I think it’s pretty much the same with all religions: they promise salvation but only deliver limitations. — praxis

Or they promise limitations and deliver salvation. Depends on your point of view. :wink:

If that's your point of view then you must be saved. Congrats! :party:

Honestly I think the salvation is found in the limitations or order that religion provides. The grand narratives and moral codes offer a sense security and meaning. And of course comfort is found in a unified community.

And even after all that time, they didn't move one bit, they had the same doubts and questions after all that time as they had when they first got involved.
— baker
There are things in religion that no one knows and there are no answers to. — praxis

Perhaps. But when people make a point of considering themselves members and representatives of a religion and even attain positions of power in said religion's organizations, and yet openly declare their doubts about the basic tenets of said religion -- then one has to wonder what is going on and what kind of people they are.

I’ve always thought that modern Western readers supplement ancient Eastern wisdom with ideas that are strictly modern,

and in so doing are taking what I call a nostalgic position. — Joshs

Yes, to the first part, but it's not clear what you mean by the second part.

The nostalgic position asserts that some individual or culture in our distant past ‘got it right' by arriving at a way of understanding the nature of things that we drifted away from for many centuries and are just now coming back to. So the latest and most advanced philosophical thinking of the West today is just a belated return to what was already discovered long ago.

Yes.

I dont buy the nostalgic position. I think it is only when we interpret ancient thought in a superficial way that it appears their ideas were consonant with modern phenomenology and related approaches. Why are we so prone to misreading the ancients this way? I believe this comes from emphasizing only the aspect of their thought which appears familiar to we postmoderns (recursive becoming) and ignoring the crucial hidden dimension (a pre-Platonic , pre-Christian universalism).

Yes.

/.../
The metaphysics behind Indra's web, the Tao Te Ching and related teachings as they were intended two thousand years ago are so profoundly alien to contemporary Western philosophical thinking that they run the risk of being mistaken as profoundly similar and compatible.

Agreed.

Whereas Postmodern views of change and becoming originate from a radically self-subverting groundless ground, Buddhist becoming rests on a cosmology of universalistic , sovereign normative grounds (what it is that unifies the infinite relational changes within Indra's web). Unlike Platonic and Christian metaphysics, this sovereign ground is not made explicit. The ancients were not able to articulate this ground in the universalistic language of a philosophy.

I'm not sure they were "unable"; in terms of the Pali Canon, the operating concept is "an inconceivable beginning, "a beginning point is not discernible".
A standard formulation goes like this:
“From an inconceivable beginning comes the wandering-on. A beginning point is not discernible, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on."
E.g. here in SN 15:13.

I have heard several explanations as to why the teachings don't say explicitly "why and where did it all start", and some of those explanations amount to "it's not necessary to know this in order to practice".

But it authorizes and justifies conformist, repressive social ethics and political practices which have persisted for two millennia in Buddhist cultures.

They are "conformist, repressive" only from a particular modern perspective. The Asians themselves traditionally don't think those ethics and practices are repressive or conformist; on the contrary, they believe that people are just "getting what they deserve".
There are, for example, ethics and practices in traditionally Buddhist cultures that a Westerner would call misogynistic, but the Asians don't think so.

So what do you make of that?

Postmodernism emerges from a self-undermining, groundless critique of Western metaphysics, whereas Buddhism often presupposes a cosmic order (e.g., karma, Dharma, Indra's net) that is anything but contingent. Many ancient philosophies, including Buddhism, Taoism, and Vedic thought, operate within a framework of normative cosmology: an ordered, purposeful universe with implicit or explicit ethical imperatives. This is starkly different from postmodernism's rejection of fixed foundations.

Buddhist metaphysics (e.g., dependent origination, Indra's net) was not a proto-deconstruction but a cosmological model of interdependence, often tied to hierarchical, tradition-bound societies. The ethical and political dimensions of Buddhism (e.g., monastic conformity, merit-based hierarchies) reflect this embedded universalism, which contrasts sharply with postmodernism's anti-foundationalism.

