Buddhism, the religion that failed us or did we fail it?

About the question-
Buddhism, the religion that failed us or did we fail it?

Before we have attempt to dissect the discussion and study it, let us attempt to understand the question.

Buddhism-Buddhism is a religion and philosophy encompassing a variety of traditions, beliefs and practices, largely based on teachings attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, commonly known as the Buddha. (Wikipedia)

Religion-Religion is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or a set of beliefs concerning the origin and purpose of the universe.It is commonly regarded as consisting of a person’s relation to God, gods, or spirits. (Wikipedia)

Now, these are my personal views, my subjective views
1)I do not claim these as the universal view.
2)I do not intend to impose my view on anybody.
3)I only intend to throw light on some of the research I had carried, and to rationally accept or reject suggestions, critcism and inferences from this discussion. From those who try to dig deeper and not throw mud around.
4)I have tried to clear inconsistencies as far as possible however I invite anybody to point out the irregularities.

The essence of word religion has been defiled and contaminated with ideas of blind-worshipping beautifully and intricately carved stones and metal objects , absent-minded recitation of sacred words, and to be shepherded by religious heads suffering from intellectual impairment and carrying a briefcase of political agenda. The word itself has become a curse. [1]

Originally, in the true sense of the word, religion is simply something that shows you The Way. It never forces you. It allows you to be, to understand your essence, to celebrate your presence and to guide you towards fulfillment.

If there was one thing Buddha ever wanted , it was that people could spend time contemplating his teachings than idol worshipping him.
Even Buddha was contemplative about the possibility of his philosophy running down into the hands and minds by manipulative and hypocritic people. He knew, that rather than good, his message could do more harm. It could fall into the hands of these mediocre people, the fundamentalists, scholars, politicians and priests, who might make a doctrine out of it and stir the crowd in the directions of their own wordly gains.
If there was a way, he would have wished that he could have been the ugliest person in the world.
Ugliest beyond perception of the most skilled painted or sculptor. Well, the Rocket Men in Afghanistan; and the chalk-equipped 'X loves Y' couples in India have been trying their best; but believe me, he is still angry. To turn him into an expansive religious fetish, is to miss the essence of what he taught. Is to miss Buddhism.

Buddhism was not a religion, but now it has become one. There was no need to add an 'ism' to it, in the first place. We can no longer deny that there is a 'Buddhist religion' because everywhere we look, Buddhism is displayed as a religion. What most Buddhists in the world practice is the naive, ritualisitc, and redundant parts of Buddhism which I guess they invented themselves. The real treasure of Buddhism lies in the profound, immune and infallible wisdom which flowers the human intellect. The teachings of Buddha. The Four Noble Truths, The Eightfold Way, The Thirty Seven prequisites to Enlightenment. Buddha never set out to create a system of organizing society, Buddhism. What he taught was only a means of liberation.

About the arguement-
We can not even speak of Buddhism's failure or success because most of it's offshoots do not represent it's true philosophy.
I won't talk to you about the success or failure of the religious side of Buddhism.
Like other scholars and pseudo-intellectuals, we would go into a myriad of arguements and counter-arguements, going around in circles, throwing dirt and making Buddha sigh. Again missing the point.

Now when we talk with respect to Buddhism's ultimate goal, If Buddhism ends the suffering of one person, it was successful. On that account, Buddhism has failed miserably. Maybe only one in countless thousands reached enlightenment. Who even knows?

Buddhism , directly presented an ineffable yet an intricate and paradoxical framework of philosophy, that went beyond the bedtime storytelling, and definitely not something that makes you sleep (pun intended). While most of it is simple contemplative truth, any person too mired in the world of Maya may not understand it. And it loses it's practical value because most people do not have enough time, resources and energy to gather a clear vision of it. It may even be misunderstood, it has been. It may be even manipulated, it has been.

