Perhaps Chak will show up and say that better than I have. I hope so

No, I certainly couldn't put it more simply clearly and concisely than you did.

One thing though that I would like to share. I live in South Korea, a traditionally Buddhist country where christian missionaries have been spectacularly successful - so much so that christians now outnumber buddhists in the country. For many Koreans Christianity has become synonymous with progress and modernity, and Buddhism with a poor and primitive rural past.

Koreans are therefore very interested in finding a westerner so interested in Buddhism and will often ask me, "How long have you believed in Buddha?"

This question cuts to the heart of (my perception) of a huge difference in the two religions, because I don't believe in Buddha at all! As westerners with a christian heritage, we tend to understand religion in terms of belief - an intuitive assent to the logically unprovable. A key part of worship in many christian denominations is a collective recital of a 'creed'. I am of a fairly sceptical turn of mind and I do not feel that I can assent to something that I do not know, even though I can understand intellectually the existential benefit of doing so.

For me, Buddhism is more akin to mathematics, thermal dynamics, social studies, music or the Chinese language - it is a field of study. Particularly in the Zen tradition, followers of the way are often referred to as 'zen students' rather than zen believers or zen devotees. And yet it is also more than that, because it is a generalised study (the 'great question of life and death'). As the great Zen teacher Dogen put it:

To study the Way is to study the self.
To study the self is to forget the self.
To forget the self is to be enlightened by all things.
To be enlightened by all things is to remove the barriers between one's self and others.

Older cultures were very good at distinguishing between 'knowledge' and 'wisdom'. Wisdom is more than an a collection of facts or data that we have picked up along the way, it is the hard-won 'attainment' of a truth. The distinction helps to explain why even when we have 'learnt' some moral teaching or philosophical truth we continue to fall over and make the same old mistakes. We've increased our knowledge, but not yet increased our wisdom. That's why books, concepts and words have a place in this study, but the heart of the practice is meditation.

Buddhism's unique perspective is that each of us has to attain wisdom for ourselves. No one can do it for us - not even a Buddha, although he can point out the path. Attainment is not helped by assenting to what we do not yet understand. At one point, according to the Buddhist writings, the Buddha was teaching and he turned to one of his listeners and asked him, "Sariputta, do you believe this teaching?" Sariputta replied, "No, I don't believe it yet". The Buddha replied, "Good, good, Sariputta. A wise person doesn't readily believe, he should consider first before believing".

I don't doubt that I have misunderstood much of what I have learnt, but I have misunderstood it in my own way. Of course, other wiser people can act as teachers or helpers on the way, especially by showing me any obvious folly, but in the end I am simply left with the last advice of the dying Sakyamuni: "work out your own salvation with diligence".

No, I certainly couldn't put it more simply clearly and concisely than you did.

This time I happily disagree with you. You certainly did come along and put it all very clearly indeed. Thanks

Nicely written. I create my own beliefs, but I usually find out someone else came up with the idea a long time ago first. This doesn't bother me, I prefer to come up with the ideas myself.

I create my own beliefs... I prefer to come up with the ideas myself.

Interesting. I find a lot of people nowadays think this way about spiritual matters. I suppose it depends on whether you see human spirituality as akin to science or art. If you think of it as being like 'science', then it seems to me to be a waste of effort to try to re-invent the wheel, when we already have a host of religious Einsteins who have been there before us. On the other hand, if you think of it more as a kind of 'art', then, yes, your own personal creativity is what really matters.

This idea of 'coming up with the ideas myself' is a very western, individualistic notion, fed by a fierce suspicion of 'authority' and a democratic belief that my ideas are just as good as anyone else's. That's not a bad thing: there are plenty of good reasons (and some bad ones) to be suspicious of authority. And aren't we all entitled to an opinion?

This is also my cultural background, but, living in Korea, I am also inevitably being influenced by the Asian ideas around me. At first I dismissed Asian notions of authority as coming from a 'less-advanced' patriarchal culture, and the 'group mentality' as springing from a lack of healthy individualism. While I still partially subscribe to this critique, I also see it as an incomplete understanding, and therefore incompletely true. I have also learned that there are actually good reasons to submit to genuine authorities and to see a harmonisation of viewpoints as being just as useful as individual assertiveness.

My suspicion is that people choose their own spiritual beliefs because ultimately they don't really believe in them anyway. Very few people choose their own beliefs about brain surgery or flying a 747; they are more than happy to rely on experts.

Anyway, what is not in doubt is that, whatever 'beliefs' you have, self-selected or from a 'religious authority', the path itself is something you have to walk yourself, no-one can do it for you.

This idea of 'coming up with the ideas myself' is a very western, individualistic notion, fed by a fierce suspicion of 'authority' and a democratic belief that my ideas are just as good as anyone else's.

I think what Champas was saying is that right thinking should produce right answers and that he/she has been validated by the "spiritual experts" post facto on occasion. Champas prefers to do the work instead of riding on the coattails of others' spiritual work.

Do I have the right of that, Champas?

I applaud anyone that endeavors to "work out the spiritual math" on their own. Some might argue there isn't another genuine way to do it.

My suspicion is that people choose their own spiritual beliefs because ultimately they don't really believe in them anyway.

I'd disagree here. I think someone who searches for their own spiritual path believes in spirituality as much as, if not more than, people who take someone else's word for it. To me, searching for your own spirtitual belief says that spirituality is so important to you, that you want so desperately to get it right, that you won't accept what anyone else says. It's something that you have to do, because you can't allow yourself to be wrong because you've trusted someone else about it. We trust the experts about brain surger and the 747 because they are trained in those areas and we are not. Everyone can think, however, and there is no excuse not to.

This is not to say that people who base their spiritual beliefs on religion are less spiritual. I think that, regardless of wether your spirituality is based on religion or individual thought, everyone searches for their own spiritual belief. The important part of spirituality, in my opinion, is not the starting point, but the journey. Someone who decides on their own individual spirituality, and follows it without thought, is just as bad as someone who accepts a religion's spirituality and follows it without thought. I'd argue that neither the former nor the latter really "believes" in it. I think regardless of the basis of your spirituality, you must spend time thinking about it, and about what it means to you, and through this process everyone finds their own way.

I applaud anyone that endeavors to "work out the spiritual math" on their own

Someone who decides on their own individual spirituality, and follows it without thought, is just as bad as someone who accepts a religion's spirituality and follows it without thought.

Yes, this is all good and I may have to think again about what I have said. However, I still think that there is an important 'collective' aspect to the path that westerners are more inclined to ignore than others because of our more individualistic culture.

The phrase 'organised religion' can make some people shudder. It's usually the thing people have in mind when blaming 'religion' for all the ills of the world: those vast spiritual conglomerates of the good, the bad and the indifferent, lorded over by authoritarian (rather than authoritative) figures. And that's without getting into the whole area of 'cults'. Nevertheless, I think it can be very difficult to follow a path and have a spiritual practice without the help, advice and support of others.

Still, I guess there are all kinds of 'collectives' nowadays and why shouldn't the religion forum on JoeUser be just as helpful as any church or sangha?