Siddhartha taught independent spirituality?

Of course when I posted my ideas about this on e-sangha, the largest online community of buddhists on the net, it was roundly jeered by most of the community (how very 'buddhist' and tolerant of them I thought!). More concerning was the fact I was personally and agressively attacked by a few for expressing these views.

The basis for my argument can probably be summed up in the (in my opinion) fairly groundbreaking book by Stephen Batchelor "Buddhism without beliefs". But I have a lot to add to his ideas.

Firstly, I think it's necessary to seperate the rational and testable from 'blind faith'. Why? Because 'blind faith' is one of the greatest enemies of man and to spiritual progress. It relies on accepting notions deep down you do not feel comfortable with or out right disbelieve. It damages natural intuition. It is therefore directly leading us away from our own personal spiritual search. That is what spirituality is about, it's a search to answer questions and an intuitive calling inside of you. That's very special.

This doesn't mean of course to only believe what we can percieve with our own 5 senses, because we know there is much we cannot see but has been proven to exist through observation (looking at things differently) and methods such as science (so we need to stay open minded, yet not accept notions that don't feel right...Perhaps very hard to achieve this balance). These things are supported by a workable proven theory.

So what does this attitude (admittedly agnostic) mean when applied to buddhism (or any religion for that matter)?

Unfortunately most Buddhists believe that whatever came out of Buddhas mouth is absolute truth (is there such a thing as absolute universal truth?) and that it cannot be questioned because he is the 'enlightened one' the 'perfect one' etc. This is where I feel buddhas teachings are contradicted, he said repeatedly that all teachings should be questioned and the meaning sought out by the individual, not accepted on faith...Could we take this one step further and say that Buddha was laying out a challenge to us? He was inviting us to question everything he said in an attempt to stir up and nurture that intuition inside us? Did he know what we'd do to his teachings (institutionalise them, aka turn them into religion based on blind faith) and how we'd react? Also, it's almost certain that his teachings have been altered and have 'decayed' and been manipulated by man over the long years (Just look at the Mahayana suttas, added hundreds of years after buddhas death, continually), so can we still accept them unquestionably? Of course not. They are going to have flaws and imperfections. Intellectualisms and concepts can never be perfect because they are just that; concepts. At best guiding means, not absolute truth.
Again, I think reliance on the suttas and scriptures is completely contradictory to what buddha taught, he taught the contary as a reaction to the reliance of brahmic scriptures of the day. He emphasised us not to rely on scriptures but to focus on experience.
He realised that what he said would be misinterpreted. He knew that his teachings would be institutionalised by states to control populations, that they would be, after a time, blindly accepted by people. People forget that he never really claimed to be a creator god. He was an ordinary guy, nothing mystical about it. This was why he didn't name a successor when on his death bed, he said simply the teachings would be the successor. I think the relevance in that is dramatically overlooked; "Here is the guide, now work it out for yourself without relying on gurus or institutions!"
He was a real pioneer and a radical in his time, and that eventually lead him to peace and happiness (whatever your views on 'nirvana'). He used to his own intuition in the face of great criticism.
Of course you suggest any of this to traditional buddhists and they'll scorn you and still argue that buddha was a mystical being who's teachings are perfect and uncorruptable.
They will take points from the scriptures that tell of buddha having buddhist teachers in past lives and assailing from a heavenly realm to 'earth', as well as stories of supernatural abilities (Buddha got up and walked as a newborn baby and spoke of his purpose) and believe this without question.
But what seperates these mystical concepts from concepts such as karma and dukkha (dissatisfcation/suffering) is that they cannot be observed or tested for validity, or do they have a theory tying it in with the rest of the teachings.
We can take concepts such as the six realms of existence but can quite easily see what they are trying to say without believing in these metaphysical realms literately. The meaning is quite clear if you think about it (they represent mind sets but were probably modified to be presented in this way to help with understanding of the teachings, instead the opposite has happened).
But the notions of karma and dukkha are much easier to comprehend. A very basic understanding of dukkha can be grasped by observation. You have a favourite food, say chocolate ice cream, but you try eating just chocolate ice cream for a few days you'll end up loathing the ice cream! Dissatisfaction. There's nothing mystical about this, it just makes sense. You can apply this to sexual desire, drug use, anything that is craved. It also fits into the rest of the wider theory of impermanence and emptiness. Similary, we can look at karma like this; You go around with lots of anger, hate, jealousy inside you , you commit negative destructive acts, the result is that you will not have much peace or satisfaction or happiness inside you..People argue, but what about dictators who kill and torture and rape but who are wealthy, eating luxorious foods and get whatever they want? They are comitting negative acts but are getting seemingly positive results. But surely they cannot be satisfied because all of this is material? Soon they get sick of eating there luxiorous food (dukkha), they have trouble sleeping at night, they are constantly worried about being asassinated, they are worrying about how to spend there wealth etc etc.

