Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Kill The Buddha, Kill Buddhism
shanyin
Novice YoginSault Ontario Veteran
Full:http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/killing-the-buddha/
By Sam Harris
“Kill the Buddha,” says the old koan. “Kill Buddhism,” says Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith, who argues that Buddhism’s philosophy, insight, and practices would benefit more people if they were not presented as a religion.
The ninth-century Buddhist master Lin Chi is supposed to have said, “If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.” Like much of Zen teaching, this seems too cute by half, but it makes a valuable point: to turn the Buddha into a religious fetish is to miss the essence of what he taught. In considering what Buddhism can offer the world in the twenty-first century, I propose that we take Lin Chi’s admonishment rather seriously. As students of the Buddha, we should dispense with Buddhism.
This is not to say that Buddhism has nothing to offer the world. One could surely argue that the Buddhist tradition, taken as a whole, represents the richest source of contemplative wisdom that any civilization has produced. In a world that has long been terrorized by fratricidal Sky-God religions, the ascendance of Buddhism would surely be a welcome development. But this will not happen. There is no reason whatsoever to think that Buddhism can successfully compete with the relentless evangelizing of Christianity and Islam. Nor should it try to.
The wisdom of the Buddha is currently trapped within the religion of Buddhism. Even in the West, where scientists and Buddhist contemplatives now collaborate in studying the effects of meditation on the brain, Buddhism remains an utterly parochial concern. While it may be true enough to say (as many Buddhist practitioners allege) that “Buddhism is not a religion,” most Buddhists worldwide practice it as such, in many of the naive, petitionary, and superstitious ways in which all religions are practiced. Needless to say, all non-Buddhists believe Buddhism to be a religion—and, what is more, they are quite certain that it is the wrong religion.
To talk about “Buddhism,” therefore, inevitably imparts a false sense of the Buddha’s teaching to others. So insofar as we maintain a discourse as “Buddhists,” we ensure that the wisdom of the Buddha will do little to inform the development of civilization in the twenty-first century.
Worse still, the continued identification of Buddhists with Buddhism lends tacit support to the religious differences in our world. At this point in history, this is both morally and intellectually indefensible—especially among affluent, well-educated Westerners who bear the greatest responsibility for the spread of ideas. It does not seem much of an exaggeration to say that if you are reading this article, you are in a better position to influence the course of history than almost any person in history. Given the degree to which religion still inspires human conflict, and impedes genuine inquiry, I believe that merely being a self-described “Buddhist” is to be complicit in the world’s violence and ignorance to an unacceptable degree.
It is true that many exponents of Buddhism, most notably the Dalai Lama, have been remarkably willing to enrich (and even constrain) their view of the world through dialogue with modern science. But the fact that the Dalai Lama regularly meets with Western scientists to discuss the nature of the mind does not mean that Buddhism, or Tibetan Buddhism, or even the Dalai Lama’s own lineage, is uncontaminated by religious dogmatism. Indeed, there are ideas within Buddhism that are so incredible as to render the dogma of the virgin birth plausible by comparison. No one is served by a mode of discourse that treats such pre-literate notions as integral to our evolving discourse about the nature of the human mind. Among Western Buddhists, there are college-educated men and women who apparently believe that Guru Rinpoche was actually born from a lotus. This is not the spiritual breakthrough that civilization has been waiting for these many centuries.
For the fact is that a person can embrace the Buddha’s teaching, and even become a genuine Buddhist contemplative (and, one must presume, a buddha) without believing anything on insufficient evidence. The same cannot be said of the teachings for faith-based religion. In many respects, Buddhism is very much like science. One starts with the hypothesis that using attention in the prescribed way (meditation), and engaging in or avoiding certain behaviors (ethics), will bear the promised result (wisdom and psychological well-being). This spirit of empiricism animates Buddhism to a unique degree. For this reason, the methodology of Buddhism, if shorn of its religious encumbrances, could be one of our greatest resources as we struggle to develop our scientific understanding of human subjectivity.
-----------------------------------------------
I am very happy that a fellow NB showed me this article.
Even though when I started getting into Buddhism, I memorized the eightfold path, tried to see it for what the path was as Sam harris describes in the article I must admit to falling into distractions from my practice and my life because in my opinion I thought of myself as a religious person.
Thoughts?
By Sam Harris
“Kill the Buddha,” says the old koan. “Kill Buddhism,” says Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith, who argues that Buddhism’s philosophy, insight, and practices would benefit more people if they were not presented as a religion.
The ninth-century Buddhist master Lin Chi is supposed to have said, “If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.” Like much of Zen teaching, this seems too cute by half, but it makes a valuable point: to turn the Buddha into a religious fetish is to miss the essence of what he taught. In considering what Buddhism can offer the world in the twenty-first century, I propose that we take Lin Chi’s admonishment rather seriously. As students of the Buddha, we should dispense with Buddhism.
