I'm starting to question myself

[innerspace_cadet]

For a while I was involved with Buddhism...but there was always a deep skepticism about its core doctrines, namely rebirth and karma. I expressed these doubts repeatedly on a Buddhist forum called e-sangha, and one of the things they told me was to "put aside" my doubts for a while and just practice. But I'm finding that those doubts will always be with me. And now I am starting to question whether or not I need religion of any sort whatsoever. The lead singer of System of a Down said something about religion that really resonated with me recently. An interviewer asked him if he had a religion, and he pointed to a tree outside and asked the interviewer if the tree had a religion. And the obvious answer is: of course not. A tree knows nothing but its own nature.

 

So I'm beginning to think that religion can sometimes sidetrack people from the real problem, which is how live a carefree, untroubled existence. I always got so befuddled by the Buddhists on e-sangha, especially when they got into these long drawn out debates over rebirth. (Some of these threads about rebirth would span over 26 pages long.) That tree outside that Serj Tankian pointed to does not have beliefs, does not argue or intellectualize. When it dies, it dies. To the extent that a religion encourages us to believe in a paradise after death, a wonderful neverland that is far removed from this life, even this moment, it devolves into a death cult.

 

Some of what Taoism teaches resonates deeply with me. But I am not a "Buddhist" or a "Taoist". I feel that the need to identify with a religion is just a form of spiritual materialism, just junk food for the ego. Lao Tzu, in my opinion, did not follow "Taoism" but rather followed the Tao. And that is the important thing.

 

What do you guys think?

[Spirit Ape]

U dont need religion, just connect and feel the Qi which is Tao IMHO!

[goldisheavy]

What do I think? I agree 100%!

 

Once you live even a few years without any religion and yet you live on a committed and deep spiritual path, you'll never look back. Perhaps it's unfortunate, or perhaps it's how it should be anyway, but people are people, and even in the most "open-minded" religion such as Buddhism, you can encounter some really dumb statements and attitudes. Looks like you've encountered some of them already.

 

Doubts can be resolved, but they cannot be "just put aside". If you can "just put aside" your doubt, it means it was just something superficial and not quite a doubt in the first place. If you have a serious doubt about something, you can transcend it, but to do so authentically, you cannot just use mental brute force, which is what an attempt to simply ignoring your doubt would be. You have to investigate your doubt, its basis, and the structure of beliefs that supports your doubt, and so forth. Eventually the doubt may melt away.

 

Buddhism often presents a mere caricature of the truth about mind. It has some eminently useful principles and good topics for contemplation. But there is no need to be a Buddhist. Buddhist doctrine is just a tool, like a broom. And you don't want to marry your broom, do you? Brooms can be useful, but you don't sleep with one in bed. That's the sanest relationship to have with any spiritual teaching or technique.

Edited February 26, 2009 by goldisheavy

[NeutralWire]

I always got so befuddled by the Buddhists on e-sangha, especially when they got into these long drawn out debates over rebirth.

 

To me you've illustrated the main problem right there -- people talk without experience. If you have a spiritual experience that proves rebirth to your own satisfaction, what difference is talking ever going to make? But talking won't give you the experience.

 

In situations where you decide you will achieve something real, you're often out of step with the talkers.

 

NW

[goldisheavy]

If you have a spiritual experience that proves rebirth to your own satisfaction, what difference is talking ever going to make?

 

I beg to differ. For most people convention is important. So talking makes a huge difference and is essential. You can have an experience, but then, if you respect convention, which most of us do to some extent, you have to talk with others to see how your experience fits within convention. So, for example, if you have an experience of rebirth, but live within a physicalist culture, or a culture that otherwise does not believe in rebirth, you will have no way to share that experience without being perceived as a lunatic. People have experiences that they have doubts about all the time. These are called "hallucinations". So just having an experience of something is not sufficient to make it real. An experience has to fit within your belief structure to become real. It has to conform to your validation framework, and for most people, convention is part of that framework.

 

So talking about experiences is a way to validate them, and/or to legitimize them and/or to introduce them into convention.

 

Talking is just as important as the experience, as long as you want to fit in. If you don't mind abandoning convention, then you don't need to talk anymore.

[Dreamingawake]

An interviewer asked him if he had a religion, and he pointed to a tree outside and asked the interviewer if the tree had a religion.

