I am starting this thread to explore the flaws of Buddhism, as I have noticed a lot of criticism and knocking it. One person said that even the Four Noble Truths are flawed, and that it goes forward from there. I am interested in knowing what you all feel the flaws are. Keep in mind that there are many different sects of Buddhism, but that they all rely on the basic precepts which are; The Four Noble Truths; 1. Life means suffering. Due to human nature not being perfect, nor the world we live in being perfect, we live with suffering. Given the circumstances, we inevitably will have to endure physical suffering. In our lives, we will experience pain, sickness, injury, tiredness, old age, and eventually death. There is also the mental suffering like sadness, fear, frustration, disappointment, and depression. While there are many degrees of suffering in our lives, there are often positive experiences in life. Joy, ease, comfort and happiness all exist, but there is not a life or journey without suffering. Our lives are in constant state of flux, and because of our imperfect nature and the imperfect nature of the world it creates impermanence. All things will pass, both the positive and the suffering during the time where the cycle begins again. 2. The origin of suffering is attachment. The underlying cause of suffering are our ties to the material, or transient world. Transient things do not only include the physical objects that surround us, but also ideas, and all things which we percieve (as oppose to that which is real). Often this is mistranslated as detachment, but it is most closely aligned with the word non-attachment. Suffering arises when we have desires, passion, ardor, pursue of wealth and prestige, striving for fame and popularity. This is more defined in a basic way of a craving or clinging to that which is impermanent. The loss of that which is transient is inevitable, thus suffering will surely follow when one is attached to the object of the attachement be it an idea, a perception, material or physical wealth. The idea of "self" is also an object of attachment because it is merely a delusion. There is no abiding "self", as it is just an imagined entity in a the greater chaos of the universe. 3. The cessation of suffering is attainable. You can begin to stop suffering buy accepting that craving and conceptual attachement are the causes of suffering itself. When we refuse the ignorance of attachement and craving, it becomes clear that we are free of that which ties us down. The third noble truth expresses the idea that suffering can be ended by attaining dispassion or non-attachement. The word Nirodha is used to describe that which extinguishes all forms of clinging and attachment. Suffering can be overcome through human activity, simply by removing these causes of suffering. That which we call Nirvana, is what ultimately results when we attain freedom from all worries, troubles, complexes, fabrications and ideas. Nirvana is often not comprehensible for those who have not attained it. And certainly it is a state that most people will not attain. 4. The path to the cessation of suffering. By following the Eightfold Path, which I will describe in the next paragraph, we begin the gradual movement towards self-improvement. It is the middle path between the two extremes of excessive self-indulgence or hedonism if you will, and excessive self-mortification or asceticism; Most people throughout their lives will wander the wheel of becoming, and are subject to karmic conditioning in their cycle of rebirth. It is important to understand that the path to the end of suffering can extend over many lifetimes, when there is no final object to be achieved. All the things that cause us suffering; craving, ignorance, delusions, and its effects will eventually disappear as you travel and make progress on the middle path to becoming. The Noble Eightfold Path is a ethical and mental guideline to end suffering. It is also referred to as Buddha's first discourse. These are; Right view is an understanding of the Four Noble Truths. Right aspiration, or intention, is having caring thoughts and intent for all living things. Right speech is to speak kindly, truthfully, and without bad language. Right action is to follow the Moral Precepts. Either Five or Ten depending on the school of Buddhism Right livelihood is work that will harm nothing living. Right endeavour, or effort, is to practise meditation and work at stopping bad thoughts. Right mindfulness is to give full and relaxed attention to what one is doing, and to do it to the best of one's ability. Right concentration leads to enlightenment Also know as the "middle way", it is the path that leads to the end of suffering. Most Buddhists have no belief in a God or Gods, and only some believe in reincarnation. Buddha was a great teacher, and not a God. I am interested in knowing what you feel all the flaws are, and how you view Buddhism as a Religion or Philosophy. Lately, it seems like most Buddhists I meet feel that Buddhism is more a Philosophy than a religion. It is a way to live, more than it is a decision what to believe.
