Criticizing Buddhism

[The Sage Nabooru]

I think a lot of what Buddha said is basic common sense that we're all forced to come to at some time.

 

Eventually, I will be forced to realize, whether in this life or another, that I can't find happiness from my material belongings. Nothing makes me happy in the sense that it directly causes my own emotions. As long as I cling to things that cannot last forever anyway, and then mourn their passing, I will be stuck in that mourning and that craving for another object to fill that gaping hole the first one left behind. He's not the first person to say this, and he won't be the last. The same idea is found in many traditions.

 

I don't really agree with the stance of some Buddhists, that this tradition is neccessarily atheistic or that *this* sect or *that* sect isn't "really" Buddhist. I don't think that's the point of the message. I think what Buddha taught overall concerning God(s) is that you can't expect them to bail your ass out. The biggest point he made concerning such things is that you've got to be responsible for your own "saving". You cannot put your life up to God(s) and then expect everything to fall into place for you.

 

I think Buddha's ultimate stance on God(s) is that the question is irrelevant as far as he is concerned, and thereby the philosophy itself is agnostic. If it turns out that there are God(s) that can help you out in life - great! If not, who gives a shit? Ultimately you should seek to free and improve yourself regardless.

 

As for different sects of Buddhism, I think most of them do draw on the core teaching of: Everything is impermanent; you must detach yourself from your cravings if you seek to truly find peace; practice compassion. I don't think the "Pure Land" movements are exactly in line with doctrine, but I think those are mostly popular movements by the laity to incorporate Buddhism into their lives when they're not yet willing to give up their cravings. I view it as mostly harmless since Pure Land is usually incorporated into other traditions (Chinese traditional religion; native shamanism; Shinto) anyway. To those practitioners, Buddha's message is merely one among many relevant truths.

[fallenleaf]

Even so, it's not perfect. Nothing is. For example, I disagree heavily with the teaching that we must avoid doing harm - it is not possible to exist and do no harm. Even walking on grass squashes the blades themselves, or we digest innumerable microrganisms when we drink or eat or even breathe. If we want to survive, we need to destroy and devour (or at least displace) many animals and plants, directly or indirectly. It is simply impossible to not do harm and survive - but since Buddhism encourages us to question its own teachings and apply them as we see fit to our lives, questioning and mostly denying this concept is perhaps a very Buddhic thing to do. I simply avoid doing unecessary harm, and think that should be the proper understanding of that concept, but again, that's me.

 

I don't know that the idea of totally avoiding doing harm is Buddhist. It sounds more "Jain" than Buddhist to me and I know I have read Suttas which taught otherwise. I can't find it now but I remember one where a novice monk was asking about preventing a predator from killing a deer. And the Buddha explained that it would be acting from wrong understanding to try and prevent a predator from killing a deer. Because it would be bringing harm to the predator and would disrupt the "system." In particular, I believe there was a bunch of junk about karma of the deer which I dismissed as silly. But the point remains the same, avoiding and preventing all harm is wrong understanding. You do not intentionally cause unnecessary harm. As you become better at this, you will be more aware of ways to avoid causing more harm than needs to be.

 

 

I'm still rather new to Buddhism, after years of rejecting it under the false premises that Buddhism is anti-desire, anti-pleasure, antagonistic to the concept of "ego" or "self" or worships the Buddha like some god. As with any concept or belief, I will never be a totally traditional adherent and will find some things to deny or take issue with, but I cannopt help but think the Buddha himself would smile on that sort of disposition.

 

And he'd be a hell of a guy to smile on my disposition

Many people think many silly things about Buddhism. Personally, I try not to convince them otherwise because it never really helps.

[Kurari]

Who said a philosophy has to be 'profound'... it simply had to speak to the commonality of existence...

 

I knew you were going to come back with that. My answer is, if it's not profound, why not just go read a Reader's Digest? What's the point of making a big deal about Buddhism? If it offers the same wisdom that Reader's Digest does, does it merely get props because it sounds deeper?

 

Why not go read a Reader's Digest?

 

Buddha did not invent the Dharma (truth). Buddha was a teacher who recognized deeply inate tools for dealing with the facts of life, and he knew he wasn't teaching anything original. He was very wise, but he was a human being. His insights have been repeated in many different ways many different times and actually have been long before he was born. He had a wife, a son, and one tale I heard was he died of food poisoning after eating bad pork at the age of 80-something. Nobody knows exactly for sure, but he wasn't a god or endowed with special powers or anything. Anybody can be a Buddha. In fact, he said, we are ALL Buddhas. There have been many Buddhas and Bodhisattvas (people who delay their own acheivement of Nirvana in order to help others attain) along the way.

 

If Reader's Digest helps you realize valuble tools for dealing with the stress of life and helps bring out your innate wisdom and Buddhahood, by all means, read it! Buddha specifically said, "Don't take my word for it, try it out for yourself." His way isn't the only way.

