Why not just Buddhism?

I am becoming increasingly convinced of the reality of the void. I have actually stopped meditating for now as I'm still afraid of "dying". I have gone to the edge of the void. You mystics know what I'm talking about.

Anyway, my thinking is along the lines of Aldous Huxley's "The Perennial Philosophy". All/most religions are pointing to the same thing. But I don't think any religious leaders compare to the Buddha in terms of understanding and teaching the void. And Buddhism, at its heart, is like a step-by-step "how to" of realizing the void, and living peacefully with it.

You can find similar messages elsewhere, but you have to look deeper and between the lines. For example, one can see that the Christians were largely talking about the same thing, but it's much harder to see. And it appears that Jesus was even terrified of dying when he was crucified, it's hard to see how this squares away with somebody who was really enlightened like the Buddha. Instead, perhaps he was someone at a high level of enlightenment, expressing his ideas in his cultural framework, yet not fully wise. There are documented cases of Buddhist monks setting themselves on fire and dying without moving a muscle.

You can find branches of Hinduism that are almost indistinguishable from Buddhism. And Hinduism allows one to have much more "flavor" than Buddhism. But then, the history of Hinduism and Buddhism seems to indicate that the reason they sound the same nowadays is that Hinduism adopted Buddhist ideas. Why not just stick with the original founder instead of a Hindu integration of Buddhism?

Is it just about the Aesthetics of it? I have to admit that I'd be happier if I could approach it from the angle of a loving God and beautiful Christian cathedrals. There are Christian Mystics, and they seem to be talking about the same thing as Buddhists. But from what I have seen, it's just adding unnecessary and I'd say counter-productive beliefs to the mix.

The intensity of truth makes it hard to go at it alone, so I think it's good to come at it from some religious orientation. This is especially true in modern Western culture where mystic wisdom is assumed to be something like insanity. If the Buddha says it, it's deep truth, if I say it as a non-Buddhist, I'm crazy. What is your take?

I'm interested in what your interpretation of the Buddha's teaching on emptiness or "void" is?

I'm too lazy to post a concise summary of it but the arguments given in the book "Siddhartha" by Herman Hesse pretty much sum up why I don't believe Buddhism is the "ultimate" way Siddhartha (novel) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Westerners and intellectuals rarely realize that the pure philosophical Buddhism they read of in the West or sometimes hear through Western or Westernized promoters of Buddhism is not typical of Buddhism on the whole. It is analogous to someone from another culture coming into the books of Thomas Merton and believing that what they were reading was typical of Roman Catholicism.

It too has rituals and cultural practices and arcane theological disputes and sometimes far from pristine and sublime prejudices. It has clergy who sometimes inherit the post and seee it rather as the family job, monks who molest women, children, and anything else they can catch, and clerics so petty and rulebound one is hard-pressed to find anything at all wise about them.

Perhaps the quintessential illustration of what I mean by that last point was when I witnessed a Buddhist teacher carefully (and very solemnly) teach Western students the concept of a skandha, and the precise list of seven skandhas (and I don't mean merely give a decent definition, I mean teach with great seriousness the Hindu notion of the skandha, quizzing the students to make sure they understood everything), all in order to teach the Prajnaparamita Sutra (i.e., in order to then teach the students that the seven skandhas were empty). This wasn't some sort of crazy wisdom act: the teacher obviously did not get the meaning of what was being taught, but did get that there were Westerners in front of him. So he taught his culture rather than the emptiness of the senses.

(fyi a "skandha" is approximately identical to a sense (as in the five senses) in the West, though Indian culture assembles them and splits them up differently and includes a few cognitive things we don't include in our enumerated list of senses. And yes, it is sufficient to define them thusly in order to understand the terminology of the Sutra).

I don't want what I wrote above to be seen as disparagement of Buddhism. I have great respect for Buddhism. I just know that real-world Buddhism is not void of real world imperfect Buddhists, with all the drama and confusion that follows.

For me the answer to "why not just Buddhism" is "because my background and experiences matter". They don't matter when it comes to the essence of what truly is, of course, because Truth applies equally to all backgrounds and experiences, and in equal measure renders all backgrounds and experiences meaningless. They matter because whatever I do must allow me to be authentic.

For me that background isn't culture (though I am a Westerner) nor is it religion (which I don't have, and did not have at the time my life turned towards mysticism). For me It is a moment in time some 40 years ago when out of the blue I was handed, invisibly, a set of spiritual tools. Many, many times over the years I've thought of how much easier it would be if I was a practitioner of (fill-in-the-blank) and not a solitary mystic. Sometimes I've flirted with joining a religion. But in the end, I can't. I can't because to do so would require that I be inauthentic. And the burden of being a fake always outweighs the burden of being alone.

