Tweet
Originally posted by Elok
See: Emerson, Thoreau, Jefferson...the Buddhism-is-a-philosophy shtick is silly. It's a system of rules for living based on non-empirical, and sometimes anti-empirical, premises. Throughout history it has functioned as a religion, with missionaries, monks and dogmatic disagreements. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a freaking duck.
See: Emerson, Thoreau, Jefferson...the Buddhism-is-a-philosophy shtick is silly. It's a system of rules for living based on non-empirical, and sometimes anti-empirical, premises. Throughout history it has functioned as a religion, with missionaries, monks and dogmatic disagreements. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a freaking duck.
But if you want to experiment in harmlessness, generosity, kindness, gentleness and the "Middle way" paradigm - and observe the results for yourself, you certainly can and in Buddhism are expected to.
Try being kind to someone and see how they treat you in the future.
Try being unkind to someone and see how they treat you in the future.
That's VERY pure Buddhism, the heart of Buddhism. Try things and see.
I suppose you could say "non-empirical", in that the measure of "Success" is feeling good about yourself, which is not a worldly measure, but there's nothing more important in the world than feeling good about yourself, I mean what on earth could possibly matter more?
In Buddhism there is the theory - but it's easily personally verified. That people feel good about themselves when they are kind to themselves and others. They feel bad about about themselves when they are unkind to themselves and others.
There doesn't seem to be any exceptions in the world to that. People who treat others unkindly, treat themselves unkindly, and feel bad about themselves as a result. People who treat others kindly, treat themselves kindly, and feel good about themselves as a result. Once someone has made the effort to cultivate kindness, they very rarely revert to unkindness.
One thing Buddhism doesn't do, is monopolize anything. It's just a set of practices which people can do, values they can strive towards upholding, in order to improve their well-being. These practices are guaranteed to work if followed correctly. That however is a big IF. People are deluded and foolish by nature. One way to look at it, is that even if the teachings were perfectly written out in english, they'd be no good to a french man.
But even the minds of english-speakers are sufficiently varied, that the same set of words in english, mean different things, invoke different thoughts and feelings, in each different English speaker.
For example, the Buddha said:
Do not be led by holy scriptures, or by mere logic or inference, or by appearances, or by the authority of religious leaders...
Such a person has an immunity to common sense, because they are dominated by skeptical doubt.
Others will read "Surely Buddha didn't mean that! He's just testing my faith! I WILL believe his every word except those ones, because they're just a test! It's the exception which proves the rule of the Buddha's impeccable truthfulness!"
That's an excess of faith, and also an immunity to common sense.
Buddhism is The Middle Way, for example neither skeptical doubt nor faith are to be taken to extremes. Some skepticism is okay and useful. Some faith is okay and useful. But if you enshrine skepticism or faith and use either as "The mighty hammer of truth" with which to wield against all experience, you just lose your common sense.
Most fundamentally, because you don't know how much of a "French man" you are being when reading English. Someone may have faith in the Buddha, without realizing, that what they're actually having blind faith in is their own ability to comprehend perfectly what they're reading (that's why people NEED some skepticism).
Another example, are common human fallacies which the scientific method is familiar with:
For example "I remember that once i was kind to someone, then they yelled at me!". Buddhism DISPROVED!
But of course you're meant to look at hundreds and hundreds of instances and see that, on average, it does work. Just like when doing a scientific experiment.
That's an example of reaching a bogus conclusion through fallacious reasoning. It's finding a shred of evidence to support the conclusion which you cling to.
Furthermore, it took me more than 7 years to actually cultivate the ABILITY to be genuinely kind and caring to others.
So someone could say "I tried my best to be kind! But it blew up in my face!". Buddhism DOESN'T work! I tried it!
That would be like someone addicted to fastfood, disproving a healthy whole-foods diet, by trying it for one day, noting that it didn't taste as good as their usual food, that they don't feel better than usual and haven't lost weight, and dismissing the benefits of healthy food as a load of hogwash. That's not a real experiment.
Fundamentally, I consider a true Buddhist to be someone who feels no ill-will towards any living being - not even those living beings which commit atrocities, not even the ones which taste good. Universal Compassion is at the heart of Buddhism, so at that point (or at least the point of never ACTING on ill-will/greed), I'd agree the person can start calling themselves a Buddhist if they wish - they've demonstrated serious commitment to cultivating the values enshrined by Buddhism. Before that, I'd say that they're just quacking the quack without walking the walk.
But to free yourself from hatefulness and anger takes a long, long time. And before you've freed yourself from being compelled by hatefulness and anger, you still slip into old habits, you try to be kind, but get angry when it doesn't immediately work, and then the other person gets angry back.
While it is a long path, it's also a highly satisfying and rewarding one, which is why people follow it (for example: Every time I succumbed to anger, I felt bad afterwards. Every time I resisted, I felt better afterwards).
Comment