Is Buddhism a religion for lazy people?

[Ignatius]

Is Buddhism a religion for lazy people? Here's my take. Most Buddhists I know aren't really Buddhists. My understanding is that one cannot be a Buddhist anyway, because in each moment we are "becoming" we are never one thing or another. We just "are" and we have no name. I think for the greater numbe of adherents to this religion, particularly in the west, Buddhism is almost a lifestyle choice, along with Yoga and vegatarianism. Mainstream religion is too much like hard work. All that genuflecting and confession and special dietary laws ..too much. Why not become a self satisfied Buddhist instead? No need for any going to church or any of that nonsense. Just adopt a glassy eyed expression and quote a few sayings from Buddha and everything will be ok. You don't need to understand any of it, just be able ot quote it. If someone pulls you over on it, just quote another one, and adopt an even smugger expression. Chances are they won't ask again. Is it just me, or do Buddhists deserve to be sneered at as much as every other religion. What makes them so special? Or was my first shot right on the button? Maybe they are just lazy. :cool:

[gr8misadventures]

I'm feelin ya, but not really coherent enough to respond on an appropriate level.

[robert42]

Maybe the buddhist people u meet are just giving other Buddhist people a bad name

[Blunt burner turner]

sorry off topic but ignatius do you go to school in north london?

[MelT]

I'm a Buddhist and have been for quite a time. I think taht in any religion, or even sports, you get people who do things just so they can say they do them. I did Aikido for a while and there were people who'd just want to tell everybody else they were going, but they weren't actually interested in practising. Same with Buddhists, we have bad ones and good ones.

Is it lazy? Hmmm....Well, saying that we dont have any dietary laws or things to do isn't quite right. We're vegetarian and if we're meditators then we have to avoid certian foods and meditate regularly. I'd say that being self-satisfied doesn't come easy:)

A good Buddhist is someone who observes a strong moral code, but more than anythng else tries to understand the true nature of reality through meditation. The 'goodness' part of Buddhism, our morality, is second to our search for a direct experience of reality, as reality itself, to become enlightened. Too much emphasis is placed on the idea that we're just about doing good things and being non-violent, that's a part of meditation practise as much as it is a moral goal.

I don't have a car, mobile phone, dvd player, etc, etc. I'm a veggie', I don't drink. I spend a lot of time alone and in meditational retreat. Meditation is pretty much all I do apart from writing. Am I a good Buddhist though? No, not really, I'm still an amateur compared to real monks and those who devote their entire lives to it. It's all relative I think. Good post though, good question.

MelT

[Universer]

I am not a Buddhist, although I often play one on the Internet.

And here I go: I disagree that Buddhism is a lazy religion, or is for lazy people. In my experience, Buddhists and Zen practicioners are constantly in thought, constantly trying to learn, constantly seeking enlightenment, constantly searching for new perspectives to add to the human experience.

Indeed, to me, laziness is having the desire to be instructed in all things, to be given from-on-high all of your precepts and ideas, to be told what absolutely is and what absolutely is not, to simply follow the edicts of inflexible doctrine without the need to think or consider or be terribly introspective. To be a sheep to a religion, to believe that there's nothing more to be learned because you already know it all -- now that's lazy.

[afghooey]

To be a sheep to a religion, to believe that there's nothing more to be learned because you already know it all -- now that's lazy.

Well said, I agree.

[gr8misadventures]

Indeed, to me, laziness is having the desire to be instructed in all things, to be given from-on-high all of your precepts and ideas, to be told what absolutely is and what absolutely is not, to simply follow the edicts of inflexible doctrine without the need to think or consider or be terribly introspective. To be a sheep to a religion, to believe that there's nothing more to be learned because you already know it all -- now that's lazy.

I feel like I should have this mounted...

[phytokind]

Buddhism is a lazy religion in the sense that you don't have to get it right the first time, you just keep getting reincarnated until you're ready to move on. And you in no way need to be a vegetarian to be a buddhist, most buddhists are meat eaters. But I'd say that buddhists are fundamentally pacifists and try to kill as few animals as possible. There are also various types of buddhism. I would say that if you're the kind of person who doesn't like to step on bugs and who understands that there is no need to resolve conflicts with violence, you may be a buddhist. Are you lazy if you decide to solve your problems with the pull of a trigger? Maybe so.

