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.
Buddhism, The Path or just more BS?
JosephW
Veteran
I have grown to greatly admire Buddhism over the past few months, spending much time watching Buddhist documentaries on culture aswell as actual belief, reading over 16 different books on Buddhism which is quite an investment as far as time and money, however as I dive more and more to it I keep getting stuck on things, I will notice things, but pass it and keep going hoping that it will later justify itself as my knowledge of the subject increases... I bumped into this article, while it may be a bit harsh in tone, it mentions some of the things that I myself have been pondering on, here's the link.
http://www.atheistconnect.org/2011/08/16/buddhism-path-to-enlightenment-or-just-more-bullshit/
http://www.atheistconnect.org/2011/08/16/buddhism-path-to-enlightenment-or-just-more-bullshit/
0
Comments
what was the point of Quang Duc lighting himself on fire in South Vietnam? You don’t burn to death to make a statement about nothing. Perhaps he was attached to something after all. If that’s the case, what a stupid way to die.
I agree with him on here.. lighting yourself on fire makes little to no sense in buddhist practice.
all in all he raises many arguments that are not bad, but are seen through with practice. I also applaud him for taking a moderate tone in his blog where he could of went pretty negative.
But am I to take very seriously such a poorly written piece? And one that starts out with the premise that all religions are bull shit? That's not very objective.
I do think the author made a valid point...though I'm not sure he even realized it: there is a great deal of wisdom in Buddhism. Whether one believes all of Buddhism from the beginning, or slowly begins to respect more and more of the teachings is irrelevant. But to dismiss the teachings because you don't like religion...well, that's bull shit.
I had hoped the article might be more thoughtful: Calling Buddhism bullshit strikes me as quite useful ... but it goes beyond the intellectual and emotional. It's like a discussion of music between two people who have read a lot of books about playing the piano without ever having placed their fingers on the keys.
Spiritual endeavor may begin for anyone as an intellectual pursuit. How else is anyone to begin anything: Gather information, assess the information, see how the information squares with intellectual and emotional collections of the past? If, intellectually and emotionally anyone decides that Buddhism is a crock of shit, then there is no reason to pursue the matter further. But if, despite the doubts, there is something that seems to make some sense, then it is time to try it out ... try walking the walk instead of just talking the talk. It is in this realm -- the realm of experience -- that people set aside their uncertainties. I may know the theory of riding a bike, but that's not quite the same thing as actually riding a bike.
This is not a plea for anyone to see Buddhism as a wondrous thing. Nor is it a plea to see it as a bullshit thing. It is a suggestion that it is better to talk when you know what you're talking about ... that way you don't have any lingering doubts of the kind that intellectual and emotional appreciations bring with them.
PS. The "suffering" most often referred to in Buddhism may be more aptly translated as "unsatisfactoriness," the sense that somehow this life I am leading is not really whole and at peace. Naturally there is some sorrowful stuff that falls under the heading of "unsatisfactory," but there are also any number of quite pleasant aspects (love, freedom, kindness, etc.) that leave some sense of incompleteness and doubt.
Do you sit?
I can only envision your situation if the actual practice and experiential aspect of Buddhism is lacking. Scholarly and intellectual study of Buddhism is looking at the pie without even tasting it. In the realm of ideas its easy to affirm or negate. But hell sitting with suffering and then finding out how it appears and ceases. That is empowering and enlightening.
::shrugs::
. . . that link is a very impoverished argument. You will find Buddhists who provide far better arguments during dharma debate . . .
It is just as possible to argue that atheism is bullshit on the basis of limited experience. If you have no experience of deity (the condition of most religious people) then your arguments are ignorant. If however you are a Gnostic, the certainties and assertions of atheism are puerile, compared to the actual taste of 'presence'.
Some Buddhists transcend presence and absence as just another form of ignorance arising . . .
If you have never experienced the unsatisfactory Dukkha or been satisfied with materialism, good luck to you. It works for Paris Hilton . . . Do we have compassion for her latest pink Chihuahua Dharma . . .
i am a Hindu and I have been studying Buddha's teachings for nearly one year now.
i am not a Buddhist - by religion.
but when i read the above article in the link provided above, it seems to me that the writer of that article does not seem to have got the actual meaning of Buddha's teachings.
