Common Misunderstandings.

[sky]

I have noticed that some people have misconceptions about Buddhism especially regarding Vows and ' Docile obedience ' to the ' Powers and Authority '. Here are a few misconceptions, please add to them if you feel the need.




Misunderstandings about Ethics and Vows
Thinking That Buddhist Ethics Are Based on Moral Judgments of Good and Bad
In terms of ethics, and in many other cases as well, misunderstandings can often arise because of misleading translation terms. Because of them we project non-Buddhist concepts onto the teachings. For example, we might use terminology that has connotations from our Biblical traditions, such as the words virtuous, non-virtuous, merit, and sin. These sorts of words project onto the Buddhist teachings on ethics the idea of moral judgment and guilt: that some things are virtuous, meaning good and proper. If we do them, we’re good people, and by acting that way, we build up merit, like some sort of reward. But if we act in a non-virtuous, “unholy” way, then we are bad and we build up sins, for which we must suffer. This is clearly a projection of Biblical morality onto Buddhist ethics.

Buddhist ethics are based purely on developing discriminating awareness. We need to learn to discriminate between what’s constructive and what’s destructive, what will be beneficial and what will be harmful and then, through understanding, refrain from harmful, destructive behavior.




Thinking That Buddhist Ethics Are Based on Obedience to Laws
Next, it’s a misunderstanding to regard Buddhist ethics as being based on obedience to laws, rather than based on discriminating awareness. In some cultures people take laws very seriously, and then they become quite inflexible: they don’t want to break the law. Whereas the Tibetans are quite relaxed in terms of the ethical guidelines. It doesn’t mean that they’re sloppy, but it means that in certain situations one has to use one’s discriminating awareness in terms of how you apply a guideline. What we’re trying to discriminate here is whether we are acting under the influence of a disturbing emotion or whether there is a constructive reason for our way of behaving.


Thinking That Vows Are Like Laws with Possible Loopholes
To the other extreme, we could look at the vows like a lawyer. And so we look for loopholes in the presentation of karma so as to find excuses for acting destructively or for compromising and watering down a vow. Let me give an example. We could take a vow, for instance, to avoid inappropriate sexual behavior, and then we assert that having oral sex is okay because it’s an expression of love. We excuse ourselves because we happen to like this form of sexual behavior. Or, after taking a vow to give up alcohol, we say that it’s okay to have wine at a meal with our parents so as not to offend them, or it’s okay to drink occasionally so long as we don’t get drunk. We make these sorts of excuses to try to get around a vow.

The point is that if you take a vow, you take the whole vow. You don’t take part of the vow. This is the way the vow is specified. If we can’t keep all the details of the vows, or of any particular vow, as specified in the text, then don’t take the vow. There’s no obligation to take the vow.


Misunderstandings about Karma
Thinking That We Are Bad and Deserve the Ripenings of Our Negative Karmic Potentials
Another point concerning karma and rebirth is that even if we accept that suffering in this lifetime is the ripening of negative karmic potentials built up in previous lives, we might think, “If I suffer, if something bad happens to me, I deserve it.” Or you deserve it, if it happened to you. The misunderstanding here is that it implies a solidly existent “me” who broke the law, is guilty and bad, and now is getting the punishment that I deserve. We place the blame, then, on “me” – this solid “me” who is so bad and now is being punished – because of misunderstanding the laws of karma, behavioral cause and effect.


Thinking All Tibetans/Monks specially Monastics, and Especially Those with Titles Are Perfect Buddhists
As an auxiliary to this, it’s a misunderstanding to think that all Tibetans; or, more limited, all monks and nuns; or, even more limited, all Rinpoches, Geshes and Kenpos are perfect examples of Buddhist practice. That’s a very common misunderstanding. We think, “They must be perfect Buddhists: they’re Tibetan,” or “Perfect Buddhists: they’re wearing robes.” “Perfect Buddhists: they have a title of Rinpoche. They must be an enlightened being.” This is very naive. Most of them are just regular people.

