Buddhism Isn’t More Enlightened Than Other Faiths

I agree. I like a lot of the very basic teachings of Buddhism, where it seems to be more of a form of self-administered psychotherapy than a religion, but the actual beliefs of Buddhists are just as weird an any other religion.
The best thing Buddha ever (allegedly) said was that he might be lying to his followers to get them to behave a certain way, and that his teachings may be false, but expedient, and that once Buddhist teachings got your where you needed to be, you could abandon them.
The funny thing is that Buddhism teaches that if there are gods, they are not important enough to pray to, so Buddhists pray to Buddha instead. It seems like there is a built in “religion = pray to somebody” rule in the human psyche.

Actually, Buddhism can be argued to have negative effects even beyond their promotion of superstition. When you put Buddhist dogma into context of the psuedo-serfdom that existed in Tibet, it suddenly takes on a more sinister edge. Buddhism seems almost taylor-made to make people feel okay about being on the low end of the caste system.

If something bad happens to you, it’s because you deserve it due to Karma that you incurred in a former life. That’s okay, thou, because you should abandon attachment to material goods or ambitions. There are also people who are automatically born as more enlightened and of higher authority (reincarnated Lamas).

Almost everything about Buddhism seems to be a marketing tool to keep the lower class in the caste system from rising up and rebelling.

The only Buddhist I know well is an atheist.

Some Buddhists believe in God or gods in general. Some don’t. Some Buddhists pray. Some don’t. Some Buddhists believe in karma and reincarnation. Some don’t.

What’s your point?

Yes, there’s plenty of superstition to go around. But we’re not asked to buy into any of it.

I’m a Buddhist and an atheist. Did a talk a couple of years back for the Liverpool Humanist Group entitled “Buddhism & Humanism: Common ground, not battleground” (title was given to me!). There were a few pretty hard-core atheists there, but we ended up having a really good two-way discussion that went on way longer than advertised. Maybe partly because the meetings are held in a pub, which frankly should be standard practice!

Anyway, I think I surprised most of those attending by how much a modern, Western Buddhism can remain a rational, materialist way of being. Or religion, or whatever.

Sure, many – no, most Buddhists around the world wouldn’t agree with my stance on, for example, karma (psychosocial cause-and-effect) and rebirth (strictly, Buddhism doesn’t believe in reincarnation but rebirth… and even then I see it as functioning on a momentary rather than inter-life basis). But the essential tenets of Buddhism, the fundamentals, make fascinating reading: life is unsatisfactory; it is thus because we crave things to be other than they are; this unsatsifactoriness is not inevitable; a recipe for ridding ourselves of this unsatisfactoriness is by living an ethical, mindful and non-deluded life. That’s the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path in a materialist nutshell.

I could go on (and on and on and on!), but I’ll end by recommending the writings of two British Buddhists – Stephen Batchelor (recently published Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist which I have yet to read, also cf Buddhism Without Beliefs and Susan Blackmore, who denies being a Buddhist though she practices Zen.

Want me to say more, I will, otherwise I’ll leave it there…

You need to make a distinction between Northern and Southern Buddhism, Hemant. Southern Buddhism is esoteric, with prayers and reincarnation (e.g., Tibetan Buddhism, as exemplified by the Dalai Lhama), whereas Northern Buddhism is a deontological ethical code best exemplified by the Four Noble Truths; it has nothing to say regarding an afterlife or the supernatural. and, contrary to what Branson wrote, there’s no “projecting of positive energy”; at least, not in the Northern Zen schools here in Japan. That sounds more like the Southern (Indian) schools to me.

The buddhist stance on lots of things annoys me – but agitprop Tracts that would make Jack Chick warm and fuzzy inside? Seriously?

Buddhists for the most part don’t pray. Implying that they do is at best a lost in translation moment and is at worst deliberately misleading.

Japanese buddhists who believe in Amida Buddha, the Buddha of Infinite Light chant Amida’s name in a form of prayer, but that’s an isolated sect and describing all buddhists based on that is a bit like describing all Americans as being like Westboro Baptists.

Tibetan mantra’s might seem like prayer – in that there are strings of words or sounds that are repeated – but that practice is much closer to meditation than prayer. It’s a practice that might even be described as akin to self hypnosis – but there’s no prayer involved.

The meditation and chants of other buddhist groups might also seem like prayers – but if they’re prayers, so is talking to yourself or thinking quietly.

On a side note – most of the western buddhists that I know are in no way being manipulated by a caste system. For the most part they’re people with higher education who’ve found a happier way of life in Buddhism and only share their beliefs if directly asked. Teachers and Lecturers, software engineers, business people and senior civil servants. It’s a mistake to associate the ecconomic circumstances in so many buddhist nations with buddhism as much as to associate sound economic governance with Christianity.