Another object for concern for people is it's emphasis on detachment from life. Taking cues directly from Buddha's life, the path to enlightenment was supposedly to leave behind everything, spouse and children, family and all material possessions. I suppose, none of us would like to beg around for food, shelter and clothing- the basic things for survival. Absistence from procreation, is the human life itself a curse? Isn't this anti-spirituality? Now it becomes important to ask oneself if a religion that makes you surrender important social, economic, physical aspects and also the spiritual aspects of a human life is actually the right path.

They say Buddhism, was a path, carved, for a selected extraordinarily abnormal few, those who had this courage to be schizopreniac and remain aloof of the immediate reality. For people devoid of courage and unable to stand-up to face life's challenges.

My understanding about it's current relevance-
Now, we must understand that Buddisht philosophy is nothing but like science.
Buddha outlined that-
1)Do not accept anything on (mere) hearsay -- (i.e., thinking that thus have we heard it for a long time).
2)Do not accept anything by mere tradition -- (i.e., thinking that it has thus been handed down through many generations).
3)Do not accept anything on account of mere rumors -- (i.e., by believing what others say without any investigation).
4)Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures.
5)Do not accept anything by mere suppositions.
6)Do not accept anything by mere inference.
7)Do not accept anything by merely considering the reasons.
8)Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions.
9)Do not accept anything merely because it seems acceptable -- (i.e., thinking that as the speaker seems to be a good person his words should be accepted).
10)Do not accept anything thinking that the ascetic is respected by us (therefore it is right to accept his word).
The Buddha even discounts blind faith in one's teacher.
Studying Buddhism is like a personal experiment. Only you can dig to the depth of things. For the fact is that any person can embrace the Buddha’s teaching, and even become a genuine Buddhist contemplative (and, one must presume, a buddha) without believing anything on insufficient evidence.
So in many respects, Buddhism is very much like science.

In Buddhism there is not, as in most other religions, an Almighty God to be obeyed and feared. The Buddha does not believe in a cosmic potentate, omniscient and omnipresent. In Buddhism there are no divine revelations or divine messengers. A Buddhist is, therefore, not subservient to any higher supernatural power which controls his destinies and which arbitrarily rewards and
punishes. In Buddhism, the enlightenment is there and it's there, right now. Since Buddhists do not believe in revelations of a divine being Buddhism does not claim the monopoly of truth and does not condemn any other religion. But Buddhism recognizes the infinite latent possibilities of man and teaches that man can gain deliverance from suffering by his own efforts independent of divine help or mediating priests.

Now talking of detachment , Buddha never insisted that becoming a saint in it's entirey is the requisite for his teachings. He abandoned because he was ready. Enlightenment is only for few who have the courage to face the greatest fears and dissolve the boundaries of duality. But any common man can always apply Buddha's teachings to even modern life , as much as one understands it- the essence of it. Primarily, everything human does , he does it acting on his desire and hatred. Both arise from fear. Our everday life revolves around chasing desires and acting on hatred. One desire leads to another, similarly hatred leads from one to other. And our life goes on experiencing varying both in time and magnitude, different levels of pain and pleasure, in different packets, coarse and subtle.

The Buddhist principle is of gradual withdrawal, of becoming a bit less ignorant and more aware of our active desires, of taking one step at a time. Not rushing , tripping over, falling and then blaming it as a "crazy" religion. Of cultivating a seed, and watching it over, of cultivating gradual de-attachment and awareness, tasting the life's happiness and sorrows a bit less often. And using the empty space of mind thus generated to contemplate on our inner self, our innate feelings. Reach to the roots of our hatred and desires, ask if attachment to them will truly give us an everlasting peace? In reflecting in this way, we can decide better on- what to do and not do. We can then cumulatively cut on life's excesses and inculcate a sense of appreciation for the things we have. We can start to enjoy life better and be thankful for all that we have. Ultimately if one can become less desirous , more contented; less hateful, more loving; less selfish and more kind; less judging and more compassionate; less ignorant and more aware then Buddhism is the cosmic religion.

conclusion
Ultimately, Buddhism as a religion in it's today's sense may decline, die , reincarnate and grow but it's philosophy will live on. As at any point of time, there will always be people who will take "a teaching which takes a view of life that is more than superficial, a teaching which looks into life and not merely at it, a teaching which furnishes men with a guide to conduct that is in accord with its in-look, a teaching which enables those who give it heed to face life with fortitude and death with serenity."

