If you have given up Buddhism - how come?

If you have given up Buddhism - how come?

If you used to be a Buddhist practitioner, but have stopped - what lead you to stop?
What were those aspects of Buddhism that you found so unsatisfactory -and why- that you decided to give it up altogether?

Or, if you have given it up just in part - what did you keep, what did you give up, and why?


Myself, I've been struggling lately. I feel tempted to give up my interest and my Buddhist practice because Enlightenment just seems too impossible to attain. Also, I don't have a teacher or a proper group to attend, so it is all too abstract.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't think I've given up, but I have become less of a practioner; mainly because of my lifestyle and work schedule. I don't have much time lately to devote to things other than what is necessary to my everyday life. I honestly don't have much time for that either. My last car payment was 2 weeks late simply because I did not have the time to stop by and drop of the money due to work and college. I work Mon-Fri from 8am to 5pm. Then I have college classes Monday's Wedensdays, and Thursday nights at 7pm to 9:30pm. The bank is open from 9am to 5pm so by the time I get off work I have no time to go to the bank and drop of the payment. Also 2 weekends a month, I volunteer at a homeless shelter which rules out Saturdays to pay it.


So yeah, I live a pretty busy life. No time for religion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Underpinning Buddhist ideas is the notion that we are ultimately non-existent and that variety or action is the cause of all suffering.

At least that was my conclusion after examining Buddhism

One reason why buddhist ideals are deemed as impossible is because the above premise is not (entirely) correct - namely that being active (not materially active, which of course leads to suffering, as accurately concluded by buddhists) is the ultimate nature of our selves

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think you've mistaken it with Janism.
In Buddhism desire is the root of all suffering, not action.

 

I see your point

I was working with the understanding that use of the mind also constitutes action

 

Using mind is action, but nowhere does Buddha say that you should stop using the mind, on the contrary. What he does say though is that you have to make your mind egoless, i.e., not attached to name and form, but universal, an incarnation of the universe, not one, single person.

At least that's my understanding.

 

Other schools of buddhism argue that nirvana extends beyond the universe - but either way the problems of the process remain the same - namely what to do with the mind and senses that are hankering for some sort of engagement ....

 

That looks like annihilationism. AFAIK, in Buddhism, annihilationism is considered to be wrong view.

What to do with them? Engage them in the right way - this is the whole point of the Noble Eightfold Path.

 

then what do you understand as the buddhist view of the self?

the problem then remains of achieving the advocated perfection of the eightfold path

 

I think you have a sense of why I gave up Buddhism. I felt like it put me in an antagonistic relationship with parts of myself. Disidenfication did not seem neutral or compassionate. Nor did the discipline. Or to put it another overlapping way: Buddhism has inherent judgements of emotions and desires as bad. That no longer felt right to me.

But as far as you. If Buddhism has reduced your suffering, why not reduce it more, even if you cannot completely reduce it.

My experience is also that meditation in the company of others can be profound in ways that meditating alone is. Or to use an analogy: in team sports I exercise with great intensity without have to do the slightest bit of enforcing the activity.

Do you have no access to centers where you can do this with others?

 

There are some discrepancies in how various Buddhist traditions view the issue of self.
For example, Classical Theravada teaches that there is ultimately no self, but that the self exists only in a conventional sense. Some Mahayanists believe that Buddha Nature is the true self.

My understanding, based mostly on my reading of the Suttas, is that the self is not something that could be meaningfully talked about, and that all attempts to define what the self is lead to more and more stress and suffering.

Not according to the Suttas:
Venerable Ananda explains to the Brahman Unnabha why the path is not an endless path:

 

it's still not clear how you are viewing the self as anything but something to be diminished to the point of nil

perhaps I didn't express myself clearly

following the 8 fold process is supposed to enable one to achieve nirvana by engaging the senses to the point that they cease to exist - the resistance of the senses to such an outcome is the precise difficulty

 

As far as I know, this is not so. As far as I know, Buddhism judges everything from the perspective of whether something leads to the end of suffering, or not. It's not that something would be considered inherently bad or evil; it's that some things are just not helping a person to make an end to suffering.

It seems that a big problem that many people have with Buddhism (including some Buddhists themselves) is that Buddhist practice and philosophy are so decisively aimed toward a goal.

Buddhism is not a system of metaphysics that would be interested in exploring "how things really are" per se. It is a course of training aimed to reach a goal. I think this is what makes it so different -and even unacceptable- in comparison to and in the perspective of other religions and philosophies, especially those "Western" ones that focus mainly on exploring "how things are".


The fact is that not everyone directly wants to make an end to suffering. Some people just don't suffer enough to be all that interested in making a complete end to it.
The fact is that there are many many pleasures in this world and having them can make one's life quite fulfilling, so a person will understandably be reluctant to give them up.
I don't think Buddhism judges or condemns these facts. It is just that if one wants to make an end to suffering, then Buddhism suggests particular courses of action, that is all. I think Buddhism doesn't compell anyone to make an end to suffering.

