Criticizing Buddhism

[Jun]

Jun

 

QUOTE(Dave @ May 15 2007, 11:46 AM) QUOTE(Jun @ May 13 2007, 11:03 PM) QUOTESounds like a "No true christian" argument.

Whatever

 

It's true, it was the exact same argument they'd give.

 

QUOTEBuddhists don't "believe" anything.

They believe all that stuff you just posted.

 

 

Who is "they?"

 

Do you exclude me from this "they?" I am a Buddhist, do you know what I practice/follow/teach/believe?

 

It appears you have a picture in your mind about what Buddhism is. But, my friend, have you actually practiced Buddhism? Have you read anything that the Buddha actually taught? Or are you basing your "knowledge" on what is presented by certain "forms" of "Buddhism" or simply from what you have read in books?

[Jun]

Dave

 

QUOTE(Jun @ May 15 2007, 12:56 AM) Do you exclude me from this "they?" I am a Buddhist, do you know what I practice/follow/teach/believe?

Apparently you know what every Buddhist practices/follows/teaches/believes since you have spoken for all of Buddhism.

 

QUOTEIt appears you have a picture in your mind about what Buddhism is. But, my friend, have you actually practiced Buddhism? Have you read anything that the Buddha actually taught? Or are you basing your "knowledge" on what is presented by certain "forms" of "Buddhism" or simply from what you have read in books?

You know.... I've heard that exact same argument before..... just change the word " buddhism" with "christianity". I don't buy that argument from them, so why should I buy it from you?

 

Obviously I am not a Buddhist. I have absolutely zero interest in being one. It's just another religion to me and like other religions they got a bunch of stuff wrong.

[Jun]

dr_funkenstein

 

No True Buddhist argument?

 

What about the Buddhist regime in Bhutan - are they not true Buddhists?

 

You know, to me buddhism seems to be a philosophy with so many different interpretations, it's almost as though anyone can claim to be a buddhist and believe whetever the hell they like, and if someone claims that they're not a true buddhist they'll just spout something like "oh well you're just thinking in western terms and you simply don't understand."

 

I think buddhism has some things to offer - particularly the aspects to do with meditation and constant awareness. Doing exercises like this have been shown in clinical studies to improve the health of cancer patients, even reversal of metastasis. The mind/body connection is completely natural though - nothing supernatural at all there, simply natural processes whose mechanisms we don't yet understand.

[Jun]

Granpa Harley

 

One thing about most Buddhist sects I've encountered seem to play a very long game... Just because a society is nominally Buddhist doesn't mean they're representative, and the Buddhist ideal is slow, lasting change, not some rapid 'Ah bin Sayeved!'

[Jun]

Vigile_del_fuoco

 

Buddhist seem to be a peaceful bunch. I like Jun and his posts. He offers an interesting perspective. I don't get the draw to the religion/belief system/whatever it is though.

 

QUOTEThe Four Noble Truths

 

1. Life means suffering.

 

2. The origin of suffering is attachment.

 

3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.

 

4. The path to the cessation of suffering.

 

These seem to me to be about as healthy a way to view life as the xian belief that we are all born of sin. It starts with a negative that has a highly subjective interpretation and then offers a solution via the tennets of the belief. If I understand correctly, the solution to the contrived problem is to give up desire for everything. I happen to like desire and I spent too many years of my life feeling guilty for my desires. Contrary to the Buddha or the Leviathan, for that matter, life is not necessarily suffering nor does it have to be nasty, brutal or short. Buddhism, or any organized set of beliefs, are definately not for me.

 

If I suddenly find myself incarcerated for life in a Turkish prison, I might be persuaded to change my mind on the subject. At that point I can see how it might be a positive to give up desire in lieu of personal peace of mind.

[Jun]

Granpa Harley

 

QUOTE(Vigile_del_fuoco1 @ May 16 2007, 06:31 AM) Buddhist seem to be a peaceful bunch. I like Jun and his posts. He offers an interesting perspective. I don't get the draw to the religion/belief system/whatever it is though.

 

QUOTEThe Four Noble Truths

 

1. Life means suffering.

 

2. The origin of suffering is attachment.

 

3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.

 

4. The path to the cessation of suffering.

 

These seem to me to be about as healthy a way to view life as the xian belief that we are all born of sin. It starts with a negative that has a highly subjective interpretation and then offers a solution via the tennets of the belief. If I understand correctly, the solution to the contrived problem is to give up desire for everything. I happen to like desire and I spent too many years of my life feeling guilty for my desires. Contrary to the Buddha or the Leviathan, for that matter, life is not necessarily suffering nor does it have to be nasty, brutal or short. Buddhism, or any organized set of beliefs, are definately not for me.

