Criticism of Buddhism
-
Someone sent me a link to this article... I think it'll be good to post and discuss on this.
Criticism of Buddhism
By Vexen Crabtree 2004 Nov 14
This page criticizes the religious aspect of Buddhism but praises the worldwide social work done in its name. A great force for good in international politics, the only religion to hold that position, Buddhism is unfortunately another example of a religion of historical mistake and confusion, having little merit in its obfuscation and mysticism. It supports a wonderful intelligence, but fails to justify its ultimate delusions.
- Development of Buddhism
- The Buddha
- Western Buddhism
- World Buddhist Morality
- Nirvana and the Self
- Inhumane Dismissal of Suffering
- Buddhist Psychology is too idealistic
- Conclusion
1. Development of Buddhism
All elements of Buddhism were borrowed and taken from already existing ideas in India. Just like Christianity, Islam, and all other religions, it was formed from the beliefs of the present culture, a mixture of various trends of the time. It was not a sudden, new, unique revelation. It grew slowly. The teachings of its founder were not written down by the founder himself but written down by many people many years later (four centuries or so) exactly the same as Christianity (60-200 years) and Islam (one generation), and then argued over due to the differences. It shows all the hallmarks of a mythical set of stories, happening into a religion as a mistake.
"What doctrines, it must now be asked, were special to Buddhism? Not Karma, that was common property which Buddhism shared. Not in asserting that a right mind was superior to sacrifice, that was a primary doctrine of the Jains, and pre-Buddhistic, both within and without the pale of Brahmanism. Not in seeking a way to salvation independently of the Vedas, that had been done by many teachers in various sects. Not in the doctrine that defilement comes not from unclean meats but from evil deeds and words and thoughts; Buddhist writers themselves say that is derived from previous Buddhas. Not in the search for peace through self-control and renunciation; that was the quest of a myriad recluses and all previous Buddhas. Not in the view that there is a higher wisdom than that attained by austerities; that, too, is pre-Buddhistic. Not in the doctrine that non-Brahmans could join an Order and attain religious blessedness; other orders were open to men of low social status and even to slaves. Indeed, the rigid separation of caste was not yet established in the early days of Buddhism.
The admission of women was not an innovation as it was practiced by the Jains, and even the tradition makes the Buddha accept it reluctantly in the twenty-fifth year of his preaching."
"Pagan Christs" by JM Robertson
"For the first five hundred years the Scriptures
were orally transmitted. They were written down only at the beginning of
the Christian era, because at that time the decline in faith threatened
their continued survival in the memories of the monks. Different
schools wrote down different things. [...] The years between A.D. 100
and 400 were the golden age of Buddhist literature.""Buddhist Scriptures" by Edward Conze, Penguin Books, 1959. p12
2. The Buddha
"The historicity of Buddha is accepted by all. But there is no unanimity of the date. In Sri Lanka, 483 BC is accepted as the date of his nirvana while in Burma 544 BC is accepted. In Tibet it is believed to be 835 BC, while in China, 11th century BC is the accepted date. Buddha was an Indian and the Indian Puranic tradition believes that the nirvana took place in 1793 or 1807 BC"
Stories of "The Buddha" are compiled stories from multiple people and multiple events, canonized and amalgamated, there was no singular "Buddha" as is traditionally taught in Buddhism, and no aspect of Buddhism is other than that you'd expect to find in early India. In short, it is entirely possible that there was no Buddha and that the stories of the Buddha's life were merely the same stories of similar lives of other sages, given a new catchy name. Such is the way religions are developed! Some modern Buddhist apologists have acknowledged this and said that Buddhism is the revival of the stories of the last Buddha, thousands of years beforehand, therefore claiming that Buddhism pre-emptively informed Indian beliefs. This is similar to the Christians saying that Satan planted on the Earth many religious beliefs similar to Christianity in the first century, so as to discredit Christianity when it emerged. Such explanations seem to be rather paranoid and rash! The truth is, Buddhism and Christianity were copies of earlier beliefs developed in the same way as other religions developed from culture and history.
3. Western Buddhism
According to the 2001 National Census, in England there are 152 000 Buddhists, 0.3% of the population.
What we think of as "Buddhism" is too limited by the Pali scriptures and too influenced by self-help mysticism, whereas Buddhism contains much more in the way of superstition, ritual and dogma than we'd like to see.
Western Buddhism is simplified, compartmentalized and has its real heart removed. The community (sangha) of Buddhism in the West is completely missing[Jones, p275-6], Buddhism is a social religion, not a solitary one, yet in the West Buddhism is practiced completely solitarily. What most Westerners think of as Buddhism is hardly any more than New Age mysticism with a more respectable name.