 

Serj Tankian is a genius

[NeutralWire]

Talking is just as important as the experience, as long as you want to fit in. If you don't mind abandoning convention, then you don't need to talk anymore.

 

I agree with that. You might want to talk but you won't need to.

 

In my experience anyone who achieves anything at all in these disciplines does tend to have exited the groupmind stage left. (This doesn't have to mean they're antisocial though.) They start to become other, and might enjoy it.

 

People have experiences that they have doubts about all the time. These are called "hallucinations". So just having an experience of something is not sufficient to make it real.

 

Yes but a hallucination is not something you work towards. If you work towards seeing the process of incarnation and achieve it, people who are only chattering about what some teacher said 10 generations ago will not seem as relevant as they once did.

 

Not only many mystics but also many poets, inventors, explorers, etc., are used to rubbing the talk of the town the wrong way going out, and then being celebrated, villified, or ridiculed on the way back in. You have to have the 'because it's there' attitude, and treat all the impostors just the same. Who would ever get through any strong training without that?

 

My point is also that, no matter how much you talk in the courtyard, the courage to proceed through the gate is found within, rather than in polite converse.

 

All best wishes,

 

~NeutralWire~

[Bruce]

I can relate with your doubts. My doubts about rebirth in particular made me question the validity of the entire religion for awhile, because several key points are directly or indirectly tied to the notion. I eventually let my doubt drive me away from a practice that had proved beneficial to me for years.

 

The problem was that I was caught up in the religion of Buddhism and forgot the practical aspects of practice that were benefiting my life. That's like throwing the baby out with the bath water, to use an old cliche. You don't have to believe anything you don't want to believe. Btw, there are plenty of practicing Buddhists who don't believe in rebirth in the classical sense. Just google something like zen and rebirth.

 

The practice of meditation is not religious, nor is mindfulness, unless you put a religious wrapper around it. Learning to have some mastery over your thoughts is not religious, and has an immediate positive impact on your life. You don't have to believe anything about Buddhism to practice most basic forms of meditation. I do think that understanding some of the basic concepts are useful to put your experience in perspective, but the basics aren't religious either.

 

I've come to terms with my doubts. I'm not going to let them ruin a good thing. Practice for now. Practice for what it can do for your life. If it isn't doing it for you then fine, but if it is don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

Btw, I'm not defending Buddhism. The practice I do works for me so I do it. I've learned a lot from Buddhist study and practice and continue to learn. If I ever stop learning I'll do something else, but I rather doubt that will happen.

 

You liked the answer that guy gave about the tree knowing its nature. Do you know your nature? I would only suggest that you stop looking for answers outside of yourself. The tree looks nowhere else.

Edited February 26, 2009 by Bruce

[gendao]

Why do you guys doubt reincarnation?

 

It seems past lives come up pretty frequently in any type of spiritual therapies?

[Bruce]

Why do you guys doubt reincarnation?

 

It seems past lives come up pretty frequently in any type of spiritual therapies?

Because it's not proven, unless maybe you're enlightened and can see it for yourself, and I'm not.

 

My feeling is that it's not only possible, but probable. Rather than debate it and worry about it (which to me has become a waste of time and energy), I've decided to simply live this life as best I can. The rest will take care of itself.

[gendao]

Because it's not proven, unless maybe you're enlightened and can see it for yourself, and I'm not.

 

My feeling is that it's not only possible, but probable. Rather than debate it and worry about it (which to me has become a waste of time and energy), I've decided to simply live this life as best I can. The rest will take care of itself.

Sure, I think it's hard to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt scientifically. However, I and others have found circumstantial evidence (which is admissible in court) that does make it at least probable.

 

Namely, I've regressed and independently verified past events with mutiple soulmates, channeled a past life for a friend that matched what she had been told previously from others and knew someone who noted details from a regression that she later confirmed in real life at an old schoolhouse...etc.

 

Now, none of this is hard "proof," but it's certainly made reincarnation believable to me.

Edited February 26, 2009 by vortex

[DaoChild]

If it no longer feels right for you, then don't do it.

 

Don't do it if it doesn't make your heart sing, make you want to jump with joy, make you enjoy every moment of life.

 

Maybe religion is for you, maybe it isn't. WE Never will know -- only you.

 

I thoroughly believe that not everyone needs religion or spirituality - some of us are just called to it and can't ignore it.

[CarsonZi]

Namaste innerspace_cadet,

I feel that the need to identify with a religion is just a form of spiritual materialism, just junk food for the ego. What do you guys think?

