I have stumbled upon a very well written criticism of Buddhism that I can highly recommend. Of course, I had to add my comments – this is what I posted in response to Vexen’s analysis:
Thank you so much for posting your criticism of Buddhism, Vexen. As I mentioned in another comment, it is so desperately needed here in the West because everybody – from Sam Harris to Richard Dawkins – seems to think that Buddhism is harmless, peaceful, and consistent with science.
I would like to add a few comments, though.
At least in Japan, the social programs you laud were developed as a competition to Christian programs to enable missionary success, i.e., get people to convert to Buddhism rather than Christianity (see Brian Victoria “Zen at War”, p.17)
3. Western Buddhism
I think there is a Sangha at least here in the US. But it is different and rather commercialized. People meditate together and listen to Dharma talks and paying for that with “dana” – donations that enable some teachers to afford luxury cars. I do agree with you that the Buddhism that is known in the West is a rather sterilized version that conveniently ignores any of the questionable beliefs or historical abuses.
5. Nirvana and Self (any reason for having 5 before 4 
)
It is interesting that a lot of the Buddhist apologists seem to miss the ultimate goal of Buddhism: to reach enlightenment or nirvana. Anybody who says that is criticized: Buddhists don’t have goals, you’re misunderstanding things, well, just look through the comments here… But if you read Buddhist text (I have only read them in English), it is clear, though, that this is what the goal is. And that’s why we’re reborn here on Earth because it’s the perfect middle ground. Of course, then your question comes up: why do so few of us reach that state? (changing your question slightly, hopefully, though maintaining the idea).
4. World Buddhist Morality
I am afraid that record is so clean because we Westerners are largely (kept) ignorant of the bloody parts. Read Brian Victoria’s “Zen at War” and your statement will, unfortunately, be shown to be false. Maybe there is less blood but Buddhism is not the peaceful religion that we’ve been led to believe. (Okay, so maybe I’d just reword the last sentence of your first paragraph: “Compared with other powerful religions, Buddhism appears to be saintly.” – rather than “is”).
6. Inhumane Dismissal of Suffering
I think this is really the most central element of Buddhist teaching: suffering. I would add to your arguments that “suffering” in Buddhism is defined solely as an individual problem and thus the solution can only be found at that level. Buddhism ignores completely any systemic creation of suffering, which makes the Four Noble Truths incomplete at best, false at worse. I will shamelessly advertise my own Website now, by asking you to look there for more details on that argument. Btw, the Zen priest Ichikawa Hakugen would agree with your assessment here, at least according to Brian Victoria’s summary of Hakugen’s argument (Victoria is a Soto Zen priest): “The doctrine of karma, with its corollary belief in good and bad karmic retribution, tends to serve as a kind of moral justification for social inequality.” Keep that quote handy the next time someone accuses you of ignorance – a Zen priest ignorant of Buddhism?!?
7. Buddhist Psychology is too idealistic
Wow! That is a point I hadn’t thought about yet.
8. Conclusion
Because of my comment to #4, I don’t agree with your assessment of Buddhism as “a wonderful religion socially, participating as a principle player in all forms of global peace & stability movements.” I think because of #6 and #7, it is inherently dangerous, just like any other religion. I completely agree with your second paragraph, though.
I would add that at least one of the tools developed in Buddhism might have some usefulness for some people: mindfulness meditation. It has been shown to reduce stress, help with pain management, lower blood pressure, and prevent the recurrence of depressive episodes (see the work around Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction and Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy). As you pointed out in #7, this tool is certainly no panacea and it might not be useful for everyone.
Share this post with others:
hey, so I came across your blog while looking over Ron’s blogroll, and I was wondering, did you take any Buddhism in university? I ask because I’m in Religion studies now, and taking buddhism, and also because I’m currently doing a paper on buddhism in the west, so I was wondering if you know of anything textual you’ve read anywhere that actually talks about western/white buddhists and WHY they felt/feel a draw towards buddhism as opposed to the more “traditional” western religions. Seriously, I haven’t been able to find ANY source that actually talks about this. I’m amazed that I can’t find information on white people.
I took a Buddhism class at a community college, which was taught by a teacher trained in the Rinzai Zen tradition. Unfortunately, we didn’t talk about any reasons for the attraction of Buddhism in the West. And that was the only university-related exposure I’ve had to Buddhism.
You might look at some of the writing from Sam Harris – he even has a lengthy footnote in “The End of Faith” about Buddhism if I recall correctly. His attraction to Buddhism prompted Meera Nanda’s response that he’s basically trading faith for spirituality.
There seems to be something attractive about a religion that doesn’t have a God but I don’t recall seeing/reading anything that looked into that in detail.
Btw, have you done a search on this topic? There seem to be quite a few hits when I do a Google search… Granted, these aren’t academic articles but they might lead to something…
Pingback: The Pope and the Dalai Lama–plus more criticism of Buddhist development and history. « Skepoet: Art, Culture, Reason, and Skepticism
Hello Rachel,
I think we could all do with a presentation from you, Rachel, on the actual meaning of the 4 noble truths, because, I feel that you have missed the point entirely. What follows are some of your quotes, which , I think need some correcting.
“Basically, life is suffering. And we create our suffering by thirsting or craving for what we cannot have. But are these really all the causes of suffering? Do we really create all of our suffering? I would argue that there is more to suffering than what we cause with our craving. Fighting with reality surely adds to our suffering – if I do not accept that I am sick, for example, and moan the whole time that I shouldn’t be sick, I will suffer more. ”
This is a good point. The mental suffering, caused by non-acceptance of the situation is, indeed a factor. This is not the foremost cause of our suffering though.
