Problems with Buddism

Suicidevirus has a very superficial understanding. Sidharta Buddha started out on a quest for wisdom or insight into suffering. The life story of the historic Buddha which Suicidevirus misinterprets was about the various wrong turns which he took, including the extremes of severe asceticism. He did not realise that it was all meaningless. What evolved from the Buddha's understandings of these lessons was the Buddhist concept of the middle path... of neither striving to be too good, nor being too bad, but taking the middle path of moderation in everything.

There are many branches and interpretations of Buddhism. Some cling to teachings of the early Sutras which are the Theravadian schools of Burma and Thailand etc which follow strict renunciation of worldly pleasures.

The Mayhayana school of Tibet and China follow the latter teachings and the concept of the middle path.

Buddhism evolved even further to Japanese interpretations.

Another consideration is that just in the same way that Jesus never wrote the gospels, the teachings of the Buddha called sutras were all interpretations by followers, save for the very last of these teachings, which was the Lotus Sutra, which Sidharta Buddha deliberately dictated to his followers.

In that Lotus Sutra Siddharta denounced the other Sutras and told his followers that their interpretations were wrong. He said to disregard all this self denial and extreme ascetism, so Suicidevirus makes the mistake of thinking those who follow the earlier archaic Sutras speak for the Buddha himself. They do not. They do not understand and neither does Suicidevirus.

Ubermunche asked:

Surely it would be better to learn to use and make the best this world has to offer in a spiritual way.

Yes precisely correct Ubermunche, but to get to a point where you understand how to make the best use of the world, one also has to learn an awful lot of insight into how the world actually works and also into how you yourself react to the world.

If you think that all the world is about is money, power or sex then fine. Then that is all you have to master, but if you do follow that path then soon as many people find out there is a big empty hole in your life.

So if you really want to learn how to get the best out of life you first have to figure our what life is all about ?

This wisdom, or enlightenment is the goal which all Buddhists strive to attain. One of the difficulties for non Buddhists trying to understand the teachings is that coming from a material world it is hard to grasp the alien concept of Karma and reincarnation, or for that matter the Buddhist concept that this world itself is an illusion.

The closest approximation to this concept is Jim Carrie's movie, The Truman Show, where everyone whom Carrie interacted with was an actor and his whole life was on a stage. Carrie's character thought it was a real world and his was a real life.

Edn and Yuefo have made really valid contributions here. Rasobasi420 made a valid point about how useful it was to retreat from the world rather than participating.

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.

Different sects or brands of Buddhism have different approaches to
Rasobasi420's point. Not all Buddhists withdraw from the world. Some like the brand which I adhere actually recognise that you can't achieve anything in the world if you deny that "empty belly" and so encourage followers to sort out and satisfy their material needs but not become enslaved by them.

The real point of wisdom is to reach a point of self mastery of one's own emotions and to have such insight into the human condition that it can't affect one's happiness.

What are the drawbacks of Buddhism ?

Depends what you see as a drawback ?

If you want lots of money and a blonde bimbo sitting on you lap, don't mind dealing drugs and killing a few people to get there, then I suppose Buddhism has quite a lot of drawbacks.

[edit on 10-6-2007 by sy.gunson]

Originally posted by sy.gunson
If you think that all the world is about is money, power or sex then fine.
[...]
If you want lots of money and a blonde bimbo sitting on you lap, don't mind dealing drugs and killing a few people to get there, then I suppose Buddhism has quite a lot of drawbacks.

Those examples are the extreme and not really what has been discussed.

The monk story. What does the monk learn from this? How to look after a baby for a year? Great! Entirely about himself. But what about the society in which he lives? The issue that the young mother had? Is he meddling in the affairs of people to try and set up a foundation to help pregnant mothers? To educate his fellow monks on rearing a child in case it ever happens to them too? Or is that just entanglement, entrapment?

Ok, what if I could tell you something that was a possible truth? That 50% of what makes people unhappy is external and unnecessary and nothing to do with the cause of unhappiness that Buddhism speaks of? What then? Imagine getting rid of that 50% and in doing so causes another further 20% less unhappiness? I’m happy with that! Only 30% unhappiness floating around. Would Buddhism have a leg to stand on with this much less unhappiness in humans?

The real point of wisdom is to reach a point of self mastery of one's own emotions and to have such insight into the human condition that it can't affect one's happiness.