 

If I suddenly find myself incarcerated for life in a Turkish prison, I might be persuaded to change my mind on the subject. At that point I can see how it might be a positive to give up desire in lieu of personal peace of mind.

 

Life tends to be you get sick, you grow old and you die. none of it is a barrel of laughs. You don't own anything in that it'll either rot, break, or wind up in house sale when you and your name mean nothing to anyone. All your friends and family will die... lovers will leave or die.... Now, if you treat things like 'forever', 'never' and 'always' are real, you're going to get punched in the kidneys on regular basis. Suffering. Basically, if you enjoy things for what they are... just passing through; everyone and every thing... then you get the Joke without being the butt of the Joke...

 

Kipling covers the concept in 'If'

 

"If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;

If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;

If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster

And treat those two impostors just the same;

If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken

Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,

Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,

And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:

 

If you can make one heap of all your winnings

And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,

And lose, and start again at your beginnings

And never breathe a word about your loss;"

 

and later in the same poem

 

"If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,

' Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch,

if neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,

If all men count with you, but none too much;"

 

Covers the lack of attachment, to objects, reputation and people to reduce or remove the pain of loss and betrayal...

 

Leastwise that's my take on it...

 

Paging Rev. Jun - Code Blue, I repeat Code BLUE!!!

[Vigile]

Well, you already posted my little critique. I just have a question. Does Buddhism propose to know the "truth"? Or, does the philosophy promise to lead practitioners to the "truth"?

 

And again, you discussing it is interesting. I hope you keep it up. I'm sure we are all learning something.

[Legion]

I’m curious about some things concerning Buddhism. So I hope to hear from Jun or whoever else thinks of themselves as Buddhists.

 

What is the Buddhist take on what has been called by some “the first basic dualism.” This dualism is the distinction that we make between ourselves and everything else. There is me and then there is my ambience. There is me and there is also my environment.

 

What does Buddhism have to say about this distinction?

[Amethyst]

I've read up on it, but honestly I can't literally believe in reincarnation without proof any more than I can believe in the existence of a deity without proof. I'm just a skeptic at heart. At least Buddhism doesn't demand that you believe in it or you will be tortured forever in a fiery pit. Still, I meditate every once in a while. I find it helps.

[Kuroikaze]

To me the trying to make a distinction between various religious sects is kinda pointless. Take any religion, Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism...and so on and you will find a bunch of people arguing about what is the "real" version of their religion.

 

I once saw a heated argument on a message board about what constituted real Taoism, as if anything could be more silly. I mean, over the centuries, Taoist's have been everything from pacifists to people who actually use the Tao in military training. have been Atheists, and also people who treated the Tao as a god in itself.

 

Ultimately, its all just semantics, if a person wants to call themselves a (insert religion here) it really doesn't matter to me one bit, I won't bother telling them they aren't "real" followers of that religion, because what really matters to me is, are their beliefs stupid.

 

Words are just words, we often put too much stock in them, we need them to communicate, but we often seem to mistake words for the thing itself.

 

When it comes to Jun, and Zen Buddhism in general, I like it for the most part, even agree with most of its teachings, on the other hand when it comes to Tibetan Buddhism, I like very little of it, and find the beliefs to be at best, silly, and at worst, just plain harmful.

 

In the same line, I like a lot of Taoist concepts, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna agree with every Taoist.

 

But I'm not going to waste my time telling a Tibetan Buddhist he isn't a "real" Buddhist, because it doesn't matter what label you put on your beliefs, it only matters if the belief is a good belief or not.

[Jun]

Ok.

 

Let me first of all attempt to reply to some of this.

 

Dave said -

Apparently you know what every Buddhist practices/follows/teaches/believes since you have spoken for all of Buddhism.

 

As does the Dalai Lama speak for all of Buddhism, in his many hundreds of interviews/books/recordings. (How much money is he worth?) He is in a position to, as the Dalai Lama of Tibet. I am a Zen priest in the Sõtõ Zen tradition and head of a temple in Kanagawa Japan, so I believe I also am in a good position to speak for all of Buddhism.

 

But hang on, what IS Buddhism? What gives me the right to speak for other tradtitions?

