Interested in Becoming a Buddhist

What do I need to do in order to becoming a Buddhist? Seems like it requires a great deal of reading.

Thanks for your help.

 

Is there a Buddhist center you can get to? If so, sign up for a beginner's meditation class. If not, read one book and start meditating. I might suggest "The Miracle of Mindfulness" by Thich Nhat Hanh, but there are many others. The main thing is to get motivated to meditate and then actually begin a daily practice, perhaps just ten minutes a day to get started. It would also be great to listen to dharma talks at your local center.

 

Thanks! Is there more to being a Buddhist than just meditating? There's so much info (like about the eight fold path) to wade through

 

Meditation really is the essence of it, because it is considered to be almost indispensable for reaching enlightenment. The Eightfold path describes a way of conscious living that supports a meditation practice.

One of my favorite things about Buddhism is that it is not dogmatic. By that I mean, you don't have to read a bunch of books in order to adopt a complicated set of beliefs. It really is all about the individual discovering for herself/himself through meditation what is true about the nature of mind and reality. It helps to have a teacher, though.

 

It requires no real reading at all, in fact, though if like most of us you come from a cultural/religious background in which Buddhism has not played a major role, then some reading would be beneficial.

What it means to be Buddhist, who qualifies, what constitutes Buddhism, will differ substantially depending upon who you ask. The Buddha lived, very roughly, some five hundred years before Jesus of Nazareth. Since that time, Buddhism exploded in popularity, traveling in all directions from it's point of origin in the northern portion of the Indian subcontinent. It has since disappeared in many of the places it once thrived, all while spreading to more places. In each place over these some 2500 years, and in each era, it has undergone some changes, adaptations, differences in interpretation, and so on. Different Buddhists from different times and different backgrounds will claim very different ideas as forming the core of Buddhism.

To that end, I will suggest that meditation is actually not an essential and inseparable part of Buddhism, at least as far as the laity is concerned. Until the past two centuries or so, it was the occupation of only specialist monks and nuns, and the lay folks didn't usually worry too much about it, though at times there were teachers who encouraged them in the practice. However, in recent times, a number of influences both from within and without the Buddhist community have led to substantial numbers of Buddhists considering meditation to be of paramount importance in Buddhism, perhaps being more important than any other part of the faith. I am by no means saying that this is an incorrect or faulty understanding, merely that there always have been (and continue to be) oceans of well meaning and quite devout Buddhists who rarely or never meditate. Most Buddhists I know spend very little time in meditation except for monks and a few particularly devoted Theravadin Buddhists.

In order to be Buddhist, you don't need to read a lot about it. In order to become a Buddhist, it might help to know what it is you're seeking out. As I've mentioned, there is great and extensive diversity in what is understood as "Buddhism." Sinhala Theravada looks a bit different than Cambodian or Thai Theravada, all of these look a bit different from Chan/Zen, which looks rather different still from the Tibetan schools or Tientai/Tendai or Shingon - and then there's Pure Land which is almost a world unto itself (especially in Japan where it was taken to a unique extreme), and there are so called "protestant" or "Romantic" or "rationalist" or "modernist" streams of thought which carry currency in the various schools in various nations. The great differences seen in the various types of Buddhism around the world inform the writing of anyone working as a self-appointed spokesperson for the Buddhist religion. If you pick up a book and it tells you what Buddhism is, you can believe only that that is what Buddhism is to the author.

However, there are certain things that can be agreed upon. MOST schools will consider the Dhammacakkappavattana sutta, which is traditionally agreed to be the first sermon of the Buddha after his awakening, to be of extreme importance. In it, the Buddha laid down the most basic of his teachings: the Four Noble Truths. Luckily it is a short discourse, and can be read easily by any literate person. Find it here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.piya.html Read it, and see what you think. If you like it, I would encourage you to seek out a temple and find somebody with whom you can speak about your interest in Buddhism. The point in this is that if you are going to read a book about Buddhism, which endorses Buddhism, you will get some sectarian slant. I can guarantee it will not be totally, 100% objective but will push the ideas that the author favors. This isn't a problem - it's what happens in religion. But if you can't have it all, you might as well be able to ask questions of the person you are trying to learn from. In this sense, a teacher is more valuable than any book.