“But the original illness is suffering as well – as the Buddha taught –and it is caused by some sort of germ or an autoimmune attack of the body. So, even in the simple case of, say, a cold, there are two elements of suffering: the actual cold, which is caused by a virus, and possibly my mental fight with reality. ”
In a Buddhist context, I think you are missing the point here. The second noble truth says that the cause of suffering is self-grasping ignorance. Craving arises in dependence of this. The cold itself, on the other hand, although is a contributory factor in suffering, is not suffering, nor is it the main cause of suffering. The reaction of our mind to it, though attachment to our body, is.
I think you may be conflating the notion of pain with suffering. If we are ill, we can be in pain, but still keep a happy mind. We can see examples of this everywhere. There are people who experience the same physical condition. Both are in pain, yet one of them suffers tremendously and continuously complains, while the other one seems to be lighter about it. The more self-grasping the person has, the more he or she will suffer. That is why, across the different traditions, the meditations serve to lessen self-grasping.
“…and possibly my mental fight with reality. ”
Definately our mental fight with reality!
“There are thus two causes: only one is caused by craving (”I wish I were healthy”), the other is caused by something unknown at the time of the Buddha. Yet, his Second Noble Truth is not questions, not amended.”
The scientific knowledge of the nature of viruses and bacteria, at the time of the Buddha is irrelevant. A cold is a contributory factor of someone’s suffering. The cold is not the main cause of suffering.
“Going beyond the simple, to the societal causes of suffering, the insidiousness of this teaching becomes clear. Despite what the Buddha taught, there is much that can be avoided about physical and mental suffering by changing things outside of ourselves. ”
I have not come across one Buddhist tradition that tells someone to ignore the external situation, when either ones self or others are suffering. Of course we can change external things to help. What you are saying here is a strawman. However, the point is, is it is not always possible to change the external conditions, in order to alleviate suffering. We know this. The Buddha taught methods, such as developing the mind of patience, which greatly reduces suffering. A good example is the Tibetan Buddhist practice of Tonglen (taking and giving), which can be used to transform unavoidable suffering into the spiritual path, by developing patient acceptance and compassion. The practices are means to be engaged in gradually, in everyday life. Eventually, the things that cause us mental suffering have less and less of an effect. What is then developed, as self-grasping is reduced, is a mind that wants to help everyone, views everyone else as equally important as ones self, changing the external conditions if necessary – of course, but does not suffer.
“The story of a water pump spreading cholera might be a good example here. Cholera certainly creates suffering but the causes of this suffering are manifold: there is the cholera bacterium, there is the pump handle that is teaming with the bacterium, (going beyond the story) there is the city that is refusing to belief that the pump handle is the problem, and there is the merchant who charges more for a pump handle than the villagers can afford.”
These are all contributory causes of the Cholera outbreak. Buddhist teachings do not dismiss cause and effect of phenomena. Quite the opposite. Again, by looking deeply at the mind, it can be seen that the main cause of our suffering is self-grasping. I will say again: No Buddhist teaching has ever denied the value of physically changing the external conditions, contributing to someone’s suffering. But, in training in buddhist meditation practices, one can reduce our main, foremost cause of suffering.
“True, some suffering might be caused because people afflicted with cholera are craving to be healthy again (who wouldn’t!). The many other factors that actually preceded the illness are never address by the Buddha. His teaching ignores any interplay between the personal and the larger society. He essentially teaches us that suffering is our fault and we can overcome it simply by changing our minds. ”
The teachings of the buddha were aimed at realising the nature of ones own mind, namely wisdom and compassion, through mindfulness. Everyone has these qualities. At no point has it ever been remotely suggested to ignore external conditions. When we develop minds of wisdom and compassion for others, we simultaneously develop the abilities to help people directly, where possible, rather than being indifferent to them. I don’t know where you got this argument from, but it’s a strawman.
“This leads to a closed mind toward other potential causes.”
Again, this is plain wrong.
“It is clear that the Buddha’s teachings, just like Jesus’ teaching, are a product of the time he was supposed to have lived. But even then, without knowledge of germs, …”
Again, the lack of scientific knowledge of germs at the time of the Buddha is irrelevant.
“…his teachings discouraged questioning the status quo by essentially blaming the victim. ”
‘Drive all blames into one’, as said by some Buddhist masters. Instead of constantly blaming others, and suffering over the slightest thing, which, is what most of us do, if we check, Buddha taught ways to transform suffering in to the spiritual path, by developing minds of patience and compassion and wisdom.
What needs to be addressed here, is that, none of the teachings taught anyone to dish out blame onto the victim. What you say about ‘blaming the victim’ also sounds like a guilt-trip from the side of the victim, who is suffering. This is not what is intended. What is not intended is for the victim to lie there and say ‘Oooooohhhhh, poooor me. I’m to blame…. AAww…. moan, cry.. woe is me’. What is meant is fo the person who suffers to train his or her mind, in order to be more pro-active, and not suffer. It sounds like you have a bit of a mis-conception of what Buddhist teachings are.
“…I do think that pointing to our own contribution to suffering – how we make it worse by fighting reality – is important. ”
Agreed.