Buddhism is not suited to specialized cultures where life, work, pleasure, relationships, entertainment, spirituality, are all in different boxes. Buddhism is too dogmatically holistic, whereas New Age is the opposite: Dogmatically individualistic. What many Westerners consider Buddhism is merely the more respectable elements of Westernized Indian New Age.
5. Nirvana and the Self
In Buddhism, ultimate transcendental reality is nirvana, complete abolition of the self. The same dilemma faces Buddhists as faces theists: Why is it that there are any beings at all that are not in this perfect state?
- In Christianity, why did God create evil? If God is all-loving and all-powerful, why isn't everyone in Heaven?
- In Buddhism, why is there a false reality at all? If there is no self, by what mechanism do "drops" of the ocean come to think of themselves as being individual?
The common defence is that it is somehow better if little bits of consciousness are deluded for a while before returning to Nirvana... but how can anything be "better" at all, when compared to Nirvana? How can Nirvana be bettered? If it can be "bettered", how is it different from the real world? The questions have remained unanswered by Christians and Buddhists for two thousand years. The answer is that there is no God to put people into Heaven, and also there is no Heaven or Nirvana for the forces that be to usher us in to.
4. World Buddhist Morality
Buddhism has the greatest record for peace and morality. Considering its size it has a wonderfully surprising record, Christianity, Islam and other religions' more peaceful elements only come equal to Buddhist movements. War, intolerant killing, torture, ignorance, monopolisation and coercion are hardly present in Buddhist societies. Compared with other powerful religions, Buddhism is saintly.
But nonetheless, various forms of Buddhism in various times have been instruments of war and violence. Buddhist sects have argued and fought over doctrine, over populations and methods, over pride and national independence.
"Conze has argued [...] that 'some of the success of the [Tibetan Buddhist] Gelug-pa [sect] was due to the military support of the Mongols, who, during the seventeenth century, frequently devastated the monasteries of the rival Red sects. The long association of Japanese Zen Buddhism with military prowess and aggressive imperialism has already been noted... [...] and Trevor Ling has argued that South-East Asian Buddhist kingdoms were as militarily aggressive and self-seeking as any others. Walpola Rahula [describes] a war of national independence in Sri Lanka in the second century BC conducted under the slogan 'Not for kingdom, but for Buddhism'"
"The Social Face of Buddhism" by Ken H Jones, p285-286
Buddhism has integrated itself with governments and found itself manipulating the populace just as many other religions have done.
"After the Meiji Restoration feudalism was replaced by a State dedicated to overseas expansion, and the Zen establishment found a new role in nurturing absolute obedience to it and supporting imperial wars of conquest. In the 1930s Zen Masters occupied themselves more and more with giving military men Zen training [...]. The events of this military epoch in the history of Zen have been chronicled by Ichikawa Hakugen, a Zen priest and professor at Kyoto's Hanazono University, who in books like The War Responsibility of Buddhists, condemned Zen's (and his own) collaboration with Japanese fascism."
"The Social Face of Buddhism" by Ken H Jones, p212
Buddhism in Japan and the USA has seen the emergence of "training" for corporate employees designed to quell dissatisfaction and discord, in short, of covering up the symptoms of illness and bad practice rather than tackling the problems of social malaise and industry work standards. Buddhism, despite its highly socially-centered morality frequently slips into individual remedies when in order to be consistent and true to its own teachings it should be engaging in wider social work.
6. Inhumane Dismissal of Suffering
There is a lot of suffering in the world. This fact leads Buddhists to look to Buddha for an answer, and leads Christians to look to Christ for an answer. Both claim that ultimately a blissful state can be attained with no suffering, that eventually everything will be alright. The psychological attraction of such beliefs is one of the greatest factors behind the success of religions that explain away suffering.
But, Christianity and Buddhism have both dehumanized suffering in history and have both led people to accept suffering when they should not. In Christianity, especially historically and within conservative Christianity, suffering is a test from God, a result of the sins of us and our ancestors. In Buddhism, suffering is the status-quo of life and in popular Buddhism a person suffers now for their transgressions in previous lives. Both Christianity and Buddhism explain away present evil as an unavoidable circumstance that we are better to accept than to combat.
"The poor, the powerless and the diseased are therefore assumed to owe their misfortune to moral transgressions in past lives, no matter how virtuously they may strive to improve their condition in this life. This mystification is applied also to whole peoples and nations. [...] "This retributive view of kamma is quite alien to canonical Buddhism, as Buddhist scholars and teachers have made clear on many occasions."