 

Whether you'd rather read RD or the suttas, if it helps you transcend suffering, then WHO said it doesn't matter in the slightest.

 

I don't really mean to be so hard on Buddhism. I admittedly know very little about it. I'm just asking questions based on my impression from the issues raised on this and other threads here.

 

I do have a big question for Jun, or anyone else who cares to answer. My motive? I'm just trying to wrap my mind around this thing. Nothing more.

 

What is it about Buddhism that is the selling point? For example, why does one decide to "become" a Buddhist as opposed to just reading Buddhist philosophy among other studies? In other words, why does one adopt the label and what does it entail when one does? Does that mean you choose to view the world through the Buddhist paradigm at the expense of other frames of reference? Does it mean that you choose to do rituals? To chant? If so, how often and to what end?

 

Buddhism is one way of looking at life and the world, and for me, it's the way that makes the most sense and it's fairly practical. Buddha pointed out that we all have to suffer in life can't really be argued with. Everything we own will turn to dust, the people we love will die, and we will all get old, sick, and die ourselves. There is nothing in the entire universe that DOESN'T decay. It's kind of hard to argue with that. Everything is impermenant, and that's a big scary point for most people to deal with. That's why the Christians want there to be a God and a heaven...The Lord is permenant and stable and secure in a very unstable and insecure world.

 

Buddhism has an opposite approach. It tries to teach you to be secure with insecurity. To paraphrase, the core idea behind Buddhism is that there is suffering and impermanance, and the fact humans want so badly for that not to be reality is what causes a great deal of our personal problems. To really summerize it all up, Buddha supposedly found a way to live in peace with the hard parts of life and taught people techniques on how to accept life and enjoy it as it is. Because most of our suffering comes from our own perception of things.

 

I follow it because the more I read, it's not so mystical to me and it's actually stuff I can practice, not anybody telling me to just have faith that it works. It's stuff I can MAKE work, and it's a human centric philosophy. If I sit down and meditate, I can figure out the problem instead of praying for something to happen to solve it. If I practice focusing on the here and now, I notice a lot more to life I've been missing and I feel better.

 

The advice given itself just makes sense. Don't hurt yourself or others, don't drink yourself to numbness, don't lie to people or yourself, try to live with love, kindness, and compassion, and try to confront your problems instead of running from them.

 

This is an extreme summery, but mostly I follow it because it's got a lot of practicality and it works.

[Kurari]

Even so, it's not perfect. Nothing is. For example, I disagree heavily with the teaching that we must avoid doing harm - it is not possible to exist and do no harm. Even walking on grass squashes the blades themselves, or we digest innumerable microrganisms when we drink or eat or even breathe. If we want to survive, we need to destroy and devour (or at least displace) many animals and plants, directly or indirectly. It is simply impossible to not do harm and survive - but since Buddhism encourages us to question its own teachings and apply them as we see fit to our lives, questioning and mostly denying this concept is perhaps a very Buddhic thing to do. I simply avoid doing unecessary harm, and think that should be the proper understanding of that concept, but again, that's me.

 

I agree. I think your intent probably the only thing fulling in your control sometimes. Death is a part of life and sometimes we don't get a choice in having a hand in it. Making sure we are thinking about what we are doing is key. Buddhism teaches that we must take life as it comes moment to moment, and that we must be aware of our actions and take responsibility for them, however good or bad that may be. That's what practice is about.

[Jun]

What is it about Buddhism that is the selling point? For example, why does one decide to "become" a Buddhist as opposed to just reading Buddhist philosophy among other studies? In other words, why does one adopt the label and what does it entail when one does?

 

The reasons for any individual adopting a Buddhist life are as varied as the types of people who do. There can be no one reason. Everybody has their own reasons naurally for doing anything that they do.

 

Does that mean you choose to view the world through the Buddhist paradigm at the expense of other frames of reference?

 

No. The teachings of the Buddha are simply a guide to living a better life. Buddhism can help you to see through confusion and infuse your life with a sense of peace and rightness. Are there other methods of achieving this, certainly. Would the Readers Digest provide this?

 

Is it necessary to have Buddhism to be able to rise above the problems of life and to overcome the complications that we encounter? For some, not for others.

 

The test of any teaching is in it's conformity with the ongoing findings of science. We know that Christianity has had no such conformity. Buddhism faces no such embarrassment, as it is in close harmony with the findings of science. Before anyone starts jumping up and down, I'm not including those traditions that accept rituals and magic, gods and demons, ghosts and gouls. I've made my point on what I think about these "Buddhist" traditions - much to everyone's displeasure.

 

Does it mean that you choose to do rituals?

 

No. Rituals have no place in Buddhism. Superstition has no place in Buddhism. Fixed rigid rules have no place in Buddhism.

 

To chant?

 

No.

