are you suggesting that Theraveda is not an intellectual tradition?

No, I definitely dont want to give the impression that I think that. I also think it is one of the purer traditions. But when I first encountered it, I wouldnt have known a forest monk from a Tibetan deity. Between language barriers, my cultural filters, and the fifteen year or more history of catastrophic cultural disruption, the impression I got from the Cambodian and Lao refugees I worked with was of a pretty simplistic “worship” of Buddha. Also there were no monks in the community I was working with, though there was an older woman who identified as a nun but she spoke no English.
I realize now there was probably a lot I missed. I remember being impressed by the gentleness and basic optimism that most of them had retained.

I worked with Indochinese refugees in the late 1980’s, so I got a perspective on Theravedan Buddhism from people who were trying to rebuild their lives after some of the most catastrophic events in the 20th century.

Sounds like both a noble and a cool thing to do. Good for you. Based on what you say later, are you suggesting that Theravada is not an intellectual tradition? I realize that it has some weird things like stories about wars between devas, etc., but I’ve always thought of it as being one of the purer traditions in theory. Of course, I haven’t encountered the Indochinese practice of it, which could differ wildly from the textual/theoretical.

Lately I’ve been discovering the more intellectual tradition of Buddhism, and also the Buddhist traditon in the West, like the Stephen Batchelor book I mentioned. (I recommend it highly)

I’ve found that there are two separate Western Buddhist traditions: one which tries to extract the intellectual content and moral precepts and one which tries to extract the superstition. (The latter is typically known as New Age.) While I think the former is a noble pursuit, I wouldn’t identify with it, especially because so many people would instantly assume I meant the latter. (I think that courses in world religion promote this view: Buddhism has a lot of lists which are easy to teach but which really say nothing about Buddhism.) It’s always a shame when opposing ideas get lumped under the same name. I’ve checked out a copy of Batchelor’s book, by the way; it looks like it’s going to be well worth reading.

I find meditation very helpful, but it’s hard to make myself do it.

Yep. As I said, it’s like going to the gym. We feel better when we do it, yet we still try to find excuses not to.

I lost interest in the pursuit of enlightenment and I don’t believe in any of the older ideas of rebirth or karma, but much of the basic principles, especially the detachment from material things, still strongly influence me.

I’ve heard this sentiment from many ‘ex-Buddhists’ and feel somewhat the same way myself without having actually gone through the intermediate stage of being a Buddhist in the first place (at least not officially: I have attended sangha along with the services of other religious traditions). It makes a pretty compelling argument that the two can be separated, although I’ve met some Buddhists who are quite dogmatic about rebirth and kamma as the core of the tradition.

I’m not sure what I think about karma, but at the Vipassana center they say that it is not necessary to believe in reincarnation to practice meditation or follow Buddhist ethics. I agree with the general principle that our actions have consequences beyond the immediately observable ones.

what about yourself, monkeymind?

Let’s just say that I’m Buddh-curious.

I worked with Indochinese refugees in the late 1980’s, so I got a perspective on Theravedan Buddhism from people who were trying to rebuild their lives after some of the most catastrophic events in the 20th century.

Lately I’ve been discovering the more intellectual tradition of Buddhism, and also the Buddhist traditon in the West, like the Stephen Batchelor book I mentioned. (I recommend it highly)

I find meditation very helpful, but it’s hard to make myself do it. I still haven’t committed to going to any of the local sanghas, though they all seem pretty un-mumbo-jumbo-y and all have women as the lead teachers.

Miko – you also seem very knowledgeable about Buddhism – is it just intellectual curiosity or do you practice some kind of meditation or …?

I tend to think of Buddhism and meditation practice separately. Among scientific atheists, it’s fairly common to claim that we’d accept religion if it were actually demonstrated to work. From what I’ve seen, meditation (but not necessarily Buddhism) has passed that test: while many of the claims of higher planes of existence and other metaphysical benefits are obviously unverified and almost certain not true, there’s good evidence that meditation has positive health benefits, both mentally and physically, so I do practice meditation as such. But this has more in common with going to the gym than with religious belief. And obviously, supposedly related things like transcendental meditation are just quackery.

Regarding Buddhism itself, I’ll opt for the intellectual curiosity option. Buddhism has fractured into so many sects that in makes Christianity look unified by comparison and some of them act in ways that seem rather contrary to the goals of the teachings. Take the schism between Mahayana (”the greater vehicle”) and Hinayana (”the inferior/disgusting vehicle”): any guess on which side came up with those names? And there are so many ridiculous claims in many sects (e.g., Mahayana was founded by the discovery of the Lotus Sutra, allegedly written by the Buddha despite the absence of writing at his time and delivered to its ‘discoverer’ by dragons who had been hiding it for 500 years out of fears that people weren’t ready for its teachings) and intermingling with the indigenous religions of various areas as Buddhism spread (e.g., Tibetan Buddhism) that it’s hard to say what ‘Buddhism’ actually means.

Under this surface noise, I think that Buddhism has a lot of worthwhile teachings. However, I think that other religions have worthwhile teachings as well. I try to extract the positive teachings from each and throw away the superstitious detritus.

I have a great deal of respect for Buddhism: despite its myriad of traditions, there is almost no conflict between members of different sects, it values pluralism and doubt, it places the focus on present rather than future rewards, it’s championed equality based on race, gender, and class for most of its history, and it doesn’t typically inspire people to kill each other. I wouldn’t identify as one myself, but I will hold it up as an example of what I wish all religion looked like in our world (although as I’ve noted above, it definitely doesn’t deserve a free pass and I think it would be better yet if more of its adherents viewed it as philosophy instead of religion).

Have your read Stephen Batchelor’s “Buddhism without Beliefs”?

No, but based on the title it sounds like something I’d be interested in taking a look at.

’scuse me for hijacking the thread, folks.

At the risk of pushing the thread further off track, what about yourself, monkeymind?

If you don’t mind my asking – what type of Buddhism did you practice (you said something about doing meditation in another post so I’m assuming that you weren’t just saying that for the joke – though it is a shame you never got the pass for a free roller coaster ride.

Miko – you also seem very knowledgeable about Buddhism – is it just intellectual curiosity or do you practice some kind of meditation or …? Have your read Stephen Batchelor’s “Buddhism without Beliefs”?

’scuse me for hijacking the thread, folks.

He seems to be mixing up the Buddhist concept of suffering (which means something more like existential dissatisfaction) with the Christian Science idea that pain and sickness are illusions.

There is that aspect. But more importantly he’s criticizing the Buddha for not practicing satori, which is a Japanese concept that developed quite a bit later and is only accepted in one of the many Buddhist traditions.

. I’m tired of Buddhism getting a free pass when it’s filled with the same mumbo-jumbo as the other religions.

It contains some mumbo-jumbo, but it’s not the same mumbo-jumbo as the other religions. If you take the intersection of all of the Buddhist traditions, you get down to a fairly rationalist core with a decent message. Many atheists identify as Buddhists when they really mean this common core, so these ideas are being practiced separately and are not viewed as religion by their adherents. There’s also the key difference that Buddhist teaching is not claimed to be divinely inspired in almost all schools of Buddhism and thus is able to be continually updated (and is, in many traditions). Not to mention the fact that Buddhism is just light years ahead of any other religion straight out of the gate. When we have suicide bombers on one hand and people who believe that lotus flowers blossomed in the baby Buddha’s footsteps on the other hand, it’s really hard to argue that we should be spending as much time on the second class of nonsense. (Although Wikipedia’s WikiProject Buddhism desperately needs a complete rewrite, if anyone’s up to doing the research necessary…)