"The Social Face of Buddhism" by Ken H Jones, p66
The result is a depressive acceptance of social ills, taken as they are to be endured rather than cured. Anti-progressionist, such views have led the world into its darkest years. As with Christianity, when popular Buddhism informs, for example, a painfully disabled person that their present torture is a result of their own past actions or sins, the result is a harmful negativity and horrifies any compassionate person that such doctrines ever came to be. Karmic resolution and Christian sin are both harmful concepts with negative affects on society, especially on the weak and unfortunate.
7. Buddhist Psychology is too idealistic
You can spot Buddhist psycho-babble from quite a while off, there is a distinctive feel and look about Buddhist therapists and self-development. The truth is that Buddhist psychology is like Communist ideology or Christian guilt methodology: It only suits a particular type of person. Buddhist practices are not a universal solution to social ills or spiritual problems, but a certain type of solution catering for only certain types of person.
For a religion that makes universalist claims about the enlightenment of all beings, it is stuck with a mythology about Indian, Chinese and Eastern-style sages, teachers and students; when it is only a certain portion of humanity that can exist in those roles. The rest do not fit into the Buddhist mould, and Buddhist advise and counsel is counterproductive.
Ken Jones notes the real dangers that Buddhist ego training presents to certain types of people, producing neurotics and psychotics at worst, and mental imbalance at best. He notes the difficulty of adapting traditional Buddhist methods to swathes of society who do not conform to the model of the ego that Buddhist psychology requires of students.
Buddhist unfortunately, for a religion with so much social potential, falls over its own dogma and mythology when it comes to individual, personal development of people in general. It operates best as a peace movement, as a mediator, as an intelligent social commenter rather than a personal religion.
Those who do take earnestly and naturally to the methods of Buddhist self-development are those who are already more developed and already more intelligent Humans. Lower Buddhism, of the masses, is dumbed down and mostly useless as a unique tool, functioning as a smotherer just like popular religions do in all countries. Higher Buddhism caters for those who are already on a higher level, just like scholarly Christianity suits the intelligent and elitist Satanism suits the naturally strong and mature, Buddhism doesn't offer much insight into how the masses may improve themselves beyond offering the same social programs that socially aware governments offer.
8. Conclusion
Buddhism is a wonderful religion socially, participating as a principle player in all forms of global peace & stability movements, very environmentally aware and an intelligent force for good in world politics. Historically it has contributed much less inhumanity to the world than have all other religions of similar stature. But its greatness is limited by its own dogma and mythology, its psychology is too idealistic and assumptive and its self-development aspects are too specific. In the West Buddhism has become no more than the respectable elements of New Age, merely called "Buddhism" and missing all of its main elements, replacing them with commercialist and popularist gimmicks. The London Buddhist Society and other high-brow Buddhist institutions in the West are inactive, elitist gatherings of intelligent pseudo-Buddhists, genuine Buddhists in the West are very hard to find.
In an age where the UN and many secular multinational organisations have more strength and much willpower, social Buddhism has passed its hey-day as a useful tool of humanitarianism and global welfare. Although still instrumental in many peace movements across the world, Buddhist groups could be replaced with secular organisations with little real change.
Either overly mystical, overly monastic, idealistic or secular, only the world-wide social elements of Buddhism have genuine merit, the rest is yet-another self-fulfilling religion of superstition, assumptions and psuedopsychology. Despite this, Buddhist mentality and intelligence is bettered by no other religion, and Buddhism is not a danger to anyone, an aid to many, and given its history it will always remain a force for long term social good.
Other pages:
Notes & References:
- "The Social Face of Buddhism" by Ken H Jones, original 1989 edition
- "Pagan Christs" by JM Robertson
- "Buddhist Scriptures" by Edward Conze, Penguin Books, 1959
- "Buddhism" by Clive Erricker, 1995
- "The Life of Buddha As Legend and History" by Edward J.Thomas
Internet Links:
-
Here's my take on some issues, I welcome others to discuss and add their own points.
All elements of Buddhism were borrowed and taken from already existing ideas in India.
Not true. All other religions talk about God, and an Atman (Self/Soul).
This is what sets Buddhism different from them.
We don't talk about an Ultimate Source, we talk about Interdependent Origination.
We don't talk about a Soul, we talk about Anatta, No Soul.
This is why Buddhism is unique.
