What do you dislike about Buddhism?

DaltheJigsaw

Let us, be honest...While we all enjoy Buddhism, practice it and enjoy it, there are a few things that bother us. What would they be? I am still thinking about my dislikes.

Cloud

That history made it confusing to be able to tell what the Buddha himself actually taught, since some later teachings were attributed to him to give them authority (or something).

DaltheJigsaw

Cloud said:

That history made it confusing to be able to tell what the Buddha himself actually taught, since some later teachings were attributed to him to give them authority (or something).

You mean who he was, what he did and how he become awakened?

Cloud

No no, I mean what he actually taught. His own words (though naturally not written down for a long time in any case). It's hard to tell which sutras/suttas were actually taught by the Buddha and which were simply said to be taught by the Buddha. And some contradict others, even though they're said to all be from the Buddha!

I don't mind if there are different teachings from other enlightened masters, but they shouldn't have the Buddha's name on them should they? It would be nice to know what exactly the historical Buddha taught for sure...

federica

Actually, there isn't anything I dislike about Buddhism... although, occasionally, some Buddhists and their interpretations, bug the heck out of me.

BhanteLucky

I dislike having to sit down and meditate. (I'm quite restless and lazy)
I dislike the fifth precept. (I love beer and gin)
I dislike the first precept (I wish to squash mosquitoes in my bedroom)
I dislike that it may take many lifetimes to attain nirvana.
I dislike that I have to pay off my debts before ordaining.
I'm sure there's more that I dislike.

But mostly I like it.

cacto

I dislike the occasional buddhist mentality that love and companionship with loved ones is an attachment that hinders enlightenment.

poptart

I dislike the perception of Buddha as an icon. I don't believe Siddhartha Gautama thought of himself as any more godlike than anyone else. Putting him or anyone on a pedestal is just another form of ego grasping.

DairyLama

Cloud said:

That history made it confusing to be able to tell what the Buddha himself actually taught, since some later teachings were attributed to him to give them authority (or something).

And there are different intepretations of what the Buddha himself is said to have taught.

JosephW

I dislike the legends and tales, I would like for it to be 100% true. I haven't been able to find an accurate account of Buddhism without some level of absurdity involved.

jll

enlightenment is so bloody difficult n arahants are so hard to come by.
why cant we become enlightened playing grand theft auto or dancing to lady gaga's song. Buddha, are you listening?

LeonBasin said:

Let us, be honest...While we all enjoy Buddhism, practice it and enjoy it, there are a few things that bother us. What would they be? I am still thinking about my dislikes.

OneLifeForm

I dislike all of your dislikes!

heheheh

Actually as another has said there isn't anything that I really dislike about Buddhism.

Mostly what people should be typing in this thread that they dislike is their ignorance/attachment/aversions not Buddhism.

Do you think Buddhism made them develop that dislike or was it the three poisons?

Sabre

Perhaps the over-intellectualization done by some people, combined with over-reliance on books and texts. Not saying all that can't useful in a way, but you don't have to be smart to understand Buddhism, because it is about seeing things as they are - which has nothing at all to do with the intellect. But to say I really dislike that is going too far. It points a lot of people in the wrong direction, though.

vinlyn

Too many Western Buddhists want to have Buddhism "their way", but don't want other Western Buddhists to have Buddhism "their way".

DaltheJigsaw

vinlyn said:

Too many Western Buddhists want to have Buddhism "their way", but don't want other Western Buddhists to have Buddhism "their way".

You mean Westerners hold onto the answers, and are not compassionate enough to share?

vinlyn

LeonBasin said:

vinlyn said:

Too many Western Buddhists want to have Buddhism "their way", but don't want other Western Buddhists to have Buddhism "their way".

You mean Westerners hold onto the answers, and are not compassionate enough to share?