 

The practice of Buddhism is not complicated. It doesn't add anything to what you already have. It is a mind practice. It doesn't involve any special knowledge. It doesn't require any equipment. Buddhist practice - true Buddhist practice - is anti-equipment. It helps you to clean up your life, to rid you of the things that you have become attached to, that you don't actually need - your fears and worries, fixed opinions, preconceptions.

 

Frankly, after 40 years on this planet, I've come to the conclussion that I get a lot of joy out of my desires. Very often it is in the desire that I find the most joy in fact, not in the ultimate attainment of the object of the desire.

 

And when those desires are gone? What then? What's that feeling of loss? Good things come and go. As do bad things. But we spend too much time and energy trying to get the good things back. Trying to relive them. Trying to make up for their loss. Even when we get what we want, we think that there is something missing, something incomplete. We never truly have everything we want, and wanting things seems to never stop. That is suffering for desire.

 

Every grandmother tells their grandchildren that true happiness doesn't come with the attainment of the objects of one's desires. This is just common sense, not profound knowledge.

 

Yes, you are right. A three year old may know it, but not even a one-hundred year old can do it. The Buddha's teachings aren't all that profound. As Gramps said - Who said a philosophy has to be 'profound'... it simply had to speak to the commonality of existence...

 

On another note, Question to Jun: is the Buddhist's desire to be free from desire?

 

Ha ha. When you desire or crave something and act on it, you become a slave to that desire. Freedom from desire does not mean renunciation, a commonly held incorrect view. Is the desire to be free from desire a desire?

 

To me, it seems a simple, rational philosophy that encourages the adherent to seek balance, knowledge, and peacefulness in life. It discourages extremes of thought or action, especially those which lead us to become over-attached to desires or anything else in an unhealthy fashion.

 

Very well put. I am not so eloquant with my explanations

 

but since Buddhism encourages us to question its own teachings and apply them as we see fit to our lives, questioning and mostly denying this concept is perhaps a very Buddhic thing to do. I simply avoid doing unecessary harm, and think that should be the proper understanding of that concept, but again, that's me.

 

Yes, Yes!

 

I think a lot of what Buddha said is basic common sense that we're all forced to come to at some time.

 

YES! But many are too hung up on their views or religious views handed down for eons.

[Jun]

I don't really agree with the stance of some Buddhists, that this tradition is neccessarily atheistic or that *this* sect or *that* sect isn't "really" Buddhist. I don't think that's the point of the message.

 

Call me a "Buddhist fundy" then, but the stance of my tradition (for the last 600 or so years) has been that if you paint over a painting with another painting it cannot be the same painting!

 

I don't think the "Pure Land" movements are exactly in line with doctrine,

 

Pure Land asserts that the Buddha is a god. That's NOT Buddhism.

 

but I think those are mostly popular movements by the laity to incorporate Buddhism into their lives when they're not yet willing to give up their cravings.

 

By being the most accessible to the populace, Pure Land as with Tibetan has caused more harm than good. I believe I'm correct in stating that most people, including many on the board, have their views of "Buddhism" clouded by what they hear/see/read from the perspective of the Pure Land and Tibetan traditions.

 

I view it as mostly harmless since Pure Land is usually incorporated into other traditions (Chinese traditional religion; native shamanism; Shinto) anyway.

 

Pure land incorporated into Shintõ?!

 

I don't know that the idea of totally avoiding doing harm is Buddhist. It sounds more "Jain" than Buddhist to me and I know I have read Suttas which taught otherwise. I can't find it now but I remember one where a novice monk was asking about preventing a predator from killing a deer. And the Buddha explained that it would be acting from wrong understanding to try and prevent a predator from killing a deer. Because it would be bringing harm to the predator and would disrupt the "system." In particular, I believe there was a bunch of junk about karma of the deer which I dismissed as silly. But the point remains the same, avoiding and preventing all harm is wrong understanding. You do not intentionally cause unnecessary harm. As you become better at this, you will be more aware of ways to avoid causing more harm than needs to be.

 

Agreed.

 

Many people think many silly things about Buddhism. Personally, I try not to convince them otherwise because it never really helps.

 

As I've found through this post! I think that although many claim to be Ex-Christian they still cling to their Judeo-Christian mindset. There is some anger evident in some too, towards anthing that they don't understand or can't accept.

 

I am happy to try to correct wrong views about Buddhism, and to answer questions. And it helps me to hear everyone's criticisms. Dave especially has me thinking over what I've said here and in the past, and that is healthy. Thank you Dave.

[Guest greedy_xians]

Most Christians are coldhearted, selfish, greedy, disingenuous, hypocritical, judgmental liars. They Do not value human life. Xians use the standard bullshit response of “I’ll pray for you”. That’s a lie and they know it. They have a standard form for their responses. Most Christian love money more than people. They allow people to suffer needlessly because their refusal to obey God. They rebel against God's Word

 

Matthew 5:42

Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

 

Most Xians break God's command to love their your neighbors:

 

Matthew 22:36-40

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.

