by Jerry Kolber<\/i><\/p>\n
I am going to continue exploring where I Buddha was careful to not present dogma, or rules, or external authority; his techniques simply create a mental This is what the Buddha discovered, and he offers a pathway to discovering it for yourself. It isn’t religion, or Buddha offers a path for anyone who seeks to walk it, regardless of other beliefs; religion sometimes offers a beautiful path, but it is most often in a gated community. There is no creator posited in the core teachings of the Buddha – but he And so if there is a God, it is you, even This leads to the inevitable conclusion The fact that Buddha himself was careful Because Buddhism, by default, has been I’m So before you start piling on, ask by Jerry Kolber I am going to continue exploring where I left off last week with my question: is Buddhism a religion or a way to approach living? The ONLY reason I think this question matters is that the ideas that the Buddha presented 2,000 years ago – a path to non-violence, compassion, mindfulness, and…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":191,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-822","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-buddhism","category-hardcore-dharma"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nleft off last week <\/a>with my question: is Buddhism<\/a> a religion or a way to approach
\nliving? <\/span>The ONLY reason I think this
\nquestion matters is that the ideas that the Buddha presented 2,000 years ago –
\na path to non-violence, compassion, mindfulness, and “right” behavior
\n– are urgently relevant to our world today, and I have encountered no other
\nsystem of personal exploration that offers such a straightforward approach to
\nliberating one’s mind from a swamp of craving and grasping. <\/span>Unfortunately inaccurately calling the system
\nwe refer to as Buddhism a religion means that a huge portion of the world’s
\npopulation will never bother to explore the teachings, because they already have
\na religion.
\nBut back to why this matters. I see little likelihood that people who have not
\nlearned to at least make a real effort to be present, in this moment, have any
\nchance of long-term implementation of the behavior changes we need to stop
\nrecklessly destroying our own mental and physical environment. <\/span>Talking about “saving the planet” or “personal\/communal evolution”
\nwith a list of actions to do and behavior (and lightbulbs) to change, without
\nthe tools to internally calibrate your mind to how to ACTUALLY change your
\nbehavior, is no different than buying plans for a house and a set of tools and
\nhoping you can build it with absolutely no training or instruction in
\ncarpentry, electrical work, or plumbing.
\n<\/span>You’re just going to end up making a mess of things. <\/p>\n
\nenvironment in which you are far more free to make informed choices about your
\nown behavior, by showing you where your own mind is stuck in habitual grooves and
\nshining a light on the tricks of your ego.<\/p>\n
\nThe Buddha’s teachings offer a uniquely
\nuseful way to learn to take responsibility for your own mind, your own actions,
\nand your effect in the world. We start from the basic assumption that all acts
\nof destruction and violence stem from desire, which leads to craving. <\/span>Craving happens when you drift from the
\npresent moment, because the present moment is pure, complete, thick, and
\ninseparable from “you”. You are in the present moment, and alive, and
\ncompete – there is nothing wanting in the present moment. <\/span>Leaving this moment by wanting, desiring,
\nregretting, or fantasizing will by definition lead you to crave, to
\ndissatisfaction, because you have left the only place in the timeline (THIS
\nmoment) that truly offers satisfaction and completion. <\/p>\n
\nnew age stuff – it’s hardcore, on the ground, slap in the face and wake you up to reality stuff.
\nMost religions require that you believe
\nthere is a god or gods, said god(s) who created earth and the universe and all
\ncreatures in it, and that this god(s) also created your religion – and that
\nfollowing god(s) rules will lead to a good outcome in this world, and the next.
\nThe creation myth at the center of each religion is challenging, because it
\ntakes both a broad view – God created everything; and it simultaneously takes a
\nnarrow view – THIS religion is the one true way. <\/span>Even the most tolerant religions, when pushed
\nto the edge, have to say that their religion is accurate and their creation
\nstory accurate and their description of God correct, because to say otherwise
\nwould unravel the very fabric of the religion. <\/p>\n
\nThis is why people fight in the name of
\nreligion – this identity with creation myth and god-identity can be so central to a person’s
\nlife that it becomes impossible to tolerate someone taking an opposing view.
\nSometimes innocent belief becomes twisted into an idea that true allegiance to
\nthe god(s) requires destroying as many non-believers as possible. The fact
\ncannot be avoided that with all the religions on planet Earth, most of them chosen not by logic but by birth, we essentially have numerous bloodline tribes,
\neach with their own belief system, and not all of them (if any) can be
\nright.
\nWhere major world religions begin with
\ncreation myths, creators, and assertions that “this religion” is the
\nright way because that religion’s creator made it so, Buddha begins from
\nrecognizing the common traits of the human condition and offering a precise,
\nlogical, almost clinical, prescription for how to overcome this basic
\ndissatisfaction. In the process you will likely become a more compassionate, less
\nviolent, less destructive human being.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\ndoes not expressly say there wasn’t one.
\n<\/span>You might postulate that to him, in this present moment, the human
\ncondition at this moment alone is the only thing that matters, and to concern
\nhimself with gods, creators, and the past was the opposite of what he was
\nteaching, no different than concerning himself with how well he slept last
\nnight or whether to have red or white wine with dinner. It’s not an error of
\nomission – it’s an omission of the unnecessary.