As a sympathiser to the teachings of Buddha I cannot criticise it very much. I also try to examine religions rationally. For that reason I dismiss the monotheistic religions as nonsense. They are concerned with power and the exercise of power. What troubles me with Buddhism is the concept of reincarnation. I have tried to find rational explanations but find it very difficult. The concept I have arrived at is that when the body dies the spirit lives on. Thus when Shakespeare, Dante, Jesus, Buddha died their thoughts and spirit remained within the world. A newly born babe has a certain genetic make-up but is also formative. As the baby develops it can choose which thoughts to imbibe. By imbibing the thoughts of Shakespeare they become like Shakespeare. BY imbibing the thoughts of Jesus/Buddha they become like Jesus/Buddha. Then the spirits of our forefathers unite in one. Not sure if I have explained myself very well but I hjope it answers some queries..
the best thing 'Buddha' ever said---dont hafve actual quote on me right now, but words to the effect that a person mustn't rely on others words, etc etc but examine life themSELVES----if you know the quote, and hafve acess to it. plese put it in thread? but anyway. if ONLY people would leve old Buddha thereand realioze THA insight. but not many do instead they pine for some static sate where one feels no-pain, no anguish no lust no and on and on notice in your piece its gt 'not many pople will attain nirvana' well, that straghtaway is elitist is it not. it makes out most pople are cuaght in te wheel of karma....ie., it GUILTS people. it guilts you as to how you are as a natural being so does Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc etc. all these mystical doctrnes and monptheistic doctrines guilt the person. eithe not being good enuf for their 'God' nor 'perfect' enuf notice how all that dogmatic utterence above has a premise of 'perfection'...!! read it and see it. how it points out how 'all life is suffering' implying there is a pefection, and by effect whatr it decxribes is NOT perect do you see the 'subtle' dualistic premise? the 'good little buddhist' will conform, no, an become a stone-buddha. sitting hors andhourstrying to attain perfection.....think on that. you trust those words. your master,guru who says:'i hafe got it. yp aint' how do you know --usually H E !--is telling the truth? how?? yet you are prepared to gamble your life away trying to get some gold at the end of te rainbow. and not even RHIS lifetime. but are warned 'it' may take LIFEtimes! this ploy is wy te love the doctrine of 'rencarnation'. because ten they can argue--ie., the 'enlightened one', that he isbeyter than you cause he has attained perfection throug x amont of lifetimes. and you still beieve him?? the other night tere was a good docu. on our community channel about Tenzin Palmo. She is a WOMAN buddhist. and has spent years in the cave in Tibet meditating and meditqtig etc. altho i dont agree with her beliefs i must say i loved her character she emphasized agin and agin thrughout the hourlong prog. about just how Tibtan Buddhis is 'misogynist! how their belief says that for a woman to become a 'buddha' she must first be born a man and we saw all these self important male Buddhist all togther talking, and the wo,women all serving tthem, , so please see thru tis belief system. it is ,i am saying, patriarchal. it is really against Nature, the Feminine, emotions, and embraces acesticism and the pining andrathe childish desire to escape mama Earth and Nature. to some stell-static state of 'pure being' 'pure' vs 'impure'-----------=conflict
I don't have much of an issue with one. Water is wet after all, and we've all suffered at some point. To say that there is no life without suffering is fairly obvious and is used in some of the arguments against heaven and hell. I think two is correct in that suffering comes from an immoderate attachment to the material, but I believe it comes from other sources as well. Truth two does not account for base personality differences that can lead to two people into conflict. Of course they may walk away unless they are not forced to by material needs such as a family. Moment of clarification here, I believe that there is something more general than an attachment to objects. I believe two things, necessity, and desire lead to suffering. As far as three, I feel we're getting even further from the truth. A cessation of suffering is certainly a noble cause and a worthy goal, but I don't think it can ever be truly attained. Don't get me wrong, just because one won't get there doesn't mean the journey's not worth it, but I have my doubts on this one. Number four is silly and may be summed up in a succint two words, "live moderately". That's all you need to know. I agree with the sentiments, and I'm sure Buddha meant for them to all be parts in the whole, but I see no point in breaking it into an arbitrary 8 "folds". I have heard no justification for why "live moderately" should be thus divided.
