Loss of "faith" in buddhism

It's all generally misunderstood.

Birth and death relates to action/withdrawal and stuff like that (yin/yang). Karma is the energy that gets stuck after an action without the proper withdrawal. It's why you see old people with so many issues because it builds up throughout their whole life.

Anyone who thinks karma has something to do with reincarnating into a rodent has absolutely no idea.

India, at the time Buddha was preaching, was teeming with many ideas similar to Buddha's ideas. See Śramaṇa for details on the Śramaṇa movement in India. All of these were competing ideas, and the only ideas that have survived till now among the 6 Śramaṇa schools mentioned in Buddhist texts are Jainism and Buddhism. My short advice to you - forge your own path and be a light to yourself. Why do you need somebody to follow when you can be your own teacher? Look deep and you will find all the answers you need. Many people like Buddha have existed on this earth and will continue to do so far into the future. Be a Buddha yourself. Good Luck.

Dhiego Magalhães: "I just wanted something I can trust, and now I don't see much sense in trusting buddha over jesus"

is there anything in the Dhamma which you can positively and cogently disprove to substantiate your lack of trust?

as for me, i don't over-rationalize about things outside of my range, i gravitate towards the tenets which i can understand and accept easily and that's still more than enough for seeing a sage in the Buddha and putting trust in his Dhamma

From my understanding, the Buddha expounded the Four Noble Truths in a practical way. In the Simsapa Sutta, he uses a simile with a handful of leaves, saying:

"In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have taught]. And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have not taught them.

In any religion, the peripheral teachings aim at some direct purpose. In Buddhism, this purpose is either fortunate rebirth or ultimate liberation from karma [Dalai Lama, p.20].

From the point of view of emptiness, a significant Buddhist concept, one might consider the relativity of the situation. Religion isn't 100% synonymous with the teachings of the Buddha himself. Religions are made up of parts, and any singular part cannot be said to embody the religion as a whole: the parts which you view as Hindu aren't necessarily truly Buddhist. Even within the Hindu religion, there are variants and discrepancies.

The distinction made, similarly, between human dogmas and truths might be specious. All these truths and ideas interact in such a way that to clearly delineate them might be somewhat misguided. It might appear this way, but the reality is different.

Even the solidity of your apprehensions, their relation to a self, or their status as views might come into question under the light of contemplation. Contrarily to worldly facts -- such as the existence or non-existence of gods, or the goodness or badness of dogmas -- the investigations proper to Buddhism usually transcend such partial conclusions. With a certain investigation into reality, referential points might change, merge, or alter in ways invalidating previous modes of questioning.

In Buddhism, a reliance on this type of insight into reality itself moves the practitioner forwards, whereby experience with focused mediation (shamatha) and insight meditation (vipassana) continuously familiarizes one with reality, in a tangible rather than metaphysical way. Without such an immediate perception and without such a practice, everything may remain at the conceptual level. It is the experience of Buddhism, not its abstraction, that brings the cessation of suffering.

I will end by saying it is difficult to express skepticism to a phenomenological experience, such as colors, or sounds. With insights of the same nature, the notion of skepticism becomes moot: realities are seen as they are, rather than through categorical and conceptual lens.

If you just do a bit of meditating, stick the the 8 precepts (equivalent to the 10 commandments) and get your head round the whole (not actually) suffering thing, then you are sorted. Secular buddhism is another name for this. No supernatural (rebirth, karma, etc) stuff. Admittedly it reduces it to almost a self help book but that is fine. You are not losing anything really.

In short, be a good boy/girl, meditate and be happy with your lot in life. That is essentially what the bhudda said.

Read some Brad Warner and Stephen Batchelor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Buddhism

I think I get where you're coming from: you believe that 'karma' is ossified dogma, and not why you had faith in Buddhism.

If you are entirely unconvinced by dependent origination, or rebirth, then I would suggest seeing "karma" as a fictional means to think about good and evil.

This is what happens when you create too many expectations of something that is only in your mind. Why don't you take whatever you read with a pinch of salt and figure it out for yourself? Buddha advised people to practice for themselves. If buddhism was somehow influenced by other religions, then it cannot be original, and therefore it is not truthful <-- how did you arrive at this conclusion? Buddha himself said that he figured out a few things that was already found with a few differences in understanding and not the original. He explained it more scientifically and simply to regular people with a few practices (and in Pali instead of Sanskrit) so they could practice it. Regular people don't get the flowery language of the Vedas.

And the caste system in India was not stupid. It was meant to create well defined roles for people for all walks of society for all professions. It is the perception of the invaders of India that changed the whole landscape. Sounds like you need more reading to back up your claims.

I came across another answer which said something about learning say, a topic like Calculus. You would go to a textbook and pick up information and build from there. You wouldn't for example, say, HOW did this author know what Calculus is? HOW do they know the proof for something?

It is not that I suggest you to actually negate rebirth (that would be disparaging Buddha Dharma), but you do not have to admit it either. And while not dwelling on the notion of rebirth itself, you might find the space to take a step back and look at your own mind, so as to come to know "Why do I react in this way? How do I relate to rebirth in this way? Why does it make me feel the way it does? why do I see my not accepting rebirth as a problem? Why is accepting rebirth a problem for me?"

You can even try to determine why truth is important to you, why doubt makes you feel restless, and so forth. The descriptions of doubts and its functions that we find in the abhidharma is for us to come to know that.

Karma pushes us to look where we look, and to pay attention to this and not that. So, knowing that, you can approach the notion of karma in this meditative (yogic) way. Check what you look at when you open your eyes... check how you look at things, what kind of world you see, and what do you see when you look at the world.

I would advise you to adopt that practical stand. Ask yourself "where do my dislikes, liking, tendencies come from ? from where do my pleasant and unpleasant feelings come from? how come that I tend to look in that direction and in this way? how come I pay attention to this and that while not paying attention to other things?"

Do your dislkies, your liking, and so forth, arise without a cause? If they manifest in dependence upon causes and conditions, what are theses causes and conditions? Really, karma was taught for us to pay attention to the course our mind takes... the rivers in which it flows (a river which we ourselves dug)... and to help us set a positive, wholesome course for it to take. If Dharma is no antidote, it is not Dharma.

Your question is based on a false premise. Hinduism did not precede Buddhism; it followed it. Hinduism dates from 200 BCE approximately. The Buddha died about 400 BCE. It is the Hindu pretension to antiquity that is "made up." See Wikipedia, "Classical Hinduism," s.v. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism#Origins. Be careful that your disappointment is not with Buddhism, but with your own erroneous beliefs about what Buddhism is.

One of the beauty about Buddhism is "Don't just believe, but find the truth by yourself" (as I paste below).

The Kalama Sutta states (Pali expression in parentheses):

• Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing (anussava),
• nor upon tradition (paramparā),
• nor upon rumor (itikirā),
• nor upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna)
• nor upon surmise (takka-hetu),
• nor upon an axiom (naya-hetu),
• nor upon specious reasoning (ākāra-parivitakka),
• nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over (diṭṭhi-nijjhān-akkh-antiyā),
• nor upon another's seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya),
• nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no garū)
• Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and abide in them.'