After you learn some of the basics about Buddhist ideals, then you can worry about finding the "right fit" for you (if there is even more than one temple near you anyway).

As a student of Buddhism in an academic sense as well as a personal one, I can say that while I have my own biases, prejudices and inclinations, I am happy to generally use self-identification as a general means of identifying who is or is not a Buddhist. I disagree in the extreme when people make certain claims about what Buddhism is or is not, but if that's what they believe and they consider themselves Buddhist, I generally won't put up much of a fuss over it. However, one of the most classical indicators of Buddhist faith and identity comes from "taking refuge." That is, taking refuge in the Three Jewels of Buddhism: the Buddha, the Dhamma (or Dharma, same thing, different root language), and the Sangha. The Buddha refers to the historical Buddha, the Dhamma refers to the teachings of the Buddha and other highly realized beings (from within Buddhism), and the Sangha refers to the Buddhist community, and especially to the ordained community (monks, nuns, priests, lamas, etc.)

In some instances a refuge taking ceremony may exist in a certain temple which more or less functions like a Buddhist equivalent to Christian baptism or confirmation. In others, maybe it's not done like that. I sometimes go to a Thai temple, and on special occasions the laity joins in chanting with the monk(s) and part of it includes taking refuge - in this case anyone participating in the chanting has declared their intention to take refuge in the three Jewels, whether or not they have participated in any special ceremony to "become" Buddhist.

It is not impossible to be a Buddhist in isolation from other Buddhists, nor is it impossible to become a Buddhist in said state. In fact, the Buddha himself had no Buddhist teachers guiding him. That said, "correct" understanding of the dhamma is said to be hard to come by, and for those who do not already have a decent comprehension of the issues at hand, books are frequently criticized as being worth rather little. I don't think it's a totally fair accusation, but I do think that if you are sincerely interested in learning more about Buddhism, the first order of business should be reading the sutta I linked you to, and the second order of business should be finding and visiting a temple.

Decorum differs at temples depending on a number of factors. You ought to try to get ahold of someone from the temple and ask about visiting before you go, if possible. In any case, you must take off your shoes. Some temples will allow you to enter a foyer or vestibule while wearing shoes, and there will be a shoe rack for you to store them once you remove them. Such is the case at the local Tibetan temple/monastery (well, the local one that I've been to - there's another I haven't visited) and the local Zen temple. This is not the case at the Thai temple, where you remove your shoes before entering and just stash them wherever is convenient. So before you enter the building, unless you've been told otherwise, keep your eyes open for shoes laying around, and take yours off and put them with the others if that seems right. Apart from this, do not worry about decorum too much - just be polite and dress modestly, and as a precaution do not attempt to make physical contact with the monks, as in some cases this would be something of a violation of their vows if you are female, and in any case may potentially be considered inappropriate regardless of your gender or their vows unless you have a personal rapport with the person in question, and then only maybe it could be acceptable.

Try meditating, but it's tough to do it based just on written directions. They help, but a good teacher is more valuable. If you think meditation isn't for you, don't worry - I would argue that the primary concern for lay people shouldn't be meditation but living in accordance (as well as possible) with the five lay precepts: do not take lives of any sentient/moving beings, do not take what isn't given (no stealing), do not engage in sexual misconduct (widely interpreted in different ways, but basically no cheating or truly repugnant sex acts), do not speak falsely, and do not take intoxicants. The last one, banning intoxicants, can clearly be seen to be of the least importance to many Buddhists if by no other means than by observing the robust drinking cultures that have long existed in many historically dominantly Buddhist lands. The idea isn't that intoxication itself is necessarily a big deal so much as that it leads to heedlessness, breaking of more important precepts, and sloth. So it's a good thing to avoid, but it doesn't necessarily have to be totally off the table. Excessive indulgence, though, is to be eschewed. Apart from trying to live as closely in accordance with these precepts as possible, which I would argue are good for anybody regardless of religion, one can make merit by supporting the sangha and by doing good things to help others in day to day life. Giving to charity, taking care of your family, perhaps working to help people less fortunate, all sorts of things are considered to be of karmic benefit. Historically, making merit and supporting the sangha have been the key points of practice for most of the Buddhist laity.

