Balancing Practice and Beliefs in Buddhism

The Watercooler
1

I’ve been reflecting on how Buddhist practice can greatly support attention, mindfulness, and ethical development. Some authors I admire highlight these strengths, yet also note potential tensions with some core teachings, like the idea that the highest good is total renunciation or cessation of existence. I am thinking for example of some authors who felt their duty was to engage more actively with the world in order to live “a good life”, so to speak.

My question is: is it possible to engage deeply with Buddhist practice, by valuing its ethical and meditative aspects, while selectively distancing oneself from certain doctrinal points that feel difficult to embrace, at least to those of us who have had a Western upbringing and education? Or would that be just a kind of cherry-picking of the teachings, that the Buddha would have advised against?

For example in Christianity it is easy to argue that if God exists, then you should accept all of the Bible’s teachings, and not just pick the ones you like, as if you knew better than God.

Is Buddhism, instead, compatible with the idea of following some of the Buddha’s (mainly practical) teachings for psychological well-being and ethical development, without necessarily believing in (or adhering to) the ultimate goals it posits or in its world view?

2

Yes, renunciation is hard!

The Buddha taught the gradual path, from generosity and ethics through to renunciation and enlightenment.

If you’re not ready for the higher steps yet, it’s actually good to be honest about that and just do the best you can where you’re at: better than pretending! Just keep in mind that the Buddha offered more in case you ever become ready for it and don’t disparage those who are striving for nibbāna, that’s all.

If you’re still working on algebra, it’s actually correct to set aside the calculus books for now.

4 Likes
3

I can imagine that renunciation can be very hard.

I was thinking however more from an intellectual/philosophical standpoint. Besides the idea that social engagement is good and that we should actively give back to society in order to live a good life, in the West one often associates religion with a sense of “awe” or reverence for existence. These attitudes seem incompatible with the world view of EBT, where existence is ultimately a mistake, and we should seize the opportunity our human life affords us to do the most we can do to escape from it.

So yes of course I would not be judgmental of those who embrace these EBT attitudes but I am wondering if one can just take the practical teachings and benefit from them, whilst believing in the value of social engagement and the ultimate inherent worth of existence. The way I see it the worth of existence is not something which can be decided after the empirical observation of how much pleasure there is versus suffering; it is instead something that precedes that observation and that we feel in our heart. Although I guess someone may argue that I was just conditioned to feel like that.

1 Like
4

Hi,

The premise of the question indicates a seeking for relief from physical and psychological pain and suffering, yes?

If so, then the Buddha stated that his teachings are directly about that and are ultimately not limited to temporary relief(s), but to complete cessation of all that.

It’s like suffering from an abscess. There can be measures like pain relievers and partial drainage to offer some relief but the abscess, the fundamental problem, remains. It’s only by fully excising the abscess that one is cured.

Same with dukkha. One can choose to practice the Dhamma in whatever way one wishes to. However, restricting the practice to those teachings that are currently practical and appealing is like partially draining the abscess. And of course we can start there. But as one engages more fully with the practice and teachings other opportunities and insights arise and one moves into a life path that inclines to a cure, rather than temporizing measures.

Since you said you’re invested in Western philosophy, it may help to view the teachings as in some ways similar, though not identical to, Phenomenology and Instrumentalism. The Buddha’s teachings are in a sense more experiential (but certainly not limited to one’s opinions) in orientation than ontological. What we know and experience directly is via the six senses (SN35.23), including how the mind puts together a “story” from sense data and the conditioned responses – usually with desire, aversion, or delusion. And marinating in that experientially = dukkha.

In all this, there is no fundamental controller/God. Just causes and conditions. As in DN15. Some causes/conditions lead to more craving, aversion, and ignorance, to more dukkha. Some lead to a gradual lessening, to letting go, to less and less craving and ignorance, until the final cessation of all dukkha and conditions.

7 Likes
5

I think at first, it’s a good idea to meet any tradition where they are, with an open heart and contemplation, be it Buddhistic, Theistic, or otherwise. :slight_smile:

For example, without the idea of Rebirth, practising certain strands of Buddhism doesn’t make sense seeing how suicide would be preferable to existence, within that particular framework.