 

Firstly, this term "Buddhism" is an English one. You will not hear an Asian refer to what they practice as "Buddhism" or to themselves as "Buddhist." In Asia there is in fact no such thing as a "Buddhist." The teachings of the Buddha are called Dharma (Damma in Pali), and in Asia they use this term (Buddha Dharma) to refer to what they practice.

 

Secondly, there are four distinct forms of what is termed "Buddhism."

 

1. The original teachings as taught by the Buddha - Buddha Dharma, based solely upon his teachings.

2. Religious "Buddhism" - as is evident by groups such as Tibetan, Tendai-shu, Shingon-shu, Jodo-shu, Nichiren,...etc. These have added religious/supernatural overtones and is FAR REMOVED from anything the Buddha taught.

3. "Buddhist" cults - such as Aleph, Soka Gakkai, Aum Shinrikyo. These are very damaging.

4. Academic "Buddhism" - as studied in University.

 

The Buddha's teachings are quite simple. The essential teaching is that nothing is permanent. At the heart of the Dharma is the Four Noble truths and the Eightfold Path. The Buddha denied the existance of a creator god, supernatural powers, demons, ghosts, magic, heavens and hells. He denied having kept anything secret from his practitioners and told them to investigte everything for themselves. He also strongly advised against using rituals or relying upon magic and superstition.

 

Any tradition that accepts those things that the Buddha did not teach, or denied, cannot be considered Buddhist. It really is simple.

 

Those traditions that accept magic and ritual, supernatural powers and gods are going against what the Buddha taught. The Buddha had no intention of turning his teaching into a religion.

 

Dave said -

It's just another religion to me and like other religions they got a bunch of stuff wrong.

 

You are referring to the form (no. 2.) which cannot rightly be considered Buddhist as per my explanation above if you call Buddhism a religion. What stuff is wrong?

 

dr_funkenstein said -

What about the Buddhist regime in Bhutan - are they not true Buddhists?

 

The religious tantric "Buddhism" practiced in Bhutan originated in Tibet. As with Tibetan "Buddhism" it can hardly be considered Buddhism.

 

dr_funkenstein said -

You know, to me buddhism seems to be a philosophy with so many different interpretations, it's almost as though anyone can claim to be a buddhist and believe whetever the hell they like, and if someone claims that they're not a true buddhist they'll just spout something like "oh well you're just thinking in western terms and you simply don't understand."

 

It is ok to interpret the teachings anyway you like, it is also ok to adapt them to your own situation/culture etc. But if the core principles are not adhered to it cannot rightly be Buddhism can it? You cannot believe whatever you like and consider yourself a Buddhist - why? Because there are no beliefs in Buddhism. There is nothing to "believe" in. Only a search for truth and reality.

 

If you change the rules of Cricket to include the use of a different type of bat and a different set of rules - is it still Cricket? Or should it be considered as a new game?

 

Vigile_del_fuoco said -

These seem to me to be about as healthy a way to view life as the xian belief that we are all born of sin. It starts with a negative that has a highly subjective interpretation and then offers a solution via the tennets of the belief. If I understand correctly, the solution to the contrived problem is to give up desire for everything. I happen to like desire and I spent too many years of my life feeling guilty for my desires. Contrary to the Buddha or the Leviathan, for that matter, life is not necessarily suffering nor does it have to be nasty, brutal or short. Buddhism, or any organized set of beliefs, are definately not for me.

 

Suffering is the common bond that we all share. Everybody everywhere suffers. The First Noble truth is not a dismal metaphysical statement saying that everything is suffering. The Noble Truths are truths to reflect upon; they are not absolute; it is not The Absolute. This is where non-Buddhists get confused because they think the Noble truths are a metaphysical truth of Buddhism, but they aren't. They think that it has an organised set of beliefs that must be adhered to. You can see that the first Noble Truth is not an absolute because of the Fourth Noble Truth, which is a path to non-suffering. You cannot have absolute suffering and then have a way out of it!

 

The correct wording of the First Noble Truth is actually "there is suffering," not life is suffering. The solution is not to give up desire, that is impossible and some desires are beneficial. The solution is to realise that holding onto our desires, believing that they are going to make us happy forever is only going to bring us more suffering when they are gone. Are you happy with your guilt? Is it necessary to live with guilt?

 

Granpa Harley said -

Life tends to be you get sick, you grow old and you die. none of it is a barrel of laughs. You don't own anything in that it'll either rot, break, or wind up in house sale when you and your name mean nothing to anyone. All your friends and family will die... lovers will leave or die.... Now, if you treat things like 'forever', 'never' and 'always' are real, you're going to get punched in the kidneys on regular basis. Suffering. Basically, if you enjoy things for what they are... just passing through; everyone and every thing... then you get the Joke without being the butt of the Joke...