[moorephened]

I lived in China over the summer and here is my impression of Buddhism in a country where Buddhism is mainstream and there are plenty of facilities (temples, pagodas, shrines) around.

-Even the most virulent Buddhists, with the exception of monks, go to a temple any more than three times a month.

-Visits are short and usually only consist of making an offering (incense, fruit, ect.) to some shrines. Often followed by alms to the poor.

-Any daily regimen is at a shrine set up at home.

-A big reason for this is that the study of "The Buddha" no longer requires talking with a monk and reading scrolls at the monastery. This can now be done at local schools, in books, or online.

None of this should denote the zealotry of these people. There just isn't as much required by most Christian sects.

[mrdevious]

If you want to judge buddhism by its virtues, then actually just it's virtues, not the virtues carried out by those who follow it. George Bush is a christian, that doesn't mean that's christianity.

in regards to one of the posts higher up, buddhism has nothing to do with any rigid doctrine that makes you think as your told. It's a philosophy that deliveres what it promises, nothing more. The more one adheres to these practices, the more they will get from them. And Buddha himself encouraged us to question everything, including his own teachings, and keep everything open for debate. There's no smoke and mirrors to hide behind, no grandiose claims of supernatural beings, just the means by which a person can attain an enlightened state of mind, and end their own suffering, as well as gaining the knowledge to ending others suffering.

To the original poster, I don't even know how you consider the buddhist philosophy one of "laziness". A person who adheres to the Buddha's teachings would abstain from meat, harm no creature or person, learn to attain the extinction of craving and passions (which means consuming, acting, and living only in ways that are for the purpose of maintaining/increasing good health), make every effort to learn compassion for all people and conscious life (which includes enemies and those who wronged you), abstain from idle and purposeless banter, abstain from cursing, and meditate daily for 4 hours (after working up to there) for the purpose of achieving exinction of self, extinction of craving and aversion, to seek mental clarity in its highest form, to learn compassion at its deepest levels, or to contemplate with the deepest possible insight. If you think this is a philosophy of laziness and ease, you've obviously never tried buddhism.

[Hamlet]

As an ardent practitioner of 'lazy' and an expert on the subject, I can speak with authority that Buddhists are not lazy. Lazy is going to the church you grew up in so you don't have to think. You know with absolute certainty that God is a Republican and all is well.

Someone not born into buddhism but chooses to practice it, has made a strong and arduous commitment. He/she has chosen to exercise the muscle between his ears and follow a philosophy in accord with his own conscience.

[Ignatius]

Let me clarify what I mean by laziness. I mean the kind of person who simply declares his or her self to be a Buddhist simply because they imagine it to be a cool thing to be into. As I said earlier, a bit like Yoga, or Feng Shui maybe. There is no need to meditate for four hours a day in order to follow Buddhist thought. A moment spent in serene contemplation is all that is needed. The very act of meditating in an attempt to reach enlightenment is going against the philosophy of Buddhism. It shouldn't be a task, you shouldn't need to sit down and actively prepare yourself for enlightenment, it should arrive naturally. That is the way of Zen. Please don't anyone else tell me they are a Buddhist. You cannnot be a Buddhist, you are always in the process of becoming, never actually being anything. The very act of declaring oneself to be a Buddhist is a declaration that you are not one. There is no such thing as "a Buddhist".

[MarcusAurelius21]

the rate of people on this earth pretending to adhere to the tenants of buddhism is probably just as high as it is for judaism, christianity, or any other religion. how many people do you know claiming to be christian that dont go to church on sunday and couldnt even list of the ten commandments? i mean god sets down ten rules, TEN, thats it, and you dont even take the time in all the years of your life to learn them? I dont mean to single out christianity, its just that is the most common religion you come across in my area.