If you don't live in a big city (which will have a number of temples to choose from and will be easy to find) then try looking for a nearby temple with this site: http://www.buddhanet.info/wbd/ It's surely not perfect, but it DOES offer information about an impressive number of temple locations in the world - and across sectarian lines. Good luck in learning what you want to learn, and if you visit one temple and it just doesn't "do it" for you, visit another - or maybe two more! - from different schools to see if you find a difference. I have my local favorite, but it can be uncomfortable at times unfortunately because I don't speak a word of Thai and the monk currently living at the temple speaks almost no English. Still, I like the place. The atmosphere of the Zen temple and the Gelug (a Tibetan school) joint are very different from the Thai temple, and very different from each other.

Each of the temples teaches dhamma and has something to offer, but each of them is very different. If the first one you visit doesn't seem like someplace you'd like to return to, then maybe try a different place before writing off Buddhism wholesale.

Hope this has been helpful. Sorry it's so long.

 

It depends on what you mean by "being buddhist". I have never been in a temple to "practice" buddhism, and I've never read an original Buddhist text, yet I consider myself buddhist . This would be ridiculous in any other religion, can you imagine someone saying "I've never been to a church, nor have I read a word of the bible, but I am a christian". In buddhism this is not so ridiculous because buddhism is not really a religion in the same way that the Abrahamic religions are. There is no god to worship in buddhism. The buddha was a real person that we know a lot about, Prince Gautama Siddhartha.

In my opinion all you need to KNOW to be a buddhist:

there was once a man, he lived a life of luxury. Then one day he thought, "i'm not that happy actually, maybe there is more to life?", so he went to check. He found much unhappiness and suffering, from poverty, illness, and age. He thought "man, life is really bad . . . maybe I should join a local religion". So he started to try out what his local people were doing, like not eating food, or standing on one leg for a long time. They thought these acts purified their souls.

However, after coming very close to dying from a dangerous fast, and being saved by a child who slowly fed him rice, this man realized that this path was just going to also result in more pain, so he was frustrated. He vowed then and there that he would sit under a tree and meditate until the answer came to him, or he would die trying.

So he sat there for a very long time and suddenly he saw the issue; worldly luxuries and self-inflicted harships have the same problems, they are too radical. The solution must be in BETWEEN these extremes; this he called the "Middle Path". He told his friends of "Four Noble Truths" which he had realized while meditating:

1) Life has great suffering in it

2) Suffering is caused by attachment, to things (wealth, possessions), to emotions (happiness, wanting to feel wanted), to sensations (sex, drugs), to perceptions (I am right, you are wrong).

3) If you stop to think for a second, you see that once we identify the problem, we can start identifying a solution! (There is a solution to the problem of suffering/attachment)

4) The solution is to practice mindfulness across every sphere of your life. This he called "The Eightfold Path", and it is simply a way of being very specific about exactly just where and when one can make a difference in one's life to avoid attachment which causes suffering.

So for example, one of the eightfold aspects is "right speech"; this means that even when we are talking, emailing, texting, singing, we should watch and see whether we are cultivating seeds of attachment and suffering, or seeds of love, support, etc. I have no idea what all the 8 aspects are, because I feel they are unnecessary to "memorize". They are just enumerations of different aspects of life that need our attention and care.

You can see now hopefully why its possible even to be, say, a "christian buddhist", buddhism makes NO statements regarding dieties, regarding the origin of the universe, etc. It is a philosophy; it is a way of life. Many cultures have transformed it into a religion, full of gods, saints, and afterlives, but this is a cultural appropriation, not "original buddhism".

Hope this helps

 

Nice post.

 

That was awesome guys, thanks.

A couple questions:

-Doesn't the Eightfold Path say something about sexual misconduct? What is considered that?

-Eckhart Tolle said you can't awaken if you're on prescription medication. What say you?

-Smoker. Drink here and there, but don't get drunk. ?

 

Concerning the precept about sexual misconduct, this is how Thich Nhat Hanh translates it

 

Oh no! That really sucks. I believe in free love. I thought part of the point of Buddhism was non-attachment, so I thought my lifestyle fit with it.

Thoughts?

 

Anyone?

