Having Trouble with Buddhism?

>>Does anyone else have issues with this, or is it just me?

Nope, you're not alone! This is one of the things I myself didn't like about Buddhism: the paradox that the desire for self-sacrifice, is still, ultimately, motivated by selfish reasons. In fact this extends to virutally all spiritual religions. Look up Ayn Rand and "Objectivism". You might like it.

Greetings,

You are correct that there seems to be much self-sacrifice in the tales of the Buddha's previous lives. However, I'd like to offer you my perspective from my experience.

The teachings clearly indicate that we need to develop a sense of love, compassion, equanimity for all sentient beings - and that includes yourself. You too are a sentient being, and you also deserve love, compassion, and freedom from suffering. However, these stories indicate the life of a high level bodhisattva - he is one who had transcended the distinction between himself and others. In essence, when the Buddha laid down his life for the tigress to feed upon him so she'd have the strength to feed her children, he didn't see a difference between himself, the tigress, or any of the children. So who was the giver? Who was the receiver? Was there even an act? It's not as simple as, "Well I'll just reincarnate anyway, and this will be bound to give me a lot of merit!" That's a very small view, and can in fact be quite destructive rather than constructive.

There's a story in Theravada Buddhism about a gunner coming into a monastery. He said that he's going to kill one of the monks, and it was up to the abbot who was to die. You may think you know the outcome - you're thinking that the abbot chose to sacrifice himself. You'd be incorrect. The abbot simply said I cannot make such a decision, as I love all my monks, but I also value my own life as well. This is not to say that the abbot was not some sort of high level bodhisattva (they don't believe in bodhisattvas anyway), but it highlights how we do need to value ourselves as well.

I'll give you one more story. Before Siddhartha realized ultimate Buddhahood, he was a bodhisattva on a boat, but had the power of omniscience. On the boat were about 500 people, and he could see that one person there was a sort of suicide bomber - he was going to attempt to kill everyone. Feeling great compassion for this person and the act he was about to commit, the unenlightened bodhisattva killed the suicide bomber. By doing this, he effectively took on the karma of this person.

I think stories like these need to be studied in some depth, in accordance to what the Buddha was trying to get across at that specific time - they need a kind of historical context. Otherwise, sometimes they can lead to wrong views. One could conclude from the first tale that we should always sacrifice our lives, the second tale seems to say we shouldn't, and the third tale may imply that killing people for the sake of others is fine. However, these stories have a great deal of depth to them, and understanding them takes enough time - but realizing them could take eons.

I hope this helped you rather than confused you, but these stories are not to be simply taken at face value. There is an immense amount of depth underlying them, and in a lot of cases they show how us far behind we really are, and how hard we need to work, and how long it'll probably take!

Take care.

Some Buddhist paths are different from others. The important thing to remember is the emphasis on impermanence. Perhaps you can think of it with the way one of Buddha's influences did: That to live and die are both states we all inhabit, and that they will happen regardless. Life is beautiful, but clinging to it is just like clinging to anything else, a step away from understanding the truth of reality. That creates karma. This doesn't mean to kill yourself, but that we all will die at some point anyhow.

Who said Buddhism values life? To the Buddhist, existence is the problem. Life is suffering. The goal of Buddhism is to get the h-ll out of here, to cease incarnations. Buddhism is essentially nihilistic.

One of the most important concepts in Buddhism is Compassion for the others; it is also a Bodhisattvas' way.

That story expressed and emphasized the important of having Bodicitta [Compassion (for those who suffer), Empathy (for those who are pained by sufferings), and Loving Kindness (as Mothers would protective of their Young)].

Buddha sacrificing himself, because he had compassion for the pains of mother of cubs, who would have to see her cubs dying of hunger, had he not sacrificed himself. He felt the loving kindness and empathy for the cubs and mother, as they were sentient beings just as they were. It was a calculated risk for him as well, for he used his own life and saved multiple lives.

Put it another way, if you replace tigress and her cubs with human lives; and if there were multiple persons at risk of dying, you are the only one that can save them, but the end result is that you will die, are you willing to sacrificing yourself in order to save them?

Or put it even more close to home, if some terrorist took hostage of your entire family of 20 some people or just three, and you can rush the terrorist, so you can create a chance for the police to shot the terrorist dead, or they will be shoot to death one by one, but if you do rush the terrorist, your own survival chance is nil, are you willing to risk your life for your family?