As Archaya Mahayogi Shridhar Rinpoche says:
Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta
To Buddhism, any system or paradigm which propagates such an unproven and improvable dream as an eternal substance or ultimate reality, be it Hinduism or any other ‘ism’, is propagating spiritual materialism and not true spirituality. To Hinduism such a Brahma is the summum bonum of its search goal, the peak of the Hindu thesis. The Hindu paradigm would collapse without it. Since Buddhism denies thus, it cannot be said honestly that the Buddha merely meant to reform Hinduism. As I have said, it is a totally different paradigm. Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Jainism are all variations of the same paradigm. So truly speaking, you could speak of them as reformations of each other. But Buddhism has a totally different paradigm from any of these, not merely from Vedic- Hinduism."What doctrines, it must now be asked, were special to Buddhism? Not Karma, that was common property which Buddhism shared.
Of course, Hinduism teach some form of karma. It can be argued that even Christianity teach some form of karma: you reap what you sow.
Whether the details of it are the same, is another question.
Not in asserting that a right mind was superior to sacrifice, that was a primary doctrine of the Jains, and pre-Buddhistic, both within and without the pale of Brahmanism.
He wasn't clear what he meant by 'sacrifice'.
Not in seeking a way to salvation independently of the Vedas, that had been done by many teachers in various sects.
Agreed - but only a minority such as Jainism.
Not in the doctrine that defilement comes not from unclean meats but from evil deeds and words and thoughts;
No. Human affliction and defilements are not caused by evil deeds and words and thoughts: rather, evil deeds and words and thoughts are the results of latent human afflictions and defilements caused by ignorance and grasping and craving.
Btw Buddhism talks about 'clean' and 'unclean' meat too, see
Five
Clean Sources of MeatBuddhist writers themselves say that is derived from previous Buddhas.
Not that it is 'derived', but that the previous Buddhas taught in this way as well.
Buddhas that are long forgotten through the passage of time and not found in those days. In fact nobody would have even knew that there were past Buddhas had Buddha not mentioned it, since it was so long ago that it was entirely forgotten in history.
Not in the search for peace through self-control and renunciation; that was the quest of a myriad recluses and all previous Buddhas.
Agreed. Buddha belonged to the tradition of Shramanas, which consists of recluses.
Not in the view that there is a higher wisdom than that attained by austerities; that, too, is pre-Buddhistic.
Wrong. After six long years of practicing austerities and ascetism and also practiced with yogis and entered altered states of consciousness (particularly seventh and eight jhana), later he found them to be useless in attaining enlightenment.
He rejected that path, left that path, before he became awakened.
Not in the doctrine that non-Brahmans could join an Order and attain religious blessedness; other orders were open to men of low social status and even to slaves. Indeed, the rigid separation of caste was not yet established in the early days of Buddhism.
Contrary, the rigid separation of caste was already existing well in those days.
"The historicity of Buddha is accepted by all. But there is no unanimity of the date. In Sri Lanka, 483 BC is accepted as the date of his nirvana while in Burma 544 BC is accepted. In Tibet it is believed to be 835 BC, while in China, 11th century BC is the accepted date. Buddha was an Indian and the Indian Puranic tradition believes that the nirvana took place in 1793 or 1807 BC"
Based on evidence, I will follow the 'accepted' date. Anyone can come up with a date on their own, but I look at evidence.
Stories of "The Buddha" are compiled stories from multiple people and multiple events, canonized and amalgamated, there was no singular "Buddha" as is traditionally taught in Buddhism, and no aspect of Buddhism is other than that you'd expect to find in early India.
The suttas are recited and 'compiled' in a single Buddhist council of 500 enlightened monks two weeks after Buddha's passing, with Ananda presiding and reciting everything he remembered and being checked and confirmed by the other monks.
Those compiled stories have been checked and agreed by all those monks before they were accepted.
There IS a singular Buddha.
In short, it is entirely possible that there was no Buddha and that the stories of the Buddha's life were merely the same stories of similar lives of other sages, given a new catchy name.
Obviously the author is very ignorant of the process of how the Buddhist scriptures were compiled and recorded.
Some modern Buddhist apologists have acknowledged this and said that Buddhism is the revival of the stories of the last Buddha, thousands of years beforehand, therefore claiming that Buddhism pre-emptively informed Indian beliefs. This is similar to the Christians saying that Satan planted on the Earth many religious beliefs similar to Christianity in the first century, so as to discredit Christianity when it emerged. Such explanations seem to be rather paranoid and rash! The truth is, Buddhism and Christianity were copies of earlier beliefs developed in the same way as other religions developed from culture and history.
If that author has any inkling of understanding of the doctrine of Anatta and Dependent Origination which are radically different from all other religions, he would not have made such ignorant comments.
According to the 2001 National Census, in England there are 152 000 Buddhists, 0.3% of the population.