One day a woman knocked on my door, she was the mother of a child my son played with. I opened the door and she stood there being angry and calling me names for something our children got up to. I shut the door when she finished and was in total shock, in fact I reacted badly. I went into the kitchen sat on the counter (never did that before) and hugged my legs rocking away crying about how much I hated my life and where I lived.

My then partner came to me and pleaded with me to listen to him; he described a ball of red angry energy that replicated itself at the front door via the lady who shouted at me. He told me that it was in me and that was the issue, nothing intellectual about it, purely an external phenomenon. When he told me that I knew it to be true, deep inside, he described what had actually happened! As soon as that knowledge hit me, the feelings I had were gone, not totally, as I had to then deal with that new learning and in fact felt better for it, in fact thanked her for it! (Although not personally, I haven’t actually seen her since).

The point of my story? Not entirely sure but it was the experience that popped into my head when I read your words. Perhaps the real point to wisdom cannot be explained but experienced, clichéd words are not real and nor is it wisdom.


I have really enjoyed this topic

Originally posted by Dae
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. [..]

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.

who ever said do nothing? the four noble truths point out the one thing that is the cause of everything bad in out lifes, dukkha. You catch a flu thats dukkha, you crash your car thats dukkha, there all individually bad things but all of them cause one thing dukkha. the four noble truths to put it as some others do is how a doctor looks at a problem. what is the problem? life is dukkha (not life is only dukkha which is what is contently misinterpreted), what is the cause, is there a cure and how do you cure it. The four noble truths is a cure to suffering or dukkha not a statement that life is only dukkha so you may as well kill your self now and be done with it.

Originally posted by Dae
And the article then goes on to blame that the cause of this dukkha is our "failure to recognize the eternity of the Buddha".

This is actually specific to the Mahayana tradition. Its also not what the Buddha said.

Originally posted by Dae
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?

Science and Buddhism go together quite well actually, probably because the lack of a god and that its main teachings are simply for people to find a middle path that allows you to minimize the amount of Dukkha and have a generally good life. There are a few points in Buddhism that could eventually conflict with science but the 14th Dali Lama mentioned a while ago some points in some old scripture of a Buddhist sect that if science were to prove something to be different than the scriptures (I forgot the expect details sorry) then the Buddhist were obviously wrong in what they wrote, it also isn't a particularly bad thing Buddhism its self is a lot like science in that you can be proven wrong with something and the will just look at how they were wrong and move on to either making it right or focusing on a different part of the various teachings.

Its also why Buddhism has stood for 2500 years without the need for "do as we say or go to hell for eternity" type stuff.

Originally posted by Dae
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 always though the 'why' of why life is suffering was fairly obvious. every day i do something that creates suffering of some kind but like I said, it isn't that life is suffering, its that there is a cure to the suffering of life. Maybe the Buddha should have out the 4 noble truths in a different order.

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

Probably the opposite in fact.

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

Buddhist don't believe in a god.

True Dae, that I talked about extreme materialism by citing a drug dealer, but then had I not illustrated it with such an extreme the point might have been lost.

See from a Buddhist perspective working such long hours in your job that you have no time or energy for your kids... and that you work so hard to afford to buy them a DVD player and a PS3 player so they will stay quiet and let you watch sport on TV... Well that's illogical and extreme materialism too.

The monk story. What does the monk learn from this? How to look after a baby for a year? Great! Entirely about himself. But what about the society in which he lives? The issue that the young mother had? Is he meddling in the affairs of people to try and set up a foundation to help pregnant mothers? To educate his fellow monks on rearing a child in case it ever happens to them too? Or is that just entanglement, entrapment?

Why does the monk need to learn anything from that. ?
Who says society did not learn from it ?
The girl who falsely accused the monk learned to have a conscience and the damaging consequence of her words. The parents learned from it that they had been hasty in their judgment. They also learned respect for the monk's forbearance.

He sounded like a pretty serene, enlightened little monk. The lesson is for the one who learns of the story. Not for the monk because he was in the world but not affected by it.

He didn't interfere. he accepted his fate and did what was expected of him by others out of service and compassion. He did not scream in agony about injustice either.

The concept of Karma and re-incarnation does not embrace injustice. For a Buddhist, one lifetime is like one day. We wake up fresh and put on a new set of clothes like a new identity. We go out and have a new experience different from the day before and the day before that. We do not agonise over the day before unless there is something unfinished and then that carry over is what we call Karma.

