The Philosophy of Truth
Interestingly, there are a lot of posts on Buddhism around these days. I am a Buddhist by birth, meaning that my family is Buddhist, and I studied Buddhism in school and went to morning prayers every day at school, but I am always reluctant to say I am Buddhist. I was brought up in a fairly secular manner, meaning religion didn’t factor into my every day life, but also with exposure to all types of religion. I go to church on Chritsmas Day with my mother’s best friend and her family, and I have been taken to Hindu kovils many times too, all over the country and in India too, I’ve gone to masses and services and memorials with friends. I had the Puffin Book of Bible Stories for Children when I was little, and this great book on Jerusalem and Judaism and have read a lot of the bible in more recent years. Although I have never been directly involved with any Muslim rites or customs, I have tried to educate myself as much as possible as an adult, and have taken a great interest in reading and finding out more. My family, mainly because of my grandmother, has been pretty actively involved in ‘being Buddhist’. We go to temple and have alms givings etc. I enjoy all these customs and traditions. I don’t believe doing them is necessary to be a Buddhist, but I think they’re important. My grandfather was an academic and an Atheist and he disagreed with the concept of organised religion. But he adored my grandmother. I remember him driving her to temple, but then waiting in the car until she was done.
In Sri Lanka, religion is a pretty big deal. People actually ask you “What religion are you?” just as regularly as “Where do you work?” or “What school did you go to?”. I used to answer “Buddhist” without batting an eyelid when I was small, but now I do that less and with more reluctance. It has come to the point where I say “I’m an atheist, and I’m trying to be a Buddhist”. I say this because it is only now that I am consciously trying. And it’s harder than I thought. Of course, in Sri Lanka being a Buddhist means something very different from actually being Buddhist. We are mostly preoccupied with the rites and rituals, and are less interested in the philosophy itself. In school, they don’t really teach you the important stuff and the value of Buddhism as a philosophy. They teach you everything from how women should sit in front of priests to who the great ‘heroes’ of Buddhism are, but they leave out the best, and the hardest, bits.
In theory, Buddhism is really easy to understand because it is very practical. It’s neither optimistic nor pessimistic, instead it is utterly realistic. It’s about the truth. But Buddhism is harder to practice than most people think, because it’s about resisting the human mind’s most natural urges.
In more recent years, I have started reading about Buddhism extensively. I want to educate myself as much as possible, and in doing so, I am also trying to practice in whatever way I can. There is a comment on this post which says that the post is offensive to Buddhists and is written by an Atheist, who wouldn’t understand. Now every Buddhist is an Atheist, essentially. Atheism means the denial of the existence of a supreme being or beings, or, in other words believing that God or gods do not exist. In Sri Lanka, there is some suspicious connection between Buddhism and Hinduism and a lot of average Sri Lankans who are Buddhists still engage in worshipping the gods, making vows to them or dashing coconuts as curses against those they hate.
It’s interesting, but as far as I know, these ‘beliefs’ are fundamentally the opposite of what Buddhism teaches. And that to me is one of the most interesting things about Buddhism, is that there is no ‘faith’ factor, as such. It is not a belief. It is not a faith. Just as Atheism is not. For example, it’s not that I don’t believe that God exists, I know He doesn’t. Much in the same way, Buddhism doesn’t require faith, but more actual understanding. It’s a science, almost.
Another interesting and unique about Buddhism is that it doesn’t have morality. There is no ‘good’ and ‘bad’. There is only the truth, and the development of the mind to a point where you see the truth. If you have chosen Nirvana as your goal, and indeed it’s not for everyone, but if you have chosen that path then you can use the guidelines in the Buddha’s method and philosophy to reach it. Buddhism does not by any means undermine other ways of living. It only shows you the method of one way of living: the terms and conditions are clear and the results you can expect are also clear. And if you wish for those results, if you choose that way of life, then you have clear guidelines on how to do it. Hence there is no ‘good’ and ‘bad’, only things that will further you on that path to Nirvana, and things that will distract you from it and hinder your journey to achieving Nirvana. Hitler only had 11 million people killed because he thought they were a lesser species: a good example of the underdevelopment of the mind. If his mind had been developed enough, he would have known ‘the truth’, which is that those 11 million were not inferior. Hence, there is no sin as such, only focus and distraction, the truth and the fogging of the mind that clouds the truth, and the knowledge with which to fight this old, familiar fog.
Buddhism, in essence, is about ‘letting go’. Achieving a higher state of being through meditation requires one to categorically and strategically acknowledge and let go everything in one’s life: problems, achievements, loves, hates, family, friends, property, position, wealth, jealousies, relationships. To develop one’s mind to such a point where one is unaffected by everything, because if one can see the truth, one can see everything for what it actually is: impermanent. If one is totally unaffected, then there is no suffering. Describing the actual stages of achieving Nirvana, or the higher states of mind that are stepping stones to it (Sovahan, Rahath), the Buddha said one must let go of everything in this life. Once that has truly been achieved, one will gain the power to see into previous lives and let go of everything in those lives too. Only then can one move on to total freedom and bliss.