“However, for something to be called a “truth,” it needs to include all the answers. The second noble truth does not list all the causes of suffering,…”
The second noble-truth explains the main cause of our suffering (manifest suffering and pervasive suffering), which is self-grasping, arising from a contaminated mind.
Self-grasping… Once it is decreased, our life becomes better, we suffer less, and we are still free to change whatever external conditions necessary to help both ourselves and others.
“…hence a Buddhist is required to suspend critical thinking if she wants to accept it as a truth. It requires belief.”
No. This was never taught. Realisations of truth come from faith, generated through experience.
Paul: It would be nice if you would indicate where you took the quotes from. They are certainly not on the post that you have commented on. I believe they’re coming from the post on the Causes of Suffering.
And since you’re “correcting” me how about telling us a little bit why you think you have that authority.
Hi Rachel,
“It would be nice if you would indicate where you took the quotes from. They are certainly not on the post that you have commented on. I believe they’re coming from the post on the Causes of Suffering.”
Ok, maybe I should really have posted my comments on the ‘Causes of suffering’ section. However, my comments do address what you said in part 6, ‘Inhumane dismissal of suffering’, which containes a link within it, to the ‘Causes of suffering’.
“And since you’re “correcting” me how about telling us a little bit why you think you have that authority.”
It’s not a question of authority, it’s about forming cogent arguments, which, it appears that you have not done. Your comments appear to demonstrate a superficial understanding of Buddhist teachings, and your arguments are strawmen.
Id also like to comment on the following flawed argument:
“4. World Buddhist Morality
I am afraid that record is so clean because we Westerners are largely (kept) ignorant of the bloody parts. Read Brian Victoria’s “Zen at War” and your statement will, unfortunately, be shown to be false. Maybe there is less blood but Buddhism is not the peaceful religion that we’ve been led to believe. (Okay, so maybe I’d just reword the last sentence of your first paragraph: “Compared with other powerful religions, Buddhism appears to be saintly.” – rather than “is”).”
When people, complete with the mental baggage of inflated ego, get hold of spiritual teachigs, a well known phenomenon that can arise, explained by Chogyam Trungpa is ‘spiritual materialism’. The fact that Buddhists scholars, practitioners and teachers throughout history have fought wars is not a valid basis from which to judge Buddhist teachings themselves.
If you can find examples in the original Pali scriptures that condone war and bloodshed, then I will start taking you seriously.
“The fact that Buddhists scholars, practitioners and teachers throughout history have fought wars is not a valid basis from which to judge Buddhist teachings themselves.” Why not? We seem to have no problem doing that with Christianity…
As for the rest of your arguments, I will let the readers of this blog come to their own conclusions. They can read what I wrote and what you wrote and if they want to do their own research. My intend is not convince die-hard Buddhists but to cast doubt on the claim that Buddhism is not a religion, totally peaceful, or whatever other New Age claim is being made way too often without critique. I don’t see anything in your comments that is changing my mind about that since it seems you’re basically saying “you just don’t understand Buddhism.” But other readers might come to another conclusion and I welcome their input.
“The fact that Buddhists scholars, practitioners and teachers throughout history have fought wars is not a valid basis from which to judge Buddhist teachings themselves.” Why not? We seem to have no problem doing that with Christianity…”
In stating the above, you are conflating people’s negative actions with Buddhist teachings. The two are NOT related. It is the nature of human beings to fight. This does, by no means provide a basis for judgement of Buddhist teachings themselves, which have never told anyone to fight wars.
I’ll ask you again then. In order to fully accept your claim that Buddhist teachings are somewhere abberated from a motivation of peace and love, then I would need citable evidence from you, pointing to the relevent scriptures. If not, then your argument remains faulty.
“As for the rest of your arguments, I will let the readers of this blog come to their own conclusions. They can read what I wrote and what you wrote and if they want to do their own research. My intend is not convince die-hard Buddhists but to cast doubt on the claim that Buddhism is not a religion, totally peaceful, or whatever other New Age claim is being made way too often without critique. I don’t see anything in your comments that is changing my mind about that since it seems you’re basically saying “you just don’t understand Buddhism.” But other readers might come to another conclusion and I welcome their input.
Care to address my counters to your arguments above then?
Paul wrote: “Care to address my counters to your arguments above then?”
My point is that your counters stand and my arguments stand and others can draw their own conclusions. At this point, I have no time to “debate” you.
I think the most telling piece of evidence here is that you’ve stated that you “took a Buddhism class at a community college.” I don’t intend for this to sound insulting, but I offer that a single class in Buddhism from a community college hardly gives you the background needed to wistfully dismiss an entire philosophy (I prefer to call it a philosophy because there are so many strings we attach to the term “religion,” but that’s not relevant to my argument).
As a writer, blogger, whoever, you have a responsibility, a large responsibility, to give your audience a sound, reasonable, and accurate argument, especially when you’re tackling such a large subject as religion or philosophy. I applaud Paul for spending his time to kindly point out some flaws in your arguments, and you should gladly accept them, as it helps your article greatly. I think what this all boils down to is you missing the point, not seeing exactly what the Buddha spoke of. And that’s one of the foundations of Buddhism: seeing.
Do you not see the benefit of realizing that you are the cause of your own suffering? Look at that for a minute. Five minutes. Ten minutes. Twenty minutes. Think about it until you feel that great sense of relief in knowing that *you* are the cause of your own suffering. When it hit me, the power of that message, I felt a great sense of relief. I have no one to blame, no one to scold, no one to direct anger towards. It is the way I live and act and react that feeds into my own suffering.