[1] - Here I do not attend to hurt the sentiments of any religious community, also one, of which I belong to.
The words here have been intentionally bolded because my point is that anyone practising anything without questioning it is not at all religious. My comments are not directed at those who are aware of what they are doing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh but be rest assured his greatest teachings are represented by those who have followed his words. His thoughts are no failure. They are only misleading at first. Acceptance of another teaching has its way of weaseling its way to "satisfy" the corruption through time. He is the creator of this "atheist" thought even if a person fails to realize this for themselves. If you are here for enlightenment you will ask me a question. The question you ask determines my response as well as the responses of others. But the work is never done as there is always another level of thought. Oh but I ask, Have you a good sense of Humor?:m:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I wish you could have tried to be not so quick to respond and read the whole damn thing.
I am 18, so my sense of humour might differ from the intellectual people out here.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

LOL Nope that just makes you a perfect target for all my riddles. Any persons true ideas is present within the summation of all their values. Go and come back when you think you can explain an answer

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

1.Christianity: 2.1 billion

2.Islam: 1.5 billion

3.Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion

4.Hinduism: 900 million

5.Chinese traditional religion: 394 million

6.Buddhism: 376 million

7.primal-indigenous: 300 million

8.African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million

So there are still quite a few people who believe in this religion as you can see. I don't think its in a decline at all and if you think so please show me where you get your statistics from.

 

Chaos1956, I love riddles but I am not sure if this is the place for them. But anyways, I will take an attempt tommorow, I gotta sleep and there's classes.
cosmictraveller, I wish you could read the whole post. Seriously one needs to. Seriously! Otherwise commenting just after looking at the title of the thread is futile. The question itself is a kind of a paradox.

 

I think it was intended as a religion in the first place, however, it isn't a supernatural one, or based on a deity. As you said, it's a method, almost scientific in it's application, for realizing one's true nature. In this task, I call it a success. I followed it for several years, but even in that brief time, it was profoundly rewarding.

There will always be people that don't have the time or inclination to follow it's precepts, and so what, let them build their pretty statues. It's a sign of respect for his teachings, and it points the way to to others who may have more of a hunger for what it's all about. I think that's true for religion in general. Only a small number transcend the dogma and are truly changed. The religions that are dominant in this world are the ones on the way out. Like the insects that first colonized the land and air, they didn't know that the seeds of the future lay in humble animals with a rudimentary backbone. Their limitations will become evident.

I think it's important to realize that Buddha didn't invent anything new, he was rediscovering something. Even if Buddhism as a religion disappears, it can be reborn (although it would be a shame to lose it, like current scientific knowledge).

 

Hi Bluecrux. Your post is very long and you obviously put a lot of work into it. I can't respond to all of it, so I'm going to select some ideas and repond to them.

I'm not sure that failure is the right way to look at it or that anyone has failed anyone.

It's a very diverse tradition. There are lots of different Buddhisms, all of them derived from the root planted by the historical Buddha, but all with different styles and emphases. In Theravada there's everything from highly Westernized 'insight meditation' groups here in America to highly traditional shaven-headed monks reciting the pratimoksha in Thailand and Burma. There's slightly anti-intellectual Zen and there's highly philosophical Tibetan scholasticism. There's popular Chinese and Japanese pure-land with its 'other-power' and its homage to Amitabha.

So if somebody feels that Buddhism has failed them, maybe all they need to do is shift over to a different form of Buddhist practice. It's a big tent.

