What's Wrong With Buddhism?

reply to post by Cadbury

I'm going to quote The Way Of Zen by Alan Watts, here (which may raise an eyebrow or two):

He may have a point that Buddhism is considered a way of liberation. Otherwise his arguments appear rhetorical and not necessarily convincing to me that Buddhism isn't religion, philosophy and psychology. Also many of the teachings of Christ celebrate liberation through enlightenment. At least...that's what they can argue...

quote]
This still does not mean that all of Buddhism “has an equally crummy record of keeping people down and fighting with people that didn't share their views,” which is what you said, even though by “equally” you were talking about equality with religions such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam.


The OP asked about Buddhism in general and I replied accordingly. Absolutes don't apply to any religions if they don't apply to Buddhism.

From where do any of us get the finances to do anything?

Most of us work for our finances

Not always so...

I'm not persuaded by absolutism...much more of a semi-relativist humanist if there can be such a thing

Originally posted by Kandinsky
He may have a point that Buddhism is considered a way of liberation. Otherwise his arguments appear rhetorical and not necessarily convincing to me that Buddhism isn't religion, philosophy and psychology.

Kandinsky, Kandinsky, Kandinsky! His arguments did not argue that Buddhism isn't a religion, philosophy or psychology! He was talking about Zen Buddhism, as the quote made clear! What I've been trying to explain to you is that Buddhism is not a singular "thing" that you can really categorise and label as a whole with the Latin alphabet of the modern English language, or any language for that matter. You can't pin it down that way. There are too many schools of thought within it, and you're trying, unsuccessfully, to stretch Eastern or Asiatic concepts over a Western framework.

Also many of the teachings of Christ celebrate liberation through enlightenment. At least...that's what they can argue...

I wonder where he learnt about teachings such as those? I doubt he learnt them from his "Father." Even if he did, it still doesn't mean Buddhism "is" a religion like Christianity or Islam.

The OP asked about Buddhism in general and I replied accordingly. Absolutes don't apply to any religions if they don't apply to Buddhism.

Erm... What?

Most of us work for our finances

So does he. Where does the money come from to pay for the finances you receive for the work you've done?

Oh, yeah...

I'm not persuaded by absolutism...much more of a semi-relativist humanist if there can be such a thing

If you're not persuaded by absolutism then why do you speak in so many absolutes?

reply to post by Cadbury
I knew this would go this way....sigh.

He was talking about Zen Buddhism, as the quote made clear! What I've been trying to explain to you is that Buddhism is not a singular "thing" that you can really categorise and label as a whole with the Latin alphabet of the modern English language, or any language for that matter. You can't pin it down that way.

Firstly, I am in no way as interested in the convolutions of Buddhism as you are. I'm non-religious. If we are to get involved in discussing Buddhism and its myriad philosophies...it needs another thread. It also sounds like we agree, but you are enjoying the process of splitting hairs.

I wonder where he learnt about teachings such as those? I doubt he learnt them from his "Father." Even if he did, it still doesn't mean Buddhism "is" a religion like Christianity or Islam.

I consider Buddhism a religion. It's a religion in every recognisable sense...to me. If you choose to place it (whatever 'it' means to you) in a different category or collection of categories, it's up to you. Like all religions there are myriad sub-sects, splinter groups and ideologies within them all. Discussing the merits of each one would take more interest than I could muster

If you're not persuaded by absolutism then why do you speak in so many absolutes?

Appropriate use of absolutes makes communication between one person and another clearer. If we are to um and ah over the points we are trying to make...there'll be more confusion than usual.

I'll reiterate my position as it relates to the OP. 'What's wrong with Buddhism?' The same things that are wrong with all religions although possibly to a lesser extent. I think that's the distillation of my post?

Originally posted by IandEye
... (we need something familiar to compare our experiences to) and in the west we are so well structured with 'precedence'.

I try not to quantify. As soon as you compare something you put it on a grid and have therefore given up to "see" it for what it is.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
I knew this would go this way....sigh.

In what way has it gone, Kandinsky?