Of course not all of it makes sense. Concepts such as reincarnation/rebirth aren't as easy. The main argument is that if buddhists believe that there is no-self then what is there to be reborn? So is the popular notion (especially in Tibetan Buddhism, with the bardos and the notion that suggests transmigration of something into another body) to be accepted? Or should we work it out for ourselves or just reject the whole idea? Does it matter to the rest of the teachings and philosophy? In this case, not really.

We only have to look at SE Asian countries to see how 'buddhism', the religious institution, isn't what the buddha taught...I have spoken about this before here I know, but let me give examples again; The 'Karma for sale' concept; People capture birds , put them in cages, then people pay to set them free. I wonder what Siddhartha would've thought of this?
The parents sending their kids to become novice monks just to get them an education in countries like Laos. The gold/diamond incrusted Buddha statues as objects of worship...You have to wonder at what point it all went wrong!

Maybe when buddhism became buddhism?

 

When a person thought that being religious meant something. Religion takes a socioeconomic role in most societies as the rallying and bonding point of the community. In this way it also has usefulness. One should not inquire as to whethedr the form of practice has a right to exist, but rather, enjoy the religion which satisfies all who follow it, in whatever way. This is amazing!

 

Here's my take on the whole thing: The Buddha was an all knowning person who "knew" how to reach individuals and sometimes he had to contradict what he said to "Joe" so that "Steve" would understand. People are different and they need to hear different things to get to the same place. It's like a spiritual road map. Let's say "Joe" is lost in the woods while "Steve" is fishing on the sea and they are both trying to reach a desert oasis. Of course they would be given different directions to take to get to the same place. Does this make sense?

That's what I find so amazing about Buddhism. You take the teachings that help you and ignore the rest that do not benefit you. In my opinion, there are no absolute truths b/c the Buddha never preached in absolutisms. Buddha was about living the journey, but he had helpful information about how to get to the destination. It's our choice to follow the advice that is relevant to our situation.

I hope I made sense and you folks can follow my philosophical ramblings. More on the subject later, if you guys wanna!

Peace and love

 

Well yeah, exactly...But most buddhists would seem to disagree with us. We are very much in the minority but I think as buddhism comes to the west maybe its slowly regaining it's agnostic edge. I dont know. There definitely seems to be a large division between 'religious/traditionalist' buddhists and 'agnostic buddhists' from what i've seen and heard...Sometimes the arguments can get quite nasty (not pointing fingers but it does seem to come mostly from the traditionalists who feel there religion is under threat!).

 

I've never encountered such hostilities. I am sorry that you have. Buddhism is supposed to be a philosophy of tolerence and acceptance.

Peace and love

 

Yeah, supposedly.

 

I agree, maybe not with all your reasons, but I definatly believe that Buddha taught independant spirtuality. One thing I really like about eastren religons is that they tend to see that the spirtual expericence is a private search and unquie to each one searching. Though all seek the universal truth, each only has thier own reasonings, mediations, and some loose guides called religons.

 

Very cool thread, guy!


Will have to think a bit about this one.

 

Yes.

Whatever being enlightened is, it is an individual state, by definition. It resides within each person, not in groups. Spirituality is independent for each person. That is, each person will decide what it means for himself or herself.

If they do not decide for themselves what it means but merely accept the word of another simply as an authority figure in an organised religion, it is not individual realisation, it is conformity. Enlightenment is not conformity. It is not an organised group event or social structure.

Buddhism has become populated with people who wish for organised religion and this is understandable. It gives a feeling of belonging and safety. Yet the transition from follower to aspirant to enlightenment is of the individual realising for himself or herself that the only teaching is the living, infinite inspriation and intelligence within himself or herself. All realised beings must have attained independence spiritually at some point to be realised, by definition.

Peace and love
Jnanic

 

Very well put. Thank you all for your feedback.

 

I'm in about the same situation, Peterness. Have you read Stephen Batchelor's "Buddhism Without Beliefs"? I enjoyed it, it settled some of those issues for me.