[mrdevious]

Let me clarify what I mean by laziness. I mean the kind of person who simply declares his or her self to be a Buddhist simply because they imagine it to be a cool thing to be into. As I said earlier, a bit like Yoga, or Feng Shui maybe. There is no need to meditate for four hours a day in order to follow Buddhist thought. A moment spent in serene contemplation is all that is needed. The very act of meditating in an attempt to reach enlightenment is going against the philosophy of Buddhism. It shouldn't be a task, you shouldn't need to sit down and actively prepare yourself for enlightenment, it should arrive naturally. That is the way of Zen. Please don't anyone else tell me they are a Buddhist. You cannnot be a Buddhist, you are always in the process of becoming, never actually being anything. The very act of declaring oneself to be a Buddhist is a declaration that you are not one. There is no such thing as "a Buddhist".

I didn't mean meditating was a necessity, I mean it is the biggest step of accomplishment in meditation. The dalai lama, lama's before him, and the Buddha said that when you can maintain a serene and controlled meditation for 4 hours, we've transcended all mental barriers to it.

and yes, people can be buddhist. You're making a very common mistake in interpreting the Buddha's concept of "nothingness", "non self", and the inherent emptiness to existence and the illusion of self. It is not that the self and existence do not exist, it's that everything (including us) is nothing but an ever-changing field of matter, no part of us being the same as it was a second ago, an illusionary form yet an existent one nontheless. There is no permanent self, but there is one that exists temporarily in one form which is comprised of the 5 aggregates that bind us to this illusionary existence. For all existence is illusionary, but the illusion is the non-physical reality we exist in. And within the illusion, there can lie a buddhist; in all his empty, temporary, ever changing at every level form.

[MelT]

Let me clarify what I mean by laziness. I mean the kind of person who simply declares his or her self to be a Buddhist simply because they imagine it to be a cool thing to be into. ".

I agree, as i said earlier. But that kind of person can be found in every religion. I know born again christians who are exactly the same, and it's the case with every religion from Shinto to Catholicism.


".[/QUOTE]The very act of meditating in an attempt to reach enlightenment is going against the philosophy of Buddhism.

Not really true, I think most other traditions of Buddhism would disagree with you. I do Dzogchen for example, and some of our basic methods are similiar to Zen. We could say that for the highest practitioners in both traditions that no-mind and non-doing are the only ways to reach enlightenment, but that would be to say that all the other 84,000 methods that Buddha cited as 'expedient means' are invalid. Some ways are faster, some slower, that's all. If Buddha hadn't thought that meditation was necessary for *some* then he wouldn't have taught it at all.

We could say that because in Dzogchen we don't meditate in the traditional sense, that it's pointless to even consider meditating and it's beneath us. But meditation in terms of Mahayan Shamatha is a tool for clearing the mind, that's all. It's a preparation for higher practises, not an end in itself. If your mind is already perfectly clear and you're able to perform higher practises without it then fine, it's unnecessary. But that isn't the case for everyone, some people need those basic tools to be in place.

No one way is better than another, the various methods are there to suit the differing minds of each practitioner. Not everyone can just begin with no-mind, so meditation practise has to be done. That it isn't the fastest or best approach is irrelevant until you arrive at a certain point in understanding and begin to work with View/non-View rather than meditation.

".[/QUOTE] It shouldn't be a task, you shouldn't need to sit down and actively prepare yourself for enlightenment, it should arrive naturally. That is the way of Zen. ".[/QUOTE]

Precisely,that's Zen. Not eveyone does Zen, or agrees with its methods. If there was no need to actively prepare for enlightenment then there would be no way of Zen either, there to teach people how to actively NOT prepare for enlightenment. The 'non-preparation', understanding how to be in order for it to arise naturally, still has to be learned, still practised. What you and I do is far from traditional meditation, but whether we call what we do 'meditating' or not is purely semantics. I could say that I 'contemplate', not meditate, but even that term is redundant.

What form of Zen do you practise BTW, what Lineage?

MelT

[MelT]

Buddhism is a lazy religion in the sense that you don't have to get it right the first time, you just keep getting reincarnated until you're ready to move on. And you in no way need to be a vegetarian to be a buddhist, most buddhists are meat eaters. .