 

Therefore this means they don't love him

 

1 John 53

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

 

You obviously don't take God's Word seriously because if you did you would obey it but that's why Christianity is such a joke because most of you don't even take it seriously enough to obey it:

 

James 1:22

Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.

 

You obviously don't have the love of God in you:

 

1 John 3:16-18

Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.

 

Use the standard Christian lie/bull shit copout of “I'll pray for you” which is just what the scripture talks about:

 

James 2:14-18

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

 

Here's what the Bible says about your rebellion:

 

Hebrews 10:26-27

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.

[Jun]

Who said a philosophy has to be 'profound'... it simply had to speak to the commonality of existence...

 

I knew you were going to come back with that. My answer is, if it's not profound, why not just go read a Reader's Digest? What's the point of making a big deal about Buddhism? If it offers the same wisdom that Reader's Digest does, does it merely get props because it sounds deeper?

 

Why not go read a Reader's Digest?

 

Buddha did not invent the Dharma (truth). Buddha was a teacher who recognized deeply inate tools for dealing with the facts of life, and he knew he wasn't teaching anything original. He was very wise, but he was a human being. His insights have been repeated in many different ways many different times and actually have been long before he was born. He had a wife, a son, and one tale I heard was he died of food poisoning after eating bad pork at the age of 80-something. Nobody knows exactly for sure, but he wasn't a god or endowed with special powers or anything. Anybody can be a Buddha. In fact, he said, we are ALL Buddhas. There have been many Buddhas and Bodhisattvas (people who delay their own acheivement of Nirvana in order to help others attain) along the way.

 

If Reader's Digest helps you realize valuble tools for dealing with the stress of life and helps bring out your innate wisdom and Buddhahood, by all means, read it! Buddha specifically said, "Don't take my word for it, try it out for yourself." His way isn't the only way.

 

Whether you'd rather read RD or the suttas, if it helps you transcend suffering, then WHO said it doesn't matter in the slightest.

 

I don't really mean to be so hard on Buddhism. I admittedly know very little about it. I'm just asking questions based on my impression from the issues raised on this and other threads here.

 

I do have a big question for Jun, or anyone else who cares to answer. My motive? I'm just trying to wrap my mind around this thing. Nothing more.

 

What is it about Buddhism that is the selling point? For example, why does one decide to "become" a Buddhist as opposed to just reading Buddhist philosophy among other studies? In other words, why does one adopt the label and what does it entail when one does? Does that mean you choose to view the world through the Buddhist paradigm at the expense of other frames of reference? Does it mean that you choose to do rituals? To chant? If so, how often and to what end?

 

Buddhism is one way of looking at life and the world, and for me, it's the way that makes the most sense and it's fairly practical. Buddha pointed out that we all have to suffer in life can't really be argued with. Everything we own will turn to dust, the people we love will die, and we will all get old, sick, and die ourselves. There is nothing in the entire universe that DOESN'T decay. It's kind of hard to argue with that. Everything is impermenant, and that's a big scary point for most people to deal with. That's why the Christians want there to be a God and a heaven...The Lord is permenant and stable and secure in a very unstable and insecure world.

 

Buddhism has an opposite approach. It tries to teach you to be secure with insecurity. To paraphrase, the core idea behind Buddhism is that there is suffering and impermanance, and the fact humans want so badly for that not to be reality is what causes a great deal of our personal problems. To really summerize it all up, Buddha supposedly found a way to live in peace with the hard parts of life and taught people techniques on how to accept life and enjoy it as it is. Because most of our suffering comes from our own perception of things.

 

I follow it because the more I read, it's not so mystical to me and it's actually stuff I can practice, not anybody telling me to just have faith that it works. It's stuff I can MAKE work, and it's a human centric philosophy. If I sit down and meditate, I can figure out the problem instead of praying for something to happen to solve it. If I practice focusing on the here and now, I notice a lot more to life I've been missing and I feel better.

 

The advice given itself just makes sense. Don't hurt yourself or others, don't drink yourself to numbness, don't lie to people or yourself, try to live with love, kindness, and compassion, and try to confront your problems instead of running from them.

 

This is an extreme summery, but mostly I follow it because it's got a lot of practicality and it works.

 

Kurari-san - Gassho.

 

Very well put.

 

You have a nack for putting things into words. I am not so good at typing out my thoughts onto a screen.

 

You have outlined the very teachings of Buddhism. All that other stuff - the rituals and chanting and paintings and sex in the monasteries er, get togethers - that's all just fancy posturing. That's just clouding over the teachings and causing all these misconceptions.

 

At his death bed the Buddha said - "Be a light unto yourselves."

 

He also said - "I never had any teacher or divinity to teach me or tell me what to do. What I achieved I did by my own effort and knowledge."