That definition appears to be distorted by Christian-style assumptions and expectations. It doesn't really address Buddhism or Jainism, neither of which emphasize gods or their worship, but both of which have highly elaborate sotorologies, or paths to salvation.

I prefer to think of it that way.

I think that's probably true. His anatman (no-self) doctrine would seem to imply it. But even the earliest tradition includes lots of mythological material about the Buddha as a superman, about his miraculous powers, Jataka tales about his previous lives, stupas housing relics and serving as places of pilgrimage, and so on.

Honoring the Buddha's memory in ways that resemble worship seems to have begun very early. It's was probably inevitable, just part of human nature.

I'm inclined to agree that a great deal of popular Buddhism looks like that.

I think that while popular Buddhism gradually became more devotional, the monastic order has retained more of its earlier emphasis on spiritual training and discipline, while giving it all kinds of different stylistic and philosophical spins.

One of the good things about Buddhist modernism is the way that these things are being revitalized and reintroduced from monastic back into lay practice.

Is Buddhism all-or-nothing? Must the only alternatives be enlightenment or failure? Maybe from some ultimate perspective, yes. But isn't it possible to take baby-steps and reduce suffering? Many forms of Buddhism perceive the Buddhadharma as a gradual path, not dependent upon achieving sudden enlightenment in this lifetime.

Buddhism seems to have begun as an order of forest renunciates. That quickly crystalized into a more formal monastic order with the elaboration of the vinaya in the first couple of Buddhist centuries. Today's Pali canon and similar early texts seem to have been composed by and for the monks and describe the Buddhadharma from the monastic perspective.

But alongside that, some kind of lay Buddhism seems to have appeared fairly early. The Pali suttas talk about lay Buddhists donating land to the Buddhist order, even in the Buddha's lifetime. From the beginning, the monks were told to wander and teach and the monks have traditionally obtained their food from the laity on their morning round. And if you poke through the Pali suttas, there are actually many discourses that seem to have been directed to lay audiences of householders and talk about husbands and wives and normal life.

I suppose that people are going to say that about anyone who undertakes any kind of monastic-style spiritual discipline. It isn't just Buddhism where it happens, Christian monks encounter similar things.

I think that's a common idea in a great deal of Indian philosophy, the idea that the best way of knowing something is direct personal experience. When it comes to spiritual paths, it's kind of a pragmatic criterion, I guess. Does following the path, engaging in its prescribed practices, have any noticeable effects in a person's life?

Yes, right. I think that's a very good way of putting it.

Everything is constantly changing, I guess. There's nothing permanent that can be grasped onto like an anchor in a storm. Not even Buddhism. But perhaps it can teach us not to need that.

 

Can you provide some more information and evidence of this "true sense"? I see nothing in the etymology of the term that says anything about "showing you the way", (why did you capitalise 'The' and 'Way')?

I would be inclined to agree with Dennett who says that the most we can say of buddhism is that it keeps itself out of trouble.

"There are many people who quite innocently and sincerely believe that if they are earnest in attending to their own personal "spiritual" needs, this amounts to living a morally good life. I know many activists, both religious and secular, who agree with me: these people are deluding themselves. Auden's sardonic quip may shake our faith in the obviousness of the imperative to help others, but it certainly does nothing to suggest that just taking care of one's own "soul" is anything but selfish. Consider, for instance, those contemplative monks, primarily in Christian and Buddhist traditions, who, unlike hardworking nuns in schools and hospitals, devote most of their waking hours to the purification of their souls, and the rest to the maintenance of the contemplative lifestyle to which they have become accustomed. In what way, exactly, are they morally superior to people who devote their lives to improving their stamp collections or their golf swing? It seems to me that the best that can be said of them is that they manage to stay out of trouble" (Dennett Breaking the Spell p.306)

 

Kind of funny how the cliche of religion and violence loses ground when you step out of the middle east, huh?

 

if you find something funny in that, fair enough. Of course I don't know many people espousing that all things regarded as 'religion' are necessarily "violent" - although you seemingly go along with a claim that this is at least true of the main two or three religions.