What we think of as "Buddhism" is too limited by the Pali scriptures and too influenced by self-help mysticism, whereas Buddhism contains much more in the way of superstition, ritual and dogma than we'd like to see.
Superstitions, rituals and dogmas are added elements long after Buddha's passing. They are not the original teaching. These elements are also conditioned by the locals' cultural conditioning wherever Buddhism went.
Western Buddhism is simplified, compartmentalized and has its real heart removed. The community (sangha) of Buddhism in the West is completely missing[Jones, p275-6], Buddhism is a social religion, not a solitary one, yet in the West Buddhism is practiced completely solitarily. What most Westerners think of as Buddhism is hardly any more than New Age mysticism with a more respectable name.
Contrary, I actually see many enlightened Western Buddhists who have a profound understanding of the Dharma. Such people are able to clearly differentiate 'New Age mysticism' and 'True Buddhism'.
Buddhism is not suited to specialized cultures where life, work, pleasure, relationships, entertainment, spirituality, are all in different boxes.
Cultures have always been specialized since ancient times.
And Buddhism has survived in such cultures since ancient times.
Just because you live, work, have relationships, doesn't mean you can't have a spiritual life. To think otherwise is utter nonsense and goes against evidence of enlightened Buddhists who have a very balanced life.
Buddhism is too dogmatically holistic, whereas New Age is the opposite: Dogmatically individualistic. What many Westerners consider Buddhism is merely the more respectable elements of Westernized Indian New Age.
The author did not explain what he means by 'dogmatically holistic'.
I have not encountered anything like this in Buddhism.
5. Nirvana and the Self
In Buddhism, ultimate transcendental reality is nirvana, complete abolition of the self. The same dilemma faces Buddhists as faces theists: Why is it that there are any beings at all that are not in this perfect state?
- In Christianity, why did God create evil? If God is all-loving and all-powerful, why isn't everyone in Heaven?
- In Buddhism, why is there a false reality at all? If there is no self, by what mechanism do "drops" of the ocean come to think of themselves as being individual?
There is no first cause, only beginningless conditions and ignorance.
In other words, there is no point in time in which ignorance started in which prior to that was a state of 'purity without ignorance'.
There has been ignorance all along, a fundamental ignorance that has no beginning. Why is it there? Due to causes and conditions, which spring beginningless-ly.
The common defence is that it is somehow better if little bits of consciousness are deluded for a while before returning to Nirvana... but how can anything be "better" at all, when compared to Nirvana? How can Nirvana be bettered? If it can be "bettered", how is it different from the real world? The questions have remained unanswered by Christians and Buddhists for two thousand years. The answer is that there is no God to put people into Heaven, and also there is no Heaven or Nirvana for the forces that be to usher us in to.
I shall not answer to this argument, because this is the argument of Hindus, not Buddhists. Buddhists do not think of 'little bits of consciousness are deluded for a wihle before returning to Nirvana'. We do not think that consciousness come from a Nirvanic state, then return to that Nirvanic state.
Consciousness has been samsaric from the beginningless time, until it realizes its true nature and experiences Nirvana.
Thusness addressed the question of first cause years ago to me, and I wrote this then based on what he said:
Actually we don't have an original nature, we have an empty nature, that has no beginning nor ending. To visualise a purest state from the start is a dualistic view. Emptiness is not a void, not absence of suffering, emptiness is the nature of suffering and all phenomena. Getting 'lost' and becoming dualistic is natural when we develop those conditions that make us 'lost', for example being attached to our luminosity is one of the factor. When condition is there, samsara (dualistic vision) simply manifests...
The assumption that there is a purest state and we will not becoming dualistic is itself a dualistic view. There is no purest state, when condition is there, delusion manifests, every states are dependently originated and are empty, and being empty all states are equally pure. Suffering too is empty and pure. Even the state of delusion is empty and pure but we just don't recognize it due to our karmic obscurations (or deep conditionings, karmic propensities of falsely projecting 'self' and 'inherency') that blinds us from seeing.
And no, realising the luminosity aspect alone can't lead to liberation. As I said... other religions talk about that aspect as well and not just Buddhism, but when its empty nature is not known, it becomes a metaphysical essence, and all phenomena becomes like dust on the mirror. And then there is a mirror reflecting external conditions. That becomes dualistic and 'inherent'. The cause of samsara is still not uprooted, and one of the fundamental causes as Thrangu Rinpoche* stated is the attachment to luminosity due to not perceiving its empty nature. If you read my friend's experience you see that there must be further insights into the anatta and sunyata nature of awareness.