For someone else, the significant background is the philosophy class that changed everything. For another, it's an ongoing struggle with sin. For still others, it's a nearly ecstatic connection with nature. All those mystical paths out there? They exist because over the millennia they have meant something to a lot of individual mystics. Those paths are trails where mystics have trod with authenticity.

Buddhism shows no sign of either winning or losing the competition for hearts and minds, except, perhaps in this instance, for yours. If you are able to be authentic and to find authenticity in it, that's where you belong.

I'm deeply attracted to the mystic path, in fact for me it's the only viable spiritual path as it doesn't really require belief, it's experiential. Perhaps because I come from a christian background and I'm biased in my thinking, I just can't get do away with the idea of a believing in a higher power. I can't seem to comprehend an atheistic spiritual path I guess, buddhism seems so nihilistic. And it's clothed in cultural garb that is so foreign to my way of thinking, yet I do resonate with a lot of Indian ideas and feel a little more at home in hinduism than buddhism. I could never walk the buddhist path but i do respect it.

Friend GodHypothesis,

the history of Hinduism and Buddhism seems to indicate that the reason they sound the same nowadays is that Hinduism adopted Buddhist ideas.

Click to expand...

The word/label *hinduism* is incorrect as it is originally labelled SANATAN DHARMA*.
kindly read: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/hinduism-dir/127081-sanatan-dharma.html
for a better understanding.
Sanatan dharma is as old as enlightened humans in this region and they are all considered *buddhas/siddhas/etc.
Once the label *sanatan dharma* is understood it becomes clear that all humans are following the laws of existence which is eternal and so in other words are following *sanatan dharma* including christians, muslims, jews, buddhists, jainas etc.

It is unfortunate that minds which perceives creates duality and in it differences whereas all humans are evolved beings and in turn contributes to further evolution by acting as a medium for existence itself to evolve.

all labels are mind created and so are mind delusions and till any trace of delusion remains one remains human and so unable to move to the next step of evolution.

Love & rgds

Why not just Be?

You can find branches of Hinduism that are almost indistinguishable from Buddhism. And Hinduism allows one to have much more "flavor" than Buddhism. But then, the history of Hinduism and Buddhism seems to indicate that the reason they sound the same nowadays is that Hinduism adopted Buddhist ideas. Why not just stick with the original founder instead of a Hindu integration of Buddhism?

Click to expand...

The borrowing really wasn't one way. Buddhism itself owes a lot to older Indian teachings or least borrowed the symbolism and methods of explaining spiritual reality they used. Buddha may have rejected the authoritative status of the Vedas but that doesn't mean there was a clean break with the past.

GodHypothesis said:

I am becoming increasingly convinced of the reality of the void. I have actually stopped meditating for now as I'm still afraid of "dying". I have gone to the edge of the void. You mystics know what I'm talking about.

Anyway, my thinking is along the lines of Aldous Huxley's "The Perennial Philosophy". All/most religions are pointing to the same thing. But I don't think any religious leaders compare to the Buddha in terms of understanding and teaching the void. And Buddhism, at its heart, is like a step-by-step "how to" of realizing the void, and living peacefully with it.

You can find similar messages elsewhere, but you have to look deeper and between the lines. For example, one can see that the Christians were largely talking about the same thing, but it's much harder to see. And it appears that Jesus was even terrified of dying when he was crucified, it's hard to see how this squares away with somebody who was really enlightened like the Buddha. Instead, perhaps he was someone at a high level of enlightenment, expressing his ideas in his cultural framework, yet not fully wise. There are documented cases of Buddhist monks setting themselves on fire and dying without moving a muscle.

You can find branches of Hinduism that are almost indistinguishable from Buddhism. And Hinduism allows one to have much more "flavor" than Buddhism. But then, the history of Hinduism and Buddhism seems to indicate that the reason they sound the same nowadays is that Hinduism adopted Buddhist ideas. Why not just stick with the original founder instead of a Hindu integration of Buddhism?

Is it just about the Aesthetics of it? I have to admit that I'd be happier if I could approach it from the angle of a loving God and beautiful Christian cathedrals. There are Christian Mystics, and they seem to be talking about the same thing as Buddhists. But from what I have seen, it's just adding unnecessary and I'd say counter-productive beliefs to the mix.