My understanding of Buddha's teachings says that - Buddha taught - dukkha, its origination, its cessation, the path leading to its cessation. Dukkha means unsatisfactoriness, the sense of something lacking, something missing in things to give everlasting happiness. It becomes obvious as when the material things are themselves impermanent, how can they give permanent happiness to us. moreover, everything arises due to its causes arising and ceases due its causes ceasing. All conditioned things are impermanent, unsatisfactory and not-self.
now coming to practical life - we live in society and work to earn money - but why do we earn money? - because we have to buy food - why is that? - because we have to sustain this human body - so to sustain this human body, we need food, is this not a form of suffering? we do not feel it as suffering because we are in deep attachment with ourselves, with the 'I' concept. we are in so deep craving to this sense of 'I', that we work hard to maintain this body - but we enjoy working, being active - because from material world perspective, it gives us many things like - money(to buy food, nice clothes to look handsome) , praise in the society(that we are intelligent, hard-working, proactive), status in society - but when we get criticism and blame in society, do we suffer or not? - we suffer because that 'I' has been challenged - then we try to prove that we are the best by showing others are not good, telling lies - why? to get that praise again - so is not suffering involved here? - the suffering is here, but we do not feel it as we keep on waiting for the future in which our ego gets satisfied. But in the end of our life, we die - then is any of these things - money, praise, status - goes with us? it does not go with us, because these things are related to the body, and the body does not belong to us.
but this does not mean we should commit suicide to end our lives. we have got this human birth, which is the best birth from spiritual angle and even if we leave this spiritual angle, from normal worldly view also this human birth is the best - because the faculties of logic and reasoning are not available in other animal births. so we should try to make the best use of our human birth, and try to avoid bad karma and try to do good karma, for the welfare of ourselves and others - thereby cultivating morality (sila) in us, we should try to see the ignorance (avidya) in our deluded mind and try to do meditation to develop concentration(samadhi) to develop wisdom(panna) - to see things as 'just they are' and thereby seeing that things have the three characteristics of anicca, dukkha and anatta.
may the writer of that thread understand Buddha's teachings and see the things as 'just they are'.
metta to all sentient beings.
The First Noble Truth doesn't say "Life is Suffering" and then go on to say we should sever our emotional ties to the world so we can all sit around in a blissful enlightenment. Yes, we can put a lot of blame on Hollywood loving the stereotype of the wise monk who doesn't feel grief or doubt or fear. But, this "don't worry, be happy" version of Buddha Nature is the face often presented to outsiders, so can we blame someone when they point out the Emperor looks somewhat naked? And, can we really say it's not how many Buddhists define enlightenment?
So where does this man get such an idea from, that Buddhist practice is supposed to eliminate all grief, anger, fear and frustration from our minds? If so, then our practice fails us miserably from an outsider's perspective. To an outsider, it seems like we're condemning the experience of being human. And when he sees a Buddhist monk committing suicide and being praised by other Buddhists, he sees the hypocricy between our supposed nonviolence and reverence for all life and supposed detachment from desires, and how much we can devalue the life of one dead monk. I'm not saying there isn't something deeper going on, just pointing out what people see from the outside.
If that is where you begin, then detachment means to stop loving, because that's the only way not to experience loss. Anyone who claims they experience no grief from the loss of someone they love either lost their ability to love or learned how to pretend real good.
It's the same with the whole range of human experience. I can't really get closer to describing the difference, only say pain is as much a part of life as pleasure. It's what makes us human. Detachment means not to cling to either one but to let it come and go, experience what being human means and continue walking.
But I'm aware a lot of this is my Zen speaking. Let's approach it another way, by looking at Buddha. When some women shaved their heads and made a pilgrimage to see him and begged to be allowed to become his disciples, he refused. He was afraid it would create strife among his existing monks, since they had very macho views on who deserved to be disciples. Only his attendant, Ananda, argued and pleaded with Buddha to change his mind. Eventually, with doubts about how it would work out, the Buddha agreed. And it did turn out to be a failed effort at women's equality, since after Buddha's death, Ananda was put on trial by the other monks for doing this and eventually the order of nuns was abolished.
Is this the action of someone without fear, doubt, or frustration? Buddha was enlightened, but still very much human.
The Mahayana have had nuns since the beginning, and still do.
Theravada lost the Bhikkuni lineage when the Ayutthaya kingdom of Siam got rid of all monastics for political reasons, and started afresh with a new bunch (excluding women) some time between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries.
Is it because of the evil that is done in the name of religion? Religion in and of itself is not the sole reason of why bad stuff happens in the world. People are the ones behind the bad stuff in the world; and people are complex animals filled with greed, anger, pride and desire. Yes, religion is sometimes the true reason why some people have done terrible things, but the complexities of their human condition are usually the true reason with religion as a facade.
"I want to seal these native peoples land. Even though I do believe God wants me to spread his word, there is a huge huge political aspect of claiming land for my king and queen so they can have more territory to rule for themselves."
Just the notion that Atheism is absolutely right and everything else, including Buddhism, is for idiots just, frankly, pisses me off. Delving slightly off-topic, Atheists have burden of proof on themselves as well; not just religious people. Many have given explanations on how there can he a God-less universe (such as Hawking) and they are precise, good explanations. Some have gone as far to say that the universe did "come from nothing" and that we are here by natural chance. To me this is bullish*t. Everything has a beginning; nothing can "come from nothing" and be a valid explanation. Eventually, if you go back far enough beyond the beginning moment, there was a moment of singularity that jump-started it. There was something before we were here. Maybe not "God", but something.
End rant. As far as I'm concerned, the writer of this article has no idea of what Buddhism is and is just another Hitchens or Dawkins wannabe.
Buddha’s teachings suggest that preoccupation with certain beliefs and ideas about the ultimate nature of the world and our destiny in fact hinders our progress along the path rather than helping it. If we insist on working out exactly what to believe about the world and human destiny before beginning to follow the path of practice we will never even set out.
Gethin, Rupert (1998-07-16). The Foundations of Buddhism (Opus) (pp. 65-66). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.
I'm very new to Buddhism, I started attending a temple last February, and became a member in April. When I took my Jukai I still had a huge list of doubts, questions, and concerns, but I also had a feeling that I had found my spiritual home. I took comfort in the words of the Buddha that tell us to "be our own light" and I jumped in head first.
I'm going to agree that study and practice should be ballanced as much as possible and they are both important to following the path. These past few months I have had to constantly challenge my western Judeo-Christian mind-set over, and over. I have had to suspend my disbelief and shock at statements made by the founder my my order, and I have also been freed of much of the baggage I was clinging too before I started. I guess I'm just trying to offer some encoragement. I didn't find what I was expecting, but what I found was better than what I was expecting.
Until recently militant secularists have given Buddhism a relatively easy ride.. there is evidence that this is changing..
A militant atheist does not distinguish between belief in God and belief in post mortem rebirth.
Remember the Buddha taught of three conciets... I am better then, I am worse then, I am equal to.
Being allowed the scraps is not exactly the same as being accepted at the table.
While many rules when looked at through today's lens lead some to say oh the nuns were subsurviant.... Try to view the creation of the Bhikunnis for the amazing thing it was 2600 years ago
I'm not overly familiar with women's role in the Sangha, because in the traditions I read about, they're almost entirely absent. Japanese and Korean culture with their Zen practice is even more male dominated than Theravadan. At least until recently.
I'm surprised about Zen considering there can be female reverand types no?
Can I not be critical of murder?
Of child molestation?
Of a religious cult?
As with everything in life, there is a deeper understanding that comes with experience.
I am both a practicing Buddhist and a practicing musician. When I learned music theory as a child I could use the terminology and do the math but I see it much differently now having been a performer for several decades.
The article in question seems to be written by someone who has learned the terminology but does not understand it at the most fundamental level.
@JosephW, I understand where you come from bringing this article up because it's good to question and get different perspectives. This guy seems to really be a gnostic atheist... and anytime we say that we "know" something that means we're going to look the other way when we see other evidence. That's what I love about Buddhism, we're allowed to look at new evidence and work it into our practice.
But that's normal ... understanding Buddhism comes from inside, as the natural result of your meditations and other practices.
Because Buddhism is something you DO, and no amount of reading will help you understand.
The big problem is that it takes years to even start to get a dribble of understanding. Or rather, you say "Ah, hah! I think I understand this!". But then 5 years later you are laughing at what you THOUGHT you understood because now that you understand better, you wonder how you ever thought you understood 5 years back.
Then this gives you real pause about what you now "think" you understand, and after a while you stop trying so hard to understand and just start "being" more. In itself, this turns life into a wonderfully fascinating and amusing curiosity, and it becomes less and less of some sort of drama.
Because Buddhism is not about intellectual activity .. it's about understanding through observation and awareness.
While a teacher is the best way to learn HOW to practice, this book can substitute for a teacher if you are going to practice Theravadan Buddhism (which is the only tradition of Buddhism that doesn't stress having a teacher). You don't have to spend money buying books, as they won't help much. You have to DO Buddhism, not read about it. This link below is for a book that is a "how to" for mindfulness meditation, and is very well-written. There is also the "theory" in there, for those who are hungry to feed their intellect.
http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma4/mpe.html
Best to you on your journey
What it does is to "unhook" us from them ... they continue to occur, but they do not push us, do not control us.
I read about an interview with the Dalai Lama, in which he recounted a tour he took of a Catholic monastery where they made cheese and fruitcake to support the monastery. At the end of the tour, they had given the Dalai Lama a piece of cheese to sample.
In the interview, he exclaimed, "But what I REALLY wanted was the fruitcake!!" and broke into the giggle he has.
You see ... he saw the desire for the fruitcake ... and was amused by it. Not upset.
"If you think your practice is going good, it isn't." Master Seung Sahn
I've found it helpful to work with strategies like accepting things as they are, and "letting go", but I suspect that the real value of these strategies is developing insight rather than some superficial change of attitude.
if by practice you mean the fruition of the practice, Nibbana, then yes it does eliminate grief and anger.. which have the root cause of aversion and nibbana is the eradication of greed, hatred, and delusion ( attachment, aversion, ignorance).. if there is no you to feel grief over a loss or anger and you truely know through wisdom that all things are impermenant.. then grief and anger don't exist
I think the notion that desire is humanity's most basic evolutionary function or resource is quite mistaken, and would thence undermine much of editor Anthony's argument. If there is any aptitude or resource that has helped our species evolve it is that of DENIAL. In hope of a better tomorrow, the burdens and pains attending the human animal have been mitigated by refusal to admit the things that just cannot be borne. As T.S. Eliot writes in one of his 4 Quartet poems: Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
Desire and appetitite are things that are not singularly human; animals also share these. Therefore, I cannot follow his argument. However, it is only the human being that always makes his home close to de river Nile. Without the constant ability to deny, our species would long ago have perished, is what makes more sense to me.
The writer also gets desire wrong and muddles it terribly, confusing it with attachment until I cannot even follow him. The allusion to the Vietnamese monk who immolated himself back in the early 1960s and the writer's conclusion is simply not very thoughtful. To desire the greater good or to desire the wellbeing of all other creatures is a noble attachment if you must call it an attachment.
Anybody who mindlessly believes carrying a separate ego around in a body subject to the pull of gravity, sickness, loneliness, and injury and yet whose life cannot be alluded to as one containing suffering— well, I can't finish my sentence
ARGHHH!
I agree with him on here.. lighting yourself on fire makes little to no sense in buddhist practice."
My interpretation is that Quang Duc believed that sacrificing himself in public would draw attention to the suffering of the people in Vietnam and thus help to alleviate it. A noble act.
Just the thoughts of a struggling novice.............
"so then it is ok for us to use killing if the act is noble ?:P"
I don't see sacrificing yourself to save another as killing. Although I'm a pacifist, I can see, in a time of duress, where one might make the decision to kill someone to save others.
"and who defines what is noble."
I think we must each search our own hearts to find what is noble.
"do the ends justify the means?"
Not to me.
However, I do believe that I will pay the price for the means whatever the ends may be.
Only Buddha's have the actual wisdom to never need to engage in Non virtue even if to benefit others. Buddha's mind is pure and refined free from obscuration and always see's the best course of action to take.
The life or death/greater good question is where the path of the strict Renunciant's cannot tread But that of which the Mahayana provides answers.