 

the "free love" lifestyle may embody a non-attachment to long term monogamous relationships, but it does this BECAUSE of an attachment to sex attachment is everywhere.

But I think you're making a larger misunderstanding. Just because you have lots of sex, drink, smoke, doesn't mean you can't be buddhist, anymore than if you work for an oil company and have lusty thoughts about your secretary precludes you from being a christian. Remember this is not a religion, there are no "rules", nobody is going to come find you in a month and say "ON HIPFORMS YOU SAID YOU WANTED TO BE A BUDDHIST BUT THATS A CIGARETTE IN YOUR HAND". This is all by you, for you. You do you. You do what you want to do to liberate yourself from conditions which cause suffering.

You KNOW that smoking causes suffering in the long run, but in the short run maybe it gives you pleasure (an attachment), so you do it. So buddhism's answer to this is to look closely at your habits and be honest with yourself. And if you don't have the strength to quit, that's ok. There is no buddhist hell, there is no angry buddhist god who will smite you. The worst is that your habits may preclude you from being able to join a monastery and be a buddhist monk, but I'm guessing that's not what you want, right? It certainly isn't what I want, and I LOVE and RESPECT buddhism. It's a philosophy, you get out of it what you put into it.

Ps. back to the "free love" lifestyle, a lot of these commentators (buddha, thich nhat han, etc), never encountered such a thing in their lives, so are not aware of exactly what it entails. Remember they are human beings as well, trying to understand and live by this same philosophy. Don't take a human's word over yours, look inside and see the truth. You may "believe in free love", but where does this belief come from? What feeds it? What does it benefit you? What benefits it? Why does it exist, in response to which conditions? Which conditions does it create? Are you better because of it? Is there less suffering in your life from having frequent casual sex?

buddhism = honest self-reflection.

 

I say it's a thinly veiled attack on big pharma being plugged into a spiritual discourse. If enlightenment can be blocked by deliberate human interfacing of medicines and biochemicals than it must also be blocked by accidental interfacing of biochemicals; ie, natural life. By his logic, enlightenment is impossible unless we live in a test tube inside a clean room? Jeeze, this "enlightenment" seems really finicky and delicate! Is it ok that I had a cherry lolipop earlier? Can I still see truth?

Word of advice: run far away from Tolle and any other new age spiritual teachers.

If you want buddhist wisdom, look no further than Alan Watts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmrebXca-ZE

 

Exactly this.

"Free love" isn't non-attachment so much as it is non-attachment in the sense of rejecting more or less "traditional" sexual mores - that is, disregarding the ideas of monogamy, marriage, and so on.

I'm not saying that to do otherwise is evil. But it is indicative of a deep seated attachment to sex and a seeking out of that pleasure from extra sources.

You CAN be Buddhist and seek out a "free love" lifestyle. That said, almost no Buddhist teacher will advocate it or suggest that it will assist in attainment of awakening. If such attainment is a very long-term goal for you, there are no shortages of instances of seeking more worldly benefits from Buddhism. The primary one is seeking spiritual comfort in a turbulent world. This isn't a bad thing, even seeking this-worldly comfort isn't "the goal" of Buddhism.

As an example, the amulet/charm/magic industry in most of the Buddhist societies of Southeast Asia is enormous, and there are supposedly ways to offer physical protection, luck in gambling, advantages for sexual seduction (including amulets for gays and lesbians to find partners through magical means), all sorts of stuff. Buddhism doesn't deny the possibility that these things can be effective. Neither does it endorse them. But if you are resigned to the probability of not attaining awakening for many more lifetimes, then it isn't a problem to seek out this-worldly benefits.

"But that's not Buddhist!" I hear someone lamenting. A professor of mine describes stuff like this in terms that are easy to understand. Our campus has a smoking ban. Students, faculty, visitors, staff, everyone is banned from smoking on campus. There are signs on the doors, "No smoking on campus." 5000 years from now when our civilization has long since been reduced mostly to rubble, suppose some archeologist digs up the land where my university sits. They find some of these signs, and accurately date the stuff being dug up. "Hmm," they might be tempted to say, "so in 2014 nobody on this campus smoked." Not quite. In reality, people smoke all over the place. Including people associated with the university. What writings encourage us to do and what some people actually do isn't always the same. It doesn't mean that a smoker smoking on campus isn't a real student or real professor or real custodian or real lab assistant or anything like that. They're just one who is behaving in a way that runs counter to what this school suggests is the proper goal: a campus of nonsmokers.

