What’s the best way to explain Buddhism to a non-Buddhist? Is it better to talk about meditation methods, jhanas, nama, rupa, vipassana than about realms, past and future lives?
People are often impressed by the Western education system based on science which posits an accidental forming of life after the Big Bang.
The idea that a god made it all, or that life is an accidental mixing of chemicals are obviously weak in explanatory power.
For instance Science has no answer why one is now a human and not a horse.
Every moment is conditioned and the Buddha explains those conditions; and the more one investigates the clearer life becomes.
It seems there are two or three ways that people understand ‘buddhism’. Those who think of buddhism as a religion along with other religions like islam, judaism and so on, and those who think of buddhism as a way of life that is a good way to live no matter what religion or nonreligion one attaches to. Then there are skeptics and agnostics and so on without too much pre-judice. All in all a pretty mixed bunch. To say something meaningful start with the understanding that most people are miserable or anxious some of the time and would like it to be otherwise. There no word like ‘buddhism’ in the tipitaka and it seems it became a religion of sorts somewhere down the track as it seems to happen to transformative teachings. People mix up into it existing habits of thought which might be animism or other things like astrology, palmistry or whatever which assumes a world full of magic of some kinds. When you get down to it Buddha taught a path which summed up is , don’t do bad stuff, do good stuff and purify the mind. No mention of gods or rites or rituals. No praying etc. It’s true that having the mind inclined towards the dhamma ( instead of satisfying cravings ) in the form of reciting parts of the teachings had value. It really amounts to ritualising when it’s done to appease something external or otherwise rather than helping to keep the mind on good stuff. No matter, that’s what happens. One may find the understanding to drop such things in the tipitaka. Meanwhile if it’s not bad it’s ok. The greatest good of course is to calm and direct the mind. This is achieved by meditations like anapana. The road to such techniques is often a road out of very defiled mindstates so gently does it. It may be such things like volunteering at a homeless shelter. Nothing wrong with that. In time the mind might become receptive to the right kind of meditation techniques. Having a calm and quiet mind then means beginning to listen impartially to what’s going on inside. This equanimous practice amounts to ‘letting go’. Doing this continuously is the purification process. So that’s it in a nutshell. Note, still no mention of gods or rituals or anything magical. If you want to call that Buddhism go ahead. It makes no difference to the essence imo.
It depends on the listener. A general starting point would be to start by saying that Buddhism as a way to end all suffering.
To get a sense of all possibilities, let me say that your starting point would fall into any of the Four Noble Truths. The exact one and where exactly within the picked one will depend on the listener.
I think Sāmaññaphalasutta (the sutta on the fruits of the ascetic life) is a great way to explain Buddhism because it covers the practice, goal, and the benefits of the spiritual life.
4 noble truths. If people don’t know suffering, they don’t appreciate Buddhism. Anyway, it’s more of depending on the person’s questions, but sometimes, they ask too surface level things and I just tell them the 4 noble truths, but sometimes, it doesn’t gel with them. Not everyone has the wisdom to appreciate the Dhamma.
The direction I normally go with my non Buddhist friends is to tell them about the four noble truths, yes, and the three marks. Most people can understand that.
For more in depth explanations I usually have to argue against some claims that come up in praise of Buddhism that may be slightly misguided. That “there’s nothing supernatural you have to actually believe” and “The Buddha was just a person”. Which secular folks tend to like about it. And you can see where they’re coming from too, but some things need to be clarified about that.
Buddhism is nature. The natural way things happen.
I have a lot of experience with teaching Buddhism to non-Buddhists. Generally, I check them out first, and then I find something that they can relate to. Generally, if I don’t know anything, I might start with my life in general, or with metta and just talk with them. As a monk that is easy. I usually do not talk about rebirth unless they bring up the topic of Heaven and Hell and creators. If they do, I talk about kamma (our deeds) being our creator. I also talk about how 30% of the angels fell from heaven to hell in the Christian world as proof that heaven is not eternal. However, it is best to avoid this topic.
What you want to do is go light introducing things that anyone can appreciate and then slowly introduce core values unique to Buddhism. It is the Socrates method to have them say “yes” many times. I think I read about this in a Malcolm Gladwell book.