Buddhism is perhaps the only mainstream ‘religion’ followed even today (correct me if I am wrong) that is based totally and utterly on the actual real-life experiences of one man, and not on any abstract concepts or dodgy ideals. He acknowledged the suffering of man, and went on a mission to free himself of it. When he found enlightenment, he shared it with the world. He actually went out there and explored it himself, and experienced it himself and then told people ‘Hey, look, I tried it and it worked for me, I can teach you the method if you want, and it could work for you, too’. Which is the brilliance of it: tried and tested, with proven results, open to anybody!
Therefore Buddhism encourages us to do the same, to doubt and to wonder and to go out there and discover it ourselves. It encourages questioning, and the garnering of knowledge and wisdom through constant debate and education. It encourages one to think for himself, just as the Buddha did, and not follow blindly or unquestioningly.
The other question often raised is whether we, in our time, will ever be able to achieve Nirvana or whether the world will get to see the emergence of another Buddha. From what I’ve read, it is possible. There is nothing to stop one from achieving Nirvana if one wishes to do so. It’s not reserved for any particular people. It’s open to anyone who will commit to it.
It doesn’t take a God or a supernatural being to achieve Nirvana. After all, the Buddha was human, just a man.
There are some issues with the concept of Morality within the variations of Buddhism. Taoism and Dzogchen state that good and evil are different sides of the same coin. A coin which inhibits the silence of the mind, and as you said correctly is a hindrance to nibbana.
Yet classical theravada buddhism speaks of an all-compassionate Buddha. The discussion in my post made me realize that this contradiction is the cause of all my questions.
Btw, if you’re ready to achieve Nirvana in this lifetime, you should consider reading Eckhart Tolle.
Comment by Me — May 6, 2009 @ 2:55 pm
buddhism is a religion in spite of its claim to otherwise.
it ultimately depends on belief in what are in effect supernatural phenomena .
its so called philosophy is pretty weak and full of logical holes if you take away the reincarnation and karmic cycle (both of which fall in to same category as god in other religions.). and in spite of your statement it is full of abstract claims.
all one has to ask ( tough there are other questions too) to invalidate the so called buddhist philosophy; why not suicide? why live? if the world is all that buddha says it is.
buddhists who claim it is a philosophy do not want to answer this in a honest way, as they should if it is a rational philosophy .
in the end when it comes to buddhism you can have either a religion or a silly philosophy? most ppl select the former ( though they claim otherwise ) you claim to select the latter ( but don’t want to face the silliness)
Comment by sittingnut — May 6, 2009 @ 5:11 pm
Buddhism as it is practiced in SL is very much an organized religion, but then that is probably unavoidable. Buddhist philosophy however is something totally different. My favourite part about Buddhism is that the Buddha asked his followers to not accept his teachings blindly and instead to question them and experience them for themselves. Something that in other religions would result in your head being cut off…well metaphorically speaking at least.
Comment by n — May 7, 2009 @ 4:02 am
unfortunately if one asks “why not suicide? why live? if the world is all that buddha says it is.” and similar questions not much buddhist philosophy remains to follow.
so if there are any followers of “buddhist philosophy” they are indeed blind and unquestioning .
Comment by sittingnut — May 7, 2009 @ 6:05 am
sittingnut: As usual, you have missed the point deliberately. Suicide obviously is not the answer, because it would not end suffering. It would end this life, but then it will just lead to another where you will suffer. It is not unfamiliar that people call Buddhism pessimistic, but like I said, it’s neither falsely optimistic or falsely pessimistic. It’s realistic. It’s always hard to accept the reality, especially when it tells us that everything we love and hold dear is just a passing thing. Humans have an inherent attachment to life, we have the survival instinct built into us, this is why the Buddhist philosophy of life=suffering is hard to come to terms with. Again, like I said, this is only one way of life. It is by no means advocated as the ONLY way of life. It is the path one might take if one is deeply discontent and sees that all is impermanent and therefore attachment will inevitably lead to pain. Remember that this wasn’t pointed out to Siddhartha. He was merely deeply personally unsatisfied and wanted answers. Like him, I’m sure there are others who sometimes wonder how to end the suffering. This practice and method is for those of us who want it. It is certainly not for everyone, I admit that.
Comment by electra — May 7, 2009 @ 7:34 am
Also, I don’t want anyone to think that I am advocating Buddhism as the best religion ever. Like I mentioned, I respect all religions have grown up with them all. I made this post actually as an academic look at Buddhism and why it is intellectually interesting.
Comment by electra — May 7, 2009 @ 7:44 am
so, here is THE question for the two of you.
SNUT and Electra, would you two marry each other eventually ?