We all have our burdens. We all live in the same world. But there are people who suffer with their problems, and there are people who live with their problems. To paraphrase one of the Buddhas stories (which is worth reading, as I’m not getting the entire message out here): We all have 83 problems, and there’s nothing we can do to fix any of them, and if we fix one, a new one will pop up in its place. But there’s an 84th problem that we can fix. And the 84th problem is, “I don’t want any problems.”
It’s not ignorance, it’s not turning a blind eye, it’s seeing reality for what it is. It’s accepting reality for what it is. Even Christianity has the saying, “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; Courage to change the things I can; And wisdom to know the difference.”
I highly recommend you pick up a good book on Buddhism and really spend some time with it. Really try to see the message and see what’s being said. I’d recommend “Buddhism Plain and Simple” by Steve Hagen. It’s a great book that I think will really open your eyes about it.
Keep on writing, but remember, you have an important responsibility to your public. Make the most of it.
I see my responsibility as a writer to raise questions as best as I can and as I see them and to enable dialog. If someone takes what I write as “the truth” that’s their problem. I don’t intend to tell people what to think but I want to present other ways of looking at things; other ways of seeing things.
Many of the responses I’ve received to my critiques of Buddhism sound like attempts to convert me. They go something like “if you only knew Buddhism better, you’d like it.” I very much appreciate the comments because they add another take, which enables readers to get a variety of views. There is a lot in Buddhism that I like and as I have stated before, I agree that we tend to make our suffering worse by all the stuff we overlay. And it’s a good thing to avoid that overlay. As a skeptic, though, I was disturbed that Buddhism was seen as a harmless religion. I am not convinced of that, so I decided to poke some holes at it. This is my opinion, based on who I am. If you don’t agree with it that is perfectly alright. Just don’t try to convert me to Buddhism; don’t tell me that I should shut up because I don’t have a degree in Buddhism, have not studied it for eons etc.; and don’t tell me what books I should be reading so that I can see your side, no, not see your side, come to your side because that is the gist I get from most of these comments – and it is entirely possible that I am misunderstanding the intend.
And just for your information: I took a class on Buddhism at a community college taught by a Zen teacher (sorry, I don’t remember the lineage); I have been involved with a sitting group for years and read many books, including writing by Thich Nhat Hanh, Jack Kornfield, Jon Kabat-Zinn and others. I have also attended several day-long teaching retreats at Spirit Rock. But all of this does not really matter because the important thing is to look at what I am saying rather than dismissing my critique off-hand because I am not certified as a Buddhism critic…
Howdy..
“Many of the responses I’ve received to my critiques of Buddhism sound like attempts to convert me. They go something like “if you only knew Buddhism better, you’d like it.” ”
I haven’t seen any comments that appear to try to convert you. The point is that, your critique of Buddhism seems to convey an incomplete understanding of the material. For me personally, I’m not interested in converting anyone into following a particular path. However, I think it is quite important to know the subject more thoroughly before any attempt at a written critique is presented.
“I very much appreciate the comments because they add another take, which enables readers to get a variety of views. There is a lot in Buddhism that I like and as I have stated before, I agree that we tend to make our suffering worse by all the stuff we overlay. And it’s a good thing to avoid that overlay.”
I think anyone would agree with you there. Buddhism points out and reduces our faulty conceptions about ourselves and the phenomena around us.
“As a skeptic, though, I was disturbed that Buddhism was seen as a harmless religion. I am not convinced of that, so I decided to poke some holes at it. This is my opinion, based on who I am. ”
Again, your reasoning that leads to your conviction that Buddhism is not a harmless religion appears to have arisen from the fact that various factions have faught one another over the centuries, over doctrinal desputes. I’m not denying that this is an important factor to consider. But, what this isn’t is a reflection of the teachings themselves. The point is that, it isn’t Buddhism that has caused these negative actions, it’s the human tendency of attachment to views and egoism. Both of these well known phemomena are things to be abandoned, according to Buddhist texts. People who fight each other over their views are not practicing what the Buddha taught.
“If you don’t agree with it that is perfectly alright. Just don’t try to convert me to Buddhism; don’t tell me that I should shut up because I don’t have a degree in Buddhism, have not studied it for eons etc.; and don’t tell me what books I should be reading so that I can see your side, no, not see your side, come to your side because that is the gist I get from most of these comments – and it is entirely possible that I am misunderstanding the intend. ”
The comments from Jim:-
“Look at that for a minute. Five minutes. Ten minutes. Twenty minutes. Think about it until you feel that great sense of relief in knowing that *you* are the cause of your own suffering.”
and..
“I highly recommend you pick up a good book on Buddhism and really spend some time with it. Really try to see the message and see what’s being said. I’d recommend “Buddhism Plain and Simple” by Steve Hagen. It’s a great book that I think will really open your eyes about it.”
-Seem perfectly valid to me. It is important in this kid of dialogue to understand the subject fully, and to understand clearly the opposing views. It does seem like you may be missing the core meaning of Buddhist teaching, that there is endless suffering of future lives, and where this suffering is actually coming from. Our real problems come from our grasping at an inherently existing self, not our external conditions.