At the end of that day we are tired and in need of sleep and rest. We have had whatever experience that day has brought us and now we want to go to sleep so we can wake up fresh for another day. In Buddhism, this person living day by day is our immortal soul going from one incarnation to another.

If we believe in the reality of this life then yes we will become very wounded and hurt by it's many injustices. Where is it written that we must live a life of misery ?

Well it isn't, but if you went to school and the lessons were too easy and you were not challenged by them then you would not learn anyhting of any great value, would you.

Non-Buddhists also find it hard to accept that some souls actually choose a life of hardship before they are even born, or in other cases Karma dictates it so that we can learn the appropriate lessons. That is why a Buddhist can smile in the face of adversity if they have properly mastered and understood the meaning of life.

Ok, what if I could tell you something that was a possible truth? That 50% of what makes people unhappy is external and unnecessary and nothing to do with the cause of unhappiness that Buddhism speaks of? What then? Imagine getting rid of that 50% and in doing so causes another further 20% less unhappiness? I’m happy with that! Only 30% unhappiness floating around. Would Buddhism have a leg to stand on with this much less unhappiness in humans?

That is part of the illusion of this universe... All happiness and all unhappiness comes from within, like something we project.

We have 100% choice how to react to suffering. We can learn to rise above it, or to wallow in it. Finding the wisdom to rise above it is the path of Buddhism.

What seems external may equally be the universe we have created around ourselves by our own negative defeatist or antagonistic attitudes.

When you come to understand that, then you realise you don't have to change the whole world to be happy. You only have to change yourself.

Hope that helps ?

Oh yeah and no Buddhists don't believe in a God. I personally have no difficulty thinking of God as a force throughout the universe, but not as a person.

Buddhists don't chose God or Mammon.

That does not mean Buddhists aren't spiritual people. We have a powerful faith in what we believe. We believe in kindness and compassion. to hold to such views when Mammon would be easier is an act of sprituality.

It also depends on your definition of what spiritual is. If you draw a circle around those who worship god and adhere to a religion the by your definition that is what you have defined Buddhists as.

Just because you may define Buddhists as non spiritual does not make your view right or wrong... It is just your view.


[edit on 11-6-2007 by sy.gunson]

Originally posted by sy.gunson

That is part of the illusion of this universe... All happiness and all unhappiness comes from within, like something we project.

Ahh now you see I don’t actually believe that to be true. I suffered from Post Natal Depression with my first child, that didn’t come from within me, I had no choice but to experience it, I had no choice with my mood. I would walk from the kitchen to the living room and somewhere on the way a black cloud of doom would descend upon me, knocking me for six. I’m sure there are other plenty of instances where happiness or mood is out of our control.

Let us not forget that we are never 100% genetics or environment and I believe the same can be said with moods and happiness. And it is dangerous to say that happiness and unhappiness is purely within us.

You have actually hit the nail on the head for me when it comes to my thoughts on Buddhism or anything else that says WE are 100% to blame for everything.

I used to believe in what you do, it gave me great comfort, so much so that I could ignore the world and its suffering because it was meant to be, and in fact people choose to be in those situations before birth! Not any more for me.

The world does need changing, the NWO needs stopping, pollution, disease, plundering, all of it has to be stopped. And only then will I be happy with our lot, people will still have their dramas and lessons but without dumping toxic waste into the sea or making useless plastic toys for Mc Burger™.

We have 100% choice how to react to suffering. We can learn to rise above it, or to wallow in it. Finding the wisdom to rise above it is the path of Buddhism.

To a point, yes. Id say about 65%. The rest is genetics and upbringing... a child with Autism has no choice in their reactions to suffering (indeed their suffering can be caused from Autism). A person with terrible skin condition may be better off than someone with the same condition only because they were born with a higher pain/irritation threshold.

What seems external may equally be the universe we have created around ourselves by our own negative defeatist or antagonistic attitudes.

And may equally be not. Astrological changes do affect people, their moods and reactions. People can suffer from seasonal affective disorder, give them some sun and they feel better. Some people if you give them some sun, they feel worse.

When you come to understand that, then you realise you don't have to change the whole world to be happy. You only have to change yourself.