I would say that 'violence' takes many forms and isn't necessarily always direct. I recall, for example, a picture of a starving Indian child, in front of him a healthy cow being led down the street like royalty. The cow, (aka walking beefburger), would have fed this child and his entire family for weeks yet the child was left to starve whilst the cow was treated as 'holy'. This is loosely an act of 'violence' - something which specifically leads to harm of an individual human being.

Other than that I see little reason to disagree. I know of no people who assert that Scientology, for example, is a "violent religion".

Do you think this is some claim that is often made? I would say that typically people won't say something like "religion causes violence" as much as they might say "religion is detrimental to the wellbeing of.." or something along those lines. But what, if I might ask, would be the overall point here? "Ah! See, buddhism isn't violent therefore we should be buddhist"? What exactly is the noteworthy point?

 

It was more in line with Dennet's quip that the (mostly) eastern theists "stay out of trouble" (which is completely inaccurate any way since the notion that Buddhism entails some sort of parallel to a Trappist monk is certainly not the popular version of it)... which seems to suggest that the rest of them aren't.

IOW he is indirectly working out of a well worn cliche which even you admit is limited

Malnutrition is (in a majority of cases) a consequence of bad water quality (which brings a host of digestive ailments) ... which is something the poorer people of third world countries bear the brunt of, being on the ass end of industrial society (and which I would agree, has at its crux a sort of indirect "violent " aspect) ... and as a further point, utilizing the cow (to produce milk and plough fields ) is celebrated as the means to prevent human society from plunging off the rails into industrialism .
So in short, killing the cow would more than likely not solve the hunger problems of the child although perhaps it might solve the aspirations of a short sighted industrialist.

what do you suppose is the "trouble" Dennet is alluding to?

 

I disagree, but then I've read the book.

He spends some time - just incase you've not read it but instead think you can accurately sum it up based upon the short excerpt I provided, pointing out the harms, (not necessarily violent in nature), that are produced by religion by and large. He then goes on in depth to reflect that buddhism, (undoubtedly not every facet), can somewhat be dismissed in that by and large buddhists tend to 'stay out of trouble' while not really serving humanity as these other religions tend to do. I am unsure of the last time we really heard of monks going out to poor nations to dig wells and so on or gave tithes etc.

Undoubtedly but it does not detract from the point.

I disagree, killing and chopping up that cow into nice round patties and then feeding it to that starving child would have made a lot of difference as far as nutrition goes.

Points tend not to end with question marks, so once again I am going to ask what the overriding point is here. To answer your question, (as I am always happy and willing to do unlike some others), the 'trouble' takes many forms - much of which is listed in the 300+ pages that came before that excerpt. Would you like me to type the book for you? (If you like, I can send you a copy).

Regards,

 

I'm not sure what makes him think that buddhists have nothing to do with human society, but at a guess, I would probably say its due to an academics view

If you have got dysentery it won't help you ... in fact it will probably make you worse

I just asked exactly what is the "trouble" the buddhists are avoiding

 

That's not exactly what he's saying - only a full reading of the book will really help convey what is being said.

However, as we're stuck on this forum, let's discuss this matter - let's look at how buddhism serves humanity in a similar manner to how many other popular religions might very well do. Sure, my knowledge of buddhism is certainly limited. That's why I would encourage discussion on the matter.

It would seem - and perhaps it's superficial - that buddhism does not act or present itself in the manner that certainly the judeo-christian religions do. Whereas they seem to be very external in approach, buddhism seems to be primarily internal. Perhaps I am mistaken - I'd be glad to discuss it.

Well sure, if you're allergic to beef it would also probably make you worse. I fail to discern the point here and indeed really cannot understand your apparent aversion to killing a cow should it possibly help a starving individual.

