FAQ: Buddhism for Pagans?

[sabrinamari]

"Why do (Neo) Pagans sometimes work with Buddhist teachers? I mean, doesn't that seem *weird* or something?"

I get this question in one form or another pretty regularly. Now you, too, can give your colleagues a coherent answer, looking really smart in the process.

The fast answer:

1. Lans the Meditator Man points out that Buddhism can more easily be defined as a philosophy (in the Western sense) than as a religion.

[He has a fifteen-minute podcast explaining this if you want to deconstruct the finer points of this analysis. You will find it on iTunes under "podcasts" and "religion". See "The Enlighten Up Podcast," "Is Buddhism a Religion?"]

2. Go here and read the page below. It will take you about 10 minutes to read the whole thing, but you will understand the point by minute 3, believe me.

(Shenpa: That Baaaad Feeling...)
http://www.shambhala.org/teachers/pema/shenpa3a.php

3. Here is a pragmatic example of how this works in real life. Reading it will take about 3 minutes.

http://sabrinamari.livejournal.com/34384.html

Now you can explain the utility of Buddhist concepts, too, complete with a concrete example. (Neo) Pagans love concrete examples.

Comments

[marccarlson.livejournal.com]

I may be misreading what you wrote, but I have a logical issue with "But if you give the $ and you don't "feel" anything---you stay stuck in your shenpa and you only did it to look good, or because you were supposed to do it---the effect is tiny."

If I do it, and don't "feel" anything, I may well (and as far as I'm concerned, should) be doing it simply because it is the appropriate thing to do. If I do it publicly, I am likely doing it for the ego-chow it will garner me. If I do it so that I "feel" something, then as far as I'm concerned, I'm too attached to doing things for what I can get out of it (in this case, the "feeling"). I believe I should be emotionally detached from the act.

OTOH, I'm not trying to be a Buddhist :)

[sabrinamari.livejournal.com]

As I understand it, the Buddhist position would be that while it is good to give to someone in need, it really doesn't have a profound effect on the giver unless the act is completed in a state of open hearted compassion.

The Buddhist agenda isn't to change the moment (through giving) by itself; it's to transform the person into a kinder, more compassionate individual who will consistently make better, more loving choices, creating a ripple effect in the world.

[marccarlson.livejournal.com]

I guess I'm still too stuck in the "Lord, if I worship you from a desire for Heaven, deny me Heaven. If I love you from fear of Hell, send me to Hell." concept. That the path to Enlightenment is not through appropriate behavior, not a desire to get anything out of it (in fact, the only way to find it is to not be actually looking for it, while doing what is necessary to get there. If that makes any sense.

[sabrinamari.livejournal.com]

Hmmm, I've never heard of this before. It's a new concept for me.

[marccarlson.livejournal.com]

It is paraphrased from an 8th century Sufi "saint" Rābiʻa al-ʻAdawiyya al-Qaysiyya (aka Rabi'a, Rabiya, and sometimes Al-Basri, since she was from Basra).

[vgnwtch.livejournal.com]

My answer would be, "Neopagans' entire religious movement is based on nicking stuff from other people. Why wouldn't we continue this fine tradition?"

But I am bolshy when people get precious...

[sabrinamari.livejournal.com]

laughing at the truth of it!

[warning-dca.livejournal.com]

agreed!

Wise Men *and Women*

[warning-dca.livejournal.com]

tell their knowledge through varieties of faiths, philosophies, and practices.

It is not -wise- to discount or discredit the possibility of an entire group of people, or one individual, based on the fact that you don different labels for one aspect of your life. Keep the mind open at every turn to learn from the wisdoms AND the follies (which in turn, also teaches wisdom) of others.

You can't learn the fullness of any wisdom with a closed mind.

Re: Wise Men *and Women*

[vgnwtch.livejournal.com]

I'm finding that attending Quaker meetings is really helping to strengthen my Paganism. Their Advices & Queries, text that Quakers are supposed to use as a springboard for personal and corporate exploration, contains lots of points about how we can learn from those whose viewpoints or religious traditions are different from our own: here's a selection of quotes about that. The book is updated every 20 years or so by consensus at British Yearly Meeting. I'm finding all sorts of good stuff in it.