This is not to say that Buddhism has nothing to offer the world. One could surely argue that the Buddhist tradition, taken as a whole, represents the richest source of contemplative wisdom that any civilization has produced. In a world that has long been terrorized by fratricidal Sky-God religions, the ascendance of Buddhism would surely be a welcome development. But this will not happen. There is no reason whatsoever to think that Buddhism can successfully compete with the relentless evangelizing of Christianity and Islam. Nor should it try to.
The wisdom of the Buddha is currently trapped within the religion of Buddhism. Even in the West, where scientists and Buddhist contemplatives now collaborate in studying the effects of meditation on the brain, Buddhism remains an utterly parochial concern. While it may be true enough to say (as many Buddhist practitioners allege) that “Buddhism is not a religion,” most Buddhists worldwide practice it as such, in many of the naive, petitionary, and superstitious ways in which all religions are practiced. Needless to say, all non-Buddhists believe Buddhism to be a religion—and, what is more, they are quite certain that it is the wrong religion.
To talk about “Buddhism,” therefore, inevitably imparts a false sense of the Buddha’s teaching to others. So insofar as we maintain a discourse as “Buddhists,” we ensure that the wisdom of the Buddha will do little to inform the development of civilization in the twenty-first century.
Worse still, the continued identification of Buddhists with Buddhism lends tacit support to the religious differences in our world. At this point in history, this is both morally and intellectually indefensible—especially among affluent, well-educated Westerners who bear the greatest responsibility for the spread of ideas. It does not seem much of an exaggeration to say that if you are reading this article, you are in a better position to influence the course of history than almost any person in history. Given the degree to which religion still inspires human conflict, and impedes genuine inquiry, I believe that merely being a self-described “Buddhist” is to be complicit in the world’s violence and ignorance to an unacceptable degree.
It is true that many exponents of Buddhism, most notably the Dalai Lama, have been remarkably willing to enrich (and even constrain) their view of the world through dialogue with modern science. But the fact that the Dalai Lama regularly meets with Western scientists to discuss the nature of the mind does not mean that Buddhism, or Tibetan Buddhism, or even the Dalai Lama’s own lineage, is uncontaminated by religious dogmatism. Indeed, there are ideas within Buddhism that are so incredible as to render the dogma of the virgin birth plausible by comparison. No one is served by a mode of discourse that treats such pre-literate notions as integral to our evolving discourse about the nature of the human mind. Among Western Buddhists, there are college-educated men and women who apparently believe that Guru Rinpoche was actually born from a lotus. This is not the spiritual breakthrough that civilization has been waiting for these many centuries.
For the fact is that a person can embrace the Buddha’s teaching, and even become a genuine Buddhist contemplative (and, one must presume, a buddha) without believing anything on insufficient evidence. The same cannot be said of the teachings for faith-based religion. In many respects, Buddhism is very much like science. One starts with the hypothesis that using attention in the prescribed way (meditation), and engaging in or avoiding certain behaviors (ethics), will bear the promised result (wisdom and psychological well-being). This spirit of empiricism animates Buddhism to a unique degree. For this reason, the methodology of Buddhism, if shorn of its religious encumbrances, could be one of our greatest resources as we struggle to develop our scientific understanding of human subjectivity.
-----------------------------------------------
I am very happy that a fellow NB showed me this article.
Even though when I started getting into Buddhism, I memorized the eightfold path, tried to see it for what the path was as Sam harris describes in the article I must admit to falling into distractions from my practice and my life because in my opinion I thought of myself as a religious person.
Thoughts?
0
Comments
I agree with Sam Harris and Stephen Batchelor. Religious Buddhism hurts the teachings more than religious Buddhism. The Buddha didn't want to create a religion and yet religion was forced upon the teachings of the Buddha.
But while I certainly fall into the more nondogmatic branch of Buddhism, I have to point out that when it comes to understanding how the human mind works, Sam Harris doesn't have a clue. So Buddhism would benefit more people if it wasn't presented as a religion? No, if Buddhism wasn't packaged as a religion, it would have died out soon after Buddha's death and became at the most a paragraph in some college philosophy textbook. Religion isn't the problem. Sam Harris mistakenly equates uncritical belief in the supernatural with religion.
The human mind is a huge stew of emotions and conflicting desires and assumptions about the world. Rituals and metaphores can get through and transform the mind in a way that words and logic can't. The human mind searches for something to latch onto to give it answers to the big questions.
Great article
"Buddhism is very much like science. One starts with the hypothesis that using attention in the prescribed way (meditation), and engaging in or avoiding certain behaviors (ethics), will bear the promised result (wisdom and psychological well-being)".
This is what Buddhism has become for me.
I pretty much follow the 3 marks and use kamma in the here and now. There is nothing religious or magical about it but it is highly effective and has born great fruit in my life.
Cinorjer I agree with you but what happens when one doesn't requires these tools (raft) anymore?