But emptiness is also not just empty, so you must realise the union and inseparability of luminosity and emptiness. Having conviction in our luminous nature as everpresent, never lost, is important, but having glimpses of that pure luminosity is just the beginning and we are still far from perceiving its nature.To be continued...
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
But, Christianity and Buddhism have both dehumanized suffering in history and have both led people to accept suffering when they should not. In Christianity, especially historically and within conservative Christianity, suffering is a test from God, a result of the sins of us and our ancestors. In Buddhism, suffering is the status-quo of life and in popular Buddhism a person suffers now for their transgressions in previous lives. Both Christianity and Buddhism explain away present evil as an unavoidable circumstance that we are better to accept than to combat.
The result is a depressive acceptance of social ills, taken as they are to be endured rather than cured. Anti-progressionist, such views have led the world into its darkest years. As with Christianity, when popular Buddhism informs, for example, a painfully disabled person that their present torture is a result of their own past actions or sins, the result is a harmful negativity and horrifies any compassionate person that such doctrines ever came to be. Karmic resolution and Christian sin are both harmful concepts with negative affects on society, especially on the weak and unfortunate.
This is a question of fate. Buddhism does not believe in fate.
As Mahasi Sayadaw said in Theory of Karma in Buddhism
There are some who criticise thus: "So, you Buddhists, too, administer capitalistic opium to the people, saying: "You are born poor in this life on account of your past evil karma. He is born rich on account of his good Karma. So, be satisfied with your humble lot; but do good to be rich in your next life. You are being oppressed now because of your past evil Karma. There is your destiny. Be humble and bear your sufferings patiently. Do good now. You can be certain of a better and happier life after death."
The Buddhist doctrine of Karma does not expound such ridiculous fatalistic views. Nor does it vindicate a postmortem justice. The All-Merciful Buddha, who had no ulterior selfish motives, did not teach this law of Karma to protect the rich and comfort the poor by promising illusory happiness in an after-life.
While we are born to a state created by ourselves, yet by our own self-directed efforts there is every possibility for us to create new, favourable environments even here and now. Not only individually, but also, collectively, we are at liberty to create fresh Karma that leads either towards our progress or downfall in this very life.
According to the Buddhist doctrine of Karma, one is not always compelled by an ‘iron necessity’, for Karma is neither fate, nor predestination imposed upon us by some mysterious unknown power to which we must helplessly submit ourselves. It is one’s own doing reacting on oneself, and so one has the possibility to divert the course of one’s Karma to some extent. How far one diverts it depends on oneself.
Is one bound to reap all that one has sown in just proportion?
The Buddha provides an answer:
"If anyone says that a man or woman must reap in this life according to his present deeds, in that case there is no religious life, nor is an opportunity afforded for the entire extinction of sorrow. But if anyone says that what a man or woman reaps in this and future lives accords with his or her deeds present and past, in that case there is a religious life, and an opportunity is afforded for the entire extinction of a sorrow." (Anguttara Nikaya)
Although it is stated in the Dhammapada that "not in the sky, nor in mid-ocean, or entering a mountain cave is found that place on earth where one may escape from (the consequences of) an evil deed", yet one is not bound to pay all the past arrears of one’s Karma. If such were the case emancipation would be impossibility. Eternal recurrence would be the unfortunate result.
You can spot Buddhist psycho-babble from quite a while off, there is a distinctive feel and look about Buddhist therapists and self-development. The truth is that Buddhist psychology is like Communist ideology or Christian guilt methodology: It only suits a particular type of person. Buddhist practices are not a universal solution to social ills or spiritual problems, but a certain type of solution catering for only certain types of person.
Wrong. Buddhism is universal. It solves the basic ignorance present in *all* beings. Once the root ignorance or the illusion of a self is removed, all other ills and problems are naturally removed.
For a religion that makes universalist claims about the enlightenment of all beings, it is stuck with a mythology about Indian, Chinese and Eastern-style sages, teachers and students; when it is only a certain portion of humanity that can exist in those roles. The rest do not fit into the Buddhist mould, and Buddhist advise and counsel is counterproductive.
There are Western-style sages, teachers, and students. And I like them even as a Chinese.
Ken Jones notes the real dangers that Buddhist ego training presents to certain types of people, producing neurotics and psychotics at worst, and mental imbalance at best. He notes the difficulty of adapting traditional Buddhist methods to swathes of society who do not conform to the model of the ego that Buddhist psychology requires of students.
I don't understand what he is saying. What 'ego training'? More like 'ego removing', or removing the false sense of a separate self. Buddhism does not require students to 'train their egos'.