 

I couldn't have put it better myself!

 

Attachment to desire, and to things that will eventually perish (the Second Noble Truth) only brings us more suffering. The Second Noble Truth is not about thinking, "Oh I have a lot of sensual desires," or "I'm really ambitious." I'ts not about not identifying with desires in any way; it's about recognising desire. Desire does not cause suffering, the cause of suffering is the grasping of desire.

[Jun]

I just have a question. Does Buddhism propose to know the "truth"? Or, does the philosophy promise to lead practitioners to the "truth"?

 

Buddhism proposes to know nothing. The Buddha did not claim to have any answers to anything at all. It doesn't make any promises either. There is a path, as set out by the Buddha, to be followed and adapted - re-evaluated from time to time and explored in the hope that you will find your truth.

 

What is the Buddhist take on what has been called by some “the first basic dualism.” This dualism is the distinction that we make between ourselves and everything else. There is me and then there is my ambience. There is me and there is also my environment.

 

Emptiness is form, form is emptiness.

 

I've read up on it, but honestly I can't literally believe in reincarnation without proof any more than I can believe in the existence of a deity without proof. I'm just a skeptic at heart. At least Buddhism doesn't demand that you believe in it or you will be tortured forever in a fiery pit. Still, I meditate every once in a while. I find it helps.

 

The Buddha did not teach or believe in reincarnation. Reincarnation is not a Buddhist teaching. No use bothering with something we can neither prove nor disprove. Pay attention to NOW.

 

To me the trying to make a distinction between various religious sects is kinda pointless. Take any religion, Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism...and so on and you will find a bunch of people arguing about what is the "real" version of their religion.

 

Mmmm. The Buddha set out some pretty distinct teachings. He wasn't all that ambiguous, they are all quite simple really. If a tradition claims to be "Buddhist" then it would follow those teachings without adding to them things that the Buddha denied or things that are only pretty baubles.

 

.....when it comes to Tibetan Buddhism, I like very little of it, and find the beliefs to be at best, silly, and at worst, just plain harmful.

 

When I first left Xtianity and headed to Japan, I was intent on practicing Shingon-shu Esoteric Buddhism. I travelled to the temples high up in the mountains and started studying the esoteric texts and learning about Vajrayana Buddhism. I came to the quick conclusion that it wasn't what the Buddha taught. It included magic finger signs and focusing on mandalas and chanting esoteric formulas. In effect superstitious rubbish. I am quick to point out that all that superstitous babbling and magic rubbish is NOT Buddhism - Tibetan, Shingon-shu, Tendi-shu - it's NOT what the Buddha taught. They can call themselves "Buddhist" if they so wish, and people can accept that. But I am doing the teachings that I teach a terrible diservice if I don't point out the truth of the matter.

[Legion]

What is the Buddhist take on what has been called by some “the first basic dualism.” This dualism is the distinction that we make between ourselves and everything else. There is me and then there is my ambience. There is me and there is also my environment.

 

Emptiness is form, form is emptiness.

Then here is my criticism of Buddhism Jun. I can't help but feel that you've done some fancy footwork around a very important question. This answer feels evasive to me.

[Kuroikaze]

Mmmm. The Buddha set out some pretty distinct teachings. He wasn't all that ambiguous, they are all quite simple really. If a tradition claims to be "Buddhist" then it would follow those teachings without adding to them things that the Buddha denied or things that are only pretty baubles.

 

 

Right, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I'm just saying that it is far better to understand the nature of an idea, and why that idea is right or wrong, than it is to label it this or that.

[Jun]

What is the Buddhist take on what has been called by some "the first basic dualism." This dualism is the distinction that we make between ourselves and everything else. There is me and then there is my ambience. There is me and there is also my environment.

 

Emptiness is form, form is emptiness.

Then here is my criticism of Buddhism Jun. I can't help but feel that you've done some fancy footwork around a very important question. This answer feels evasive to me.

 

Emptiness is form, form is emptiness. This is from the Heart sutra which asserts the "emptiness" of all "things" and simultaneously the "thingness" of all "emptiness."

 

Actually, the question of dualism and non-dualism in Buddhism is usually answered with "Things remain distinct while not being separate."

 

Dualism is illusory. The true nature of reality is non-dualistic.