No, as an example, I mean XXXXXXXX espouses its view of what is right and true in Buddhism, even though it doesn't agree with Buddhism as taught in Tibet or Thailand (for example, to cover the two major branches of Buddhism). Then when another person espouses thier view of Buddhism here on the forum, XXXXXXXX is extremely critical of them because their view is not its version of what is "right and true" in Buddhism.

thickpaper

LeonBasin said:

Let us, be honest...While we all enjoy Buddhism, practice it and enjoy it, there are a few things that bother us. What would they be? I am still thinking about my dislikes.

The Dogma, the orthodoxy, the smugs.

Other than that, its ace!:)

Tosh

Magic, special powers, 'woo woo' stuff, deities, and dharma protectors.

music

T

jll said:

enlightenment is so bloody difficult n arahants are so hard to come by.
why cant we become enlightened playing grand theft auto or dancing to lady gaga's song. Buddha, are you listening?

I don't think the buddha is listening to lady gaga.

MaryAnne

About Buddhism and all religions:

Fundamentalism.

Nek777

Trying to cut through all the cultural trappings;
Trying to figure out what is culture and what is teaching;
Not so much Buddhism, but the perception that Buddhist are some wishy-washy, overly mushy, overly gentle, milktoast, twenty-four hour hug-a-thon hippies burning incense.

carolann

Are they not lol ......

Songhill

The Buddhist canon is amazingly consistent if one takes the time to actually study the canon. Christianity, with its OT and NT is totally inconsistent. Buddhist scholars can, pretty much, tell us what Buddhist texts are the oldest. Dr. Nakamura established 49 criteria by which to determine the antiquity of textual material. For example, if a vedic ending is found, the verse is probably of early origin (this is only one criterion).

Dakini

Wow, this topic has really got me thinking.

Songhill said:

The Buddhist canon is amazingly consistent if one takes the time to actually study the canon.

This ^^ is what I used to think; that the canon needs to be taken as a whole in order to correctly understand its constituent parts. Yet, we have Theravada leaders stating categorically that the 32 realms of existence (hell realms, etc.) are to be taken as states of mind, and other respected Theravada teachers stating unequivocally that they are real, physical realms. And there are Mahayana teachers who differ similarly, or who say that both are true. There are those who say the concept of rebirth is of a later influence, and that the Buddha only intended to teach moment-to-moment or day-to-day rebirth within one lifetime. And "mundane" teachings and "supramundane", or whether there even is such a thing as "supramundane" teachings. OY, it's a headache!

I think that the idea that the Enlightened master is not above "mundane" morality, so his actions (and misconduct) can't be judged from a mundane perspective is a very serious can of worms in Buddhism. One could say that the sources for this belief come from later texts, but then the problem is that you can end up wiping out much of the basis for the entire Mahayana tradition. The whole idea that a teacher is de facto an Enlightened being by virtue of Dharma transmission or having attained a certain level of study and meditation is suspect. Suspend critical thinking and accept mythologies at your own risk.

I think it's great that someone has codified criteria by which to discern the relative age of the sutras (and, it's implied thereby, their authenticity), but the problem is that even the experts disagree on some points, and again, to wave away older texts as inauthentic or influenced by non-Buddhist elements would be to dismiss much of the Mahayana. So...then what? Sectarianism raises its ugly head.

There are no easy answers.

But I think the more we can stay grounded in insightful compassion, the better we can avoid some of the potential pitfalls. Maybe "Keep it simple, stupid" should be our mantra, lol!

Jeffrey

All practices are learning experiences. We don't have the wrong mind. So if we disagree on particulars, from the perspective of a lot of rebirths, we still accomplish something just due to our effort, concentration and so forth (generosity). On paper we may disagree, but that doesn't mean we have the wrong mind.

tmottes

Sometimes my ego dislikes that it has trapped me.

DaltheJigsaw

Songhill said:

The Buddhist canon is amazingly consistent if one takes the time to actually study the canon. Christianity, with its OT and NT is totally inconsistent. Buddhist scholars can, pretty much, tell us what Buddhist texts are the oldest. Dr. Nakamura established 49 criteria by which to determine the antiquity of textual material. For example, if a vedic ending is found, the verse is probably of early origin (this is only one criterion).