In all of Buddhist teachings, all sentient beings (that means all beings with emotions) within the unlimited lives throughout the Reincarnation cycles, have the potential to become your parents or relatives at one point in their rebirths, so would you at least consider for a moment that if your mother is dying, you are the only one that can save her; your life for hers, what would you do?

If you've studied Buddhism for years, you should talk to a knowledgable monk who can clear things up pretty easily. Jed gave a good example of different stories teaching different aspects. I too was told the story of the gunner and it seems to be a very middle-path approach- the monk didn't say "kill me", the monk didn't say "kill him", the monk took the middle-line.

THE BUDDHA ended his attachments completely, which means, he doesn't attach to forms, physical, materials, notions, etc. He doesn't even attach or cling to his own life or self, or body. Because he knows all of this is false. In addition, mind you, that the Buddha has taken control of his own destiny already upon enlightenment. He can throw this body away and come back to teach living beings at will. He can do what he did for the lion.

That was also demonstration as expedient to show you how all of this is false and to become enlightened, one must be free from all attachments, even to one's very life and body, simply because it is all false. Your body is no more fake than the table next to you. It is unprincipled that YOUR life is real and everything else is false. Who the heck are you? Right? By the way, it was also out of compassion and selflessness of the Buddha to do what he did. And in his position, he could do that. His body can extinguish and he is perfectly fine. You on the other hand, have no control over your destiny yet, so if you die, well, I don't know where you're gonna go.

This doesn't mean to go jump into the wild to put your life on the line to save lives, just to realize the falseness in your body. You're just throwing your cultivatable body away. How are you going to cultivate without your body? You're not enlightened, you have not taken control of your destiny yet, so you are in NO position to be throwing your life around like a rag doll.

When you have ended all your attachments to EVERYTHING, you can eventually let go of clinging to your own life. Even at that point of no ego or self, you don't just go around suiciding and doing suicide missions.

Having no attachment to self or ego merely means the same thing when you have no attachments to a material. If could care less about hockey scores. I don't even think about it. I can do WITH or WITHOUT KNOWING hockey scores. Same with the ego and self. You do what you do and cultivate. You do what you have to do in your daily life. If you die, you die. If you don't, you don't. If your mind is at that stage of perception and thought, you are pretty high in attainment and you are most definitely already an ARHAT... and you can die all you want in this body and you won't have to worry. You're free already.

So if you don't feel like throwing your life on the line for another living being, then don't. You don't have to do that. If you feel you would give your life just to save your loved ones, then do so. That's an act of great compassion.

Valuing life means that you don't inflict suffering on others. People and animals and insects value their lives. Despite life and all this being false, these are the terms of existence in the material world: LIFE. And as long as you are living here, you are to abide by the laws of the way things work. I don't care how false you believe this all is, but if you are going to be here, you better obey the laws of karma because when you take a life, expect that to come back to you. It is simply because we attach to our lives, so it's greater suffering that you would take it away from me.

In addition, you need your life to cultivate. Others need their lives to cultivate. Others need their lives to pass through their retribution. To kill someone, is to kill their blessings and hinder any chances of improvement towards the buddha dharma. You never know. But bottom line is, taking a life inflicts suffering, so you should value and liberate life, not take it. you should protect your body from harmful substances and refrain from destroying your body.

When you finally reach that stage of development in which you detach from most things, your statement will change. I am referring to when you said, "if you value life so much, shouldn't you value your own just as much as others? Why should I die in order for you to live? Obviously, if all life is precious, then that also means mine."

Are you not one with the universe? Is saving the life of another not saving your own? You are viewing the universe as something separate than yourself.

He who experiences the unity of life sees his own Self in all beings, and all beings in his own Self, and looks on everything with an impartial eye.

Buddha

Meditate on this truth and you shall have your answer.

The great thing about Buddhism is that it's open to interpretation. How do YOU interpret that? *I* interpret that as saying "think of others and be charitable", not "make your life hell so others can be happy". Buddhists are NOT masochists.

But YOU may interpret it differently, and I am not saying that you are wrong.

You may or may not have undertaken a little study of Buddhism but I'm afraid you have missed the point.