Problems with Buddism

In one of his books, Eckhart Tolle tells the traditional story of a Buddhist monk accused of having sex with a teenage girl. The girl has given birth to an illegitimate baby, and the girl's parents angrily hand the baby to the monk and tell them the child is his. "Is that so?" is all the monk says in response.

For a year the monk tends to the child without complaint. Then the girl tearfully admits to her parents that she lied. She had an affair with a boyfriend her own age. The parents humbly approach the monk and explain that they now know the child isn't his. "Is that so?" is all the monk says again.

In telling this story, Tolle is making the point that the monk has achieved a state of inner peace and serenity that allows him to accept any situation without becoming emotionally involved. By implication, we are all supposed to strive for this kind of serenity....continues michaelprescott.typepad.com...

Ok the above quote neatly enscapulates some of the problems I have with
Buddism as a belief system but I'm not sure if this is due to a misreading of the ideas on my part or not, could someone with some knowledge or experience help explain if I'm reading it all wrong.

mod edit to use "ex" tags instead of "quote" tags
Quote Reference.

Also added link.

[edit on 8-6-2007 by sanctum]

It's called pacifism. The Quakers and the Amish practice it as well. It's the whole idea of being in the world but not of it, which is also something that TRUE Christianity expounds as well.

Well from a spiritual standpoint what's the point in being in the world and not of it, it seems a pointless exercise rather than a valuable lesson. Surely it would be better to learn to use and make the best this world has to offer in a spiritual way.

You can either choose God, or "mammon," which is materialism. You cannot choose both and be a spiritual entity.

I disagree, if you choose God to the exclusion of all else while living a material existence you become nothing more than a spiritual droid who is of no use whatsoever to his fellow humans.

You may have to embrace the principles of mammon up to a point but by earning that wage you feed and provide for those unable to, you've done Gods work, not show them an empty plate and lecture them on the impermanence of hunger and other earthly desires. There has to be a balance.

So many of the things we do in life, we do halfheartedly. In the classroom, on the job, at the dinner table, we can show up and not be all there. If you find your feet dragging, check your path. You're probably on the wrong one.

The point of being in the world and not of it....

It's the same as the central point of any religion, spiritual purification in preparation for death. Buddhists believe that consensus reality is Samsara, the great delusion, and that only by freeing themselves of all attachments and displaying TRUE compassion can they escape the karmic cycle of life, death and rebirth and attain enlightenment. The compassion exhibited in the first example is how to behave to all life, not just Human life, but the monk cares for the child for a year. This is how the buddhist can be useful to his fellow man. The Dalai Llama may not have ended the suffering of the Tibetan people (but who would have heard of it withhout him?), he is still a beacon and an example to millions.

Originally posted by ubermunche
I disagree, if you choose God to the exclusion of all else while living a material existence you become nothing more than a spiritual droid who is of no use whatsoever to his fellow humans.

You may have to embrace the principles of mammon up to a point but by earning that wage you feed and provide for those unable to, you've done Gods work, not show them an empty plate and lecture them on the impermanence of hunger and other earthly desires. There has to be a balance.

When you live in a world that puts more emphasis on the physical than the spiritual, such is the case with the present world we live in, you see the results you get.

People choose wealth over doing what is right. A good example are the big oil corporations. Why? Simply because they have chosen material gain and pleasure over the spiritual principles that has been set before man.

You can't have it both ways. This is something that Buddhists, Hindus and TRUE Christians realize. You have to choose one or the other.

Oh I quite agree with you in that sense, we place far too much emphasis on creating wealthy elites rather than a society where there is enough for all. It has become our god. But my own personal belief is that there should be balance in all things spiritual, material and emotional while we are on this earth. To ignore one aspect to the detriment of all others creates problems. This is as much true of the uber capitalist as it is of the hermit monk living with nothing, neither achieve much for the greater good. We can't all live like either, it's unsustainable.

well it didn't take long for god to apear in this thread, you know, considering its about Buddhism.

ubermunche first off what is your opinion? not Michael Prescott's opinion (whoever he may be?).