As for attachment, don't be too attached to nonattachment, either. Unless you desire to take monastic vows, you aren't likely going to be in a position to live perfectly in accordance with the dharma as you understand it. You are human. You will mess up. Even most monks and nuns make mistakes, so the laity even moreso should be forgiving of their own shortcomings.

It is important also to remember that there is not a single Buddhist canon, there are many of them. And each of them are vast. I mean, really, mind blowingly huge. Thousands of documents, almost all of them with multiple extant versions. For most claims you come across, you CAN and frequently WILL find something which contradicts it. The Bible has no monopoly on apparent contradictions! You see the virtues of non-attachment extolled in one text, but in other texts people are told how they can ensure they will be reunited with a loved one in the next life - not necessarily as a spouse again, possibly as parent and child, or best friends, or as a faithful subject serving under a monarch or this or that. Even to be reborn as the pet of your current spouse, perhaps. But the point is such texts emphasize that not only CAN you be reunited with somebody with whom you share a bond of great love, and an emotional attachment, but that it is APPROPRIATE to try to reestablish that bond in a future life! Here is an example of such a text: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.055.than.html
There are others, and even jataka stories telling of how the Buddha's wife was a person with whom he shared many lives in one capacity or another.

As for what constitutes sexual misconduct, it is spelled out explicitly in some texts. Typically, these texts use heteronormative language directed at a male audience. That's usually the way these old scriptures go, for better or for worse. Such things as sleeping with another man's wife, sleeping with a woman who is betrothed to another, sleeping with somebody by coercive means (rape, violent or blackmail or however arrived at), sleeping with somebody still living with her parents (often interpreted as sleeping with someone below the age of consent, a minor, or something along these lines, even if it is consensual), exchanging goods for sexual activity (sex purchased or otherwise reimbursed, whether this is outright prostitution or working in pornography or what have you), and so on. Monks and nuns are prohibited from any sexual activity at all, and in the early days it is said that there were many efforts on the parts of some who couldn't give up that pleasure to find loopholes, to have sexual gratification without "having sex." The vinaya explicitly describes some of these things, condemning them as sexual - whether or not some of them fall under "sexual misconduct" for the laity may be open to debate. These range from "minor" things such as oral, anal, or manual stimulation and same sex relations to truly gut wrenching acts like bestiality or pleasuring oneself with a corpse or even a severed part of a corpse. Clearly the latter are to be understood as misconduct. However, some teachers have also credited the former acts as misconduct for the laity. For instance, at one point the current Dalai Lama taught that good Buddhists shouldn't have sex apart from heterosexual genital-genital sex - even a married couple is not to have oral sex or anal sex, and so on. I don't know for a fact, but I believe that he has more recently changed his stance on this point. And bear in mind that despite how the media may portray him, he is by no means "the Buddhist Pope" or anything. He's not even technically "the Pope" of Tibetan Buddhists, just a very high ranking monk and traditionally one in whom was vested a great deal of religious and political authority. In fact, he's not even technically the leader of his own sect, the Gelug school. But this is a digression.

As always, it is important to understand that interpretation and responsibility are key. Marriage is not a sacrament in Buddhism, and until relatively recently there weren't "Buddhist marriages." Marriages and Buddhism coexisted, and Buddhists got married, but it was not a Buddhist undertaking. However, a married Buddhist was expected to be loyal to their spouse or spouses (some men, especially powerful ones, had multiple wives, and/or concubines, but generally sleeping around with random people was discouraged - of course that doesn't mean it didn't happen, and when it did it didn't disqualify the person from being a "real" Buddhist)

