Category: buddhism

This category is about everything Buddha and Buddhism, which teaches that:
1) everything is marked by impermanence, to believe in any permanence is to suffer, and the the ultimate cause of suffering is the rejection of the non-permanent self.
2) Enlightenment (contentment) can be found through the understanding of the true nature of existence (trilaksana) as stated here, and by living in accordance to such an understanding.

A Short Introduction to the Buddha

Warren Tang7 Comments

The Buddha, who is said to have inspired the “religion” of Buddhism, has been a major influence on my life and thinking since I was sixteen. And today I continue to practice as a non-monk.

There are plenty of Buddhists and plenty of environmentalists out there, but very few are consciously “ecoBuddhists” or “Buddho-environmentalists”. And although I do not think I am one I have chosen to write about sustainability and Buddhism, and how they relate to me. Most people who find this page have probably reached it via the sustainability aspect of my blog rather than through the Buddha aspect. So I feel I owe it to my readers that I explain the Buddha and Buddhism in order not to be misunderstood. And to my Buddhists readers I need to explain why I feel sustainability is an important issue for them as well.

The Buddha
The Buddha lived about 2,500 years ago around the area now can be loosely referred as the Indo-Nepalese border. He claimed neither to be a god, nor to be a son of a god, nor to be a prophet. He claimed to be just an ordinary man. Although he was born a prince (and I do not know of any princes who can claim to have special powers) it is said he renounced his noble life in order to find true happiness.

In being an ordinary man then it is difficult to say what he taught could be called “religion”. While I am aware that the Buddhisms of today may have become religion-like some time in the past it doesn’t necessarily follow that what he taught was religion. And this is a point I hold as truly important.

As I wrote, the Buddha was born a prince. And until he left home to find happiness, he had lived a life of luxury and beauty, sheilded from the truth of the world by his father. He was about 29 when he made this decision.

After studying under the two most renowned teachers of the time he left them to search for an even greater truth. And at the age of 35 he came to a great realization and from then on he called “the Buddha” or the enlightened one.

His teaching
1.
Being an ordinary man claiming no divinity it is only logical that what he taught would be nothing but mundane (not extraordinary). And that was the way it was – there were no gods, no supreme power, nothing there that is greater the physical world in his scheme of things.

His taught that all things are marked by impermanence. And it is interesting to note that even Buddhism did not stand outside of this truth according to him. No other religion, teaching or philosophy has stated this.

So man’s folly had been to think there could be anything permanent to hold onto. This mistake the Buddha called suffering. If one accepted that nothing is permanent then one will come to see that our actions are suffering ridden and will lead to more suffering as such.

The last main logical idea that follows from impermanence and suffering is that there is no soul or no-self. It is simply the greatest hinderance to us for finding “true happiness”. The idea of no-self too has no equivalent in any other religion.

So with the understanding of these three characteristics of existence he taught that it was possible to end suffering, the “true happiness” he had been seeking. Today we know this basic teaching as the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path.

The Four Noble Truths are statements which proclaim the idea of suffering, its cause, its cure and the curing procedure. And the curing procedure here is the Noble Eightfold Path, which covers every aspect of how we should live and practice in order reach the goal of true happiness or enlightenment.

2.
Before I wrap up this short introduction to the Buddha and his teaching there are two more concepts in Buddhism which I feel need clarification. They are 1) reincarnation and karma, and 2) the Buddha’s view of the mind.

Reincarnation is neither an idea unique nor original to Buddhism. It was a concept borrowed from Hinduism, the dominant religion in the Buddha’s culture during his lifetime. And the idea of karma likewise was also borrowed from Hinduism. However they differ to Hindu concepts.

Hinduism espouses that one need to seek to be reborn in higher and higher planes to finally unite with an ultimate being. But since the Buddha rejected the notion of an ultimate power or being ,the goal of reincarnation has to be necessarily different. The Buddha’s concept is one where one must try to end reincarnation (the cycle of rebirth) which is the true happiness.

Again karma in Hinduism is about producing good karma and avoiding bad karma in order to be reborn in higher and higher planes, again, until one unites with the ultimate being. Thus the Buddha did not see the production of karma – good or bad – as something that is desirable but rather something to be avoided all together. Moreover, the effects of karma only operated on the original producer of the karma. So what we do has no real effect on people, place and things around us, and to think so is incorrect. This is a sticking point for many Western non-Buddhists (and some Buddhists as well) but it really only has to be worked through in order to be grasped.