Firstly, I am in no way as interested in the convolutions of Buddhism as you are.

I didn't say you were! All I was trying to say is that you're trying to generalise Buddhism into one single whole and pretty much stereotype everything into a quasi-Tibetan assembly, which is objectively incorrect and actually very misleading to anyone reading what it is that you and I say here.

I'm non-religious.

So am I, even though I'm a Buddhist, which is what I've been trying, unsuccessfully, to explain to you all along!

(“Sigh.”)

If we are to get involved in discussing Buddhism and its myriad philosophies...it needs another thread.

No it doesn't. This thread is entitled What's Wrong With Buddhism and is actually a perfect place to discuss "Buddhism and its myriad philosophies." Could I ask you why you feel we need "another thread" to discuss what we're already legitimately discussing here?

It also sounds like we agree, but you are enjoying the process of splitting hairs.

Good sir as I've already explained to you we only agree in part. I have agreed openly with what you have said about Buddhism sometimes being a religion and people sometimes using it to "keep other people down," or take wealth from others or kill people or whatever else it is you're rightly trying to say, but you seem almost completely incapable of acknowledging the point of view that I am trying to present. I actually don't enjoy arguing with ignorant people and would much rather that you, someone "not as interested in the convolutions of Buddhism as I" would have just taken the time to educate yourself before drawing blatantly incorrect and oversimplified conclusions about something you admit you're not even interested in and evidently know very little about.

I consider Buddhism a religion. It's a religion in every recognisable sense...to me. If you choose to place it (whatever 'it' means to you) in a different category or collection of categories, it's up to you. Like all religions there are myriad sub-sects, splinter groups and ideologies within them all. Discussing the merits of each one would take more interest than I could muster

I'm not even trying to discuss the merits of each one with you I'm just trying to get you to at least acknowledge that they're not all the same and can't be categorised or generalised as a whole, which you seem to be unable to stop doing at this point in time.

Appropriate use of absolutes makes communication between one person and another clearer.

Prove that.

If we are to um and ah over the points we are trying to make...there'll be more confusion than usual.

I'm not "Umming and ahhing" over the points we're trying to make, though. As I said to you two posts ago in this very thread "You've voiced your beliefs and concerns in an articulate and respectful manner. Even if you had an axe to grind with Buddhism, I've not an axe to grind with you." The most confusion here is generated by your quite frankly ridiculous generalisations stemming from either your inability or unwillingness to even remotely bother to differentiate between the different types of Buddhism. You'd love for things to be that simple or “cut and dry,” but they just phucking ain't.

I'll reiterate my position as it relates to the OP. 'What's wrong with Buddhism?' The same things that are wrong with all religions although possibly to a lesser extent. I think that's the distillation of my post?

I'll acknowledge that as the "distillation of your posts" (not that I already haven't) if you'll go back and read mine (actually reading them, not just skimming them, pretending to know what they say) and at least try to acknowledge the equally obvious "distillation" therein.

reply to post by Kandinsky


You say that Buddhism is a religion. Where did Buddha teach us about a deity? Could you elaborate? Maybe you have a different definition of religion.

I consider Buddhism a religion. It's a religion in every recognisable sense...to me. If you choose to place it (whatever 'it' means to you) in a different category or collection of categories, it's up to you. Like all religions there are myriad sub-sects, splinter groups and ideologies within them all. Discussing the merits of each one would take more interest than I could muster

Well there is your problem.

First, what is Buddhism? Buddhism is essentially a blanket term regarding anything in relation to the teachings of The Buddha.

The teachings of The Buddha existed for several hundred years before it ever formed into a religion. It was a spiritual practice, but it wasn't really a religion. They are not one and the same. The Buddha's original teachings are no different than the teachings of the likes of Plato or Socrates, it is just that The Buddha's teachings had a much more spiritual twist on it. But just like Plato and Socrates, The Buddha was a philosopher, and his original teachings a philosophy.