I like that.^ To me personally religion is individual spirituality organized into rituals. And it is not only not necessary but is more of a distraction from the True Nature of things then anything IMO. Serj is very perceptive in his analogy. Anything that "just is" (and personally that is what I strive to be every second of every day) does not need to hold onto anything....not the body, not the feelings, not the perception, not the beliefs, and not the consciousness. Everything just is as it is and that's the way it is! haha. Oh to be a tree.

 

Love,

Carson

 

Religion is a stepping stone IMO

Edited February 26, 2009 by CarsonZi

[Unconditioned]

I think what you're doing (introspection) will help you figure things out for yourself. Religion is a spiritual system... like all systems, it's just a label, a map, with limited descriptions.

 

I'm going to use it, yes it's cliche but so true:

Careful not to confuse the map for the territory.

 

Knowing a lot about maps doesn't mean you've seen nature itself.

 

Edit: But, the maps (labels, systems, paths, etc.) can be useful tools as well. The Tao doesn't exclude anything nor does it add, it simply is ... everything.

Edited February 26, 2009 by Unconditioned

[pacala]

For a while I was involved with Buddhism...but there was always a deep skepticism about its core doctrines, namely rebirth and karma. I expressed these doubts repeatedly on a Buddhist forum called e-sangha, and one of the things they told me was to "put aside" my doubts for a while and just practice. But I'm finding that those doubts will always be with me. And now I am starting to question whether or not I need religion of any sort whatsoever. The lead singer of System of a Down said something about religion that really resonated with me recently. An interviewer asked him if he had a religion, and he pointed to a tree outside and asked the interviewer if the tree had a religion. And the obvious answer is: of course not. A tree knows nothing but its own nature.

 

So I'm beginning to think that religion can sometimes sidetrack people from the real problem, which is how live a carefree, untroubled existence. I always got so befuddled by the Buddhists on e-sangha, especially when they got into these long drawn out debates over rebirth. (Some of these threads about rebirth would span over 26 pages long.) That tree outside that Serj Tankian pointed to does not have beliefs, does not argue or intellectualize. When it dies, it dies. To the extent that a religion encourages us to believe in a paradise after death, a wonderful neverland that is far removed from this life, even this moment, it devolves into a death cult.

 

Some of what Taoism teaches resonates deeply with me. But I am not a "Buddhist" or a "Taoist". I feel that the need to identify with a religion is just a form of spiritual materialism, just junk food for the ego. Lao Tzu, in my opinion, did not follow "Taoism" but rather followed the Tao. And that is the important thing.

 

What do you guys think?

 

 

I think you are right.

[doc benway]

So I'm beginning to think that religion can sometimes sidetrack people from the real problem, which is how live a carefree, untroubled existence.

....

Some of what Taoism teaches resonates deeply with me. But I am not a "Buddhist" or a "Taoist". I feel that the need to identify with a religion is just a form of spiritual materialism, just junk food for the ego. Lao Tzu, in my opinion, did not follow "Taoism" but rather followed the Tao. And that is the important thing.

 

What do you guys think?

With respect to the first part above - why is it that we should expect to lead a carefree, untroubled existence?

If the Dao teaches us anything it is balance and mutual arising - there is trouble and there is peace, there are cares and there is acceptance. I don't know that it is a realistic (or even desirable) expectation to live a carefree and untroubled existence although it certainly is possible to practice wu wei and accept troubles and cares without too much anxiety or distress. Without troubles how would we appreciate or even recognize being trouble free?

 

With respect to your second point, I agree 100%.

[Wayfarer64]

Search until you find what you need...Putting added value onto natural human propensities is wasteful. We each seem to at least recognize that we are in part - spiritual beings, if not beings of spirit having a human experience... We participate in the growth and culture of our inner selves...questioning everything always -

 

why question questioning? why not keep asking?

[mat black]

For a while I was involved with Buddhism...but there was always a deep skepticism about its core doctrines, namely rebirth and karma. I expressed these doubts repeatedly on a Buddhist forum called e-sangha, and one of the things they told me was to "put aside" my doubts for a while and just practice. But I'm finding that those doubts will always be with me.

 

And now I am starting to question whether or not I need religion of any sort whatsoever. The lead singer of System of a Down said something about religion that really resonated with me recently. An interviewer asked him if he had a religion, and he pointed to a tree outside and asked the interviewer if the tree had a religion. And the obvious answer is: of course not. A tree knows nothing but its own nature.