Although I have no interest in trying to make you a Dharma practitioner, there are limitations to being even a highly read scholar of Buddhism alone, as opposed to being both a scholar and a practitioner. The latter eventually attain deep experience with the teachings, and have a fuller understanding of how they relate to everyday human experience. With the exception of the myriad of views on emptiness (Shunyata Sk.) and the mechanics of karma, most of the other arguments concerning the source of suffering can be resolved quite easily.
“..the important thing is to look at what I am saying rather than dismissing my critique off-hand because I am not certified as a Buddhism critic…”
I’m not sure I can find where someones comments have suggested that they haven’t read what you have said. Whether or not you are a certified critic of Buddhism or not is not really relevant either. The point is that your critique (I’ve read it) appears to highlight a lack of depth of understanding about the subject matter.
Paul
“People who fight each other over their views are not practicing what the Buddha taught.” I agree with you on that, Paul! But that doesn’t change the reality that Buddhism was, for example, used by empirical Japan to justify many of their atrocities. Just like the sermon on the mountain doesn’t excuse the atrocities committed in the name of Christianity. I don’t think that a religion can be evaluated without the historical context. Actually, no thought system can – let’s include communism/Marxism! Marx writing has raised a lot of good points, imo, but the Soviet Union was certainly a horrible implementation of his ideas. Can you blame Marx for that? Of course not. However, we need to distinguish what he wrote from how it was implemented. The same applies here: The Buddha’s teaching have certainly a lot of good aspects to it but that doesn’t mean that Buddhism isn’t without its flaws…
“It does seem like you may be missing the core meaning of Buddhist teaching, that there is endless suffering of future lives, and where this suffering is actually coming from. Our real problems come from our grasping at an inherently existing self, not our external conditions.” That is precisely what I am casting doubt on in my write up on the Second Noble truth. I do not buy that all of our suffering is created by ourselves. By limiting the definition to that we are perpetuating the status quo; avoiding critiquing social customs that are creating suffering, for example. Note that I am not saying that all of our suffering is caused by external conditions. We are certainly making our suffering worse by fighting reality.
“The point is that your critique (I’ve read it) appears to highlight a lack of depth of understanding about the subject matter.”Sorry but I continue to maintain that you are simply dismissing my critique by claiming I don’t understand what I am talking about. All the recent comments had that flavor, which leads me to believe that you have either not read what I wrote or are not understanding it.
If the only way to understand Buddhism is to accept that all suffering is created by ourselves through grasping and attachment, I will never be able to “understand” Buddhism because that is precisely what I doubt. That means, too, that no one can critique the fundamental assumptions of Buddhism, which means that there is no room for doubt and also that the teachings are dogma.
““People who fight each other over their views are not practicing what the Buddha taught.”
I agree with you on that, Paul! But that doesn’t change the reality that Buddhism was, for example, used by empirical Japan to justify many of their atrocities. Just like the sermon on the mountain doesn’t excuse the atrocities committed in the name of Christianity. ”
In the contect of a critique of Buddhism itself, this point is moot. People have always twisted teachings and used them for their own agendas. This simply does not imply that there are flaws in the teachings themselves. What has Buddhist teaching itself got to do with this? The fact that Feudal Japan used Buddhism to attempt to justify their negative actions should justify a:
‘Criticism of the Japanese governments’ actions’,
or,
‘An analysis of spiritual materialism in Feudal Japan’,
not Buddhism.
This is an analogy of your reasoning: Someone is given a piece of equipment, complete with instructions that helps them to do their job properly, and makes them happy. Meanwhile, the person’s co-worker receives another machine, to do a similar job, but, the machine is slightly different, but has the same function. After a while, the first worker decides to beat his neighbour to death and destroy his machine. Where does the fault really lie? Is it in the machine? Is it in the instructions to operate it? Or is it the faulty mind of the individual? Would I be justified to now write a critique of the machine? Your reasoning is giving people the wrong idea.
In the context that people have *ABUSED* Buddhist teachings, how would one arrive at a conclusion that there are inherent flaws in buddhism itself? To include this in your critique of Buddhism itself, would require you to point out the flaws in Buddhist teaching that causes people to abuse it. It’s egotism that is the problem, not Buddhism.
When some people say that all religion causes wars, this is a product of superficial thinking. The core of Buddhism is transforming the mind into unconditional love for everyone, alongside the development of the wisdom of realising emptiness.
“- let’s include communism/Marxism! Marx writing has raised a lot of good points, imo, but the Soviet Union was certainly a horrible implementation of his ideas. Can you blame Marx for that? Of course not. However, we need to distinguish what he wrote from how it was implemented. The same applies here: The Buddha’s teaching have certainly a lot of good aspects to it but that doesn’t mean that Buddhism isn’t without its flaws… ”
In the context of the abuse of Buddhism, where are its inherent flaws?
“If the only way to understand Buddhism is to accept that all suffering is created by ourselves through grasping and attachment, I will never be able to “understand” Buddhism because that is precisely what I doubt.
That means, too, that no one can critique the fundamental assumptions of Buddhism, which means that there is no room for doubt and also that the teachings are dogma.”
Doubt is fine. Pseudo-skepticism is not. Ever heard of the ‘Kalama Sutra’?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalama_Sutta
Paul wrote: “In the context of the abuse of Buddhism, where are its inherent flaws?” See above. Any inherent flaw that I am pointing out, you dismiss because you claim I don’t know Buddhism well enough. Anything else, you dismiss because it’s not really Buddhism but people’s abuse of Buddhism. That means that no criticism is possible because no matter how I approach it, you have a way to dismiss it without looking at the substance.