He has a Ph.D. in Neuroscience from UCLA back in 2009.
I would also point out that it is equally dogmatic and mystical to believe thoughts are epiphenomena of 'physical' tissue. In buddhism the mind is transformed from the subjective side rather than on the level of the physical brain. You can believe it or not but buddhism has a taste and see approach in that you practice for yourself and see over time what the practice has resulted in. So say you have a choice between people sticking a surgical instrument in your brain to help with your depression? Would you prefer that? Or even the less extreme example of pharmaceuticals. Just because you take pharmaceuticals can you not also meditate? Or even do prostrations, mantras, and prayers. All of this is taste and see.
Third, buddhism is not evangelical. Which means nobody cares if Sam Harris does not practice buddhism. He is free to live how he wishes. In contrast it is Sam Harris who wishes to influence others opinion as an evangelical physical materialist.
Anyone who has ever tried to express him/herself in an essay/article knows how every word/sentence/paragraph leads to the next, so commenting on just part of the picture makes little sense.
In short, I believe he blames the existence of religious one-dimensional thinking for a lot of the problems in today's world, where people will kill for their faith. He feels that suggesting religious tolerance only goes so far to unify mankind. In his opinion, Buddha mapped out the right path to happiness/fulfillment - without the need of a faith based religion.
The end of the article: "There is much more to be discovered about the nature of the human mind. In particular, there is much more for us to understand about how the mind can transform itself from a mere reservoir of greed, hatred, and delusion into an instrument of wisdom and compassion. Students of the Buddha are very well placed to further our understanding on this front, but the religion of Buddhism currently stands in their way."
He compares Buddha teachings to a know-how of how to walk a path to being a good person, and feels it is not necessary to label this a "Buddhist" path, which he feels hinders its universal acceptance. "There is a reason that we don’t talk about “Christian physics” or “Muslim algebra,” though the Christians invented physics as we know it, and the Muslims invented algebra."
Maybe this adds a little more context to his statements.
In my mind, this is an interesting thought. And I don't look at Buddha's teachings as a religion. Yet, given the varied needs/mindsets/intellectual capacities of people on this earth, I don't see the need for simplistic parables of religion diminish any time soon.
Regarding violence buddhism specifically says it is a no no. First precept. Now in fact violence has occured but that is not the fault of buddhism, rather it is the fault of the three poisons. Thus the causal link between 'religion' and violence is weak. And I would add that buddhism is 'lumped' in with vengeful god religions.
He is accepting of Buddha's teachings, the rest is beyond me since I do not seek any affiliation. Is attachment to affiliations within Buddhism causing some problems? MAYBE!
Is Buddhism a religion? Should it be? What exactly is Buddhism? What exactly is a religion? Enough material for a book, I guess.
All of this just IMHO.
Relions are complicated. One side to religions is their myths. Most religions contain childish imaginative stories of how the world came to be and of how it functions. Like God created the world in six days and so every seventh day is a day of rest. Or thunder is the sound of a god riding his chariot across the sky, or whatever.
One problem about religions is that those myths lost their function. They had a purpose when they were created, but they are not to be taken as dogmatic Truths.
The way I see it, in all religions people struggle with this. We see the world with different eyes now. We cannot honestly see it, and think about it, like the past few thousand years didn’t happen.
But after we acknowledge myths as mere myths, something remains. Religions also appeal to our hearts, to deeper levels of consciousness if you like.
Our minds are not as rational as we like to think. For many people devotional practices work.
Devotion helps them in changing their lives and makes them feel complete.
Who am I to disagree or disapprove?
The way I see it all religions have the same problem. They date back to times when people did not distinguish myth from fact. And in the 21st century that’s going to get you into conflict with our understanding of the world. This understanding may be modest and certainly imperfect; but there are some things which are difficult to deny.
I think every religious person has embraced the idea that the world is round by now.
The rest of science is basically the same thing. In the end –when it is true – you can’t deny it forever.
So as a Buddhist in the 21st century I can’t seriously believe many Buddhist tales are historically true and some Buddhist ideas I have to see as incorrect. I see them as myths; tales with a function; not as facts.
The truth of Buddhism is on another level. The heart of the teaching of the Buddha is beyond words and concepts. It is not something we understand. We can practice it and we can manifest it in our lives, but we never will be capable of truly explaining what it is.
That’s what killing the Buddha is about for me.
It is killing the words, the concepts and the intellectual understanding. “Killing the Buddha” is the same thing as “manifesting the heart of the Buddha’s teaching” in different words.
But once the reality is actualized, the limitations are not necessary. Action is not limited. Not-necessary does not mean the usefulness is lost. It just means that the need for names and format is revised.
I would add though that HHDL says that even in the Buddhas time not everyone became Buddhist because different people have different tastes and dispositions. He regularly advocates for religious pluralism and in his work with scientists thinks that a functional method for using the mind to make one happier devoid of the religious trappings of Buddhism is an important and positive development.