With that said, I think you’d have difficulty finding as many different (and oftentimes incompatible) traditions under a certain umbrella, as “Buddhism” seems to contain. :slight_smile:

And still, the one thing they all agree on, is the larger framework itself: They’re usually surgical descriptions of what the problem is, and how to fix it.

So, without a firm grasp of what they’re attempting to define as the problem, and what they’re offering as a solution, doing “pick and choose” might be ill advisable.

While I’m open to secular reinterpretations in general, for example perhaps another pitfall is jumping straight into advanced meditation techniques while ignoring the Ethical grounding, which can quite literally result in delusions and psychoses.

One of the most lucid “bare bones” re-interpretations of EBTs is from a Theravādin bhikkhu from Thailand, Ven. Bhaddacak, who notes in his Buddhism as a Model of Self Development:

When we really understand things critically, we cannot help rejecting things not conforming to what we hold as true.

Still, many things in Buddhism survive the bomb of critical thinking, and we can apply them to our contemporary life.

I think his approach is one of the soundest non-metaphysical modelling of Buddhism. From there, you can start to tackle the “other” elements - karma, rebirth, so on and so forth.

While ever open to the possibility that our certain preferred tradition or teacher might just be wrong, I think it’s a good practice to acquint oneself with some of the wider, diverse strands of traditions, if only for the practice of ehipassiko - to see for yourself what truly works and what doesn’t. :slight_smile:

3 Likes
6

This is a very good point and somewhat related to what I have been reflecting upon. I gather that the problem you mention is the problem of suffering. So in a way I could rephrase my thoughts in this way: Buddhism seems to be helpful in affording mental clarity, serenity, relief from mental suffering/stress etc. However, unlike other religions (assuming one considers Buddhism a religion and not say a form of ultimate psychotherapy) it does not really provide any goals nor values beyond one’s cessation of suffering. In the West at least one would want to attain some level of health (mental and physical) so that they can then do other things: I was watching the movie Chariots of fire the other day and one of the characters was running in the Olympics and won a gold medal , and for him this was a way to honour God. In the Christian world view, if you have a gift even in a worldy field like running, cultivating it and attaining excellence can be a way of acting for God’s pleasure.

In contrast, I am unable to see any goals or meaning that Buddhism provides in life, except that of curing oneself from more and more refined psychological suffering. It’s not as if you want to get some measure of health so that you are then fit to do some valuable things; rather, the only point of this practice seems to be healing (which assumes you are constantly ill one way or another, till nibbana).

So I suppose my questions can be rephrased as to whether it is possible to follow Buddhism as a kind of therapy or technique to help with the problem of mental stress, whilst believing that an active life and social engagement are really worth pursuing.

1 Like
7

But how many gold medals do you need to win to be satisfied? It seems as if all these supposed goals are only temporary and therefore not real goals, don’t they? Maybe the eightfold path is actually the most meaningful thing one can do? And how much meaning does this have if it inspires others?

8

Well, the Path offers more than just relief from psychological suffering. This is where, for example, the teachings on rebirth and endless transmigration come into play. If a one-life viewpoint is lived by and assumed, then hedonistic tendencies can take hold. But when the teachings on how craving and ignorance propel beings from one life to the next are at least provisionally adopted, a very different understanding and approach to the Dhamma takes place.

Also, a foundational aspect of the Teachings is the cultivation and embodiment of virtue, kindness, and compassion. Without developing and enjoying these qualities, progress towards deeply letting go of ignorance and craving is not possible.

However, this is not done to please a God or any “higher power.” Rather, from a “practical” standpoint engaging life with kindness and compassion leads to deeper letting go and peace.

At the same time, the embodiment of these beautiful qualities becomes the natural expression of the mind and one’s life the more the defilements are reduced and eventually eliminated. An awakened one naturally radiates compassion and benevolence, selflessly offering help.

4 Likes
9

Actually the point of the film was precisely to contrast someone who was running to satisfy his ego, and so was unhappy even after winning the gold medal, with someone who was running ‘for the pleasure of God’ because ‘God made him fast’ and so was content independently of any medals. The characters are based on people in real life.

I think this can be used as a metaphor in life. If you want to succeed in your job because of your ego, you will never be satisfied; however if you have some kind of gift and you can develop it and use it as a way to hopefully help/inspire people, that seems to be a good thing.