American Buddhism is almost a totally different animal than the traditional Asian varieties. Traditionalists might be shocked and offended to learn just who is practicing it here in the US – my local Zen teacher is gay, and the Zen master is (gasp) a woman.

I quizzed Zen Teacher Jim quite a bit about history, and he was loath to diverge from the warm, fuzzy version of Buddhism that his group practiced. At the end, I told him I was an atheist, and he brightened. Atheism, American atheism anyway, was in his comfort zone.

When I was in China, I mentioned to my guide that American Buddhism was almost entirely free of idol imagery. We might have the occasional little gold fat-Buddha statue, but that was just for ambiance. I wondered to her if American Buddhists were afraid that having statues all around would anger the Christians.

“That is very strange,” was all she had to say.

I’ve hardly heard a bad thing about Buddhists, my gut reaction is to pair them with mainstream Christians: They accept me, they aren’t assholes, just pay attention to who they’re voting for.

I’m also gonna go with my gut, and hold off on accusations until I’ve pondered and researched the subject more thouroughly. Honestly, meditating and praying to a statue isn’t all that bad if it doesn’t get in the way of your responsibilities.

I’d be willing to say Buddhism is more enlightened than other faiths, if only because there’s no reason we can’t argue that certain faiths are better or worse than others. For example, I certainly have never heard of Jesus or Mohammed saying something like: “Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.” Now if that was just applied to reincarnation…

I usually despise it when people comment with “go look at this link,” but I actually recently talked a lot about naturalism and Buddhism in my blog, and about getting down to the core of what all Buddhisms have in common (the differences between the sects are certainly as great as the Catholic/Protestant divide; and some might say greater. It’s quite a mistake to lump them all in together).

If you’re interested, check out:
“What is Buddhism?”:
http://thenaturalbuddhist.blogspot.com/2010/01/exploring-natural-buddhism-part-two.html

And “Buddhism Demystified”:
http://thenaturalbuddhist.blogspot.com/2010/01/exploring-natural-buddhism-part-three_27.html

I love when people make claims about the beliefs of a group of people while completely ignoring the billions of people who practice those beliefs in favor of a bunch of intellectual poachers seeking profits and warm fuzzies. Cultural promiscuity, however exciting and cool, does not grant one the authority to overrule the historical practices of a religion. If it did, I could still be a Christian and define the whole of Christianity by my own opinions and interpretations.

Meh. Buddhism is what you make of it. It’s not a belief, but a practice. I know Buddhists who are atheists and pragmatists (I put myself more into that category) and Buddhists who are into crystals and spirit guides. Thing is, no one tells me what to believe and who or what to worship. I take the teachings provisionally and accept what works for me. Shakyamuni was not interested in what he couldn’t prove or experience, and neither am I. I AM, however, a Buddhist.

I love it when people (like palebluedot) lump a large group of people like western Buddhists of whom they clearly know little about. And try to paint them with a broad brush. There is an enormous diversity among Buddhists and even among western Buddhists.
Buddhism is not a static entity that can never change. One of the fundamental ideas in Buddhism is that it has to change to adapt to local conditions.
Buddhism changed when it went from India to China and it changed again when it got to Japan.
In my view Buddhism is not a “religion”, In the sense that you need to “believe” in something separate from yourself. It is a practice. The goal of which is to alleviate suffering in yourself an others. Like others in this thread I am a Buddhist Atheist. And I know enough about the history of Buddhism to know that it is not perfect. But it allows for many differing opinions and interpretations to coexist.
There are “spiritual tourists” out there that might fit your definition. And practitioners of “new age woo” that claim to be Buddhists. But there are plenty of teachers out there from well established Buddhist lineages that don’t fit your definition at all.

While there is a lot of superstition in the way Buddhism is practiced in many countries, there is also a strong tradition of rationalism, especially in the philosophical schools, such as the Madhyamika school founded by Nagarjuna in the 2nd century CE. Nagarjuna’s writings are the most rigorously rational of all Buddhist literature. In the Twelve Gate Treatise, Nagarjuna demolishes the idea of a creator god by rational arguments, some of which are used by atheists today (e.g. the argument from infinite regression). A recent book by the Dalai Lama titled “The Middle Way: Faith Grounded in Reason” discusses Nagarjuna’s philosophy. Buddhism started as a rational criticism of the prevailing religions of the time and asserted that human freedom from delusion is to be found through self-inquiry and meditation, not by appeal to supernatural entities.

I think it was Harold Ramis who, when asked about religion, said he liked Buddhism, but was too lazy to really practice it.

“I’m more Buddish.”

I thought that was funny.