I believe Mr Presscott in his blog post put to much thought into 3 words of a story that portrays a number of of believes of the Buddhist system. Its not just that he said "Is that so" in fact I think that is the least significant part of the story, in his blog post it appears he thinks that this is all the monk will ever say "is that so" but its merely what he said in this particular situation.

In the situation he faces should he confront them and anger them more by challenging there daughters apparent honesty simply causing more needless suffering and prolonging the argument or should he allow them to simply vent there anger and let them realize there own mistakes by them selfs instead of forcing it on them?

Every sentence explains a bit of how this monk lived his life. It didn't matter that the child wasn't his, he took care of it. It didn't matter that he lost his reputation, its just reputation afterall, what others thought of him had no affect on how he lived. When they came back to tell the truth and apology's, apology's weren't needed.

id go into detail more, but im in a rush. Keep in mind these are my thoughts on that story, you ask another Buddhist and they will likely have something different to say, one of the things I like about this religion is no ones scared to challenge the meaning of things.

The story about the monk is not any different than other spiritual learning from stories of other systems of religious believes.

Everything is about achieving enlightenment to the point that any adversity presented in this life can be deal with to maintain once balance between our self and our surroundings.

Certain episodes sometimes can be controlled but many other can not. Instead of fighting with something that can not be controlled is better to let it balanced itself.

Eventually everything will come to full circle, because lives always most go on with us or without us.

I actually agree with the OP that exaggerated asceticism (in any religion) is useless. I mean, the sole purpose of a religion (on this earth) should be for the benefit of humanity (on this earth). If people are told to shut out the outside world, it's no use. Buddhism teaches us to transcend our desires and wants to reach nirvana. If everyone was a proper Buddhist, the world wouldn't have reached anywhere. I mean, Gautama himself didn't even cook his own food. He begged wherever he had to go. I am also not for extreme capitalism materialism, but I don't think that's a very good example to set.

Urrr....this topic is about Problems with Buddhism, so I mentioned some that I've percieved. I don't want this to be seen as an attack, considering I have a great deal of respect for the Buddhist idealogy.

[edit on 9-6-2007 by babloyi]

ubermunche, you suggested that perhaps you were misreading the story of the monk, and I think that is the case because your various subsequent comments, to me, parallel the point of the story.

Well from a spiritual standpoint what's the point in being in the world and not of it, it seems a pointless exercise rather than a valuable lesson. Surely it would be better to learn to use and make the best this world has to offer in a spiritual way.

The second statement, using what the world has to offer for spiritual ends, is what is meant by being in the world and not of it, so you've answered your own rhetorical question.

if you choose God to the exclusion of all else while living a material existence you become nothing more than a spiritual droid who is of no use whatsoever to his fellow humans.

Which is why the monk accepted the child, despite the error. The expectations of the parents superseded the unfair placement of responsibility upon him.

But my own personal belief is that there should be balance in all things spiritual, material and emotional while we are on this earth. To ignore one aspect to the detriment of all others creates problems.

Which is what the monk was avoiding, problems that would only interfere with his spiritual goals.

In the Bhagavad-gita, there is this beautiful passage:

A human being attains perfection by worshipping God through his work, for the duties of life emanate from God, who pervades all things.

This is how I read the story of the monk. He was expected to care for the child, so he did. Subsequently he was not expected to care for the child, so he relinquished it with the same detachment. The lesson is to turn material duties into spiritual goals.

Originally posted by babloyi
I actually agree with the OP that exaggerated asceticism (in any religion) is useless. I mean, the sole purpose of a religion (on this earth) should be for the benefit of humanity (on this earth). [...]

Urrr....this topic is about Problems with Buddhism, so I mentioned some that I've percieved. I don't want this to be seen as an attack, considering I have a great deal of respect for the Buddhist idealogy.