There might be a larger proportion of practicing Buddhists among the Tibetans than in most societies and there may be certain Buddhist values that are part of their culture; but that doesn’t mean that they’re all perfect, by any means. And if one becomes a monk or a nun, there can be many reasons. Among the Tibetans, it could be that the family put you in a monastery as a child because they couldn’t feed you, and you would get food and an education. It could be for a more self-motivated reason – that I have problems and I need the discipline of the monastic life in order to overcome these problems.

As one of my Rinpoche friends explained, “Wearing the robes is a sign that I really need this discipline, because I’m a very undisciplined person and have a lot of disturbing emotions and I really am putting full effort into overcoming them.” That doesn’t mean that they have overcome them. So we shouldn’t naively think that they are all enlightened, especially with these Rinpoches. As His Holiness the Dalai Lama always says: To just rely on a big name of a predecessor is really a big mistake. He emphasizes that these Rinpoches in this lifetime have to demonstrate and prove their qualifications, not just rely on the reputation of their name.


Imagining the Guru Is Literally an Infallible Buddha and Giving Up All Responsibility for Our Lives
Also there’s a big misunderstanding about this so-called term “guru devotion.” I think it’s not such a helpful translation, because it seems to imply almost blind guru worship, like in a cult. That’s a big misunderstanding. The term that is used here for the relation with the spiritual teacher means to rely on and trust someone like we would rely on and trust a qualified doctor. So the same term is used for our relation with our doctor as is with our guru. But because of the instruction to see the guru as a Buddha, we misunderstand and think that the teacher is infallible and so we have to have unquestioning obedience to him or her, like in a cult. That’s a mistake. Because of that, we give up all our critical faculties and responsibility for ourselves, and we become dependent on asking for a mo (mo, dice divination) – throw the dice and make all our decisions for us.

We are aiming to become Buddhas ourselves, to develop the discriminating awareness to be able to make intelligent compassionate decisions ourselves. So if a teacher is just aiming to make us dependent on him or her, like in a power trip, there’s something wrong. It’s a misunderstanding to think that this is okay and to go along with it. To play into this type of power and control syndrome with a teacher is not following the guidelines properly.


It is a misconception that all the Buddhists are pacifists. Buddhism preaches to practice non-violence, But do not support the complete idea of pacifism. Even once Dalai Lama was questioned about killing Osama Bin Laden who is an international terrorist. His reaction to that was sympathy and advised to take counter measures in such serious situations. Buddhists are like those martial arts instructors who avoid fighting if not necessary and are completely against violence but may attack in self-defense and whenever needed.

Studybuddhism. com

[sky]

Buddhist have single set of beliefs.

This is a misconception as there are many different schools of Buddhism with different beliefs, It is less of a fixed set of beliefs coerced on people but a teaching which everyone and anyone can learn and use it in their own way.

[sky]

The Mind Must be Silent.

This is the most common misconceptions we have come across about meditation. In almost every group we teach, somebody asks a question similar to “I can’t quiet the mind, and have a very overactive mind. How do I stop the thoughts so I can meditate?” We seriously hear a form of this question at least once a week, and it’s an understandable thing to ask.

The great meditation teacher Ajahn Sumedho often says “Everything Belongs.” This is an encouragement to make all of your experience a part of your practice. Nothing should be excluded. In concentration practice, we cultivate the ability of the mind to focus on one object without getting wrapped up in other experience. However, this still doesn’t mean we should push thoughts away or even not have thoughts. Rather, we practice just allowing the thoughts to come and go, not buying into them. In an open awareness or mindfulness practice, we can truly use the thinking mind as an opportunity to practice. Much of our experience happens in the mind; it is fertile ground for practice. We can bring our awareness to the thoughts as they arise, just as we may bring awareness to the breath or the body. If you are new to meditation, I strongly encourage you to allow the mind to think. It is as I often say in guided meditations: the heart beats, the lungs breath, and the mind thinks. Thinking is just what the mind does. Tune into it; don’t resist it.

[luke86]

Suffering means only physical/emotional pain.