The Taoist wu-wei or Buddhist anatta (no-self) are not mere parallels to postmodern fluidity but are situated within teleological or soteriological frameworks that postmodernism explicitly rejects. Buddhist societies, like all traditional cultures, have often enforced conformity, hierarchy, and static social orders, precisely because their metaphysics assumes a normative cosmic blueprint. This is a far cry from the emancipatory aims of much postmodern thought, even if both might critique the "ego" or "fixed identity.

To get back to the beginning of your post and my reply to it: I have found that the most radical thing one can do, as far as Buddhism is concerned, is to be a Westerner and explicitly approach (or at least attempt to approach it) the Asian way. Show up in some Buddhist venue, whether a Western or Asian one, and show that you take for granted that the Buddhist tradition is correct, and, if you're lucky, you'll be ridiculed. If not so lucky, you'll be considered disrespectful, "spreading lies about Buddhism" and such.

It's bizarre, really. In my experience, the most rebellious, radical thing you can do is to openly have no qualms about kamma and rebirth -- and Buddhists East and West will at least dislike you.
This is what I would call the nostalgic position: to take the Buddhist tradition at face value, along with all the things that are utterly unpalatable to modern Western consumers (!) of Buddhism, but, oddly enough, to Easterners too.

You said "modern Western readers supplement ancient Eastern wisdom with ideas that are strictly modern". Next to the ones you mentioned already, I'll add democratic and liberal ideas. Which are just not there in the tradition, yet esp. Western Buddhists tend to read them into the teachings, and get offended if you point this out. In so doing, they are actually enacting that very authoritarian, hierarchial mentality that they nominally so vehemently oppose.

Perhaps. But when people make a point of considering themselves members and representatives of a religion and even attain positions of power in said religion's organizations, and yet openly declare their doubts about the basic tenets of said religion -- then one has to wonder what is going on and what kind of people they are. — baker

They sound like honest people to me.

They sound like honest people to me. — praxis

To me, they sound like people who are not serious about their religion.

All of which is premised on the assumption that Buddhism cannot be what it describes itself to be, which is, a way to the total ending of suffering. Not amelioration or adjustment. — Wayfarer

@Joshs What do you have to say to this?
Do you agree with Wayfarer's assessment of your stance?

Can enlightenment be achieved without appeal to any supernatural elements?
/.../
I suppose a definition of enlightenment in the current discussion would be appropriate. I would just put it as finding inner peace in this life to get rid of the usual gnawing existential anxiety of 'birth, old age, sickness and death'. Nothing more or less. — unimportant

Well then, whatcha waiting for?!

People who promise to know the way to enlightenment are a dime a dozen, including those who believe one doesn't need the "supernatural elements". It's on you to take the next step, though, which is actually what seems to be at issue here.

I don’t see how hiding their doubts would indicate a greater seriousness. If they’re serious about preserving the religion then yeah, I suppose hiding one’s doubts about it could show a serious effort to towards the conservation of it. For a serious spiritual seeker, on the other hand, questioning and doubt may come with the territory.

Honestly I think the salvation is found in the limitations or order that religion provides. The grand narratives and moral codes offer a sense security and meaning. And of course comfort is found in a unified community. — praxis

I actually don't doubt that Buddhist practice (as defined and described in traditional Buddhism) leads to the complete cessation of suffering. It's just that nobody in their right mind could want that. For all practical intents and purposes, Buddhism is basically saying, "No man, no problem," ie. "conceptually annihilate yourself and you will not suffer, for there will be no one to suffer". One cannot, in one's currently unenlightened position, intelligibly and consistently want such a thing.

I don’t see how hiding their doubts would indicate a greater seriousness. If they’re serious about preserving the religion then yeah, I suppose hiding one’s doubts about it could show a serious effort to towards the conservation of it. For a serious spiritual seeker, on the other hand, questioning and doubt may come with the territory. — praxis

Who said anything about "hiding" one's doubts?

An honorable person will simply not take on positions of power in a religious organization whose tenets they doubt.

Remember, we're talking here not about an ordinary seeker, but about people who attain positions of power within religious organizations.

An honorable person will simply not take on positions of power in a religious organization whose tenets they doubt. — baker

Why not, or what makes it dishonorable?