A good article on one take on sexuality in Buddhism can be found here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/walshe/wheel225.html and the authors make some very good points - for instance, that the five precepts are all important, and sexual misconduct isn't some especially problematic thing that's worse than other transgressions - but neither is it less important. It's not worse than making rude comments about somebody else, but then again, that also means that making rude comments about somebody else is as bad as sexual misconduct. I think a reasonable person will agree that there are degrees of misconduct, though. For instance, it may be a problem for a 30 or 40 year old man to consensually sleep with a 17 year old high school student - but it's not likely anywhere close to as bad (karmically) as having sex with a dead animal. Another good thing to keep in mind is that Buddhism generally preaches against extremism and absolute, polarized views. In this sense, sex is no different. In a rejection of the absolute, puritanically prohibitive attitudes of some you do not end up with an endorsement of absolute permissiveness. There is a middle ground to be sought. As far as I know, there is rarely a claim that it is absolutely unallowable for two single adults to have sex with each other if they care about each other and want to do so. It may not be encouraged, but there doesn't seem to be a preoccupation with condemning people who do it and saying they will go to hell and they are terrible people who should suffer. However, you will not likely come across a widely and highly respected Buddhist monk who endorses constant sexual experience with multiple partners. I can think of one monk only who has even possibly come close to that, and he is a very polarizing and controversial figure but because enough people still have a deep reverence for him and because I don't know for a fact whether the allegations are true or not, I will not name names.

It might interest you to know in -some- tantric texts, sexual practices are explicitly encouraged. This fact causes great controversy, and there are a good number of Buddhists who claim that they are meant ONLY for very advanced practitioners to use in visualizations, after much training from a guru and initiation, etc., etc. However, the language is graphic and does say what it says, and there is plenty of sound evidence that at least SOME Buddhists in SOME places and at SOME times have engaged in sexual practices as a means of furthering their advancement toward awakening. Even when it has been carried out in the flesh, though, great importance is placed on not getting too wrapped up in it, not letting it get into the realm of a fling. You are virtually guaranteed to be unable to find a teacher who will endorse ANYTHING of the sort....but that doesn't mean that it never happens/happened.

Anyway, my personal thoughts are that a modicum of restraint is good. Nonattachment is good. I am not a monk, though, and I don't expect to be enlightened in this life. Even if it is praise worthy to try to eliminate desire from your heart, that doesn't make the experience of pleasure inherently sinful or evil. The lust, the craving - that's the problem more than the object of that craving. When that object comes along...fine. I like sex. I haven't had sex with another person in a few years. This doesn't bother me much, but I try to have restraint. If somebody comes along and it feels right, I'm not going to be concerned with whether we're married or this or that. If it happens, fine. Enjoy it. I like pizza, too. Just because I think it's best not to live my life doing everything I can to get more and more pizza doesn't mean that it's wrong to enjoy eating pizza when it's right in front of me. A desire to cut out desire is VERY different from prohibiting pleasure! Too often people say "well, I've decided to become a Buddhist, so I'm going to give up everything I like so I don't get bothered by pleasure." This, in my opinion, is a wrong attitude. The point is to neither revel in the pleasure as the sole reason to live OR to get too wrapped up in avoiding desire to be able to enjoy the good things that are bound to come our way from time to time.

If I recall, you've also mentioned smoking and drinking. I don't drink. I don't drink because I can't control my drinking when I start, and it only leads to great suffering for me even though in the short term it is very pleasant. I've tried it, and it did NOT go well for me. If you can drink without such problems as I had, and if most of the time when you drink it is only one or two beers to loosen up at a party or whatever, it's not a big deal. In fact, I've had a monk tell me "of course, sometimes you have to drink anyway, the point is just don't drink a lot and don't drink a lot in one sitting." Abstinence from alcohol appears to be a low priority for most lay Buddhists, but avoiding overindulgence is STRONGLY encouraged. I do smoke. I have, however, given up cigarettes, and stick to my pipes and cigars. I don't directly inhale the smoke, but I do enjoy the flavor and aroma and I do get nicotine. I admit it is an addiction, though I can go without it when I need to much easier than I could when I smoked cigarettes. It is a lower grade of addiction. I think it would be good to quit, but I'm not currently super concerned with it.