The intensity of truth makes it hard to go at it alone, so I think it's good to come at it from some religious orientation. This is especially true in modern Western culture where mystic wisdom is assumed to be something like insanity. If the Buddha says it, it's deep truth, if I say it as a non-Buddhist, I'm crazy. What is your take?

Click to expand...

The void? Or being absorbed as a drop back into the greater ocean......?

While "Buddhism" is far deteriorated from the original dharma expounded by Gautama Buddha, I feel that the fundamentals of the dharma ring true. Often, even Buddhist have a "Buddhist" worldview and look at the world through the lenses of Buddhism. Doing this is just the same as using your imagination in any other way to look at the world. Unfortunately, I think most people miss the point, looking at the world through a "Buddhist" lens instead of taking the Buddha's teaching on the nature of things and, instead of looking at this as "this" or "that" look directly for the things that Gautama Buddha taught about. Then, there is no religion to it, it is the way of nature, the way things actually are. The rest is cultural adaptation and ornamentation.

So instead of imagining the various philosophical or ontological ideas are the nature of reality, thinking "things are like this", look directly at reality and what appears to be, without ideas, and use the Buddha's Dharma as a travel guide know what to look for and where to travel to see things as they are.

Friend DF,

Thank for reviving the original thread once again.
One has to keep refreshing as we live with each breath we take in and die with each breath that goes out. Similarly we have to keep that consciousness alive by providing oil to it or the lamp goes out and has to be lit again and again till it becomes eternal.

Back to OP who was/is afraid of *dying*??

it appears that Jesus was even terrified of dying when he was crucified

Click to expand...

Personal understanding is that it was not Jesus who was afraid of dying but surely his followers did not wish to miss him besides he was still very young [33 or 36]. Besides have read of his having come back to Kashmir where his grave is said to be still there. [Nothing can be said with certainty]

Hinduism adopted Buddhist ideas. Why not just stick with the original founder instead of a Hindu integration of Buddhism?

Click to expand...

Personal understanding is that historically there was no hinduism and everyone followed sanatan dharma which was developed culturally where all paths/ways/religions were allowed to practice alongside which is what the flavor comes from and Gutama came much after this cultural background was deeply settled and so it was only Gautama who evolved that sanatan dharma further with his middle path theory.

This is especially true in modern Western culture where mystic wisdom is assumed to be something like insanity. If the Buddha says it, it's deep truth, if I say it as a non-Buddhist, I'm crazy. What is your take?

Click to expand...

This is true even today, if only the OP could see how the traditionalists feel discomfort with rationalists/modernists at the Hinduism, Vedanta DIRs in this forum itself.

All in all yes, Guatama did pave a way that allows all traditionals to moderise and even approach it scientifically to be convinced if necessary and if science can reach to that depth. The middle path as understood is akin o that point on a pendulum when it is at the center and totally balanced neither swinging this side or that. When one reaches to the height of goodness or badness the opposite attracts the most and so swings back to the opposite pole and it is only when one stays balanced, centered that there is no pull or push.
The fear of dying to personal understanding is the pull/push which at times individuals find hard to balance during times of high tide meaning when one whom he understands that others too are in oneness goes against and one is termed mad or crazy and suddenly the mind opens the pictures of Jesus getting crucified on the cross and appears afraid to die when he himself was said to be the son of God.
But in the final analysis, is there any person or persons? Yes everything is there mountains are mountains and then mountains are not mountains but only when one is totally centred then only he is back to find mountains are mountains does death find no place even temporarily.

Love & rgds

GodHypothesis said:

I am becoming increasingly convinced of the reality of the void. I have actually stopped meditating for now as I'm still afraid of "dying". I have gone to the edge of the void. You mystics know what I'm talking about.

...
The intensity of truth makes it hard to go at it alone, so I think it's good to come at it from some religious orientation. This is especially true in modern Western culture where mystic wisdom is assumed to be something like insanity. If the Buddha says it, it's deep truth, if I say it as a non-Buddhist, I'm crazy. What is your take?

Click to expand...

Refreshing honesty. Most 'buddhists' clamor to display their mastery of non-dualism etc and would never admit to something so human and mundane as fear of death.
That non-admission is generally a display of ego.

My take ? Voidness has, hanging in it like a bubble, the observed universe, including any perceptions generally referred to as self, no matter how subtle, including the dhyanas.

Self is this voidness in which this observed reality occurs, and this observed reality, both. We cannot see the wind, but we can see what it moves, and feel it moving.

There is awareness, and if awareness itself is taken as the object of meditation, it is eventually recognised as the primary faculty of being. Being cannot be taken as an object of meditation. Dharmakaya is obscured by dharma.