\nPut another way, Buddhism followed to the
\nlogical conclusion suggests that you are inextricably linked with everything
\nelse in this present moment – there is no “you”, there <\/span>is just “moment” which includes
\n“you” and everything else in this moment, and so you by definition are
\nalso everything that you usually consider “not you” (including, for
\ninstance, trees, beer, and God) – “you” cannot be “removed” from the
\npresent moment without making it not the present moment anymore. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nthough you are not God. <\/span>More to the
\npoint – you can follow what the Buddha taught, and also believe in God, or not
\nbelieve in God, or not care either way – it doesn’t matter. <\/span>It doesn’t matter because it’s totally
\nirrelevant to your experience of the present moment. When you start to really
\npay attention to everything that’s NOT happening between your thoughts, even if it’s
\nonly for a tiny fraction of a second, you have started truly taking responsibility for
\nbeing right here, right now, and to stop worrying about all kinds of stuff that’s
\ntotally out of your control.
\nThough Buddha’s teachings migrated to and
\nwere adopted by various cultures and people throughout history – including many
\nof us in the West today – the whole myriad of theistic and non-theistic
\nBuddhist traditions are collectively called Buddhism. <\/span><\/p>\n
\n(because God always wins these arguments) that because some Buddhist traditions
\nhave incorporated deities and theism into the teachings, therefore only
\nBuddhists who incorporate deities and theism into their practice are “true
\nBuddhists” and everything else is just a light. And just like every other
\nhighly codified religion, there are Buddhist lineages that include gods, that
\nhave run into the same problems that other religions do – smacking face first against the wall of
\ndefensibility.
\nBut the fact that you can
\nbe Buddhist without having to follow one of those lineages – you can follow
\nBuddha’s teachings and believe or not believe in God – is an important point.
\nCan you be Christian and not believe in that religions description of
\nGod?Jewish? Muslim? You cannot. <\/span>Buddhism
\nuniquely does not present a unified version of god(s) – because god(s) are not
\nessential to the practice.<\/p>\n
\n– in a time when theistic religions were all the rage – to neither embrace nor
\nreject the existence of god(s) is not a winning argument with those who want to
\ndig in and label Buddhism as a religion, to the detriment of the accessibility
\nof the Buddha’s teachings. They often seem more interested in defending the
\nparticular cultural attachments that THEY have decided are “truly Buddhism”
\nthan they are in the actual teachings of the Buddha himself.
\nWhen confronted by a non-Asian person with
\nthe unassailable fact the Buddha himself so precisely did not accept or reject
\nthe presence of god, they often claim racism, imperialism, even ignorance. <\/span>But this does not change one simple thing. For Buddha’s teachings to work, no god is necessary – no creator, no higher power –
\nsimply the desire to evolve your mind away from craving and into
\nnon-craving. <\/span>This is not a rejection of
\ngod or religion – Buddha’s teaching are not theist, nor are they atheist. <\/span>Though most of the people who practice
\nBuddhism today do so exclusively (largely because of the label of religion),
\nthere is no reason to presume that his teachings are incompatible with
\nfollowing a religion like Judaism or Christianity. Though his teachings may
\nlead a religious person to a different understanding of themselves and their
\nrelationship to god, I would consider that a deepening of spirituality rather
\nthan a contradiction.<\/p>\n
\ndescribed as a religion, it is unlikely to achieve the kind of widespread
\nacceptance that the Buddha’s teachings would require in order to achieve the
\nkind of sea change our world so badly needs, from a mindset of selfishness to
\none of selflessness (or at least less-selfishness).
\nI know, based on last week’s response, that I’m going to get comments
\nthat start with “What a load of crap, I don’t know where to
\nbegin” <\/span>or “Another ignorant
\npost from the Interdependence Project” or “Let me tell you why you’re
\nwrong”. <\/span>But I’m not writing this to
\nstart a fight or to push buttons. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nwriting this because my personal experience with Buddhist teachings has been so
\ntransformative and relevant and provided so many specific tools to “build
\na new house” in my mind, one that is indisputably creating better
\nconditions for myself and others on this planet. I cannot take credit for this
\nchange – I must credit practicing Buddhism for beginning to reveal something that was
\nalready within me, and within everyone.
\nI only came to study
\nthe practice because I fortunately live in a cool spot and happened to stumble
\non a community who also saw the value in applying Buddha’s teachings to our
\ndaily urban lives. <\/span>I think it’s a huge
\nshame that his teachings will remain unavailable to so many people who could
\nbenefit from them, simply because a large portion of the Buddhist community is
\nso attached to a label.<\/p>\n
\nyourself this – if you are taking the position that Buddhism absolutely is a
\nreligion, and I am taking a position that Buddhism does not have to be a
\nreligion but can be practiced as one if you choose to follow a religion based
\non the Buddha’s teachings, <\/span>why does my
\ninclusionary approach cause you such stress? And those of you that agree, or have a personal experience with an overlap between Buddhism and religion, please share your stories too.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"