Buddhist unfortunately, for a religion with so much social potential, falls over its own dogma and mythology when it comes to individual, personal development of people in general. It operates best as a peace movement, as a mediator, as an intelligent social commenter rather than a personal religion.
It does not elaborate what they mean by 'dogma and mythology'.
Those who do take earnestly and naturally to the methods of Buddhist self-development are those who are already more developed and already more intelligent Humans. Lower Buddhism, of the masses, is dumbed down and mostly useless as a unique tool, functioning as a smotherer just like popular religions do in all countries. Higher Buddhism caters for those who are already on a higher level, just like scholarly Christianity suits the intelligent and elitist Satanism suits the naturally strong and mature, Buddhism doesn't offer much insight into how the masses may improve themselves beyond offering the same social programs that socially aware governments offer.
No. You just need a teacher to teach skillfully.
Even a retard can attain enlightenment.
Lama Surya Das - Sustaining Present Awareness:
I think the genius of Buddhadharma is that it really provides a workable path to do this inquiry through. Anybody can do it. Even if you can't memorize anything. It is a do-it-yourself, liberating Dharma.
One of my favorite stories is about the Arhat Chunda. He was quite stupid. When his brother became a monk, Chunda just wanted to do what his brother did. So he went to Ananda, Buddha's attendant. But holy Ananda said, "Sorry. You're too stupid." Ananda thought this kid was too stupid to become a monk because he couldn't remember the rules, the chants, the teachings. So the elder brother and his stupid little brother went to the Buddha, for the Buddha was extremely wise, kind, and compassionate. He scanned the past lives of this young, stupid boy, Chunda. He saw in there one tiny root of merit that could help him get enlightened. He said it didn't matter how dull-minded he was. It didn't matter that he couldn't memorize anything. It didn't matter if he could remember even one rule. The Buddha said to Ananda, "Ananda, you're not the Buddha, so you couldn't see that this kid can get enlightened. But I'm the Buddha and I'm going to ordain him because he can get enlightened. He has one good root of merit from a past life. He can do it, too. Watch over this little child." (This story always brings tears to my eyes.)
So Buddha ordained the kid. The kid couldn't remember even one rule, or how to wear his robes. You know, it's complicated to be a monk. All the monks were studying and memorizing. There were a lot of teachings. There were 253 rules of monastic ordination. But the stupid, youthful Chunda couldn't remember anything.
Finally, the brethren gave him the job of cleaning off the sandals of the monks. Chunda cleaned the sandals while the other monks were getting teachings. Since there weren't any books in those days, 2500 years ago in India, nothing was written down; the monks had to memorize the teachings. Chunda wanted to practice like the other monks, and get this enlightenment thing he heard about every day. So he asked the Buddha how he could get this enlightenment thing. The Buddha said, "When you're scraping mud and sweeping the floors, just think, 'Now I am purifying all the obscurations of the mind.'" So he gave him a little two-line verse. "With each cleaning of the sandals, I am cleaning off the obscurations of the shining, perfect mind." The Buddha asked him to repeat it. He repeated it. The Buddha said, "Can you remember that?" He said, "Yes."
Then dumb Chunda went out and tried to repeat the verse. "With each scraping of the dirt, I am cleaning..." And he couldn't remember it. But he had good karma and had gentle Ananda around to remind him of the verse. Still, Chunda forgot again. Then Sariputra the learned came out, and Chunda asked him to remind him. Finally, the Buddha came back and said to Chunda, "Are you cleaning the sandals?" He said, "Yes." Buddha asked, "Are you cleaning the dust off the floor?" Chunda said, "Yes." And Buddha asked, "Have you cleaned the obscurations off the shining, perfect mind?" Suddenly Chunda was enlightened! He realized that the sandals with the dirt are still the sandals. The floor even with the dust is still the floor. Everything is just as it is. He became an arhat, a fully liberated sage.
In those days, wherever the Buddha went, the people would always try to serve lunch, the main meal of the day, to him and the arhats. They thought if they gave Buddha lunch they would get the most merit, and if they gave the arhats lunch they would get almost as much merit. But if they couldn't catch any arhats, they would feed the ordinary monks and get a little less merit. Everyone knew how stupid Chunda was, and they didn't believe he was an enlightened arhat. But wherever Buddha went, he saved a seat for Chunda, because he said he was the purest-minded, least proud arhat. Purest-minded because he didn't know anything. And least proud because he was so simple, so humble, so undemanding and easy to be with.