For what it's worth - let's just say there is a starving individual who would benefit from the slaughter of a cow. Would you slaughter the cow? Would this apply in the hindu religion or would the child be left to suffer because the 'cow' is seen as holy? In such scenario, would it not be abuse?

The 'trouble' that other religions often find themselves in whether particular adherents would want to recognise or not. I suppose we should ask: Can we think of somewhat ongoing religiously based actions from christians, muslims, buddhists, scientologists etc that could possibly reflect negatively upon the whole? In the former cases, I think it can be agreed upon that the answer is a definite yes. In the latter I'm not so sure but as stated, I am happy to consider and discuss the issue.

Regards,

 

"I think it's important to realize that Buddha didn't invent anything new, he was rediscovering something."
Very profound thought, spidergoat.

Yazata, thanks for sharing information on Buddhism history.
"I'm not sure that failure is the right way to look at it or that anyone has failed anyone."
I have elaborated on this point in my post.
"Is Buddhism all-or-nothing? Must the only alternatives be enlightenment or failure? Maybe from some ultimate perspective, yes. But isn't it possible to take baby-steps and reduce suffering? Many forms of Buddhism perceive the Buddhadharma as a gradual path, not dependent upon achieving sudden enlightenment in this lifetime."
I have also elaborated on this point in my post.

Gentlemen, kindly read the whole post.

Snakelord,
"Can you provide some more information and evidence of this "true sense"? I see nothing in the etymology of the term that says anything about "showing you the way", (why did you capitalise 'The' and 'Way')?"
In the beginning of the post, I told that these were my subjective views.
I do not think that by believing scholars, some texts and published material , written and thought of by fallible humans, we can get the sole truthful, objective definition of these terms. Because every person has his own needs, and needs a religion or a path that suits his own way so they define it on their own way. So it might be that my meaning of religion in it's 'true sense' does not appeal to you all, because I have my own requirements and so you have yours.
But in general, I believe that every religion should teach it's practicioners to become more aware of their actions and reactions. It should not force them to believe in it's teachings , ways and rituals.
And in here, The Way refers to the Taoist interpretation.
"The literal translation of Tao is “way” or “path.” It is associated with a life of simplicity, quietude and harmony, both in relation to the natural world, as well as in our interactions with social/political institutions. Being a man or woman “of the Tao” means being attuned to cycles of change; being consciously aware of our place within the web of Life; and acting in the world according to the principles of wu wei – naturalness, ease and spontaneity."

 

[qoute] In what way, exactly, are they morally superior to people who devote their lives to improving their stamp collections or their golf swing? It seems to me that the best that can be said of them is that they manage to stay out of trouble"[/I] (Dennett Breaking the Spell p.306)[/QUOTE]

Buddhism doesn't intend to make someone morally superior or something that will earn you a place in heaven.
It intends to make you aware. If all people want to do is spend their life swinging golf, having tea parties and working hard for money. Then fine. If they are happy and content , if they do not want change, fine. No problem.
We have to focus at individuals and not compare people.
Monks may have their own idea of living their life and so would any other common man.
If they both are content, at peace, why the hell do we have to keep jumping in and interfere?

 

Your picking and choosing what suits you. Which is fine as long as what suits you does not get confused with what suits someone else. And in that sense it is fairly mild (afaik), this does not mean it always is or will be. Still accountable to human behavior and all that entails...which we shouldnt need to get into.

At its heart is a supernatural concept and only if you decide to ignore that part then it may not be supernatural.

Well really everything is scientific because thats just a generic phrase. Body building can be very scientific or it can be very simple. Simple in that a 9 year old self taught body builder can go out on his own and build his muscles in an intuitive fashion but really is this scientific? I think so.

To add to that, first time you cut your hand and put the skin back over the cut, cover the cut with something to keep it clean then remove the bandage to find it healed without complications was luck, the second time you do it is science.

 

That is somewhat of a contradiction. Aware of what?

 

I'd think themselves, but I could be wrong. Self awarness is something that we all need to do before we can tell others we know what the truth is about ourselves.