Not all forms of Buddhism beleive in reincarnation, I personally don't. And those who do don't think idly to themselves that life, practise and morality don't have to be practised because we can 'get it right next time':)

It's a strange and sweeping generalisation to say that most Buddhists are meat eaters, I'm not sure what you can base that on. There are millions of vegetarian Buddhists all over the world. For some traditions it's mandatory not to eat meat, in others it's a personal choice, but I think anyone who believes in and adheres to the basic teachings can't help but *want* to be vegetarian.

In some traditions breaking the 'rules' of Buddhism will bring bad Karma and displeasure, but in others being good, being a vegetarian, non-killing etc., are just suggestions, ways to a better, happier life, not mandatory rules. There are no punishments for not following these ideas. It isn't a religion, it's a philosophy that you choose to follow or not. It's a code that you discipline yourself to follow personally, you aren't being forced into it.

MelT

[robert42]

sorry off topic but ignatius do you go to school in north london?

i went salisbury off topic i know ignatius school, i live in north london ;) -

[phytokind]

Not all forms of Buddhism beleive in reincarnation, I personally don't. And those who do don't think idly to themselves that life, practise and morality don't have to be practised because we can 'get it right next time':)

It's a strange and sweeping generalisation to say that most Buddhists are meat eaters, I'm not sure what you can base that on. There are millions of vegetarian Buddhists all over the world. For some traditions it's mandatory not to eat meat, in others it's a personal choice, but I think anyone who believes in and adheres to the basic teachings can't help but *want* to be vegetarian.

In some traditions breaking the 'rules' of Buddhism will bring bad Karma and displeasure, but in others being good, being a vegetarian, non-killing etc., are just suggestions, ways to a better, happier life, not mandatory rules. There are no punishments for not following these ideas. It isn't a religion, it's a philosophy that you choose to follow or not. It's a code that you discipline yourself to follow personally, you aren't being forced into it.

MelT


Well when I say that you may get it right in the next life, I am implying that even if you aren't a buddhist, you will eventually be one, but not necessarily during your current lifetime, and even if you are not aware that you are a buddhist, you can still attain enlightenment. And based on my experience, many practicing buddhists eat meat, while the monks are the ones who do not. But following certain rules to the letter and absolutely does not mean in any way that you are on the path to enlightenment.

[MelT]

But following certain rules to the letter and absolutely does not mean in any way that you are on the path to enlightenment.

If you mean the rituals and observances of the various traditions, nobody believes that they are a route to enlightenment. Some believe good deeds bring merit that eventually, over many lifetimes, will bring someone to enlightenment. But it's not really how any meditator would try to reach enlightenment. Both our traditions, and Hinduism, and others, teach that it's something that can be reached by actual practises rather than living morally and achieved in a persons single lifetime. Being actively on the path requires more than just living by an ethical code.

If you mean our meditation methods - The inherent idea in Buddhism, which applies to all its individual traditions, including Zen, is that the teachings are just "...a raft that's to be left behind..." They're to be left behind as quickly as possible so that the practitioner explores and experiences each state for him or herself. They're a map to mental states, guidance, not hard and fast rules.

What form of Zen do you say you practise?

MelT

[Ignatius]

I'm actually an atheist as far as religion is concerned. I am interested in certain Buddhist texts, and I'm particularly interested in the idea of Zen. What I find objectionable is the self satisfied nature of most people who claim to be Buddhists. I state again, that one cannot be a Buddhist. The ideas behind Buddhism state that one is always in the state of becoming, never being anything. Nothing I've read here convinces me otherwise. Neither intellectually, nor spiritually. I do as much meditating as any Buddhist just by drifting off over the morning paper. I don't mean for it to happen, but it does. We've all done it, drifted off and found ourselves in that strange land between being and knowing. You come out of a reverie and struggle to remember where you were just then. That's real enlightenment, you can never know. The greatest knowledge is knowing that you know nothing.

[Uberdave73]

Yes, 'Buddhism' seems to be the latest trend among yuppies and other 'disenfranchised' young people...

Problem is, most people (americans) don't even understand the basic precepts of Buddhism...as they are often foreign to Western principles.