[Vigile]

Before I answer, I just want to clarify. I’m only criticizing Buddhism because Jun asked for honest criticisms. I haven’t spent a lot of time thinking about this school of thought or whatever you want to call it. If others wish to follow it or take on the label, I don’t care. It doesn’t seem harmful like most religions. I’m trying to learn about it by the responses here, but I’m also approaching this as a skeptic, so please don’t be offended. I have no motivation beyond this.

 

Why not go read a Reader's Digest?

 

Because I don’t need to. My mother told me these things when I was 6. If she hadn’t, I could have figured them out on my own. Perhaps Buddha was as wise as everyone says, but from the little of his teachings I’ve seen so far, a child could figure them out. If I were ever to adopt a particular paradigm for viewing the world, I would hope that it gave me some advantage over commonality. So far I don’t see how Buddhism does that.

 

 

Buddhism is one way of looking at life and the world, and for me, it's the way that makes the most sense and it's fairly practical.

 

Again, if it works for you, then I think it’s great. My criticism here is that any adopted paradigm causes one to view the world through that point of view at the expense of other competing paradigms. We all have them, but when we accept one as a label, such as Buddhist, Christian, Communist [insert your preferred ist or ism] then we become biased. Personally, I don’t want to walk through life wondering “what would Buddha do?” I realize you guys don’t see him as anything but a wise teacher. But when you adopt the label, it seems that you adopt his philosophy in your approach to any given situation in life.

 

Here’s a personal example. I work as a stock analyst. It’s my job to not only find good stocks to buy or sell, but to try and understand what is happening in the market at any given time. Is the market in a bull market, bear market, neutral market? Is the market due for a correction or is it going to climb a wall of worry? It’s complicated and it’s very easy to fool one’s self. It is vitally important to remain objective and to not adopt a perspective that will cause one to skew reality.

 

For example, if I hold a bullish bias, then I will interpret any given data as bullish even if there are some cracks in the market’s armor. If I’m able to be objective, I will be more honest with the data and will see the cracks in the armor and adjust my strategies accordingly.

 

The big danger comes when I read what other analysts are thinking. Some analysts are correct more often than others. When I had less experience, I would let the views of a respected analyst steal some of my objectivity, and as such cause me to interpret the data according to that analyst’s perspective – sometimes at the expense of reality.

 

This is the danger that I see with taking on a label or following one particular school of thought. It may be helpful some of the time or even most of the time, but it causes one to lose objectivity at the expense of reality.

 

The bottom line is, I can see why someone might wish to read up on Buddhism and take from the philosophy that which makes sense. I cannot, on the other hand, see how it’s a good thing to adopt the label and choose to use it as a primary world view. And that goes for any ism.

[AtheistMommy]

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?

 

From what I know about this subject, there are two kinds of Buddhists. The ones who hold a belief in some kind of god and the ones who don't. Either way it's a philosophy of life. Have I read any books on this subject, no. Do you have any recommendations? I've been thinking about buying some books on buddhism because I'd like to know more about it.

 

IMO, it's silly to say that anyone doesn't believe in something. We all hold some kind of belief, godless or not. It's a human trait.

[Jun]

From what I know about this subject, there are two kinds of Buddhists.

 

Four actually. I posted them here.

 

IMO, it's silly to say that anyone doesn't believe in something. We all hold some kind of belief, godless or not. It's a human trait.

 

I'm of the opinion now that Atheism is in fact a belief.

 

Vigile - it is only on this very board and when outside of Japan that I even bother to refer to myself as "Buddhist" if I even bother to tell anyone at all.

 

I realize you guys don't see him as anything but a wise teacher. But when you adopt the label, it seems that you adopt his philosophy in your approach to any given situation in life.

 

Naturally, it wouldn't be a teaching otherwise would it? It doesn't require you to give up all reasoning or understanding however, nor does it require a rigid and fixed perspective on things. Things just as they are, but we go through life putting everything into little categories and labelling everything - the Buddha teaches not to do that at all - but to just see.

[Casey]

Jun, is freedom from desire, true freedom from desire that is, what Buddhists would call Nirvana? I take Nirvana to mean a state where one has no desires and no needs.

Casey

[Jun]

Jun, is freedom from desire, true freedom from desire that is, what Buddhists would call Nirvana? I take Nirvana to mean a state where one has no desires and no needs.

Casey

 

See here - #134 and #145

[Casey]

The only time a person can be said to have no desires whatever and no needs is when that person is dead. (That is if they don't end up in some version of hell, be it christian or otherwise.)

 

Perhaps Solon was wiser than he knew when he said:

 

Call no man happy until he is dead.

Casey

[Jun]

The only time a person can be said to have no desires whatever and no needs is when that person is dead. (That is if they don't end up in some version of hell, be it christian or otherwise.)

 

Perhaps Solon was wiser than he knew when he said:

 

Call no man happy until he is dead.