Please explain the difference of doubt and pseudo-skepticism. The Kalama Sutra does not invite the kind of doubt I am presenting here since that is skeptical doubt, which is considered one of the five hindrances: “Skeptical Doubt: Vicikiccha (Pali). The kind of doubt that undermines faith; one of the five hindrances to meditation.” (Though the Wiki article does mention some Buddhists, which are not identified, that welcome doubt of the teachings.)
Ok. I think we may have differing definitions of what Buddhism is. Let’s start again with this point:
Paul wrote: “In the context of the ABUSE OF BUDDHISM, where are its inherent flaws?”
Rachel: “See above. ”
Ok. The relevent section above, concerning the abuse of Buddhism is part 4, ‘World Buddhist Morality’.
“4. World Buddhist Morality
I am afraid that record is so clean because we Westerners are largely (kept) ignorant of the bloody parts. Read Brian Victoria’s “Zen at War” and your statement will, unfortunately, be shown to be false. Maybe there is less blood but Buddhism is not the peaceful religion that we’ve been led to believe. (Okay, so maybe I’d just reword the last sentence of your first paragraph: “Compared with other powerful religions, Buddhism appears to be saintly.” – rather than “is”).”
I would highlight this part:
“Buddhism is not the peaceful religion that we’ve been led to believe.”
There are some points that I’d like to make:
1. When I say the name ‘Buddhism’, I am referring to the original teachings of the Buddha, that appear in the Pali scriptures. Many different Buddhist lineages then propagated throughout asia. The true Buddhist teachings throughout history will be unchanged, and of pure, unbroken lineage, originating back to Buddha Shakyamuni. This is what I mean by Buddhism. It is then correct to say that any DEVIATION, or any change from the original teachings can be said to be not of pure lineage.
2. The NEGATIVE ACTIONS (sorry, I can’t use italics!) engaged in by Buddhist practitioners and Buddhist organisations themselves throughout history, which cause harm to themselves and others, cannot arise in dependence upon the original Buddhist teachings. Therefore, any negativities commited by any party who claims to be Buddhist, is not Buddhism.
A critique that includes a criticism of NEGATIVE ACTIONS of Buddhist practitioners or organisations, therefore cannot be a critique of Buddhism itself, but a critique of the Busshist practitioner or Buddhist organisation.
3. Buddhist techniques, such as mindfulness meditation, or offerings can be used with a different motivation, other than personal liberation of ones self and all other living beings. For example, mindfulness meditation can be used to enhance fighting skills, as in the martial arts, or increase the efficiency of business processes, or to obtain wealth and good fortune. However, since the motivation is not in sympathy with the 4 noble truths, it can be said that such practitioners are not Buddhist.
A critique of an individual using Buddhist mindfulness meditation to obtain worldly advantages, is then not a critique of Buddhism itself.
4. An individual or organisation that engages in negativity towards another party in order to uphold a Buddhist view, in contrast to the differing view of the other party, is not at that time engaging in Buddhist practice. The suggested practice from the Buddha, is to practice patience.
I think I have now looked at the substance of this part of your argument, and shown why I think that this part is not a critique of Buddhism.
Paul
- “Please explain the difference of doubt and pseudo-skepticism. ”
- “The Kalama Sutra does not invite the kind of doubt I am presenting here since that is skeptical doubt, which is considered one of the five hindrances: “Skeptical Doubt: Vicikiccha (Pali). The kind of doubt that undermines faith; one of the five hindrances to meditation.” (Though the Wiki article does mention some Buddhists, which are not identified, that welcome doubt of the teachings.)”
In the Mahayana lineage that I practice, there are two types of doubt. Deluded doubt and non-deluded doubt. An example of the first type would be something along the lines of:
Buddha has said that karma exists. I don’t think that I agree with that. I don’t think that karma exists.
Deluded doubt is an obstacle to spiritual progress. Someone who claims to be a skeptic, but adheres to the above, regardless of the personal experiences of many people, is actually a pseudo-skeptic.
An example of non-deluded doubt would be something like:
Buddha has said that karma exists. I’m not sure if this is true or not.
This kind of doubt is fine, it is healthy, open-minded skepticism. It is not an obstacle to spiritual progress.
A nice quote from Susan Blakemore regarding pseudo-skepticism:
“There are some members of the skeptics’ groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves (heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion . . . I have to say it—most of these people are men. Indeed, I have not met a single woman of this type.”[10]
Cheers,
Paul..
Thanks, Paul, for distinguishing doubt and pseudo-skepticism. So, essentially pseudo-skepticism is not really being skeptical but having made up your mind…
However, it’s important to keep in mind that depending on how you frame a particular question, you can come to some conclusions. For example, Victor Stenger, presents a solid argument in his book “God: The Failed Hypothesis” that there is no God, as defined by Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions. I feel that I can say that I am 100% certain that there is no such God but I cannot say with 100% certainty that there aren’t any gods.
My goal was to present doubt, not pseudo-skepticism. I will make some time to review my critique above given your point (as well as your other comment).