[Legion]

Thank you Jun for entertaining my questions. I believe that I will need to contemplate this some more. This strikes me as a pregnant point in the conversation, and I don't want to rush my response. I'll definitely need some time to think about this.

[Skankboy]

Wow Jun! This is turning into Buddhism 101 around here...

 

For all those interested, Granpa Harely's description of the impermanence of all things and how they relate to desire and suffering is one of the best I've ever read.

 

Keep up the good work Jun. Anything I would have to say would just be a repeat of what you've already said. It's actually quite refreshing. I'm a "self-taught" Buddhist and I'm pleased to see that I have not been far off in my understanding of the Buddha's teachings.

 

Buddhism proposes to know nothing. The Buddha did not claim to have any answers to anything at all. It doesn't make any promises either. There is a path, as set out by the Buddha, to be followed and adapted - re-evaluated from time to time and explored in the hope that you will find your truth.

Very well put. "Be a lamp unto yourself..."

 

[Grandpa Harley]

What is the Buddhist take on what has been called by some "the first basic dualism." This dualism is the distinction that we make between ourselves and everything else. There is me and then there is my ambience. There is me and there is also my environment.

 

Emptiness is form, form is emptiness.

Then here is my criticism of Buddhism Jun. I can't help but feel that you've done some fancy footwork around a very important question. This answer feels evasive to me.

 

Emptiness is form, form is emptiness. This is from the Heart sutra which asserts the "emptiness" of all "things" and simultaneously the "thingness" of all "emptiness."

 

Actually, the question of dualism and non-dualism in Buddhism is usually answered with "Things remain distinct while not being separate."

 

Dualism is illusory. The true nature of reality is non-dualistic.

 

There is also the concept of 'inherent existence'... a chair is only a chair because we call it one, from the point of view of the chair (if a chair can be said to have a 'point of view') our imputed definition is of no import. It depends on many things for both its role and its existence. A Chippendale chair relies on not just a maker, but also trees, that need soil, water and sunshine. Soil is a planetary phenomenon... and so on all the way up to the universe... Thus the chair has no inherent or 'real' existence independent of all other causes and conditions.

 

I have the feeling that it's possible to explain that SO much better in predicate calculus than it is in English...

[Asimov]

1. Does Buddhism reject the concept of "self"?

2. Does Buddhism reject the idea that pursuing happiness is mans greatest moral purpose?

3. Does Buddhism reject individualism?

[Legion]

Emptiness is form, form is emptiness. This is from the Heart sutra which asserts the "emptiness" of all "things" and simultaneously the "thingness" of all "emptiness."

 

Actually, the question of dualism and non-dualism in Buddhism is usually answered with "Things remain distinct while not being separate."

 

Dualism is illusory. The true nature of reality is non-dualistic.

Okay Jun, I’ve tried to give this some thought. I hope that I can give proper voice to what I’m thinking.

 

I am concerned, among other things, that there is an effort here to obliterate the private world. I think that many of us may share similar concerns. In much of practicing Christianity for instance there seems to be a pervasive implication that we are not entitled to our own thoughts and feelings.

 

Now, it strikes me that the Buddha Dharma is a form of humanity. And I know there may exist a fundamental tension between the sciences and the humanities. However, I want to quote my favorite biologist, Robert Rosen, at this point.

 

“Science is built on dualities. Indeed every mode of discrimination creates one. But the most fundamental duality, which all others presuppose, is of course the one a descriminator makes between self and everything else.

 

....(skip)...

 

At any rate, we know our self with ultimate certainty, even though this knowledge is subjective; it cannot be experienced as we experience it by anything else; at best it can only be reported. As noted, we encompass as belonging to the self, or contained within it, our perceptions, our thoughts, our ideas, our imaginings, our will, and the actions that spring from them. This is the inner world. Everything else is outside.”

 

Now, it seems to me that if we wish to progress to a point where we no longer view reality in a dualistic fashion, then we give up at least three things, and maybe many more. We give up the right to a private world. We give up the right to discriminate. We give up claim on explicit, model based, understanding.

 

I am finally left with the impression that the Buddha Dharma may be poised for a prominent position in the humanities, but that it will necessarily be limited, seeing as it willfully relinquishes a claim on explicit understanding.

[Evolution_beyond]

One thing i used to not like about Buddhism was its insistence that desire is the cause of suffering and should be eliminated.

 

But after going to an open day at the local Buddhist centre and attending a couple of sessions (an 'introduction to Buddhism' session and a meditation session) I learnt that it's not about it being wrong to enjoy things. I think what Grandpa Harley said about the impermanence thing was an excellent way of explaining it.