When I first attended a Meeting, I was asked what my interest was, and my understanding of Quakerism. I gave an outline, and said, "I'm interested in how people think about religion, but I'm more interested in how they DO religion. That's the acid test." They all agreed with that. Turns out that lots of Quakers take the injunction to learn from other religions very seriously, and quite a number have complementary faiths (there are Muslim Quakers, Hindu Quakers, Pagan Quakers, etc.).

We used to laugh about B* and Asatru being "the religions with homework". Turns out they're not the only ones. I'm cribbing from other people's sheets right now.

Re: Wise Men *and Women*

[sabrinamari.livejournal.com]

Wow, how cool.

[travelingtim.livejournal.com]

I called myself Buddhist for about a decade before I became Pagan. For me, Buddhism, or at least the version that I found, was an experiential path focusing more on practice instead of a large seemingly random list of Do's and Don'ts. I also liked the story when Buddha became enlightened, the Gods bowed to him as he had achieved a freedom they had not. The basic message of "You can be perfect, and if not now, keep on trying" was a very positive message for me. Also, it was the first faith I discovered that I would not be a hypocrite in, since so many other paths require swallowing a big fat lie to believe them.

The reason I switched was the American version of Buddhism I found tended to be very passive and the more "traditional" forms seemed to have all developed the conglomeration of cultural rules that I think Masters throw in just to see if anyone is paying attention in class. Just as American Christianity has very little in common with the form practiced in the Middle East, American forms of Eastern Religions tend to not clearly differentiate cultural bias from the actual practices and either throw out too much or get bogged down in trying to be something we are not. For me, Paganism was more about self discovery and less about pretending to be something else.

I also have a fundamental disagreement with Buddhist philosophy. Their whole focus on escaping the wheel of Karma seems wrong to me. I suspect if we, as spiritual beings, didn't have a reason to incarnate, we wouldn't incarnate at all. If we are here for a purpose, whether to learn or just to have fun, then focusing on just escape strikes me as a cross purpose. Sort of like paying a lot to go to college and then just day dreaming about vacation the whole time instead of paying attention in class.
I can see though how many Buddhist practices can help in magical work, though these days I prefer to focus on the less popular western equivalents, such as the meditative practices taught by the Gnostic Christians or the more mystically minded Catholics and Jews.

[vgnwtch.livejournal.com]

I thought the idea was not to "escape" the wheel of karma, but to learn the lessons effectively and get closer to your authentic self and reach a state of unity with the universe - not to flee the wheel, but to avoid getting needlessly trapped in the things that you prevent you from Being? I've really not read deeply on Buddhist traditions, so I'm just going off the impression I've got from Pema Chodron and other scattered bits and bobs.

My Karma ran over your Dogma

[travelingtim.livejournal.com]

I studied some Indian Buddhism and some Japanese Buddhism. My understanding was that we are addicted to life and pain and suffering were a result of desire, but by practicing meditation and basically detaching from worldly and material concerns you eventually achieved Enlightenment, and then you either escaped the Wheel of Karma, or you took the Bodhisattva vow and kept coming back to teach others. Indian Buddhism is closely related to Hindu, which pre-dated it, in that life is an illusion (Maya) but the largest difference was that where Hindu hermits starved themselves to deny the illusion, Buddhists believed going to this level of self deprivation was in itself giving the illusion power and so they shrived for moderation.

The Lotus Sect of Buddhism (from Japan) teaches the way to detach from these material desires is to indulge them completely, and by saying the Lotus Sutra over and over the Universe will help you gain all your wishes since you are asking for the noble cause of getting it out of your system. I didn't like that group, it felt like they were trying to cheat.

My co-worker who is from Vietnam calls himself Buddhist and goes regularly to temple, and his description was more of a set of superstitions, where you light incense to the ancestors for good luck and keep certain things out of the kitchen so they don't cause bad luck.

My class mate from China didn't even have reincarnation as part of her beliefs, she was taught basically that if you are a lazy drunk your kids will be poor and your grandkids even worse off, so it was more of a practical family oriented "do the right thing" philosophy with no mystical component. Some of that was probably Confucian and Chinese Communist Party influence.

I'm sure, like Christianity and Islam, there are hundreds of different sects and teachings all covered under the Buddhist umbrella.

Re: My Karma ran over your Dogma

[vgnwtch.livejournal.com]

Of course you're right - there I was, doing exactly what I criticise other people for doing: assuming that a huge chunk of people and traditions are all the same!