Casey

 

I don't recall saying anything about needs. And I certainly didn't say that desires can, or should be, extinguished.

[Legion]

I get the feeling that Jun may be growing weary of repeating himself.

[The Sage Nabooru]

By being the most accessible to the populace, Pure Land as with Tibetan has caused more harm than good. I believe I'm correct in stating that most people, including many on the board, have their views of "Buddhism" clouded by what they hear/see/read from the perspective of the Pure Land and Tibetan traditions.

 

But that's the thing, though. I think a very important part of Buddhism is finding things your own way. Certainly you can memorize Buddha's teachings, but it's not like Christian salvation. Simply being knowledgeable about Buddhism isn't good enough. You have to actually put the teachings into practice in a way that works best for you. You can't just say, "I believe in the Buddha" and expect to be "saved".

 

Let's face it, for most people actually taking up the life of a person who seeks freedom from desires is not at this time a plausible enterprise for them, for various reasons. Most Buddhists today would admit to that, and for them at this point in their spiritual development the simple acknowledgement that yes, the Buddha was very wise, but we're not quite ready to give our desires/cravings up yet, is manifested in the Pure Land and Tibetan traditions. They admit they still have "lives" to live, in a way, and at this point they're mostly interested in getting reborn in a heaven where they can live like gods for awhile.....after that, we'll see.

 

It's similar to Hindu concepts. Hinduism says that in order to totally escape from the bounds of samsara one must totally free oneself from karma - both good and bad. That can be a tricky subject, and again you have to rely on both teachers and your own insight in order to do this. It's usually said to take many lifetimes. Many Hindus simply aren't interested in that big of an undertaking right now, and so they live their lives simply to work up enough good karma to get reborn into a higher state than they are now. For them and for Free Land and Tibetan Buddhists, enlightenment/freedom does come eventually. But for the time being the focus is on living the life they have now. For me, that is what Pure Land/Tibetan Buddhism represents. Of course you can expect Himalayan Buddhism to have more flavoring from Hindu traditions simply for sitting next to the subcontinent. But I would guess that many if not most of Tibet's monks would have views very similar to your own. Even the Dalai Lama doesn't care all that much for the numerous gods that surround the Tibetan pantheon.

 

To me, to get Buddhism wrapped up in dogma of what is acceptable as Buddhism and what is not, is totally against what Buddha taught. That's just my opinion as a non-Buddhist and you have the right and capability of disagreeing with me. But I think Buddha taught against the sort of strict Vedic interpretation that was prevalent at the time. The idea of, So it is written, so it must be so. Buddha stressed the importance of doing what makes the most sense to you, even if that meant going against his own teachings.

 

Of course I am merely human and I'm not a prophet - at the very least, not a Buddhist one. This is just my take on it.

[Grandpa Harley]

Most Christians are coldhearted, selfish, greedy, disingenuous, hypocritical, judgmental liars. They Do not value human life. Xians use the standard bullshit response of “I’ll pray for you”. That’s a lie and they know it. They have a standard form for their responses. Most Christian love money more than people. They allow people to suffer needlessly because their refusal to obey God. They rebel against God's Word

 

Matthew 5:42

Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

 

Most Xians break God's command to love their your neighbors:

 

Matthew 22:36-40

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.

 

Therefore this means they don't love him

 

1 John 53

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

 

You obviously don't take God's Word seriously because if you did you would obey it but that's why Christianity is such a joke because most of you don't even take it seriously enough to obey it:

 

James 1:22

Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.

 

You obviously don't have the love of God in you:

 

1 John 3:16-18

Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.

 

Use the standard Christian lie/bull shit copout of “I'll pray for you” which is just what the scripture talks about:

 

James 2:14-18

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

 

Here's what the Bible says about your rebellion:

 

Hebrews 10:26-27

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.

 

This is Buddhism how?

[NotBlinded]

The only time a person can be said to have no desires whatever and no needs is when that person is dead. (That is if they don't end up in some version of hell, be it christian or otherwise.)

 

Perhaps Solon was wiser than he knew when he said:

 

Call no man happy until he is dead.

Casey

Hi Casey! I'm no where near an expert but from what I understand, it is realizing that there are both extremes in life and if one can come to a place of understanding, they can shift between the two easily without becoming too attached on one side and too removed on the other. It's knowing how to live peacefully wherever you are and if you find yourself too attached you can move away; if you find yourself too removed, you can move back.

[Jun]

I get the feeling that Jun may be growin weary of repeating himself.

 

Some refuse it seems to understand the words on the screen. Then again, it's not as if something can be understood simply by reading it.

 

I think a very important part of Buddhism is finding things your own way. Certainly you can memorize Buddha's teachings, but it's not like Christian salvation. Simply being knowledgeable about Buddhism isn't good enough. You have to actually put the teachings into practice in a way that works best for you. You can't just say, "I believe in the Buddha" and expect to be "saved".

