Hello fellow Treeleafers!
Lately, especially since taking Jukai with you all not so very long ago, I've been feeling the urge to expand my book learning about Buddhism, and to become more familiar with its different, non-Zen, flavors. I've been sitting for a couple of years now, and most of what I know about Buddhism come strictly from my butt on a Zafu in the Japanese Zen context. I've been doing some reading, popping into local Buddhist temples here in Vietnam (though I confess I still don't really know what's going on; I just light incense and bow alot) and participating in a few other online forums, mostly "general buddhism" in flavor. One thing that I've been rather shocked by is how many people have been telling me that I'm not a "real Buddhist" because I don't have unquestioning belief in the literal factual historicity of what I call the "Hindu stuff:" things like reincarnation, rebirth into the heavenly realms of the Devas, etc. Nor do I believe in the literal factual historicity of the "Buddhist superpower" stuff, where Buddha flies around and people are instantly enlightened because the Buddha looks at them funny.
My arrogant secular Western American egotistic mindset is, apparently, destroying "real Buddhism" and replacing it with evil deluded perversions. This doesn't bother me so much; I grew up in fundamentalist conservative Christian country, and I'm used to that kind of thing. But I was nonetheless quite surprised. The reason I became interested in Buddhism in the first place is that it was always presented as a way of life, in which the practice of ethics and self liberation etc was always more important than a checklist of weird metaphysics in which you are required to literally believe. My experience in the world of Zen has certainly been along those lines. Is that not the norm in World Buddhism? Here in Vietnam, nobody seems to much care one way or the other how you conceptualize the world, as long as you're friendly. I know that Japanese Zen has always kind of been off in a corner by itself, but are we really so different from the rest of the Buddhists? Is insistence on a checklist of beliefs the norm in non-Zen Buddhism?
Disclaimer: this post is not meant to disrespect or belittle those people who DO believe in the literal factual reality of rebirth, heavenly Deva realms, etc. I don't claim to DIS-believe those things either. I'm quite open to the possibility, actually. I simply cannot verify the reality those things for myself, and while I find the stories useful, I do not find literal belief in them necessary for the practice of the Dharma, nor do I see how insistence that everyone MUST believe in them as such is useful to the practice of the Dharma. In fact, such insistence seems actively counterproductive. On the other hand I do recognize that for some people the literal belief is useful for their practice of the Dharma, and I completely respect that.
Gassho,
Kyoshin
Sat/lah
Lately, especially since taking Jukai with you all not so very long ago, I've been feeling the urge to expand my book learning about Buddhism, and to become more familiar with its different, non-Zen, flavors. I've been sitting for a couple of years now, and most of what I know about Buddhism come strictly from my butt on a Zafu in the Japanese Zen context. I've been doing some reading, popping into local Buddhist temples here in Vietnam (though I confess I still don't really know what's going on; I just light incense and bow alot) and participating in a few other online forums, mostly "general buddhism" in flavor. One thing that I've been rather shocked by is how many people have been telling me that I'm not a "real Buddhist" because I don't have unquestioning belief in the literal factual historicity of what I call the "Hindu stuff:" things like reincarnation, rebirth into the heavenly realms of the Devas, etc. Nor do I believe in the literal factual historicity of the "Buddhist superpower" stuff, where Buddha flies around and people are instantly enlightened because the Buddha looks at them funny.
My arrogant secular Western American egotistic mindset is, apparently, destroying "real Buddhism" and replacing it with evil deluded perversions. This doesn't bother me so much; I grew up in fundamentalist conservative Christian country, and I'm used to that kind of thing. But I was nonetheless quite surprised. The reason I became interested in Buddhism in the first place is that it was always presented as a way of life, in which the practice of ethics and self liberation etc was always more important than a checklist of weird metaphysics in which you are required to literally believe. My experience in the world of Zen has certainly been along those lines. Is that not the norm in World Buddhism? Here in Vietnam, nobody seems to much care one way or the other how you conceptualize the world, as long as you're friendly. I know that Japanese Zen has always kind of been off in a corner by itself, but are we really so different from the rest of the Buddhists? Is insistence on a checklist of beliefs the norm in non-Zen Buddhism?
Disclaimer: this post is not meant to disrespect or belittle those people who DO believe in the literal factual reality of rebirth, heavenly Deva realms, etc. I don't claim to DIS-believe those things either. I'm quite open to the possibility, actually. I simply cannot verify the reality those things for myself, and while I find the stories useful, I do not find literal belief in them necessary for the practice of the Dharma, nor do I see how insistence that everyone MUST believe in them as such is useful to the practice of the Dharma. In fact, such insistence seems actively counterproductive. On the other hand I do recognize that for some people the literal belief is useful for their practice of the Dharma, and I completely respect that.
Gassho,
Kyoshin
Sat/lah
Comment