I think Buddhism has, in this regard, a far more loose attitude than we're used to see in other religions and philosophies. And I think often times when we compare religions, the attitudes and assumptions about what religion is, what religious life is all about, those attitudes and assumptions that we picked up in a previous religion or philosophy, skew the way we understand other religions.

I don't know. I seem to be at a point where an all-or-nothing decision is necessary.

I have, but they are not what I would like. I have strong Early Theravada inclinations. I could attend a Shambhala group or a Vajrayana group - but this is obviously a whole different approach. Then there is a modern Theravada group, but I find some of their particular approaches questionable.
I have great appreciation for the teachings of the Suttas, but in actual groups, it seems to me that often a very different kind of Buddhism is taught.
And I don't want to join a group just so that I would join a group.

 

I think that in order to understand some Buddhist teachings correctly, it is necessary that the person has a strong desire to make an end to suffering. And that without such a desire, those teachings won't make sense, no matter how much one would try to explain them.

I am not saying this to disparage you or your input. It has been my experience though that if certain desires and intentions are not present, some things just don't make sense. While they do make sense once those desires and intentions are present.

Reading your posts at this forum, I think you have noticed this same thing in discussions with atheists, too.

 

Yes, but I do not feel it went deeply enough into the causes of suffering and at the depth it reached it seemed like desire and emotions, especially their expression were causal. I do not think this is the case.

Not me. Goals are fine and the goal of Buddhism is fine, though I think it is limited.

I think it may be less judgemental. It certainly seems to be on paper.

No, not at all.

Sure. We do the best we can.

I think the idea that it is necessary might be one to look at. It seems harsh. But I am not in there with you.

OK.

 

it is the teaching of buddhism that as long as one has a self, there is no end to suffering
there are other eastern teachings about the situation of suffering that beg to differ

certainly
unless one perceives the inherent suffering nature of material existence, the desire to transcend it never arises

yes, that too

 

Can you please say more about this? It could be that I am suspecting something similar, but can't yet put it into words.

You don't think that the expression of emotions and desire are causal?
Where do emotions and desires come from, in your estimation?
What do you think are the real causes of suffering?

Limited in what way?

That could be so, yes. Like I said, I am currently stuck.

 

This is a way of putting it, but I don't think such a formulation would come from a Buddhist perspective.
I think in Buddhist terms, it would be said that self-view is one of the fetters that bind one to the Round.
There is a crucial difference bwteen speaking of the self and speaking of the self-view.

Can you please tell me more about these teachings, so that I know what to look up?

 

and the round is samsara, and samsara is .....

I'm not sure if I catch the essential difference

Buddhism appeared in India during a time of misuse of the Vedas
Buddhism lost a footing in India due to the influence of the Advaita school (which is basically affirming buddhist ideas, but on the strength of the vedas)
this was later challenged by the vishishtadvaita school (which affirmed that the self has an eternal aspect) and further refined by the dvaita but finds its most complete expression in the Achintya bheda abheda school

 

I believe thoughts are vastly more causal. I am including in the word 'thoughts' also unconscious judgements about the way things must be, what one must do to be happy, and many other limitations. I these judgements channel desires into ruts and repetition rather than allowing a nuanced response to specific situations. In relation to desires I think a lot of judgements both conscious and unconscious judge emotions even so called positive ones as the roots of problems and afflictions. My experience is that these judgements can be slowly released and that emotional expression and desire can slowly be liberated in a way that does not cause suffering. Concurrent one comes into ones life and finds ones correct place in things. Suppressing or disengaging from these __________ (things, portions of the self....) does not allow one to move into the life that actually fits.

To suffering, no.

I believe just as their is a consciousness in us there is an emotional body if you will. In fact I see them as end of a spectrum rather than separate things.

Traumas, our inablity to process these because of our fears and judgements about the strong emotions associated with these traumas - some of which can be ongoing and not so dramatic as your list above makes rather clear - and a conscious and unconscious thought structure that is absolutely sure that suffering must continue (partly because of who we are or think we are, partly because of what we think it means that we have done and have not done certain things, partly because of what we concluded about the universe after we went through suffering and partly conclusion draw about the way things are in general)

Well, it is a goal in the negative. The cessation of suffering. I would like, for example, to fulfill my creative potential, to live near beautiful nature, to be close to people and so on. I am not seeking simply to end pain but to come into myself. (I realize how the Buddhists view several of these desires and you can think of that as part of my problem with Buddhism. I think they are incorrect about what must be true.)

Is it more than the fact that the goal seems impossible? They do make it pretty clear this is a long, perhaps many lifetime process. (I know this varies from Buddhist wing to another, but still, 30 years of meditating could be seen as a start by many of them.)