If you're curious about marijuana, you'll find a lot of people here with strong views about it fitting in just fine with Buddhism. I'm not going to say it can't, just like I won't say absolute abstinence from alcohol is necessary to be a good Buddhist. But I will say that I recently tried marijuana for the first time in several years - I gave it up (de facto) before I stopped drinking, by probably a few months. But it wasn't a dependence of the same magnitude as alcohol and I wanted to see if I could smoke it responsibly. I bought a half and eighth, and for the most part I was fairly responsible - that small amount lasted me a few weeks, whereas in the old days it would have lasted me a day or two at most. However, I did find it led to a lot of the problems Buddhism attributes to alcohol. It brings about slothfulness in many cases, that much is obvious. But when I indulge in cannabis, I find that though it is very, very pleasant on it's own, it GREATLY increases my appetite for other pleasures. That is, the pleasure of the cannabis isn't pleasurable enough. I also find myself with a greatly increased sexual appetite, and I find myself less concerned with moderation with food. I eat a lot, I drink a lot of soda (which I almost never drink otherwise), I don't work out as much or as well on days after indulging, and so on. While some people claim marijuana is good for meditation, I must say that for me the exact opposite is true, I find it one of the greatest obstacles to meditation that I know of. Perhaps alcohol and other drugs are worse in this regard, but I find sobriety to be all around better. Again, this doesn't have to mean that marijuana must be strictly off limits - but it isn't helpful, and can really be detrimental, especially when taken in excess, just like drinking can be bad.

As for prescription medications, if you find a Buddhist teacher who says that you can't be a good Buddhist and take the medicines that your doctors say you need to be healthy, then I think it's time to look for a different teacher. Buddhism isn't about overindulgence in anything, but neither is it about flatly rejecting any and all worldly comforts, and this CERTAINLY applies to medicine to keep you as healthy as possible. In fact, I would go so far as to say I believe a proper Buddhist attitude would acknowledge one's indebtedness to their parents, family, friends, coworkers, and society at large, and that to keep yourself healthy is fairly close to a religious obligation. To disregard your health because some teacher claims your antibiotics will keep you from ever being enlightened is, I think, foolish in the extreme. This doesn't mean that you can't be a good Buddhist without medication - some ascetics have given up medicine and become great teachers - but this is not something that is to be taught as a requirement for anybody, let alone everybody. Frankly, I think it's a dangerous and stupid thing to teach. I don't think the person mentioned is a Buddhist, though, but the point stands. If you find a monk that says you shouldn't take medicine, in my opinion you've found a charlatan.

Sorry for rambling. Brevity and I are barely on speaking terms. I hope that somebody may find it interesting if not helpful. Cheers

 

I just watched a TV Special that definitively proved that a burial mound that was built over supposedly the ashes of Buddha were in FACT the real ashes of Buddha as Buddha's ashes were split amongst the families and placed in different areas.

Buddha said that as he achieved Enlightenment that the Past, Present and Future were all the same for him or as some had put it....Buddha lived in a continual PRESENT that encompassed all aspects of Time be they past, Present or Future which is a description for those of us involved in Particle Physics and Quantum Mechanics and Space-Time Universal Dimensionality KNOW....that Time is an aspect of SPACE-TIME...you cannot have one without the other.....and....in a One Dimensional Universe or Singularity...all Points of Time and Space are THE SAME POINT.

Buddha had a few things going on for himself as his ENLIGHTENMENT was AN EPIPHANY OF KNOWLEDGE....which many of us involved in such fields of study understand very well.

TooReal

 

^ ^ this ^ ^

 

Wow, thanks everyone. To the guy whose screen name is in Korean ? I read the whole thing and enjoyed it.

 

孟=meng 天临=tianlin (in Mandarin - I'm bad with tones myself, though, so I won't bother adding those)

It's an assigned name from a Chinese language class, just a cop out for choosing a user name.

I think it's neat - the surname 孟 is the same as in 孟子(Mengzi, often referred to as Mencius in "the West" due to some odd naming conventions of the time of early European exposure to Confucian thought - European philosophers at the time frequently adopted Latin names rather than publishing under their given names, and bestowing the Latin names Confucius and Mencius upon Kongzi and Mengzi was a sign of respect for their thought, and I think they may be the only two Chinese philosophers given Latin names). Given my academic interests, I think it's an interesting choice for the surname, whether or not it was done intentionally

I'm glad you enjoyed my response, Samantha. I was afraid nobody would read it, I tend to ramble.