A zen master once described religion as a finger pointing at a moon. The moon was god, the true nature of reality, the source of all. It is the spiritual part of religion. The finger is the guidance of man for other men to find god. The finger is the traditions, the symbolism, the rituals and dogma that take place and the canon of the belief. It acts to guide one to god. The problem is dogma, when people adhere to the guidance of the finger too much. Often time, people completely forget the fact that between the finger and the moon, is a giant gap of space that needs to be traveled to find god. The finger is meant to act as a jumping off point but often times people try to follow the finger so exactly that they never actually reach god.

The thing that differentiates the eastern religions from the western in the nature of the environment they grew in. Even though Hinduism was the dominant belief at the time, people weren't murdered (at least not on a large scale) for their beliefs. India was a spiritually free place where many people often spent their lives devoted to spiritual practices outside of the Hindu tradition. This is how Jainism and Buddhism started. And it took several years after Buddha for his teachings to become a religion. It took Asoka to spread The Buddha's teachings all over Asia and even towards the Middle East before forms of worship, ritual and tradition were applied to it.


Buddhism started as a philosophy and at its very core, in most forms of Buddhism, this philosophy persists.

Thank you for all your great posts. And thanks for keeping the discussion civil

Best,

N

reply to post by SpectreDC


Thanks for your post!

The term "worship" refers to a deity in my vocabulary. Where can you see any form in Buddhism? Statues and references to Gautama don't apply in my view since he explicitly said that he is not a god.

Allah, God and YHWH are self-affirming entities.

If you take the Smorgasbord approach to religions, it is definitely worth placing a heaping helping of Buddhism on your plate and maybe taking some seconds.

Some religions I would not touch. They are like that salad with tons of mayonaise on it or that piece of meat that has been under the heat lamp too long.

I'll be back tomorrow for more scintillating Buddhist beliefs...it's like opening the door to Jehova's Witnesses and now they won't leave...

Why are the religious always so keen on fisking? Brevity guys, please? Anyway, good night all. I'll respond to the lengthy replies tomorrow

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


LOL!

reply to post by Kandinsky

BTW: I'm going back to the original source of Nichiren-Buddhism, the Lotus Sutra, and I'm discovering that not all is in accordance to what I was told ...

The truth will set you free and takes your GPS away

reply to post by Nichiren


What were you told?

Originally posted by silent thunder
In the West, there is a tendency to "cherry-pick" the more attractive aspects of Buddhism.

Indeed I see no wiser an action than to cherry-pick the better aspects of something and reject the rotten ones. It would serve us well if religions' teachings were followed selectively, discarding the more vile aspects. I see nothing in the world requiring that I reject or accept a system of doctrine in its entirety.

[edit on 2/21/2010 by EnlightenUp]

Indeed I see no wiser an action than to cherry-pick the better aspects of something and reject the rotten ones. It would serve us well if religions' teachings were followed selectively, discarding the more vile aspects. I see nothing in the world requiring that I reject or accept a system of doctrine in its entirety

reply to post by EnlightenUp


I think while this is a great point you make. As I have been convinced to a fair degree, that the joining of any two belief systems is most likely,"still
in the future". Or most likely not at all. Cherry picking is the same thing as really just making up
your own belief system. Just quite a bit more superficial.

[edit on 21-2-2010 by randyvs]

reply to post by randyvs


It's not really about joining anything. But yes, I see no problem with reevaluating everything, possibly rejecting all that is presently accepted by every person on earth and formulating my own personally discerned picture. That isn't to say anything about the existing systems and what I will or won't find truthful. I don't consider it the least bit relevent. Truth is my belief system, whatever that means, for if I did I wouldn't really find it necessary to continue searching.

Originally posted by Cadbury
reply to post by Nichiren

 

What were you told?

Among other things: we should primarily chant Nam-myoho-renge-kyo (the title of the LS). The Lotus Sutra says that we should primarily read and study the entire Lotus Sutra text.

Mr. Ikeda is supposed to be our sensei. But according to the LS the Buddha is still alive. He never left. So which sensei would you pick? A provisional one, or one who will be around forever?

Kill them. Kill them both!