Unfortunately, we are not that stupid. We know too much. Or should I say, we think so much, we know so little. If we could just be ourselves, and take the path that is genuinely for us, it would be so easy. Imagine if Chunda was trying to become a Buddhist scholar, he never would have gotten enlightened. But he was content to clean the monks' shoes because he loved his brother and Buddha and the other monks. And it had to be done, so he did it. And he had a little teaching, a little verse that fit into that. That's why Thich Nhat Hanh gives everybody a little verse. He has a little verse for eating, for waking up, for toilet, for going to sleep, because one little verse can be enough to fully awaken you to the fullness and richness of the present moment.
Spiritual life has nothing to do with how smart you are. In fact, being smart can be an obstacle. You can become proud and have more clutter in your brain.
In conclusion, "
Buddhist Psychology is too idealistic"
is simply not true.
-
万法唯心。
-
woah.. nice thread...
actually it helps us in our critical thinking, don't u agree?
blindly follow the teaching is unhealthy as everybody knows (I assumed!)
but sometimes if you cast doubts, people may find u either u are here to create trouble or to sow discord whatever, or worse, creating schism? (yeah down to Avici Hell LOL)
but, if we do not apply critical thinking and be skeptical, we are not improving right?
The balance.... is what I am looking for.
Like why I ask myself in Tibetan Buddhism is esoteric and involve sexual contents.... but Buddha himself recommended us to take the precepts that involve no sexual misconduct.... i still thinking of other possibilities and contradictions.
-
The only thing i hv on Buddhist is they want vege diet to cleanse the soul but yet still eat "Zai" that looks like meat.
Wat a fucking bunch of hypocrites!
-
Buddhist don't believe in soul.... =.=!!
-
Originally posted by palachan:
The only thing i hv on Buddhist is they want vege diet to cleanse the soul but yet still eat "Zai" that looks like meat.
Wat a fucking bunch of hypocrites!
First of all, vegetarianism is not required in Buddhism. Buddhists who chose to be vegetarian do so out of compassion.
Next is, those who eat "Zai" that looks like meat aren't aware that it is very unhealthy to do so - usually such mock meat are made of very unhealthy substances.
I would never eat such mock meat if I became a vegetarian (I'm not).
-
Vexen Crabtree is a Satanist. His view is so extreme and misinformed that I don't think it is consequential to discuss.
-
"Wat a fucking bunch of hypocrites"
:D It is always good to throw temper . Vegetarian is still good for you and be compassion and loving kindness, reside your mind on Buddha name :D It takes times to be cleansed, you need patient, extremely tolerance.
Amitofo
-
All religions preach peace and harmony..... It is only people who abuse religion by using it to sow dissension and discord. This is abominably deplorable.........
-
Originally posted by CrazyWorld:
Vexen Crabtree is a Satanist. His view is so extreme and misinformed that I don't think it is consequential to discuss.
<!--Session data-->
That's your view, but the worldview is similar to his view. -
Originally posted by Fenixx:
All religions preach peace and harmony….. It is only people who abuse religion by using it to sow dissension and discord. This is abominably deplorable…......
Like real. Religion is the cause of all evil in this world. -
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
That's your view, but the worldview is similar to his view.Nah, I can assure you that much less than 1% of world population believes in Satanism, and actually statistically speaking more than 88% of the world population believe in religion.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Nah, I can assure you that much less than 1% of world population believes in Satanism, and actually statistically speaking more than 88% of the world population believe in religion.
I agree. Santanists are usually anti-anything traditional and promotes individualism. It may sound hip to young people. But most people at some stage of their life pick up a religion.
-
Palachan said :
The only thing i hv on Buddhist is they want vege diet to cleanse the soul but yet still eat "Zai" that looks like meat.
Wat a fucking bunch of hypocrites!
=========================
what an idiot you are , i bet you are not a buddhist , because
you simply lack the brain to think to become a Buddhist.
1] how do you know that those buying the food is a buddhist and not a toaist or just someone who do not want to eat meat ?
2] it is not that the buddhist specifically ask for the Zai to look like meat , it is the
seller who make it this way to make it more attractive.
3] you look at something superficially from the outside and think you know very well
what is Buddhism about , and start to make stupid remarks.
-
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
Like real. Religion is the cause of all evil in this world.Bold statement. I will say humans are the cause. Not religion
-
Originally posted by palachan:
The only thing i hv on Buddhist is they want vege diet to cleanse the soul but yet still eat "Zai" that looks like meat.
Wat a fucking bunch of hypocrites!
No again, like what the above has said. From a business point of view, do the customers want to buy if they see a sea of vege ? I doubt so.
-
4] and who say eating veg food can cleanse the soul ?
what a load of rubbish.
if you don't have in depth knowledge about a subject , best is to keep you mouth shut.
List all pages on Buddhism