 

Yes, of course you must find your own way. It's ok too to memorise the teachings, but that won't get you anywhere. The teachings aren't a set of rules to be adhered to. Putting the teachings into practice in a way that works best for you is also fine, and that's what makes Buddhism unique - being able to adapt the teachings to your lifestyle. The last part of your statement is a problem however. If one is saying I believe in the Buddha, then one has not grasped anything at all about Buddhism. The Buddha is not something to believe in. He's dead. Dust. Gone. There is nothing to believe in. If one expects to be "saved" they are better off with a religion, like the Abrahamic ones.

 

Pure Land is like that. They believe the Buddha is a god residing in a heaven (the Pure Land) and he listens to your petitions. You chant his name and he grants your wishes and "saves" you. Now, if the Buddha said, "I am not a god, there are no gods, rely only upon your ownself, do not practice superstitious rituals, do not trust in amulets and trinckets, scriptures and texts" - What does that say for those who do? They are reverting back to the superstitious beliefs in gods and supernatural powers that the Buddha denied, that he was trying to rid us of in the first place.

 

Sure, practice in your own way. But by including the very things that the Buddha denied, that he explained only bring us more delusion, how is that practicing Buddhism?

 

Let's face it, for most people actually taking up the life of a person who seeks freedom from desires is not at this time a plausible enterprise for them, for various reasons.

 

Such as?

 

Most Buddhists today would admit to that, and for them at this point in their spiritual development the simple acknowledgement that yes, the Buddha was very wise, but we're not quite ready to give our desires/cravings up yet, is manifested in the Pure Land and Tibetan traditions. They admit they still have "lives" to live, in a way, and at this point they're mostly interested in getting reborn in a heaven where they can live like gods for awhile.....after that, we'll see.

 

I am having trouble getting this across it seems, so I'll give it one more try. We all have lives to live, how does that mean we are not yet ready to give up our attachment to our desires? When will we be ready? The Pure Land tradition is a cop-out, rather than putting in the hard work (and Buddhism is hard work), they simply sit back and expect a supernatural power to do it for them. Reborn in heaven? THIS IS NOT BUDDHISM. With a belief like that they may as well be Hindu or Christian. Although the Buddha talked about escaping samsara and being reborn in all of his early sermons, and it is the foundation of his teachings, it is evident that he was using terminology that was easliy understood by the people of the time. He borrowed many terms and ideas from Brahmanism, but turned them around to suit his teachings. They are often just there to colour the teachings for the audience. Later, when speaking with Ananda the Buddha said, "You can escape samsara right here and now. Samsara and nirvana are all in your head. Change your mind, no more samsara."

 

It's similar to Hindu concepts. Hinduism says that in order to totally escape from the bounds of samsara one must totally free oneself from karma - both good and bad. That can be a tricky subject, and again you have to rely on both teachers and your own insight in order to do this. It's usually said to take many lifetimes.

 

We don't have many lifetimes - we only live once.

 

For them and for Free Land and Tibetan Buddhists, enlightenment/freedom does come eventually. But for the time being the focus is on living the life they have now.

 

Another cop-out. Somehow enlightenment for them has been relegated to the unachievable. Something that they cannot hope to achieve now. They probably think, oh well we'll sit back and practice all these man-made rituals and magic, chant our magic spells and hope that we'll gain merit for a chance next time around! That's living mindlessly, that's not Buddhism.

 

You are in charge - not a god, or deity, or supernatural powers - YOU. Only you can help you. Buddhism in a nutshell is SIMPLE -

 

It is the recognition that we are all one, that separation is an illusion, and that NOW is the ONLY reality. It is the ability to release desire and free oneself from suffering NOW, in this very life. It is an inner knowing, an intuitive understanding, and a oneness with these truths.

 

Enlightenment is not foreign to who or what you are. It is already in you. It is the real you. You only need to realise it and put it into use.

 

There are no second-chances, no afterlife to look forward to in which you can try again.

 

To me, to get Buddhism wrapped up in dogma of what is acceptable as Buddhism and what is not, is totally against what Buddha taught.

 

Even during the Buddha's life, there was confusion as to what the Brahmins (Hindus) where prcticing and what the Buddha taught. The Buddha was quite clear on what was and was not Buddhist teachings. According to the Buddha:

 

What the Dharma is NOT -

 

Belief in the supernatural is not Dharma

Belief in God (Ishwara) is not Dharma

Dharma in union with Brahma (God - supernatural forces) is not Dharma

Belief in a soul is not Dharma

Belief in sacrifices is not Dharma

Belief based on speculation is not Dharma

Reading and following books and scriptures is not Dharma

Belief in the infallibiltity of books is not Dharma

Belief for the sake of faith is not Dharma

Practice without doubt and introspection is not Dharma

Ritual is not Dharma

- Sutta Pitaka

 

There you go. A list by the Buddha himself stating what is NOT Dharma. How many of these are being practiced by Pure Land and Tibetan forms?