 

Forget the word desire. It's attachment or craving that Buddhism says is disadvantageous for true happiness and contentment(Buddhism doesn't really use the words 'right' and 'wrong' but instead considers what is best for eliminating suffering).

 

It is fine to enjoy things - but enjoy them in a 'just passing through' kind of way. Do not be overly attached to them or you will get frustrated and experience pain and suffering when you are parted from them (which is bound to happen eventually).

 

This is of course easier said than done - but no-one said that the Buddhist way is easy. That's why you can practise for years and never quite get there. It is why it takes a long time to become a Buddhist priest. It's not the quick fix that Christianity pretends to be. It is a slow, gradual process of learning and growing. The guy at the Buddhist centre said that Buddhism is the opposite of a cult - cults are easy to get into and very hard to get out of. But Buddhism is the exact opposite - it is hard to get into and very easy to get out of. Anytime you want you can leave Buddhism behind and move on.

 

I like Buddhism because it reasons about things and it appeals to your intellect. Most religions seem to insult my intelligence - but Buddhism speaks to you as an equal. It works with you as you try to figure out ultimate reality. It's very pragmatic. Just look at the Buddhist answer to whether there is a God - essentially the Buddhist answer to that question is that it doesn't matter whether there is a God or not, concentrating on trying to be a better person and to attain true happiness and contentment are more important. How much more pragmatic can you get? It's not really a religion - it does not appeal to 'faith', it doesn't talk down to you or attempt to control your life, it doesn't require anything from you. It works with you. It is rational and pragmatic. It does not insult your intelligence like Christianity does. It's a philosophy and a set of techniques really - that's all it is.

 

I do think that Buddha's teachings were very much tied up with ideas of reincarnation and Karma though. But it was part of the Indian worldview where the Buddha came from. It doesn't matter though - Buddhist ideas work equally as well if you believe there is only one life and death is the end. Besides, Buddhists don't really believe in a personal soul so it's hard to understand how reincarnation could fit in with that.

 

Perhaps it's better to say that Reincarnation was just baggage carried over from Indian religion into Buddhism and that any talk of Karma in a Buddhist context just explains how harmful actions can cause ripples that affect everybody - which is why it is extra important to minimize their effects by practising the attainment of inner calm in the face of adversity. That is the Buddhist aim after all.

[Dave]

.......

[Dave]

As does the Dalai Lama speak for all of Buddhism...

No, he does not. Also, YOU made a claim for all Buddhists and YOU are the one here. It's not polite to bring in people that cannot defend themselves.

 

The teachings of the Buddha are called Dharma (Damma in Pali), and in Asia they use this term (Buddha Dharma) to refer to what they practice.

"Belief" or "practice" what's the difference? Nothing, it's still a belief.

 

Dave said -

It's just another religion to me and like other religions they got a bunch of stuff wrong.

You are referring to the form (no. 2.)....

No, I'm referring to any form of Buddhism.

 

The religious tantric "Buddhism" practiced in Bhutan originated in Tibet. As with Tibetan "Buddhism" it can hardly be considered Buddhism.

This the "No true Buddhist" argument. It's no different than the "no true christian" argument.

 

Attachment to desire, and to things that will eventually perish (the Second Noble Truth) only brings us more suffering. The Second Noble Truth is not about thinking, "Oh I have a lot of sensual desires," or "I'm really ambitious." I'ts not about not identifying with desires in any way; it's about recognising desire. Desire does not cause suffering, the cause of suffering is the grasping of desire.

Sounds like a belief to me. It's also one of the things they got wrong. It's just too much of a blanket statement.

[Dave]

Buddhism proposes to know nothing....

Yet claims to know all?

 

Emptiness is form, form is emptiness.

A nonsense tautology offered as something deep.

 

 

The Buddha did not teach or believe in reincarnation.

But they do believe in other types of beings/souls/whatevers.

 

[

Mmmm. The Buddha set out some pretty distinct teachings.

Just a few teachings (which Buddhists believe in), about 84,000.

 

.....They can call themselves "Buddhist" if they so wish, and people can accept that. But I am doing the teachings that I teach a terrible diservice if I don't point out the truth of the matter.

Yep, a "no true Buddhist" argument.

[Legion]

You know Dave, I think you could sometimes work on smoothing those rough edges a bit. Do you know that you often come across to me as dogmatic yourself?

 

Please feel free to launch into me now if you feel like it. I probably will deserve it.