I don’t see how hiding their doubts would indicate a greater seriousness. If they’re serious about preserving the religion then yeah, I suppose hiding one’s doubts about it could show a serious effort to towards the conservation of it. For a serious spiritual seeker, on the other hand, questioning and doubt may come with the territory. — praxis

I’m essentially with you on this. A lack of doubt is a red flag for me. People without doubt tend toward fundamentalism or zealotry. Certainty, and deference to power, are seductive for certain people: acolytes and followers, most notably. Certainty is also the perfect mindset if you wish to practice a little mass murder.

An honorable person will simply not take on positions of power in a religious organization whose tenets they doubt. — baker

That’s obviously your strong opinion. But I don’t think doubt is the same thing as dishonesty or bad faith. Nor do I think it can be shown that certainty is a prerequisite for integrity. Many religious traditions have been shaped by doubters, dissenters, and people who challenged prevailing beliefs. You may prefer to divide the world into exceptional figures who doubt and challenge, like Jesus or the Buddha, and everyone else who should kneel in deference, but that strikes me more as the posture of an arch-conservative, rather than a fact. I don't know where you are coming from in this maybe you can say soem more.

@Tom Storm

Why not, or what makes it dishonorable? — praxis

Like I said: Remember, we're talking here not about an ordinary seeker, but about people who attain positions of power within religious organizations.

We're talking here about people who go up to the pulpit, who sit in front of others, and who tell others that the teachings of their religion are true, and who hold it against others and judge them and even expell them for not professing such belief. And yet these same people in positions of power, in other situations, go ahead and admit to having doubts.

In other words, it's a case of double standards: Those in positions of power don't have to take the religion seriously, but those lower in the hierarchy do.

You don't have a problem with that?

An honorable person will simply not take on positions of power in a religious organization whose tenets they doubt.
— baker

That’s obviously your strong opinion. — Tom Storm

Really? You believe than an honorable person will take on positions of power in a religious organization whose tenets they doubt?

A lack of doubt is a red flag for me. — Tom Storm

You like a pope who doubts God exists, for example?

Really? You believe than an honorable person will take on positions of power in a religious organization whose tenets they doubt? — baker

Of course. But you overstate this. They might take issue with some or several things, not all things. I would have serious concerns with someone who is 100% accepting of any philosophy or religion.

You like a pope who doubts God exists, for example? — baker

You pick an unlikely one. But a Pope who doubts aspects of doctrine and practice is natural.

And that said, a Pope who doubts particular accounts of God (theistic personalism or a vengeful God) yes, absolutely.

This matter doesn't seem to be an either/or situation.

We're talking here about people who go up to the pulpit, who sit in front of others, and who tell others that the teachings of their religion are true, and who hold it against others and judge them and even expell them for not professing such belief. And yet these same people in positions of power, in other situations, go ahead and admit to having doubts. — baker

I’m at somewhat of a loss here—if you’re pearl clutching over that, all I can think is you haven’t been around much in Buddhist circles.

Honestly I think the salvation is found in the limitations or order that religion provides. The grand narratives and moral codes offer a sense security and meaning. And of course comfort is found in a unified community. — praxis

Maybe in part but you cannot really be claiming that is all that is entailed in becoming enlightened? You know another huge institution which has those qualities you state? The military. Not seen many Buddhas come out of their ranks. :D

To give you a liferaft so to speak I would say the ritual is a part but only one. I think what kind of rituals must be examined, not just any old ritual. Many professions have mechanical rituals and again we cannot say they have anything to do with the subject of enlightenment.

the most radical thing one can do, as far as Buddhism is concerned, is to be a Westerner and explicitly approach (or at least attempt to approach it) the Asian way. Show up in some Buddhist venue, whether a Western or Asian one, and show that you take for granted that the Buddhist tradition is correct, and, if you're lucky, you'll be ridiculed. If not so lucky, you'll be considered disrespectful, "spreading lies about Buddhism" and such.

It's bizarre, really. In my experience, the most rebellious, radical thing you can do is to openly have no qualms about kamma and rebirth — baker

This seems a very idiosyncratic view to you. Never heard anything like that and I doubt most people in Buddhism would agree to that either. More likely they will not say anything and welcome you with open arms. What kind of Buddhists would they be if they did the passive aggressive stuff you mentioned there? Sounds more like something in a housewives cooking class.

Well then, whatcha waiting for?!