10

this is quite a beautiful description, thank you. I am reminded of a book in which the monk Mathieu Ricard said we should not be surprised that monks spend a lot of time training and meditating; it would be like criticising a doctor for training and studying for a long time before being able to help people. I suppose my perplexity would be for a life that (in this simile) is devoted completely to studying medicine and healing itself and then, at the moment of graduation, disappears into nibbana…I guess that if after graduation (or even before, because there are not many awakened one around today it would seem) one has goals or meaning beyond self healing, then my perplexities are somewhat resolved.:folded_hands:

1 Like
11

Thanks for sharing.

In the Abrahamic religions, birth and existence are considered miraculous gifts. In the Buddha’s teachings there are certainly many wonderful and pleasant experiences, but the teachings encourage us to not stop there but to go beyond them – beyond all conditional existence, which is ultimately dukkha.

I think the Abrahamic religions also realize this. Hence their teachings on living life well and pleasing God, so as to escape this “vale of tears” into Heaven. So even these spiritual traditions acknowledge the inherent suffering of conditional existence.

In the Dhamma teachings, the escape from the inherent dukkha of existence is the cessation of the conditions that propagate and maintain existence. In this way, the only “thing” that is lost is dukkha. Hence, the emphasis on the ending of rebirth.

If you want to stop the inherent burning of fire, deprive it of the conditions that support and propagate it until it goes out. La commedia finita est.

If there’s no conditional existence there can’t be dukkha. Hooray!

2 Likes
12

I was watching a teaching recently, and this point was addressed. As you are speaking of disappearing into Nibbana, the monks who were giving the teaching said, is is not the only purpose of renunciation. It is to “study to graduation”, as you said, then give the teachings to others. So, the exchange is, they come for alms, we come for teaching. The purpose is not a selfish disappearing, it’s the exchange of information. I was happy to hear this, because I was confused on this point as well. Because, may all beings be happy. This can’t happen without teachings.

2 Likes
13

Thank you for these reflections. Yes according to the Bible existence is flawed, but this is due to the Fall and the world was initially created good. So in Christian eschatology, for example, one looks forward to a future happiness after life in this vale of tears, like you say.

The crucial difference, as I understand it, is that in Abrahamic religions life is inherently sacred and good, but of course very flawed (who could deny that?!) whereas in Buddhism I can see how life is described as flawed (dukkha) but the part about the sanctity of life seems to be missing, and the way to solve the problem of suffering is to extinguish life itself.

14

As a general rule, I think that the teachings are a call to social engagement. The Buddha made the fourfold assembly (nuns, lay women, monks and lay men). He put rules in place which mean that the bhikkhuni sangha and bhikkhu sangha have to rely on the lay people for support. It binds us together in pursuit of freedom-from-suffering, rather than freedom-from-my-suffering. He taught for 45 years after his enlightenment and made sure that the structures were in place so that his dispensation lasted for a long time before his final passing.

On a practical level, I’m not sure that it is very beneficial to concentrate on the idea of ‘curing oneself’ or ‘one’s cessation of suffering’. We’re all in this together. All sentient beings wish to be free from suffering. The Buddha has left us what I call the Enlightenment Project. It’s not really about ‘us’ getting enlightened (arguably you can’t get enlightened, but that’s for a different thread), it’s more about encouraging and supporting this Enlightenment Project wherever we find it developing in whatever capacity we can.

There is a sense that when we do what is beneficial for us, it is also beneficial for others. That’s just the way that the Buddha formulated his method. SN 47.19

4 Likes
15

Sanctity is derived from “sacred, ”a word associated with a concept of a Divine Creator. Hence, its use in the Abrahamic religions.

Its absence in Buddhist teachings follows from there being no metaphysical assertion of such a Creator.

Working from direct experience, causes and conditions can be discerned. The Buddha left the how and when of the arising of such conditions alone, without engaging in metaphysical assumptions, as in SN15.3: ““Mendicants, transmigration has no known beginning. “Anamataggoyaṁ, bhikkhave, saṁsāro.

No first point is found of sentient beings roaming and transmigrating, shrouded by ignorance and fettered by craving. Pubbā koṭi na paññāyati avijjānīvaraṇānaṁ sattānaṁ taṇhāsaṁyojanānaṁ sandhāvataṁ saṁsarataṁ.”