Yeah, I used to believe that and it was so much easier. When I ditched that belief about 6 years ago, I felt terrible for a couple of years; I had to take the bull by the horn and feel the pain and accept that it CAN be changed, that I may not be able to change it and that it may not change in my life time but it will one day and we will be a part of that history.

Hope that helps ?

gods I wished it were so lol

We believe in kindness and compassion. to hold to such views when Mammon would be easier is an act of sprituality.

Mammon would be easier? Hmm how many Mammon worshipers do you find that are happy? I don’t think it’s any easier than any other worship.

Happiness is feeling content, content comes from having purpose and relationships, being able to move about freely and having connections with the Earth (in what ever way that it happens). Happiness is feeling connected with our life through our work, play and learning.

We don’t need religions or governments telling us what is happiness when really at many levels we are simple creatures and happiness comes easily.

Take away the external mind manipulation (HAARP, food and water additives, corporate presence, advertisements, mindless TV etc.) and let us see what we have left of the human condition.

Originally posted by DarkSide

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

Buddhist don't believe in a god.

That's a moot point.

Their message is still to detach yourself from this world. An idea that I see
absolutely no problem with whatsoever. The OP says that it's a "problem" with Buddhism. I don't think so. I think that thinking that there is a problem with detachment is the problem with the world in general.


[edit on 11-6-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

Originally posted by ubermunche

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]

I thought the golden rule of Buddhism is that you shouldn't cause any suffering to another being? ( I could be wrong as I'm not a Buddhist correct me if I am wrong.)


Whats so bad about that?


Don't get nailed to the wrong piece of wood.

[edit on 11-6-2007 by Lysergic]

Here are the five moral tenets of Buddhism

1. I will be mindful and reverential with all life,
I will not be violent nor will I kill.


2. I will respect the property of others, I will not steal.

3. I will be conscious and loving in my relationships,
I will not give way to lust.

4. I will honor honesty and truth, I will not deceive.

5. I will exercise proper care of my body and mind,
I will not be gluttonous nor abuse intoxicants.

Tenets

1-4

are doable for me.

5...

well atm yes.

See, that's the point, then. As with any religion, the adherents do some stuff very different from what is supposedly preached.

Someone says that Buddhists don't believe in a God. Then I hear stuff about "the eternity of Buddha", and I see buddhists seated infront of a statue of Buddha chanting "I seek refuge in Buddha".

Someone says that Buddhists cannot kill another life form, but then I see buddhists tossing a yak over the cliff so that "gravity can kill it", and they can feed their guests with meat.

Someone says that no, this and this is not the real Buddhism, this is the proper one, but then I notice that the oldest Buddist school currently being practiced is from Burma, which doesn't exactly have the nicest human rights record.

I only mentioned the exaggerated asceticism part because that's what I had a problem with, which I thought was part of the actual Buddhist creed. If it's not valid for "true buddhism" (whatever that may be), then that's great to know, but someone should mention it to all those monks, then

[edit on 11-6-2007 by babloyi]

I liked it when there was the video circulating the net, of rival monk temples battling in the streets.


I RON KNEE.

Yep you are absolutely right Bablyoi and I gave you some stars for it. The statues of the Buddha however are not statues of a God. Siddharta Buddha is venerated as a person who attained enlightenment and set an example for others, but not as a God.

The other thing to understand is that in some countries like Tibet, Buddhism was adopted by the local people and superimposed upon their own pantheon of pre-existing gods and demons. I agree there is a muddled picture.

No sigle aspect of Buddhism accurately reflects the whole nor the precise teachings of the Buddha himself. Like all religions, interpretation and reinterpretation corrupts the message.

There is no single definition of Buddhism and many adherents of Buddhism don't live up to the teachings, myself included, because I am simply flawed and human.

I am not precious about it though. I don't judge others by whether they live up to my standards and I grasp that I am flawed too.

In Buddhism there are ten states of consciousness called the "Ten Worlds" varying from the very base:
1) Hell
2) Hunger
3) Animality
4) Anger,
5) Humanity
6) Rapture...
...where most people exist, to:
7) Learning
8) Realisation
9) Bodhisattva (compasionate saintlike)
10) Buddhahood (enlightenment)

To make it even harder to understand a person can be in a state of anger one moment and Rapture the next and Realisation the next day. Our states vary, but as we work on understanding, we gradually migrate our souls through different levels of consciousness.

Buddhist accept that their reason for existing in this life at all is because they are not in the highest state of consciousness, but in one of the lower states. Buddhists do not beat themselves up because they are not perfect.