I think that's most important misunderstanding. Suffering means also "unsatisfactoriness".

[sky]

Originally Posted by luke86

Suffering means only physical/emotional pain.

I think that's most important misunderstanding. Suffering means also "unsatisfactoriness".

Yes it does also mean Unsatisfaction, thanks Luke.

[sky]

Misconceptions that the Five Precepts are rules rather than guidelines.


To live is to act, and our actions can have either harmful or beneficial consequences for oneself and others. Buddhist ethics is concerned with the principles and practices that help one to act in ways that help rather than harm. The core ethical code of Buddhism is known as the five precepts, and these are the distillation of its ethical principles. The precepts are not rules or commandments, but ‘principles of training’, which are undertaken freely and need to be put into practice with intelligence and sensitivity.

[sky]

Anatta, or “not-self”, is a frequently misunderstood Buddhist concept. Buddhism doesn’t deny you exist, deny you have a personality, or imply you shouldn’t have an “ego.” What Buddhism does deny is a false conception of the self: a self that is separate-unto-itself and unchanging.

[sky]

“Don’t blindly believe what I say. Don’t believe me because others convince you of my words. Don’t believe anything you see, read, or hear from others, whether of authority, religious teachers or texts. Don’t rely on logic alone, nor speculation. Don’t infer or be deceived by appearances. Do not give up your authority and follow blindly the will of others. This way will lead to only delusion. Find out for yourself what is truth, what is real.”

What Buddha was saying is that his teaching (or any spiritual teaching for that matter) is not a matter of faith or authority. It is not something to just believe or disbelieve but rather is something to be tried, tested and discovered directly for each person.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by sky123

Anatta, or “not-self”, is a frequently misunderstood Buddhist concept. Buddhism doesn’t deny you exist, deny you have a personality, or imply you shouldn’t have an “ego.” What Buddhism does deny is a false conception of the self: a self that is separate-unto-itself and unchanging.

The usual definition of 'ego' in spiritual contexts is the 'false self'.

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by sky123

Anatta, or “not-self”, is a frequently misunderstood Buddhist concept. Buddhism doesn’t deny you exist, deny you have a personality, or imply you shouldn’t have an “ego.” What Buddhism does deny is a false conception of the self: a self that is separate-unto-itself and unchanging.

Hello Sky,

The "self" that is separate-unto-itself and unchanging can only be Self, or Emptiness...so that is correct as I see it.

We are individuated consciousness, and like all consciousness we have always existed, though we only apprehend this larger reality from the point of our individuation.

Yet, we are never wholly separate unto ourselves, as we exist in interbeing with one another and all that is.

Also we are always changing, even whilst we learn to centre and deepen around the point of stillness, so that we can never be fixed and unchanging.

The idea that we as "self" exist outside of interbeing and continual change arising in each moment is illusory IMO. In other words, the idea that "self" is equivalent to Self, or Emptiness is illusory.

Rather than seeing self as simply what we are, which is an individuated aspect of of eternal consciousness, one which is ever changing. An individuated aspect of All that Is, which like all that is arises from or emanates from the emptiness in each moment (which seemingly paradoxically is also reconciled with our eternal consciousness beyond time and space).

But the idea that individuation of consciousness (and thus ownership and responsibility) is fleeting and limited to any one lifetime is also illusory IMO. Yet consciousness is eternal (outside of time)...only the body is temporal and truly "different" from one lifetime to the next. Regardless of the body, you are "you" in whatever time and place. And with awareness, "you" are faced with taking ownership for all you have done, whenever and wherever. For some, thus, I perceive the desire to flee from awareness and ownership to be the main driving undercurrent in their position on self.

To put these thoughts simply, no-self (emptiness) is not what you are. And it is in viewing self as no-self (separate and unchanging) that Ego (false self) arises and misdirects. However, it is in knowing no-self that we come to apprehend that we truly belong here. We come to apprehend we are of What Is (emptiness) and to align with our centre. It is in knowing no-self that we can recognise false self and centre in the self that we are.

Peace and blessings
7L