 

In regard to the tree. Does the tree know it's own nature? Just as with humans, some might, others might not. We can never be sure. Only those with the relevant penetrations are able to tell.

 

If re-birth and karma do not sit with you at the moment, you can still cultivate kindness, calmness and other practices which help eliminate our bad habits and tranform us into kind beings with wisdom. Continued persistence can reveal our own self-nature. Everyone is at a a different 'stage' in this regard, so it is necessary to cultivate so that it is revealed.

How will we know it is revealed? All our doubts will be gone, we will feel a deep compassion for all beings and be aware of intrinsic inter-dependence of all life.

 

.....and like Steve said,

Without troubles how would we appreciate or even recognize being trouble free?

this reminds me of something one of my teacher told me just the other day............." In China, there is a saying 'without pressure on the well, the water won't come forth'..........."

 

So, don't allow certain current doubts to deter you from the path completely. In other words, it's OK not be sure about re-birth etc. Just focus on virtue, and developing wisdom. etc. In time more may be revealed as wisdom opens up.

Edited February 27, 2009 by mat black

[Apech]

I have always instinctively accepted rebirth and karma because they make sense to me. Intuitively I feel they are true although of course I cannot offer any kind of proof. Karma of course has a certain logic because it can be compared to cause and effect in physics - except that it is applied to a different 'level' (if that is the right word).

 

When I was a practicing Buddhist I understood that although rebirth and karma were taught as for instance, thoughts that turn the mind to dharma, and you were expected to accept them, it was more important to practice compassion and so on and it was not a big issue to have some questions about these ideas - it was just that you were expected not to go round rubbishing them - because this might obstruct others coming to dharma.

 

Having said this - I too have problems with religion of any kind and in the end prefer the way of the 'freelance' mystic. I found that Buddhism provided too many 'answers' - which really just served to close down part of my mind - I like to work things out for myself. Trees don't have a religion ... but they arn't as lost as us - and there's plenty of humans who benefit from some kind of benign orthodoxy. For myself I am not one of them.

[ThisLife]

 

 

You liked the answer that guy gave about the tree knowing its nature. Do you know your nature? I would only suggest that you stop looking for answers outside of yourself. The tree looks nowhere else.

 

 

Actually, the tree doesn't look for its own true nature at all. I think that's the real essence of this analogy

 

 

.

Edited February 27, 2009 by ThisLife

[Tao_Thoughts]

After many years dealing with the same questions and uncertainties, I have come to the conclusion that there is a significant difference between religion and spirituality. Religion tends to be comprised of many rituals and traditions that have been created by men/women that only serves to segregate those who believe from those who do not.

 

It is religion that is at the very core of hatred and bloodshed. Strip away the religion and we are left with a common morality that binds us together. For reasoning makes us human, but its compassion that forms the foundation of humanity.

 

It is not the questioning of formal religion but rather the deviation from compassion that compromises the soul. Prejudices that we are taught, through religion, or culture, push us away from the Truth, not toward it. Break through the walls of prejudice that mankind has built. Embrace the unity of compassionate humanity. Its within this dimension that we are all united.

[ThisLife]

 

Some of what Taoism teaches resonates deeply with me. But I am not a "Buddhist" or a "Taoist". I feel that the need to identify with a religion is just a form of spiritual materialism, just junk food for the ego. Lao Tzu, in my opinion, did not follow "Taoism" but rather followed the Tao. And that is the important thing.

 

What do you guys think?

 

 

I found the points you make very interesting,... virtually matching the questions I now find myself trying to understand at the core of my own practice. Your concluding paragraph above I found particularly resonating,... except for a small 'buzzing', like a fly somewhere in a large room. That unsettling note just wouldn't go away the more I thought about what you were saying. Finally it came to me.

 

At first I thought, 'Yes !! That's it',... "Lao Tzu didn't follow the Tao,... he was the Tao".

 

I liked that better. For a while. But, you know,... though the buzzing was diminished, it still was not gone.

 

Just now, I think I finally spotted the fly. It comes from the nature of our dualistic mind which, (since it's the only one we have been provided with), we have no choice but to think through. Our mind can only operate via a subject / object relationship. "We", are always the subject, the "centre". Everything else in the universe, including the most abstract and ethereal of philosophies, are all "objects". All revolve at a distance around us.