And the second concept – the mind – is another sticking point for many Westerners. In the Buddha’s teaching the mind is thought of as a sense organ, like the eye, ear, tongue, nose or skin. Its primary function is to comprehend the information from the other senses, as well as, to create new information. In other words, it is not a place of the soul or the seat of a personality. With the West’s emphasis on a soul and personality it becomes hard to accept that the mind can be a mere sensory organ.

I have given here an explanation of my personal understanding of the Buddha. It may not be how most Buddhists would explain it but I have no apologies for this. If you think I am wrong in something please comment about it.

Also I have yet to write about Buddhism. I will try follow up with a new post in the near future.

Moderation – Buddhism and Sustainability

Warren Tang6 Comments

I wrote in my sustainability introduction page that I believed that sustainability is important now more than ever. We live in an age where human population and consumption is putting too much strain on the nature to sustain us – we are “using up our savings” so to speak. But why should this concern Buddhism? Isn’t Buddhism about enlightenment, and not environmentalism?

I would beg to differ. The Buddha is also known as the Middle Path – where one neither lives too extravagantly nor too frugally. Extravagance implies selfishness and hedonism. And frugality leads to a short and useless life. In other words, Buddhism is about moderation.

Buddhism talks about moderation in our understanding, thought, action, speech, livelihood, effort, mindfulness and concentration. You might look at this list and say “how can we have moderate understanding”? Well, I believe it is important to understand certain things and not others.

The Buddha used an analogy of a man dying from an arrow wound who wanted to know about insignificant details like who shot the arrow and how the arrow was made, etc. In the end, he dies because he does not get the treatment he had needed. In short, some things are necessary and others are not.

Since Buddhism has always been about living within one’s means, it shares much in common with the ideas of sustainability. But it would be wrong to jump to the conclusion that the Buddha was an environmentalist (or label him so). For there is an obvious reason why sustainability didn’t concern him – it wasn’t an issue anywhere back 2,500 years ago. In the Buddha’s lifetime people lived within nature’s regenerative capacity.

But we cannot say the same thing today. We are pushing the environment pretty hard. Which is why moderation is necessary. And whether it is from a Buddhist’s mouth or an environmentalist’s, it should make no difference.

The “Value” of Money

Warren Tang6 Comments

Think about “money” for a moment – a $1 dollar note cost about the same amount of money to make as a $100 dollar note. Yet we think one is worth $1 and the other $100, even though they cost the same to make. Today governments, businesses, society and culture has pushed us to think in terms of money and not allow for a possibility of any other kind of value system.

This kind of “artificial” measurement has somehow warped our values replacing them with a dollar sign, where even our children or our wives can be priced. Not surprizing really when innocent words like “priceless” can be enlisted by literally anyone to (mis)represent values and be made to lose any real meaning.

But language has been used to deceive us for a long time. They used to call it rhetoric. Politicians, in general, speak this way, as do business. One reason is because speech is not seen as deceitful like action. But it should be, because speech is in itself an action.

I am sure you have your own list of speech/acts which you have seen though as being designed to be deceitful. I am particularly cautious about discourses by politicians and entrepreneurs, because they are really looking out for themselves and not for us.

But it is possible to have other values, values other than those that others want you to have. And it is easier to hold these values once you see through the discourse for what it is.

The Reasoning of Reason

Warren Tang6 Comments

In a recent article about deciding whether to teach intelligent design in American schools one (science?) teacher had this to say:

“I think if we look at where the empirical scientific evidence leads us, it leads us towards intelligent design.

“[Intelligent design] ultimately takes us back to why we’re here and the value of life… if an individual doesn’t have a reason for being, they might carry themselves in a way that is ultimately destructive for society.”

All italics are mine. This of course is an old argument and one that I have always felt is flawed but haven’t been able to say why… until now.

Firstly, the why are we here really isn’t a question here but an answer. So naturally his reason for being here will ultimately taint his idea of the value of life. The assumption is that the reader will all agree or sympathize with his reason for being here. But that is not always the case.

As a Chinese and a Buddhist I was never taught or told that there needed to be a reason for living. As matter of fact it has never been a point of contention or a cause for distress. It is only when I speak in English that I have to even worry or think about this. In other words, it is a culturally influenced idea and possibly a linguistic one also.

Generally one can be expected to be offended by his statement of belittlement (he basically dismissed all of non-Chiristian thought in one sentence). But getting upset would be unnecessary and futile. And it would solve nothing.

On closer inspection, here is an example of a man who wants his cake and eat it too. Because unless he convinces himself of intelligent design he would either have to give up his vocation as a science teacher or his faith in Christianity. In short, his argument is flawed so that he wouldn’t have to make that decision. And that is all I need to say about him.