People who promise to know the way to enlightenment are a dime a dozen, including those who believe one doesn't need the "supernatural elements". It's on you to take the next step, though, which is actually what seems to be at issue here. — baker

Making the post, and studying religions and the common threads does not count as a step? It might not to you, as you seem to been pushing orthodoxy to whatever school, but it does to me.

People without doubt tend toward fundamentalism or zealotry. — Tom Storm

This is exactly what the 'you must completely adhere to the teachings or you are going to get nowhere' folks in the thread, and the usual mindset I see when I have asked similar questions elsewhere in the past, are like imo. Fundamental uncritical faith or you are not practising at all.

I just realised this is actually really ironic and the opposite of what the Buddha himself suggested. In his sutras he would talk about how you should not believe him, but practice and see for yourself through experience. Also didn't he become enlightened by refuting all the myriad systems he tried before and looking for his own way?

How far would he have gotten if he followed these 'total faith in one school or nothing' folks? There would be no Buddhism. :)

Not sure why @baker has derailed the thread into some back and forth about how leaders should act in positions of power? I don't see how it is related to the OP, which is asking how a lay seeker should find their own path. If so please 'enlighten' me.

Many professions have mechanical rituals and again we cannot say they have anything to do with the subject of enlightenment. — unimportant

Which seems to imply that the rituals (and other aspects of religion?) are superfluous to enlightenment :starstruck: . If that's the case then what purpose does religion serve?

All of which is premised on the assumption that Buddhism cannot be what it describes itself to be, which is, a way to the total ending of suffering. Not amelioration or adjustment.
— Wayfarer
@Joshs What do you have to say to this?
Do you agree with Wayfarer's assessment of your stance? — baker

I am confident Buddhism is exactly what it takes itself to be, a way to end suffering. The issue for me is what framework of understanding it uses to define suffering and its alleviation. There are those who see suffering through a very different lens, such that ending it is not only not desirable but also an incoherent notion.

I am confident Buddhism is exactly what it takes itself to be, a way to end suffering. The issue for me is what framework of understanding it uses to define suffering and its alleviation. There are those who see suffering through a very different lens, such that ending it is not only not desirable but also an incoherent notion. — Joshs

The 'framework of understanding' is that of 'depedendent origination' (Pratītyasamutpāda) - the sequence of stages which culminate in birth (and hence sickness, old age and death). In religious studies, it is called 'soteriological', meaning concerned with salvation, although the word 'salvation' is more typically associated with Christianity. The Buddhist term is Nirvāṇa (nibanna) which refers to the complete cessation of re-birth and therefore of suffering.

Plainly, Buddhism, like the Vedic tradition from which it broke away, is embedded in a very different conception of the nature of existence, than is the Judeo-Christian tradition. The way Christianity developed in Western history was was shaped by the belief in the Eschaton, the culmination of history, which arguably gave rise to the ideology of progress which still holds sway, even if it has abandoned its original, religious rationale. (I entertain the idea that the belief in the possibility of interstellar exploration represents the sublimated longing for heaven.)

The underlying intuition of both Hinduism and Buddhism is that of cycles of existence, or creation and destruction, birth and death, from the individual to the cosmic scale, taking place over 'vast aeons of kalpas'. The Buddha, then, is said to show 'the way' (Marga) of liberation from the cycle of birth and death. (I don't think there is a direct equivalent of the Hindu and Buddhist terms 'mokṣa' or 'Nirvāṇa' in the English lexicon, so they are usually equated, incorrectly, with the Christian idea of salvation.)

However here the distinction between Mahāyāna and Theravada (Pali) Buddhism is significant. H H The Dalai Lama expressed it like this:

There are two ways in which someone can take rebirth after death: rebirth under the sway of karma and destructive emotions and rebirth through the power of compassion and prayer. Regarding the first, due to ignorance negative and positive karma are created and their imprints remain on the consciousness. These are reactivated through craving and grasping, propelling us into the next life. We then take rebirth involuntarily in higher or lower realms. This is the way ordinary beings circle incessantly through existence like the turning of a wheel. Even under such circumstances ordinary beings can engage diligently with a positive aspiration in virtuous practices in their day-to-day lives. They familiarise themselves with virtue that at the time of death can be reactivated providing the means for them to take rebirth in a higher realm of existence. On the other hand, superior Bodhisattvas, who have attained the path of seeing, are not reborn through the force of their karma and destructive emotions, but due to the power of their compassion for sentient beings and based on their prayers to benefit others. They are able to choose their place and time of birth as well as their future parents. Such a rebirth, which is solely for the benefit of others, is rebirth through the force of compassion and prayer. — H H The Dalal Lama, Statement on the Issue of HIs Reincarnation