 

The idea of, So it is written, so it must be so. Buddha stressed the importance of doing what makes the most sense to you, even if that meant going against his own teachings.

 

Do not rely upon supernatural powers or ritual for salvation. - the Buddha

 

I don't think he mean't that it was fine to throw away the very fact that he was trying to get people to realise their own "salvation" through their own means. The idea is to get people to give up superstitous beliefs and practices to realise reality for themselves. Buddhism is about reality.

[The Sage Nabooru]

I'm just curious, Jun, what is your expectation of the afterlife, if you believe in one at all?

 

What is "nirvana"? This is one of the hardest things to understand in Buddhism. Does it last forever? When we have it, do we know it? Obviously it's not some heaven in the sky. But it must be something.

 

I've heard a lot of those mystical descriptions of such things, mostly about it being a state of pure nothingness, that is, pure, no-thingness, a state beyond merely being as a thing and thus no-thingness. Total peace and tranquility that comes from the cessation of desire. It is the no-self, the very epitome of "we are all one". (I regret using the word "epitome" because as I understand it nirvana is neither a destination nor a reward, it is a process in itself. But language is a tricky thing.)

 

But some secular humanistic Buddhists hold that we simply die, and that is all. What nirvana is, is merely the enlightenment we receive within this lifetime. It does not survive death in any way.

 

I guess it would be wrong to say that the Buddha exists in "another dimension", because Buddha as a person no longer exists and, as you say, is dead. The "person" that was Buddha has fully absorbed into nirvana, into no-self. If you were to try to discern the form of the Buddha from this state of being you would not be able to do so. Is this correct?

[Jun]

I'm just curious, Jun, what is your expectation of the afterlife, if you believe in one at all?

 

What is "nirvana"? This is one of the hardest things to understand in Buddhism. Does it last forever? When we have it, do we know it? Obviously it's not some heaven in the sky. But it must be something.

 

I've heard a lot of those mystical descriptions of such things, mostly about it being a state of pure nothingness, that is, pure, no-thingness, a state beyond merely being as a thing and thus no-thingness. Total peace and tranquility that comes from the cessation of desire. It is the no-self, the very epitome of "we are all one". (I regret using the word "epitome" because as I understand it nirvana is neither a destination nor a reward, it is a process in itself. But language is a tricky thing.)

 

But some secular humanistic Buddhists hold that we simply die, and that is all. What nirvana is, is merely the enlightenment we receive within this lifetime. It does not survive death in any way.

 

I guess it would be wrong to say that the Buddha exists in "another dimension", because Buddha as a person no longer exists and, as you say, is dead. The "person" that was Buddha has fully absorbed into nirvana, into no-self. If you were to try to discern the form of the Buddha from this state of being you would not be able to do so. Is this correct?

 

See here - #134

 

Nirvana must be maintained. It isn't something tangible. Nothing mystical about it.

 

Secular humanist Buddhist? What? What's with adding all these other terms and descriptions?

 

Absorbed into nirvana? What? Into non-self? huh?

 

Non-self is what we ARE. Where is your "self"? Can you show it to me? Where does it reside?

[The Sage Nabooru]

So what, then, is death in Buddhist thought? Is it the end of everything or if one has lived in nirvana, a continuation of that? I think a lot of non-Buddhists are scared by the literal translation of "blowing out"; i.e., they imagine that Buddhists believe that the goal of human life is to end all existence whatsoever permanently. A sort of "spiritual suicide", if you will, to escape a life of suffering.

 

Please try to be patient with me, as I am only who I am. If I am at all.

[Jun]

So what, then, is death in Buddhist thought? Is it the end of everything or if one has lived in nirvana, a continuation of that? I think a lot of non-Buddhists are scared by the literal translation of "blowing out"; i.e., they imagine that Buddhists believe that the goal of human life is to end all existence whatsoever permanently. A sort of "spiritual suicide", if you will, to escape a life of suffering.

 

Please try to be patient with me, as I am only who I am. If I am at all.

 

When you die you die. Dead, dead, dead. Nothing to think about. It's really quite natural. Impermanence.

 

The goal of human life from the Buddhist perspective is to be happy and content with this life NOW. There has for centuries been this thought that the Buddha taught extinction as a means of escaping a life of suffering. This was caused by two things. 1. a misunderstanding of the teachings from certain later texts. 2. a purposefull misrepresentation by the rising Hindu religion in the 2nd century.

 

A reading of all the earliest texts reveals this.

[Panther]

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.

 

 

Jun, this is how I feel about it too. (Evolution, nice way to sum it up!)

I respect Buddhism because of the reasons above and enjoy the philosophies very much. They really make you think and examine yourself.

Interesting discussion Jun!