I would love to hear more! Care to elaborate? Or even provide some great research links/books and so on? Should I begin at http://www.buddhanet.net ?

ZenBadger

What I really hate about Buddhism is the fact that it is just another hierarchical system. What should be a spiritual toolbox for personal exploration has ossified into a dogmatic, priest-ridden system with all the petty jealousies, status anxiety and exclusivity inherent in such systems.

That and all the tantric woo, flying monks and other assorted supernatural bobbins.

seeker242

I dislike the idea that there is something to dislike about Buddhism!

RichardH

LeonBasin said:

Let us, be honest...While we all enjoy Buddhism, practice it and enjoy it, there are a few things that bother us. What would they be? I am still thinking about my dislikes.

Enjoy? This isn't a day trip.


This ..

I am still thinking about my dislikes

brings to mind a saying... "Shit or get off the pot". It seems like I've been reading posting by this poster for a while... what's it been .. a couple of years anyway. At a certain point "I am still thinking about my dislikes" is just procrastination around actual practice, effort, discipline, doing it. Sangha support helps a lot... but the buck stops here. _/\_

"lets be honest" jeez ... a smack upside the head... lovingly of course.

Songhill

Dakini: Most of pop [ular] Buddhism is amazingly inconsistent with the canon.

driedleaf

I really don't mind the magic 'woo woo' stuff. Why would modern scientists feel the need to study ESP, ghosts, and other paranormal if they are not real? Perhaps when I develop an advanced level of meditation all my doubts of these things will subside. As for now, I think people in this day (including myself) and age are just too busy with their wants and needs to care about anything, even though undeniable evidence may be out there. As for what I don't like about Buddhism, I can't think of one thing really.

Metta

vinlyn

ZenBadger said:

What I really hate about Buddhism is the fact that it is just another hierarchical system. What should be a spiritual toolbox for personal exploration has ossified into a dogmatic, priest-ridden system with all the petty jealousies, status anxiety and exclusivity inherent in such systems.

That and all the tantric woo, flying monks and other assorted supernatural bobbins.

In terms of being another hierarchical system -- it's only that if you allow it to be that.

In terms of the "tantric woo, flying monks and other assorted supernatural bobbins"...okay.

Sile

I find the inconsistent canons remarkably consistent in their ability to expose my painful habits and suggest valid alternatives.

jll

i think it is inevitable. most people have much dust in their eyes.
including those who run buddhist organisations.
even buddha predicted that his teachings will last for 500 yrs only.
however, in spite of all the things that are wrong with buddhism today,
there are still nuggets if you care to search for it.
to me, buddhism still looks the most credible vs other alternatives.

ZenBadger said:

What I really hate about Buddhism is the fact that it is just another hierarchical system. What should be a spiritual toolbox for personal exploration has ossified into a dogmatic, priest-ridden system with all the petty jealousies, status anxiety and exclusivity inherent in such systems.

That and all the tantric woo, flying monks and other assorted supernatural bobbins.

Beej

I dislike the "ism" of it.

Sile

TheBeejAbides said:

I dislike the "ism" of it.

Buddhianity?

Sile

ZenBadger said:

What I really hate about Buddhism is the fact that it is just another hierarchical system. What should be a spiritual toolbox for personal exploration has ossified into a dogmatic, priest-ridden system with all the petty jealousies, status anxiety and exclusivity inherent in such systems.

That and all the tantric woo, flying monks and other assorted supernatural bobbins.

I know these priests of whom you speak--without them I'd have no tools in my toolbox Or I suppose unless I'd been fortunate enough to be born in the time and place of the Buddha and get it straight from him.