This plainly introduces a very different conception of suffering in that it provides for the possibility of voluntary re-birth, and therefore voluntary suffering in the Christian sense. The aim of Theravada Buddhism is cessation tout courte, with no mind to the suffering of others. Hence the centrality of compassion in Mahāyāna Buddhism.

The intention of 'secular Buddhism' aims to retain the therapeutic and emotionally remedial aspects of Buddhism, without the soteriological framework within which it was originally posed. Which is all well and good, as far as it goes, but from the Buddhist perspective, that is not necessarily very far!

Plainly, Buddhism, like the Vedic tradition from which it broke away, is embedded in a very different conception of the nature of existence, than is the Judeo-Christian tradition. — Wayfarer

One can be ‘very different’ in a number of respects. One
can be so by arising independently of Western trajectories of thought, such that Westerners must access them by abandoning their own assumptions or evolving towards them. Or one can do so by being more ancient, such that it takes skilled investigation to recognize how forms of thought not unlike Buddhism and Hinduism hide deep within the foundations of judeo-christian traditions.

...how exactly would a person go about doing that -- ie. not letting "ideas about reincarnation stop you from understanding Buddhism better"? — baker

Right view functions as the precursor to the noble eightfold path that according to the early Buddhist scheme of mental training needs to be undertaken in order to reach liberation. This need not be taken to imply, however, that rebirth must be accepted on blind faith in order to be able to embark on this path, since alternative modes of describing right view exist. One of these is the exact opposite of wrong view and thus affirms rebirth and the results of karma. Another definition instead speaks of insight into the four noble truths. Although the four noble truths build on the notion of rebirth, the basic attitude and practices they convey can be put to use without affirming rebirth.

The fact that the discourses present such an alternative definition of right view leaves open the possibility that someone may engage in practices related to the Buddhist path to liberation without necessarily pledging faith in rebirth. It does not leave open the possibility of denying rebirth outright, however, since that would amount to holding wrong view.

The point that emerges in this way is that one who wishes to embark on the Buddhist path of practice need not affirm rebirth as a matter of mere belief. The question of rebirth might simply be set aside as something that such a person is unable to verify at present, without going so far as to deny rebirth and affirm that there is nothing that continues beyond the death of the body. — Analayo Bhikkhu, Rebirth in Early Buddhism and Current Research (pp. 47-48), Kindle Edition

This is exactly what the 'you must completely adhere to the teachings or you are going to get nowhere' folks in the thread, and the usual mindset I see when I have asked similar questions elsewhere in the past, are like imo. Fundamental uncritical faith or you are not practising at all. — unimportant

I think there are many people in religion and politics for whom rigid categories and binary thinking make sense. It’s how they see the world. For them, it’s all or nothing; you’re either for me or against me, that kind of thing. They tend to think in absolutes, with little room for nuance or ambiguity.

Also didn't he become enlightened by refuting all the myriad systems he tried before and looking for his own way? — unimportant

Yes, I think that’s right, and that’s why I labelled him a doubter earlier. From what little I know, he seems to have doubted (perhaps eschewed is a better term) rigid categories, established authorities, hierarchies, rituals, and inherited structures. But when someone establishes a new system, it is generally predicated on rejecting the "sacred truths" of other systems.

How far would he have gotten if he followed these 'total faith in one school or nothing' folks? There would be no Buddhism. — unimportant

I have a minor knowledge of the history or development of Buddhism, but that's an interesting line of inquiry. Religions tend to have a scattered period of formation followed by ossification and rigidity. I have a mild curiosity about Buddhism, but it’s been many years since I read about it. To me, in my culture it often seems to be the religion some Westerners embrace when they fail to find Christianity satisfying and simultaneously find themselves unable to be secular humanists. It’s been the counterculture faith.:razz: