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.
Request Feedback on my Buddhism Critique
A rare critique of Buddhism that I wrote. Feedback welcome. Let me know what you think and if my depiction of Buddhism is accurate or not.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Buddhism_Critique.htm
Thanks.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Buddhism_Critique.htm
Thanks.
0
Comments
You say that, "The main problem with Buddhist teachings is that they teach that "ALL desires as bad and leading to nothing but suffering" and therefore one should try to get rid of them." I disagree. I'd say that Buddhism is more about making distinctions between desires (chandha) than rejecting them altogether. The Buddha himself made distinctions between skillful (kusala) and unskillful (akusala) desires. The desire for happiness, especially "long-term welfare and happiness," is actually an important part of the path.
Are you familiar with the four bases of power (iddhipada)? The four qualities listed in the bases of power are desire, persistence, intent and discrimination. In Wings to Awakening, Thanissaro Bhikkhu points to this passage:
He goes on to explain that, "This passage shows that the problem lies not in the desire, effort, intent or discrimination, but in the fact that these qualities can be unskillfully applied or improperly tuned to their task."
If we take a look at the exchange between Ananda and the brahmin Unnabha in SN 51.15, for example, we can see that the attainment of the goal is indeed achieved through desire, even though paradoxically, the goal is said to be the abandoning of desire. That's because at the end of the path desire, as well as the other three bases of power, subside on their own. As Ananda explains at the end of SN 51.15:
Also, just for reference, the alleged quote from Einstein is highly suspect. Nobody I know has ever been able to track down a verifiable source for it and I'd suggest not using it.
the Buddha said he taught only dukkha and it's cessation. Those questions aren't relevant to that, just as algebra and cooking a grilled cheese isn't relevant. Buddhism is complete. It provides what the Buddha said it would provide. That doesn't mean you can't pursue the question of "is there a god?" or learn to cook a grilled cheese outside of Buddhism.
I'm Buddhist. I'm not concerned with life after death theories. All I know is this moment and that is what the Buddha taught. I don't practice to escape rebirth and life but to live in this moment in peace. That's Buddhism to me and to many others.
There's a lot of generalization in there, as if an attempt has been made to water things down to a core of "pop Buddhist beliefs" that you can then conveniently push aside to make your own opinions known. You seem to have focused hard on the issue of "desires"; it feels like pushback to something that you've encountered around Buddhist people, and have found to be out of sync with the lifestyle that you'd like to lead.
The teachings that I am most exposed to link "desires/aversion" with "impermanence". Indeed, you may go find something that pleases you; a chocolate bar, physical relations with a member of the opposite sex, whatever...pleasure may arise, but it will pass away, eventually. It will not give you lasting happiness.
The teachings are more about gaining a deep understanding of that, and not so much about the total avoidance of desire. This is an oversimplification of the dharma that I have seen in many places. The more you understand the ideas of impermanence, of unsatisfactoriness, and of no-self, the easier it is to be happy in a lasting and meaningful way. Or at least, this is what my experiment in Buddhism has wrought for me.
To paraphrase Brad Warner (Zen author), "Question Everything. Question your teachers, question teachings, question this book!"
Please note that I am not a dharma teacher of any kind...simply a novice lay-person's interpretation of what I'm learning.
Excellent post! :uphand:
It isn't so much about rejecting pleasant experiences, as it is about becoming disillusioned with them. The goal is to see the world as the way it is - to see that transient experiences are just that: transient and impermanent. This doesn't mean transient experiences are "bad", or that they should be avoided, it just means we see them the way they are: incapable of providing us any true refuge.
I broused your critique for 10 seconds and it is difficult not to notice your affirmation of worldly things and sensual pleasures.
My opinion is your crusade against Buddhism is both inaccurate & unnecessary.
The Buddha taught there are two kinds of life: the homeless life (renunciate) & the household life.
Accordingly, the Buddha taught two kinds of teachings: supramundane (lokuttara) teachings for those dissatisfied with worldly things & pleasures and mundane (lokiya) teachings for those who are not dissatisfied with worldly things and worldly pleasures.
Examples of mundane teachings include the Anana Sutta and the Samajivina Sutta. Here, the Buddha did not encourage abstainence from sensual pleasures.
So the teachings in your critique, the teachings you are rebelling against, are supramundane teachings, which the Buddha generally did not teach to laypeople.
In your crusade, you are actually misrepresenting Buddhism. Whilst some of the teachings you are quoting may be accurate, you are placing them in the wrong context, which is inaccurate.
In Buddhism, it is a transgression or sin to teach supramundane teachings to those who cannot accommodate those teachings.
Kind regards
DDhatu
I agree.
I don't know about others, but I consider that to be as pretty definitive an answer as anyone could wish to have.
There's little (if anything) anyone can add, to that.