It’s the same obfuscation for people who claim they’re “spiritual, not religious”. They believe in the same crap, just under a different name.

I’ve also found that many Jewish atheists are reticent about lumping Judaism (as a religion) in with Christianity, as if Judaism (as a religion) is somehow more viable as a faith.

OneSTDV says… “It’s the same obfuscation for people who claim they’re “spiritual, not religious”. They believe in the same crap, just under a different name.”

This kind of nonsense would make me quite angry, if I gave a monkey’s what an ignoramus had to say.

I’ve read many comments on this site that equate spirituality with religion. Some definitions certainly embrace that viewpoint, but many of us take a very different view.

Here is a definition I just found that expresses what I feel pretty well…

Spirituality can refer to an ultimate reality or transcendent dimension of the world; an inner path enabling a person to discover the essence of his or her being, or the “deepest values and meanings by which people live”.

I am NOT religious. I DO believe in the value of developing your spiritual life.

It can be done in many ways. An atheist Zen Buddhist may sit zazen to try and peel away the layers of conditioning to access his true, pure, inner self. A volunteer may work at a shelter, feeding and clothing the less fortunate, appreciating his loving connection to his fellow human beings. Or it may simply be a person taking a nature walk and feeling a love and appreciation for the incredibly beautiful world in which we live, sensing a connection to the planet, maybe even the universe, that cannot be quantified or logically explained.

Pursuits such as these nurture the inner self. They make life richer, make it feel more meaningful. And they have NOTHING to do with believing in an all-powerful and vengeful being who wants to tell me what to think and do, take his 10% cut of my paycheque, and believe without question whatever his messengers on Earth tell me to.

Do you “spiritual” haters get the difference now? Or would you rather keep lumping critical-thinking people like me in with the ignorant sheep who are tearing this world apart with their toxic, blindly-believed beliefs?

Just curious. Like I said before, frankly, I don’t give a damn about your condemnation. I know what I am. And I know what I’m not.

Peace.

Buddhism often looks better than other religions because it talks a lot of truth about basic human psychology. Messages such as your thoughts direct your emotions, are very powerful and very useful. But Buddhism is filled with superstition – and all that stuff about reincarnation bothers me largely because being a woman means that you were a man in a previous life but your evil deeds meant you had to come back as a lower form of life.

Like most others commenting, I disagree…strongly.
In fact, I think this was such a silly statement, and was so poorly backed up, that I’m unsubscribing to the RSS feed for this site.
Cya

Well – It’s been said already above, but Buddhism varies from sect to sect, organization to organization. Most Zen and Vipassana buddhists are Atheists (by my count – highly biased :P) Here is a quote attributed to Sidhartha Gotama (a.k.a The Buddha) – This could be a Humanist Manifesto:
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”

@ Sue, The Khmer Rouge wasn’t Buddhist. In fact

“As the Khmer Rouge seized control of the country, the prospects of Buddhism became increasingly doubtful. Pol Pot, who had once served in a Buddhist monastery, denounced Buddhist monks as useless pariah, and part of the feudalistic power structures of the past. Monks were viewed with suspicion and disdain as part of the intellectual class, and targeted for especially brutal treatment and “reeducation”.

As part of the Khmer Rouge horrific Year Zero campaign, monks were systematically turned out of monasteries and forced to disrobe and become farming peasants, or were tortured and murdered outright. Some monks were forced to violate their vows at gunpoint. By the time the Khmer Rouge reign of terror ended, there were no monks alive in Cambodia, and most temples were in rubble.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preah_Maha_Ghosananda

I’ll also point out contrary to what Hemant wrote Buddhism doesn’t teach reincarnation, in fact the idea that there is some permanent unchanging soul that transmigrates through lifetimes is soundly disputed by the Buddha’s teaching on anatta or “no self”. This link lays it out quite well http://buddhism.about.com/od/karmaandrebirth/a/reincarnation.htm

I second Aric in his feelings about this blog. I believe it is mostly a force for good. But making broad statements against diverse groups of people is a temptation that is hard to resist.
Seeing the harm done by many aspects of religion it is sometimes too big of a temptation to paint every religious person with the same brush. But that is the same mistake made by those who discriminate against atheists. Resisting that temptation can only make the case made in this Blog stronger

I’ll Third Aric’s full comment. Honestly, I steer clear of the Buddhist religion, but I think Buddhism has a huge amount of wisdom to share…not exactly a Koan, but it may sound contradictory to some. In the pure form of Buddhism, there is no superstition, just a finger pointing at the moon of truth – which is basically asking the practitioner to answer the question “Who or What Am I?” in some form or another. “Know Thyself”