Paul wrote: “Therefore, any negativities commited by any party who claims to be Buddhist, is not Buddhism.” Oh, that’s convenient. If you don’t like my critique, you simply say, “oh, that’s not really Buddhism.” Beautiful woolly thinking – maybe Do a Procrustes. With a history of several thousand years, you cannot simply dismiss the things in that history that you do not like by claiming that they are not really Buddhist because this history also includes what the Buddha said (as far as I know, he never actually wrote anything down himself, so everything we know about him and the supposed quotes are already being interpreted). Picking and choosing is simply ignoring the package. Furthermore, without looking at that history critically, you cannot learn from it. How can we prevent that people don’t use meditation to clam their minds so that they make better, more lethal soldiers? Obviously, if this is an abuse of Buddhism, then maybe the Buddha’s message isn’t strong enough; the teachers are too easily corruptible or something like that. If you simply say that this isn’t really Buddhism then you’re missing an opportunity to learn!
Paul wrote: “A critique of an individual using Buddhist mindfulness meditation to obtain worldly advantages, is then not a critique of Buddhism itself.” I agree with this but for different reasons. You cannot criticize a religion because of the actions of one person. However, that is not what I am doing. The book “Zen at War” looks at several decades of the official Zen Buddhism in Japan. This was not one person’s misinterpretation.
Paul wrote: “I think I have now looked at the substance of this part of your argument, and shown why I think that this part is not a critique of Buddhism.” Yes, you have done that using your narrow definition of Buddhism.
Rachel,
I think we are working with differing definitions of Buddhism. Within your critique, it seems that your definition of Buddhism is:
- The individuals, organisations, political figures and teachers that claim to be Buddhist
- The (negative) actions of the above groups
My definition of Buddhism, on the other hand, is purely Dharma. Using this definition, the above cannot be defined as Buddhism.
This is where the disagreement is arising.
Paul
Yes, Paul, you are absolutely correct that we’re using differing definitions of Buddhism. In addition to that, I believe that you cannot limit Buddhism to only the dharma because there is no such thing as pure dharma – it’s already being interpreted and changed. Which one is the “true” one? We have no idea.
Furthermore, I think that a religion – or any thought system, really – cannot be separated from its application. Christianity includes not just the Bible but also the history of the churches, including inquisition and witch hunts. Same with Buddhism. To claim that something is not Buddhism – even though the people involved say it’s Buddhism – just because it doesn’t fit with your interpretation of Buddhism allows you to conveniently pick & choose what you like and dismiss as non-Buddhist what you don’t like.
There’s no such thing as pure dharma? It’s been interpreted and changed? There are the basic precepts of Buddhism that remain unchanged, mainly The Four Noble Truths and The Eightfold Path. You can throw in the Kalama Sutta to top that off. I’m no expert by any means; Paul can correct me if I’m wrong. The basis for Buddhism is very minimalist, because the whole point is to SEE it for yourself. The point is to set you on the path to enlightenment yourself, not to hand you a book of rules to follow.
You cannot honestly and truthfully criticize a belief system based on the actions of those who claim to follow it. It’s easy to criticize Christianity due to its horrible history, but that says nothing about the religion and everything about those who interpret it for their own benefit.
Jim: Let’s start with the first noble truth that talks about “dukkha,” which, according to Wikipedia, “is a Pali term roughly corresponding to a number of terms in English including suffering, pain, unsatisfactoriness, sorrow, affliction, anxiety, dissatisfaction, discomfort, anguish, stress, misery, and frustration. In Buddhism, the cessation of dukkha is regularly identified as the teaching’s ultimate aim.” Which one of these 12 terms is the pure dharma? Notice that each word carries a slightly different meaning, requiring interpretation. So, no, there is no such thing as “pure” dharma. Which version of the Four Noble Truths is the pure one? The version talking about “stress” or the one talking about “suffering”?
Simple. There’s just not a single word in the English language that fully encapsulates the full meaning of the word. That’s a limitation of language, that’s all. It’s about the meaning and feeling behind it and not the language object or concept.
The Four Noble Truths do not change. Regardless of the language, the idea, the feeling, the truth remains the same. That is pure dharma.
Exactly. There’s no single word in English for “dukkha,” so you have to interpret and maybe even change what you’re trying to communicate
How do you know that what you’re feeling is pure dharma? Because it’s in line with your interpretation of Buddhist teaching? How do you know that the Zen Buddhists claiming that Buddhism supports imperial Japan aren’t using the pure dharma?
“Yes, Paul, you are absolutely correct that we’re using differing definitions of Buddhism. In addition to that, I believe that you cannot limit Buddhism to only the dharma because there is no such thing as pure dharma – it’s already being interpreted and changed. Which one is the “true” one? We have no idea. ”
Of course pure Dharma exists. Here are a couple of places to look:
- The original Pali scriptures. You can’t go wrong here. It’s basically the source of the Hinayana lineages. It is pure Dharma.
- The four Tibetan Mahayana lineages (Gelugpa, Sakyupa, Kagyu, Nyingma)
“Furthermore, I think that a religion – or any thought system, really – cannot be separated from its application. Christianity includes not just the Bible but also the history of the churches, including inquisition and witch hunts. ”
Christianity is the teachings of Jesus.
The witchhunts are not Christianity.
Torture and inquisition are not Christianity.
Churches and people are not inherently Christianity.
Hitting someone with your bible is not Christianity.
Commiting attrocities in the name of Christianity –
WAAAAAIIIIT FOR IITTTT………………….
3…..
2…..
1….
Is not Christianity.
(Shock horror)
“Same with Buddhism. To claim that something is not Buddhism – even though the people involved say it’s Buddhism – just because it doesn’t fit with your interpretation of Buddhism allows you to conveniently pick & choose what you like and dismiss as non-Buddhist what you don’t like.”