Like any religion, a lot of the simple messages get co-opted by a bunch of people who stick onto it all kinds of nutty rituals and other methodology apparently designed to "help" others follow the teachings. Of course, it's a load of nonsense. Buddhists are not much different, with their little chants and yoga positions and the like. The funny thing is, Buddha himself only achieved enlightenment after he went through ascetic phase and came to the realization that it was all pointless. You notice that the latter Buddha is depicted as fat and laughing. Anybody wishing to attain enlightenment like Buddha should learn from the man's example and get a clue that starving yourself under a bodhi tree is not the way to do it. They should avoid that starving thing at all costs.

Otherwise, yes, transcendence certainly has its problems on a practical level. It's a lot like Henry David Thoreau's "back to nature" notion that the hippies admired so much. Not many people know that Thoreau was a horrible mooch and an annoying burden to his few friends. Likewise, transcendence relies an awful lot on other hard-working people supporting you. And honestly, because I have a relatively negative view of humanity in general, I think a lot of people jump on that whole adherence to poverty thing because they're too dumb and/or lazy to get a real job and earn a regular paycheck.

Transcendence is pretty selfish, although a lot of ritual and rules have sprouted up in the religion to temper that notion a little. But when you boil it right down, it's basically all about ME busting out of the miserable cycle of reincarnation, and while it might help ME if I help YOU a little bit, if YOU don't make it, that's basically your own problem.

Basic gnostic Christianity is not much different. You give up all your possessions and go around preaching, relying on the kindness of others to feed you and put a roof over your head. The Church that grew up around that refocused the idea so that the goal is to save all of mankind. And the best way to do that was to obey and contribute to the church. Brilliant marketing. But the core of the religion is all about ME making it to Heaven. Even when Jesus ascended to Heaven, you'll notice that he didn't take any of the Apostles with him.

And Buddha? Forget about it!

Originally posted by SuicideVirus
Of course, it's a load of nonsense. Buddhists are not much different, with their little chants and yoga positions and the like.

Not many people know that Thoreau was a horrible mooch and an annoying burden to his few friends.

And honestly, because I have a relatively negative view of humanity in general

Transcendence is pretty selfish

But the core of the religion is all about ME making it to Heaven. Even when Jesus ascended to Heaven, you'll notice that he didn't take any of the Apostles with him.

And Buddha? Forget about it!

Thank you for your contribution SuicideVirus. It is quite strident, and I'm not sure your general denunciation of religion and spiritual aspirations is on topic. I think the discussion was primarily centered around the balance between material and spiritual values as they relate to the story of the monk. But your opinions have been noted.

Originally posted by SuicideVirus
Of course, it's a load of nonsense. Buddhists are not much different, with their little chants and yoga positions and the like.

Actually chants or prayer or common thought by a group in general although not conclusively proven is though to have an effect on the outcome of who or what you are chanting or praying for.

Likewise the 'yoga positions' as you call it are known to keep you fit and healthy and subsequently prolong you life. Its just another form of exersise and an effective one, some of the best fighters and athletes in the world do these 'yoga positions'.

Originally posted by SuicideVirus
The funny thing is, Buddha himself only achieved enlightenment after he went through ascetic phase and came to the realization that it was all pointless.

The Buddha never came to the realization that it was all pointless. I assume you get this from the apparent negativity of the four noble truths?

I'll simply say this, you need to read up more before you post about something. There are numerous problems with western translations of the Buddha teaching especially when there made by so called academics and accepted by mainstream westernism (if thats a word?)

To put quickly and simply, the first noble truth "life is suffering" if you accept that to be an accurate translation (which it isn't) is not a negative or positive statement, its simply an observation. It isn't saying that life doesn't include fun, happiness, love etc of course it does, what is is saying is that every day of your lifes we experience suffering or more accurately dukkha which has a much broader meaning.

It also means nothing without the other three truths (and actually could be seen as negative without the other three truths which are far more positive)

I suggest having a read of the the wikipedia article on the four noble truths if you are interested, it is a good read and imo a much better translation of the four noble truths.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by SuicideVirus
You notice that the latter Buddha is depicted as fat and laughing.
p

The depiction of a fat laughing Buddha has no connection to the realization that it wall all pointless (which is incorrect in its self i should point out). You might want to read this it should give you some insight into when and why the depiction of a fat Buddha first apeared.