And to Quote AC Grayling from a few days ago regarding the “Relgion Aspect of Buddhism:
“An equally bad thing about the Dalai Lama’s article is that he calls Buddhism a religion‚ and indeed in the superstitious demon-ridden polytheistic Tibetan version of it that he leads, that is what it is. But original Buddhism is a philosophy, without gods or supernatural beings—all such explicitly rejected by Siddhartha Gautama in offering a quietist ethical teaching; but he has of course been subjected to the Brian’s Sandal phenomenon in the usual stupid way of time and the masses”

It would be erroneous to lump all forms of Buddhism together. Certain branches of Zen are practically secular. Most of them don’t identify as atheist, but are in fact atheist. There are schools of Zen where they routinely burn their books so as to avoid dogma and tradition. I’m jus’ sayin’, these guys are more hardcore than most Atheists.

So, yeah, there’s the highly religions Buddhism, then there isn’t. Really, Buddha was a kind of psychologist trying to provide a solution to the problem of human suffering. Its a methodology that predates modern science by over 1000 years and still evolves. The different branches got filtered through the various cultures into which it was introduced, and being pushed through China in the late Han period, it was heavily influenced by a secular sort of Taoism, and that became Ch’an. The stuff that was pushed through Tibet was particularly religious.

Anyway, if you want an interesting perspective on Buddhism, listen to lectures by Alan Watts. I’m as atheist as anyone, and while I am not a Buddhist by any stretch, but there is serious wisdom to be had there (I concede most religions have nuggets of wisdom hidden within, I simply think certain forms of Buddhism is quite a bit more saturated than others).

False Prophet makes a good about the role of entrenched religions vs new ones.

It’s funny. I just re-read the comic and I don’t really disagree with it anymore. I still think the work ‘pray’ is misused, but the point of the comic still stands. Some Buddhists are materialist, others are mystical. But now I don’t understand the point of the comic… What is it criticizing?

Maybe the point is that atheist Buddhists shouldn’t call themselves Buddhist? If so, that’s a valid argument. But if the point is that Buddhism is the same as Christianity because it contains some strange beliefs then I disagree.

As Daniel said, there are nuggets of wisdom in every religion. The difference to me is that in most religions the nuggets are scattered around incoherently. In some forms of Buddhism, they form a worldview that I find to be very true. There are many a long line of Buddhists who had profound understanding of life, and passed that understanding along through the religion. Not as an afterthought, but as the core teaching. That is why I choose to call myself Buddhist, even though that title has other meanings to other people.

I consider my self Buddhist and Atheist. I have been studying Buddhism and looking into it. It may be called a religion but it is more of a way of life. The great thing about Buddhism is that you can choose to believe any part if it you want to. Some buddhist believe ina god or higher power and some like me don’t. For that Japanese Buddhist that joebuddha said that is only a diffrent sect of Buddhism just like how Catholics or Baptist are a sect of christianity and each has their own rules and traditions that they follow.

Brandon said:

I love how religious Buddhism is always thrown into the list of other religions. Have you even read Sam Harris’ view on Buddhism as a philosophy instead of a religion? And you don’t really pray, you send out positive energy to all sentient beings. It’s called “metta”. Better than praying to a space Jew.

David D.G. said:

What is the nature of this “positive energy”? How is it transmitted? How is it received by sentient beings (and only them)? How is any of this detected, measured, or otherwise verified as factual?

When I’ve encountered Metta practice, it was for the purposes of training one’s own mind; encouraging empathy, kindness, compassion. I don’t believe that the people I’m, “sending out positive energy” toward are actually receiving energy from me — except through the way that I treat them. But do I think I can change my attitudes and behavior through this type of mental practice, and encourage myself to be more kind and compassionate? Yes, I do.

There is nothing superstitious or funny about the fact that natural selection does not de-select suffering. Ego and craving and pain were actually selected.

Now think of Buddhism as a solution to this problem that Science (Charles Darwin my hero) has shown clearly. 4 Noble truths!

Here is a Buddhist “prayer”
“I take refuge in my own seeing-things-as-they-really-are wisdom.”
No mention of god, no asking for things….
Please meditate! – No. Meditation is not hocus-pocus.
Cheers.

Another thing I would like to say. I am an atheist. Number 6 in the Dawkins’ scale.

(I think that all people who say that they are atheists should put their number of the Dawkins’ scale.)

Any ways. I am also a Buddhist. I do not know about life after death nor do I know that this life is all a dream. All I know is that there is suffering. Pretty sure that this suffering came from evolution but what am I going to do about it. That is why I am a Buddhist.

The ritual stuff came later, found only within the laypeople. Most Monks only do the rituals because it brings comfort to the laity. That comic is actually pretty misleading to what true Buddhism says.