If it is fiction, why is it so popular among technical people like people who come to HN? Are the people on HN who are interested in Buddhism aware it is fiction/real?
These are Buddhist questions. :)
The Buddha famously told his followers not to accept his teaching merely because he said it, instead he told them to "go and see for yourself." The point is that if you want to know if buddhism is real, try out the practices and see if they make sense to you and make a difference. If the practices work, adopt them, if you find them worthless, abandon them.
You get free will and karma in Buddhism. Great 2-for-1 special.
Another way to come at it is to consider the good old Four Noble Truths. There are different ways to say them but this is how I learned them:
* Life is full of suffering
* Suffering is caused by attachment to desire
* There is a way beyond attachment
* Meditation and Buddhism is the way beyond attachment (or to Enlightenment, if you prefer)
Agree. Suffering doesn't send the right message in terms of what the word is trying to signal. The best version I've heard is likening life to a carriage ride, and the wheel is just never quite right, so it's always just a little bit uncomfortable. Nothing's just ever quite right.
As we root out our cravings and aversions, our egoic programming, fear stops running the show, and gratitude and contentment takes it's place. We're able to meet every moment as it is and appreciate the perfection.
The subtler meaning is that nothing in existence will truly and permanently satisfy you, because that is the nature of the mind. Many people obviously don't realize this as they run around chasing their first million, billion or trillion.
Because it sounds cool and intellectual.
This is the same reason crypto-buddhist "philosophies" became popular in the Hindu-sphere post the decline of Ancient Vedic religion, which had no concept of rebirth and rather focused on Rta (cosmic / natural order), vrata (duty), kratu (will) etc...
Looking enlightened is more important than actually being enlightened.
In general, there are three commonly accepted methods in Buddhist epistemology to know if something is true: perception, inference, and testimony. For the specific case of rebirth, common proofs use either perception, or inference.
- Perception: You train in states of concentration and use those to gain direct knowledge of past lives. Maybe some people would find this unconvincing even if they had the experience. Certainly not something likely to be accepted as scientific as Ian Stevenson's research has shown, even if the case presented was iron-clad.
- Inference: This uses Buddhist logic and an understanding of dependent origination. This specific argument comes from Dharmakīrti.
- Every moment of consciousness must have a substantial cause.
- Physical matter can serve as a cooperative condition for consciousness, but it cannot be consciousness's substantial cause, because matter and mind are fundamentally different in nature. Matter is extended, non-luminous, non-aware and consciousness is luminous and aware. If you are a scientific materialist, you will not accept this, but it must be noted that there is no scientific evidence of any kind for dead matter gaining awareness.
- Therefore, each moment of consciousness must arise from a preceding moment of consciousness of similar type.
- Then you trace this chain to the first moment of your present life. The chain must have been preceded by a moment of consciousness of similar type. The same logic applies to the last moment of your present life.
- Therefore, consciousness must be a stream that transcends physical birth and death.
Again, I am aware many people won't find this convincing, but to say that Buddhism does not attempt to prove rebirth and karma is not true.
From the sample size of people who responded, I would say I am wrong. A good amount of HNers believe it literally as something beyond science.