I find this to be refreshing and unique among spiritual traditions.

Rather than moving into creation myths and metaphysical speculations, the Buddha does not assert what can’t be experientially known. Also, fortunately, this is not important or necessary for the path and practice of ending dukkha.

And life, especially in the human realm is extremely valuable, said the Buddha, insofar as the mix of ease and difficulties is very conducive to escaping the “vale of tears.” This process naturally and necessarily entails the cultivation and happy expression of love, compassion, and caring. :folded_hands: :slightly_smiling_face:

4 Likes
16

that’s interesting, although understanding the Buddha as a pure empiricist poses some problems to me. First of all one needs metaphysical presuppositions when deriving laws from experiential observations, as pointed out by David Hume. The most basic assumption would be the regularity of nature for example, which can never be deduced from mere experience. A turkey, based on 364 days of experience, might make some conclusion about his situation (it might conclude that the human being who comes to feed it every day is motivated by kindness); then on the 365th day (Thanksgiving) it might have a surprise.

The most important thing though is that one can never derive value judgements (how things ought to be) from empirical observations of how things are.

1 Like
17

This is true in a broad philosophical sense, but was not the context I was pointing to, which was, rather, metaphysical in terms of propositions based on faith rather than direct experience.

For example, if one holds their hand under a running tap of water, the physical experience of the flow is apprehended. Same for the conditional aspects of experience the Buddha taught, such as impermanence. The metaphysical leap I was pointing to would be: “Water must have a Creator, who gifts us with water for life.”

But “values” can be known in how effective and necessary they are for the cessation of all conditions, of all dukkha. And that was the Buddha’s primary concern.

1 Like
18

The concepts and views in the Buddha’s teachings are there for the practical purpose of understanding dukkha, abandoning its cause, realizing its cessation, and developing the path that leads to its cessation in one’s very life. These concepts and views can be dangerous if they are handled incorrectly, i.e. by using them to reinforce superiority conceit related to an intellect which is seen as “mine”. This danger is nicely illustrated by the simile of the snake in MN 22.

Take a futile person who memorizes the teaching—statements, mixed prose & verse, discussions, verses, inspired exclamations, legends, stories of past lives, amazing stories, and elaborations. But they don’t examine the meaning of those teachings with wisdom, and so don’t come to an acceptance of them after deliberation. They memorize the teaching for the sake of finding fault and winning debates. They don’t realize the goal for which they memorized them. Because they’re wrongly grasped, those teachings lead to their lasting harm and suffering. Why is that? Because of their wrong grasp of the teachings.

Suppose there was a person in need of a cobra. And while wandering in search of a cobra they’d see a big cobra, and grasp it by the coil or the tail. But that cobra would twist back and bite them on the hand or the arm or other major or minor limb, resulting in death or deadly pain. Why is that? Because of their wrong grasp of the cobra.

In the same way, a futile person memorizes the teaching … and those teachings lead to their lasting harm and suffering. Why is that? Because of their wrong grasp of the teachings.

Now, take a gentleman who memorizes the teaching—statements, mixed prose & verse, discussions, verses, inspired exclamations, legends, stories of past lives, amazing stories, and elaborations. And once he’s memorized them, he examines their meaning with wisdom, and comes to an acceptance of them after deliberation. He doesn’t memorize the teaching for the sake of finding fault and winning debates. He realizes the goal for which he memorized them. Because they’re correctly grasped, those teachings lead to his lasting welfare and happiness. Why is that? Because of his correct grasp of the teachings.

Suppose there was a person in need of a cobra. And while wandering in search of a cobra they’d see a big cobra, and hold it down carefully with a cleft stick. Only then would they correctly grasp it by the neck. And even though that cobra might wrap its coils around that person’s hand or arm or some other major or minor limb, that wouldn’t result in death or deadly pain. Why is that? Because of their correct grasp of the cobra.

In the same way, a gentleman memorizes the teaching … and those teachings lead to his lasting welfare and happiness. Why is that? Because of his correct grasp of the teachings.

I would also recommend studying MN 95 for how the Buddha taught us to approach views, beliefs, and truth.