Hierarchy is nothing more than the law of change--change in theory, change in knowledge, change in amount of knowledge. The change in amount of knowledge is the definition of learning, so I take it for granted that there will be people behind me and ahead of me. I guess I don't see it as offensive, since it's not really possible to be born with all the knowledge one needs. Would be kind of like resenting my mother for knowing how to spoon applesauce into my mouth, or something.

More seriously, though, there is a huge spectrum of Buddhist options to choose from, including very laid-back, secular approaches which have no real teacher. I would think that for the priest-afflicted, that would be a good place to take a break for a while. For my part, I find tantric woo very useful and have no desire to see it go away, but I respect those who want another path. To be honest, I do think it's sad if we have to rag on someone else's path to get there, though. But...this is a thread on what we don't like, so fair play.

I think Buddhism will continue to diversify, and hopefully meet everyone's needs. It is hard, I agree, and even disheartening, if there's not already a school established that one finds helpful or accessible.

Beej

Sile said:

TheBeejAbides said:

I dislike the "ism" of it.

Buddhianity?

Nah. I just dislike all "isms". I dislike "schisms" too.

LostLight

The only thing I have is not against Buddhism, but some Buddhists. It's that many are very stubborn in their views, and don't make the effort to see things as others do. They assert their view as absolute.

Jeffrey

LostLight said:

The only thing I have is not against Buddhism, but some Buddhists. It's that many are very stubborn in their views, and don't make the effort to see things as others do. They assert their view as absolute.

Some of this is clinging but a part is to hold to the authenticity of the teachings; you hope nobody is going to go down a blind avenue. For myself I try to have confidence that whatever way people are going there is buddhanature in them and their experience is genuine, a learning opportunity.

DairyLama

LostLight said:

The only thing I have is not against Buddhism, but some Buddhists. It's that many are very stubborn in their views, and don't make the effort to see things as others do. They assert their view as absolute.

Being stubborn isn't a problem if you're right.

poptart

I just watched the Alan Watts lecture posted on the For Those of you Who Still Believe In Jesus Christ thread and he says all religions should be actively critical of themselves otherwise they become hypocritical and self-righteous. Every teaching should be scrutinised through the filter of your own experience and not accepted blindly.

Dakini

poptart said:

I just watched the Alan Watts lecture posted on the For Those of you Who Still Believe In Jesus Christ thread and he says all religions should be actively critical of themselves otherwise they become hypocritical and self-righteous. Every teaching should be scrutinised through the filter of your own experience and not accepted blindly.

This, in spades. ^^ True wisdom.

Jason

I've been trying to think of something for a couple of days now, and I still can't think of anything. I mean, there's certain Buddhist institutions and individuals that I don't necessarily like; but I can't find anything about Buddhism that I don't like. I thoroughly enjoy the teachings; and most of my issues concerning the practice come from my own deficiencies and laziness. I guess Buddhism's pretty OK in my book.

Cloud

I dislike when Theravada and Madhyamaka (Nagarjuna's school) are mistaken for being nihilistic, due to misunderstanding Emptiness (or Dependent Origination). Then again that's not Buddhism per se, that's "Buddhists" and "non-Buddhists".

Jeffrey

Cloud, I think some of the TB you disagree with are also descended from Madhyamaka. Just observing some of the threads where you have encountered disagreements. The yogacara also strongly and perhaps more truly descends from madhyamaka thought. They define terms and interpret sutras differently all down the row. And different sutras are provisional or definitive. Some view the tantras as definitive and some regard the emptiness sutras as definitive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogacara

Cloud

@Jeffrey, All I'm saying is that Buddhism has been mistaken for nihilism since the time of the Buddha, and people still do it today (unfortunately). Thanks for the link!

Jeffrey

Yes, the flip side is that the yogacara is often misunderstood as eternalism or hinduism. There is a movement to unify them and have harmony called the Rime movement.

Cloud

@Jeffrey, Any links for the Rime movement?

Jeffrey

No, sorry, I have not studied the Rime movement, I just heard about it.