 

So, when the fly finally stopped buzzing, this is what I was left with :

 

It wasn't that 'Lao Tzu was the Tao',...."The Tao was Lao Tzu !!"

 

A seemingly small change in word order, but correcting this inadvertent reversal of subject and object, was to trace back and set right the very first error we make in our attempts to follow this noble path. And that change makes 'everything else' that comes afterwards completely different.

 

 

ThisLife

 

 

.

Edited March 1, 2009 by ThisLife

[Bruce]

I found the points you make very interesting,... virtually matching the questions I now find myself trying to understand at the core of my own practice. Your concluding paragraph above I found particularly resonating,... except for a small 'buzzing', like a fly somewhere in a large room. That unsettling note just wouldn't go away the more I thought about what you were saying. Finally it came to me.

 

At first I thought, 'Yes !! That's it',... "Lao Tzu didn't follow the Tao,... he was the Tao".

 

I liked that better. For a while. But, you know,... though the buzzing was diminished, it still was not gone.

 

Just now, I think I finally spotted the fly. It comes from the nature of our dualistic mind which, (since it's the only one we have been provided with), we have no choice but to think through. Our mind can only operate via a subject / object relationship. "We", are always the subject, the "centre". Everything else in the universe, including the most abstract and ethereal of philosophies, are all "objects". All revolve at a distance around us.

 

So, when the fly finally stopped buzzing, this is what I was left with :

 

It wasn't that 'Lao Tzu was the Tao',...."The Tao was Lao Tzu !!"

 

A seemingly small change in word order, but correcting this inadvertent reversal of subject and object, was to trace back and set right the very first error we make in our attempts to follow this noble path. And that change makes 'everything else' that comes afterwards completely different.

ThisLife

.

 

Brilliant!

[ThisLife]

Brilliant!

 

Dear Bruce,

 

Thank you very much again for the connection. It makes such a difference for me to feel that there is someone out there with whom a living understanding is happening. Otherwise, it just feels like spending so much time with all these kinds of thoughts turning over in my head is simply a waste of my time and life. Yet, I really question what power I have to stop thinking about them. It seems much of the time that my thoughts are 'thinking me', rather than the more conventional view of it being the other way around.

 

Much of the afternoon I've still been trying to find that fly buzzing around in those thoughts above. Every time I think I've silenced him,.... the slight sound of discord slowly starts to become audible once again.

 

It was my closing remark this time,.... how reversing the subject and object changed everything that came after. It turns out that was actually a question, not a statement. Because, "What did it actually change ?"

 

The idea eventually popped up that, if "The Tao was Lao Tzu",.... then by exactly that reasoning, "Myself, you,.... and every living being,... is not one bit different than Lao Tzu ! This whole incredible interplay of existence,... is just the Tao functioning through each one of us !"

 

I know that sounds like just a Ho-Hum standard re-phrasing of basic Taoism. But so often I've found that because I can intellectually grasp a concept I delude myself into thinking that I 'know' it. I think what that process actually does is close a 'water-tight door' between myself and real knowing until something nudges me to re-examine some of those old hackneyed truths that I thought I knew.

 

To my surprise, when I exhumed this old mental cadaver, what it said this time round was, "There is no need whatsoever for all this striving to purify, discipline, or make yourself a worthy vehicle through either thinking or engaging in some exotic practice in order to merge with the Tao. The Tao is already acting through us all with absolute perfection right now. It always has done, and always will do. Since the Tao is by definition, EVERYTHING,... then it could only be this way. All this suffering because of the appearance of, and conviction of the truth of, our separation from the Source,... is just a notion. It's like a form of 'Divine Hypnosis' that almost all humans are under."

 

Anyway, those thoughts for quite a while, did bring me a very noticeable relief. I felt like a donkey that unexpectedly found itself relieved of a lot of the weight I had been staggering around with for so long that I thought this weight in my head was simply part of the inescapable admission price for existence.

 

Anyway,... I've just had a call for dinner so had better dash. Maybe roast chicken will free me from this buzzing bee in my bonnet.

 

 

ThisLife

 

 

.

[DalTheJigsaw123]

U dont need religion, just connect and feel the Qi which is Tao IMHO!

 

I would totally agree! That is a great point. Tao is great, but it is the basics, that gives you room to grow and experiment. If you need religion, it will always be here. It is not going anywhere.