The chemistry is undeniable and both of you are so into each other. oooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
SNUT and Electra
sitting on tree
kiss
first comes ring and
then comes suffering
kiss.
seriously, you two seem to follow each other quite a lot for two people who hate each other so much.
This is typical romance novel in the making.
Comment by Anna — May 7, 2009 @ 11:11 am
Hey sittingnut, Buddhism is the art of committing mental suicide. Didn’t you know this?
Comment by prasad — May 7, 2009 @ 10:29 pm
Hello Bodhisattvas, may you see yourselves.
Comment by Kalusudda — May 9, 2009 @ 7:15 am
electra-
“Buddhism encourages us to … doubt and to wonder and to go out there and discover it ourselves… and not follow blindly or unquestioningly.”
Buddhism *says* it does, but in truth, it does not. Buddhism lies, like any other religion, to suit its own agenda. Consider: what of Buddhism is being doubted today? On a daily basis, how many Buddhists doubt or question the theory or practice of Buddhism? Buddhism is built on conformity, like any other religion, except Buddhists are also expected to conform to the idea that they are intellectually curious doubters and questioners. A neat rhetorical trick, perhaps, but not much else besides.
For example, you believe in reincarnation. As sittingnut points out, reincarnation is unnecessary. It is a crass supernatural idea, alongside gods and fairies and so forth, and it has no relevance to Buddhist theory per se. That is, Buddhist ideas can be interpreted in the context of the real world (the world where people have only one life) and in my view, modern-day Buddhists would lose nothing (and gain much) in doing so. Then also, such an interpretation would have to adapt and correct many of the malformed ideas that surround the “reincarnation” concept, such as “karma”, “heaven”, “hell”, “sin”, “nirvana” and so forth. There is clearly enough intellectual work here for a generation or two of doubting, questioning, discovery-oriented young Buddhists. The dross of the last century of cobbled-together Buddhism could be cleared out, and perhaps a new Buddhism could emerge, one that could justify its claims to humanism and compassion.
And yet this has not happened, and is highly unlikely to happen. I can’t imagine Buddhists debating or considering even such a simple thing, because Buddhists are just as hidebound traditionalists as the members of any other religion.
You have doubted nothing, and questioned nothing. And therefore, of course, you are a perfect Buddhist.
Comment by Nick — May 12, 2009 @ 4:44 pm
Nick: I think you’re right in that people that supposedly practice Buddhism don’t question and doubt. But let’s not blame the game, only the player. Sure, many Buddhist (particularly) in Sri Lanka blindly follow what they are taught by monks etc. But Buddhism as a philosophy does encourage one to experience and discover things for oneself: that’s what the whole theory of Nirvana is based on. It encourages one to question life and purpose and the meaning of life, as well as it’s own explanations and methods. Just because Buddhists today do not do so, it is not a failing or a lie on the part of the Dhamma. Many ‘Buddhists’ do not do many things right, in that case: even the most core, fundamental practices such as meditation only come second to engaging in the customs such as going to temple and not consuming alcohol or meat on Poya day! People don’t do a lot of things right, Nick, but that’s not to say it’s the fault of those things themselves.
And, I have doubted. A lot. I have questioned. It was through all this doubting and questioning that I have independently come to think that maybe Buddhist philosophy has some of the most plausible solutions. I am still not certain it is ‘the’ way, but it certainly seems the most rational and practical of all the ‘ways’ out there. I am still doubting and questioning, so I continue to read and absorb and seek. When and if I ever come to final conclusion, I’ll let you know.
Comment by electra — May 12, 2009 @ 6:32 pm
Allow me to wish you good luck in your spiritual search then. We obviously disagree nearly completely on the matter of Buddhism: not least of all this idea -also espoused by others in this thread- that there is a perfect Buddhism which nobody follows, and an imperfect Buddhism which everybody follows. They cannot be separated from each other, the former being merely the glossy brochure for the latter. But our disagreement on this matter is probably too severe for me to persuade you of this.
Since you intend to research, however, do consider this as an alternative perspective: religions (including Buddhism) are political and ideological, and deserve to be evaluated with the same critical eye that you might bring to -for example- the policies of your government. Not the tedious mahanayakes etc., which is obvious anyway -I’m referring to the ‘philosophy’ of Buddhism itself, the thing that you speak of as the perfect Buddhism that nobody follows. It has as many agendas and semantic flaws as your average headline article in the Island or the Daily News. When you say things like “Buddhism as a philosophy does encourage one to experience and discover things for oneself”, you’re repeating a propaganda headline without realising it.
Comment by Nick — May 13, 2009 @ 4:36 pm
buddhism is a religion in spite of its claim to otherwise.
Comment by buddha statue — June 12, 2009 @ 8:44 am
good luck to everyone
Comment by buddhist amulet — September 10, 2009 @ 7:04 am