They instead focus on trying to improve and to understand. To grow as people and discard the lower states and attain the higher ones.

[edit on 12-6-2007 by sy.gunson]

Dae in reply to some of your comments above, Buddhism is not about blame.

You believe the rationale is we are 100% to blame.

A Buddhist would say we are 100% able to choose the outcome.

I presume you chose pregnancy, or if not, then perhaps you chose not to use contraception ?

I assume you wanted a child ?

No Buddhism does not say that the world is the way it is because that is how it's meant to be. That may be your interpretation, but I am not aware of any buddhist philosophy that misery and suffering are the way it's meant to be.

Buddhism talks about using your mind and your attitudes to free yourself from suffering.

As for astrology I like to follow the stars too. In Buddhism we believe that the soul can either choose rebirth in order to choose a sequence of life experiences in the next life, or otherwise karma will dictate it for the soul.

There is no inconsistency. That is just the illusion of your thinking.

If for example a soul were to have a certain set of experiences which the pattern of astrological circumstances favoured at 11:45am 13 June 2007, then that soul would choose to be born there and then.

I agree we need neither Governments nor religion to be happy. What we do need though is mastery of our own mind and attitudes.

[edit on 12-6-2007 by sy.gunson]

Is the buddhist in the example transending or accepting? I think he is accepting fully, which can sometimes be confused with transcending. He accepts the child. Seems if the example was to show that the illusion of the world does not matter, he would not have taken the child.

If Buddhism states that all existence is suffering and all suffering comes from desire, then why desire to end suffering at all?

Is the buddhist in the example transending or accepting?

Why couldn't it be both ?

In Buddhism there is a concept called mutual possession of the ten worlds. This means that at any given moment we have all the ten states of consciousness which I listed in a post above simultaneously.

Buddhists accept that we each have the capacity to experience or manifest all states of consciousness. Buddhists also accept that there is negative anger and positive (constructive) anger.

What some would say is the hipocracy of Buddhist's being angry is not seen in Buddhism as proof of the belief being flawed. Also if you don't accept this world is all that real, then you could take the Zen Buddhist extreme that nothing matters.

Someone said to me last week, thing they love about Buddhism is that it has no concept of sin. If we fail in Buddhism we don't beat ourselves up. We just resolve to improve and transcend our failings.

Of course in the real world some things do matter. Honesty, compassion and love matter. These are our higher instincts and are states of consciousness which lead us away from suffering.

If Buddhism states that all existence is suffering and all suffering comes from desire, then why desire to end suffering at all?

Because Buddhism really says that wisdom (enlightenment) will free you from suffering.

In the process of finding that wisdom one has to learn along the way detachment from the world.

Detachment is easy if you go and live in a cave, but real detachment would be living in the heart of New York, interacting with all of society and still being able to remain calm and detached.

Yeah I can see it that way, as being both transcending and accepting. I never really thought about it as a combination, but I guess it always is.

Originally posted by sy.gunson

If Buddhism states that all existence is suffering and all suffering comes from desire, then why desire to end suffering at all?

Because Buddhism really says that wisdom (enlightenment) will free you from suffering.

In the process of finding that wisdom one has to learn along the way detachment from the world.

Detachment is easy if you go and live in a cave, but real detachment would be living in the heart of New York, interacting with all of society and still being able to remain calm and detached.

But isn't this an inherent contradiction?

All life is suffering, all suffering is caused by desire, yet you desire freedom from suffering...

Isn't the desire for freedom from suffering a cause of suffering in and of itself, since it is after all a desire?

You have a good point Simon, but I think that desiring happiness would lead to happiness of a different sort. Two different methods surely would lead to two different feelings. Buddhism says to let go be at peace and accept (which takes us to the natural state of happiness), you seem to be talking about conciously desiring/pursuing happiness mentally. It gets a little grey but I think the intentions of Buddhism are more of letting go and go where you go naturally.

But really there is always some point with these religions that you have to see it from their perspective isn't there.. If your cup is full then it's not going to matter what they tell you. So Buddha I think said just try it and if it works for you great, if not that's ok too, but don't trust me unless you have proof for yourself.

I just am not so sure that happiness is the natural state for everyone. Maybe it was for Buddha and that's why he had it so good.

It's a good point, you probably already realized these points some but I wanted to add and keep the discussion going..