism are the same in that followers of both believe in ghosts and magic strictly denied by the religions. Read Phra Peter Pannapadipo's books to get the reality of the practice instead of the teachings. It also has some good teaching in it related to experiences. I have met the monks sneaking out, stealing, and breaking most of the basic 12 precepts. Some were truely dedicated to it and I do think they were some of the happiest people I ever met. When you are in their presence you have a profound feeling that really makes you want to wai very high in respect to their compassion and joy. I have great respect for the Sangha in thailand but none for many of the monks. Many of the most respected abbots would agree with my position as they themselves stated in the editorials of the thai newspapers.

I don't doubt that the monks break their precepts once in a while (I certainly do), but I don't think this makes their philosophy any less valid.  Christianity may very well hold some valuable practices if you wade through all of the nonsense, but I'd rather not.  Once you get past all of the psychotic ravings of the bible, Christianity might be pretty similar to Buddhism, but if thats true I think I'll just stick with Buddhism as Christianity has not generally served me well. 

That's very interesting - can you tell me the methodology that Buddhism uses to determine a true statement from a false statement?

TimothyLeary:

    Since Buddhism advocates non-violence, tolerance, and understanding, I believe the more wide-spread it becomes the less violent the world around us will become, and the closer we will be to achieving a stateless society. 
  

What about Tibet, though? The people in that region are very Buddhist, but they formed a State around the Buddhist monastic hierarchy, with the Dalai Lama at the top. They also instituted very severe punishments, to my knowledge. I agree that Buddhism, understood correctly, is an anarchist philosophy, but it seems that many Buddhists simply do not make the logical connection.

I had a passing interest in Buddhism and Tao when I deconverted from Christianity.  I only got so far as to gather that one should venerate the word of no man but experience the world or something like that... I can't remember exactly, I didn't really go that deep into it.

One of the things that bugged me, however, was that most adherents to the religion venerated Buddha despite what I thought was Buddha's exhortation to not do that very thing.  It is the practice of a religion that matters, and it didn't seem like there was that much difference seeing as this would still be a religion of sorts, in which I would do things that could not be explained rationally for purposes that could not be communicated.

I didn't have this clarity back then, but I was wary enough of arbitrary authority that I didn't keep up my interest.

Oh, and I admit that I could be totally and entirely wrong about Buddhism.  As I said, I didn't really get that much into it and, as of now, I'm not really interested in entertaining any religious belief. 

Stefan Molyneux:

That's very interesting - can you tell me the methodology that Buddhism uses to determine a true statement from a false statement?

Buddhism doesn't (like most religions) claim to have total knowledge or dominion over reality.  Reality exists objectively, Buddhism just helps one to navigate through it.  Therefore no Buddhist methodology is required for determining a true statement from a false statement, generally it is understood among Buddhists that the scientific method is pretty much the standard for determining truth from falsehood.