THE ONLY flaw i know... is that I have never heard of a buddhist charity. yet... Sappurisa-dana The charity done by the virtuous is called Sappurisa-dana. There are five kinds of Sappurisa-dana, namely:- 1. Saddhadana, 2. Sakkaccadana, 3. Kaladana, 4. Anuggahitadana, and 5. Anupahaccadana. (1) Saddhadana The charity based on the belief in kamma and its results is called Saddhadana. The person who dispenses this kind of charity will possess great wealth and very beautiful complexion in whatever existence his charity ripes to produce benefits. (2) Sakkaccadana Sakkaccadana means donating the well-prepared offerings to the donee with much respect and reverence. In whatever existence his charity ripes to produce benefits. The person who dispenses that kind of charity will be wealthy and his children, wife, slaves and employees are obedient to him. If one donates the offerings contemptuously, he has no influence on his children, wife and slaves, in spite of being wealthy in his future existences. (3) Kaladana The charity dispensed at an appropriate time is called Kaladana. In whatever existence his charity to produce benefits, the person who dispenses that kind of charity will be very wealthy. He can get everything which he desires whenever necessary. A person who does not dispense charity at an appropriate time cannot gain which he desires when he needs, although he is wealthy. (4) Anuggahitadana The charity dispensed with the mind not attached to the offering is called Anuggahitadana. In whatever existence his charity ripes to produce benefits the person who dispenses that kind of charity is very wealthy. His mind is inclined to the enjoyment of worldly pleasures. If a person dispenses charity with no intention to honour the donee, he does not want to enjoy his valuable properties. (5) Anupahaccadana The charity that does not harm the donor himself nor anyone else is called Anupahaccadana. In whatever existence his charity ripes to produce benefits, the person who dispenses that kind of charity will be wealthy and will possess valuable property. His wealth and possessions can be uneffected by five kinds of danger. namely; floods, conflagration, tyrants, thieves and unbeloved heirs. If a person dispenses charity with detrimental to himself or to others, his properties will be destroyed by the five kinds of danger although he is wealthy. so while in a buddhist country these things maybe practiced... here in LA.. they have adopted the do nothing ways of churches and synagouge and mosques... there is one large temple in downtown LA... and it is fenced off, and when i asked them about charity?? they looked at me like i was insane? asking them.. what charity they do?? they dont do any... not for the 1000's of non-buddhist living around their temple in the streets.... they might help a buddist although... which is just like the other hypocritical religious groups... now... i could be wrong... but i have found nothing to suggest that i am... please... if you can.. show me that i am wrong.. i would be grateful. -MT
as far as the buddhist clergy is concerned, it is what you can do for them and not the other way around. feed em, pay for their junkets...etc /spit
I have not seen this lack of charity, nor the greed of Buddhist masters as you have. The monks in the temple where I attend services every morning spend their day running a soup kitchen for the homeless, and schooling children from the local orphanage in their trouble areas. The leader of both the morning services and the Saturday sitting is a woman who is very highly regarded in the temple. She used to be a hardcore biker with drug problems and other issues but when she found Buddhism, she found inner peace. The clergy in our group do not expect us to pay their way, and no one has to pay anything. They put in their time with hardwork, cooking, cleaning and helping others for their place. They don't sit around all day meditating, as Buddhism itself is about balance, which includes a healthy respect of hard work and relaxation in all things. They all attend morning services which includes a two-mile run, excercise and then breathing and meditation work along with a speaking by one or many of the masters. I have never encountered greed, and have only been met with open arms and charity despite the fact that I am a pale white skinned female. I see no misogynistic behaviour, nor have I noticed other temples I have been to and other women I've talked to feeling like Buddhism is patriarchical. There are sects of Buddhism that are male leaning. In my temple, we do not worship Buddha, but we do talk about his teachings. There is only one statue of Buddha, but it's near the back of the main room and doesn't have incense or candles around it as if it was being worshipped. I agree that some sects are a bit cultish and ritualistic, but this is not what Buddha intended when he gave us his wisdom. It is a human flaw that arranges such things, ego, greed and vanity that drives them further away from attaining the true middle path.
This actually is meant, to de-emphasize the importance of Buddha. Buddha, simply means teacher and nothing more. Buddha was not a God or Gods, he was just as any other man, and your should ignore his importance of his existence in favour of studying the precepts he handed down. He was not above others, simply a man who had things to teach. He never wanted to be worshiped, hence the term, "If you see the Buddha in the road, kill him.". It's meant as to do it in your mind, so that the importance of Buddha is not a obstacle in your own path to enlightenment.
RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRR!!!!!! *smacks mythbuster in the face and neck repeatedly with my palms* thats what it means. *shrug* actually....that is a suitable response to a question like that.....buddhist gong-ans are frequently meant to mean exactly what you think they mean.
Kotoko, im using evolution here to find the answer to your paradox. Cause i know that Buddhism and Evolution match together. What about: Thanks pikachu.
I was hooked after reading the Diamond Sutra. No, I don't consider myself a Buddhist. That's a label. Such a thing only exists in the imagination. The sutras provide some valuable insight as does meditation. But after reading UG Krishnamurti, I wonder how much the Buddha's words were distorted and/or misinterpreted over the years. For example the story of Maya before his enlightenment, or standing up after birth and declaring he was Buddha. Pleaaaaaaaaase. Not a single thing was written down for hundreds of years, we can't rely on the telephone game. It seems almost as if it wasn't intended to be a religion, but became one in the Hindu sense as a way of bringing order and control over society?
Actually, I live in the U.S. in Chicago. I would give you the name of the temple I attend, but that's a bit too personal for my taste and there are a lot of weirdoes around here, no offense. I wouldn't consider the United States a Buddhist country... in fact, right now it's a "scared-child, right-wing nutjob" kind of country. Mythbuster, All of what you have written fits in with Buddhist principles. Buddhism does not reject science as most religions do, and most Buddhists live a life of non-violence or non-killing as a understanding that all things evolve, and we should not interfere with their own evolution. We are not superior or inferior to others on this planet both human and animal. Xerxes, I agree with you completely about the translations. It is not any different than other religions who have been translated down through the centuries and have been skewed off-track. I don't think that Buddha was attempting to create a religion, he was only writing down what he found to help us on our own path to enlightenment. Just as the masters and teachers of today and throughout some of history have done. The Hindu's put a lot of importance in Buddha and exhalted him. His writings are important to a Buddhist, but it is only the door to the journey of your life, not the road map. You still have to find your own way with some of the tools you are given.
Not true. I find that most sects of Buddhism here in the U.S. to be fakey, and hippie-ish. More trend than real philosophy. But I also find that in Japan and China, the levels of both Buddha worship and Ancestor worship to be not in line with the Buddhist precepts. There does not seem to be better ways to practice Buddhism, as it is up to the individual the path he/she takes... but there seems to be some things that are not in line with traditional Buddhism. Not right or wrong mind you, just not neccesarily the middle path. But humans are fallible, and I fall off the truck all the time. I find myself not being kind and compassionate and sometimes have to step away from situations so that I can better understand what is going on. I think that memories from our ancestors, Buddha included, are important to our future, but I don't think that we should worship anyone including ourselves. That leads to attachment to worldly objects and is not healthy. I urge anyone who is interested in relieving stress to at least learn to breathe. After that, trying mindfullness meditation could be beneficial to both your mind and your body. It does not apply the Buddhist principles, but logical principles to help you cope with the everyday stress of life. To help you learn to enjoy your surroundings and see the world a little bit differently. Buddhism is not for everyone, and I don't encourage people to follow the path. It is not an easy path to follow. But Buddhism in it's truest form, only according to what was written by Buddha and other great teachers and excluding worship and attachment, is for me... the best and most productive way to live.
I think the flaws are not in buddhism, but in people wanting to reach it (Buddha taught the way to achieving buddhism, not buddhism itself). As it is said: "if you are not as eager to reach nirvanic bliss as a man who's hair is on fire for a pond in which to dive, don't start, it's too tough." It's not for everyone, and that could be from where people who say it's flawed come.
I don't follow a tradition really. The temple I attend is a Zen Lotus Society based Buddhist temple. It's traditions were from the Mahayana teachings, but have transitioned from the monotheistic portion of that tradition. I think that it's up to the individual to apply the precepts to his/her life as he/she feels fit to. I think that in questioning and reasoning in our own mind, we can better understand the world and our place in it better than any master or book could tell us. We believe that everyday life IS the Way, that one's passions are enlightenment, that Samsara IS Nirvana, that all people are one whole, and that every person is a buddha.