Originally posted by SuicideVirus
Anybody wishing to attain enlightenment like Buddha should learn from the man's example and get a clue that starving yourself under a bodhi tree is not the way to do it. They should avoid that starving thing at all costs.

You know your right on this one. It was in fact one of the first things The Buddha realized when he first began to find a solution tot he problem. When he started meditation he did not eat and subsequently began to starve, the lesson he learned was not the 4 noble truths but that starving to death did not help to solve the problem he was trying to solve. This experience he had is still around today because this is what is taught. However it did serve another purpose, he learned what it was like to be with no food which can be an important lesson, because to overcome dukkha you first need to know the forms of dukkha.

Originally posted by Edn

To put quickly and simply, the first noble truth "life is suffering" if you accept that to be an accurate translation (which it isn't) is not a negative or positive statement, its simply an observation. It isn't saying that life doesn't include fun, happiness, love etc of course it does, what is is saying is that every day of your lifes we experience suffering or more accurately dukkha which has a much broader meaning.

I have to agree with the OP. I read the wiki article and I didn’t read anything positive there at all. Dukkha seems to be the word for feelings that aren’t pleasant, anything that isn’t nice. And the article then goes on to blame that the cause of this dukkha is our "failure to recognize the eternity of the Buddha".

So many things to argue against that and on so many levels too! So what is 'nice' called? Lust? Anti-dukkha? Sounds to me like its propaganda to keep us imprisoned! Do nothing to change the world, don’t fight injustice because life is suffering. If you are suffering it’s because you have failed, sinned, imperfect, blah blah... and yet if anything pleasant happens? Well that’s wrong too? Lust? Or is that just Buddha’s (or god's) grace? So we learn if unpleasant things happen to us, its 'cos we have failed in something.

You know a few years ago if someone asked me if I had to choose between Christianity and Buddhism, I would have said the Big B please, but now? Well Id rather have Christ stand next to me giving me strength to move mountains and change things than be told that this is life and your soul purpose is to 'get off it'.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not into any religion, including Christianity, I have done all that, been a born again, been a seeker into an Indian cult... big red flags for the lot of it.

Science has been smacked down, shoved into boxes, controlled and distorted, why? Because maybe science will answer a lot of question we humans have! Maybe through our own figuring out with our own brains and tools we can discover everything there is for us to know, including what life is about. And isn’t that what Buddhism tries to explain?

I may have understood Buddhism incorrectly, but does it say anywhere on why life is suffering? I mean why people have "inner defilements", or why there is a karmic wheel, why is it there and who put it there? Were humans made with such flaws for a laugh? Or perhaps they aren’t flaws and we are just humans who experience "love" and "fear" which is normal.

I feel Buddhism is a great cop out in doing anything to change life around us... I bet the NWO absolutely loves Buddhism.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
You can either choose God, or "mammon," which is materialism. You cannot choose both and be a spiritual entity.

BAH! Believeing you can be whole and happy without the comforts this world has to offer is nothing more than spiritual snobbery.

Religions will tell you that you can't be spiritual if you're rich, and they will also tell you the best way to cure such a terrible affliction is to give them all your money.

Bah!

Being spiritual isn't about what you are or where you are or how you are or even why you are. It's about who you are, and only you can decide that.

As a matter of fact, one of the tenants of Buddhism and Vedic thought in general is that it's easy to be be spiritual and at one with God while meditating in a cave or temple. It's much harder to do it living in the material world. And, as it's necessary to live in the material world, one must sustain a balance. After all, you can't think of oneness with god when your silence is broken by a growling stomach.

If I'm appearing to parrot the author of the article I'm sorry but as I pointed out it does sum up a lot of the problems I see with Buddism. I'd also like to point out that with hindsight I would've changed the thread title to something a tad less critical sounding as I don't mean to attack Buddism. I actually think as a belief system it has much to offer when incorporated into your day to day life but in it's purer iterpretations it starts to fall far short, just like every other belief system does. In fact, despite a general perception that Buddism is a far more enlightened form of belief, in it's purer form I'd say Christianity works better...at least as it relates to our earthly existence because it is more pro-active.