Buddhism is, by definition, pure Dharma. I have told you the source. The Pali scriptures for the Hinayana path. The four lineages of Tibet for the Mahayana path.
“To claim that something is not Buddhism – even though the people involved say it’s Buddhism”
I’ve just started a new Buddhist lineage. It’s slightly different from the original Pali texts, and has some great new features. In this new tradition, entitled:
‘THE NEW PAUL – ARBITRARY BLOKE – HINAYANA LINEAGE’
There are a couple of new practices.
1. Killing is ok sometimes, if I say so.
2. Abberation from the original Pali scriptures is ok, if I say so.
Ok… I know it differs slightly from the original Pali texts, but hey. But, I say that this IS a pure Buddhist lineage and practice. I am, after all, a pure LINEAGE HOLDER.
There is something amiss here. Can you spot it?
P.
“Jim: Let’s start with the first noble truth that talks about “dukkha,” which, according to Wikipedia, “is a Pali term roughly corresponding to a number of terms in English including suffering, pain, unsatisfactoriness, sorrow, affliction, anxiety, dissatisfaction, discomfort, anguish, stress, misery, and frustration. In Buddhism, the cessation of dukkha is regularly identified as the teaching’s ultimate aim.”
AAAAAAAAAAHhhhhh…!!!!
I knew it!!
I was missing the qualified:
‘WIKI HINAYANA LINEAGE’
Ah, sh!t.. That’s where i’ve been going wrong!
Thankyou Rachel..!
Is Wiki a qualified Hinayana / Mahayana / Vajrayana lineage text?
This is a straw-man.
Rachel.
There are debatable differences in the presentation between all the different lineages. But, the point in all this lies in your inclusion of negative actions within your definition of Buddhism. This is wrong.
Rachel.
Is Killing included within the Dharma, of ANY of the lineages?
************************************************************************************
Main point here…………………………………………………………………………………
Answer me this (said in a Chevi Chase, slightly deadpan tone).
Can the action of harming and killing another sentient being be regarded as a valid action to include within the definition of Buddhism?
*************************************************************************************
ROLL UP ROLL UP READERS!
Cast your votes……!
Paul. (Arbitrary non-Buddhist lineage holder)
“Buddhism is, by definition, pure Dharma. I have told you the source. The Pali scriptures for the Hinayana path. The four lineages of Tibet for the Mahayana path.”
I wonder how the people in the Theravada lineage would feel about that…
“There is something amiss here. Can you spot it?” Yes, you don’t have a following yet.
“Can the action of harming and killing another sentient being be regarded as a valid action to include within the definition of Buddhism?” Apparently. Read “Zen at War” – several Buddhist sects did just that in Imperial Japan. Not ONE person, Paul. The whole leadership of the Buddhist sects. This is the point you are purposely missing: I am not talking about ONE person claiming something (although you are: Buddha or Jesus). I am talking about the leadership of a lineage within Buddhism.
I think that the discussion is becoming absurd, thanks to your attempt at humor, Paul (because you ran out of rational arguments?). Wikipedia is a respected dictionary after a comparison with Britannica found it’s just as reliable. I did not claim that Wikipedia is a branch of Buddhism. I used it as a dictionary, a use accepted by most people.
If the discussion continues at this level, I will close the comments.
Let me try again, with a slight re-phrase of the last questinon:
Rachel, do you regard the action of harming and killing another sentient being a valid action to include within the definition of Buddhism?
Paul
“Can the action of harming and killing another sentient being be regarded as a valid action to include within the definition of Buddhism?” Apparently. Read “Zen at War” – several Buddhist sects did just that in Imperial Japan. Not ONE person, Paul. The whole leadership of the Buddhist sects. This is the point you are purposely missing: I am not talking about ONE person claiming something (although you are: Buddha or Jesus). I am talking about the leadership of a lineage within Buddhism.
Anyone, or any group of people who kill, no matter what their excuse, is not practicing Dharma, and is therefore not engaging in Buddhist practice. It’s as simple as that.
Paul
Thank you for getting back to the issues!
Paul wrote: “Do you regard the action of harming and killing another sentient being a valid action to include within the definition of Buddhism?” It is part of the history of Buddhism and thus cannot be ignored when looking at Buddhism. Note that this whole discussion started with your comments to my number 4 (“World Buddhist Morality”), which were a reaction to the claim that “Buddhism has the greatest record for peace and morality” (from the page this post was reacting to). Clearly, that refers to Buddhist history.
Brian Daizen Victoria, the author of “Zen at War,” “teaches Japanese studies at the University of Adelaide and is an ordained Soto priest” (from here). He is not making the artificial distinction between “pure” Buddhism and the history of Buddhism. He is completely willing to take a look at the “dark” parts of Buddhist history. I think that is much more honest than trying to claim that those parts aren’t real Buddhism. It happened; it was taught in the name of Buddhism (whether we agree that is the right interpretation or not). Let’s take a look at it and stop pretending that Buddhism has always been peaceful. Only then can we look at what created something like this: Was it something inherent in Buddhism that made this possible (the importance of teachers or the emphasis on karma might be potential options) or did it require the interplay with something else (the desire of the Zen sect to stay in power, for example)? Maybe it was a combination of both. You cannot learn from history if you deny that it happens or if you deny it’s a part of your history.
So long as you believe that those who claim to practice Buddhism ARE Buddhism (not a typo), then this discussion will not go anywhere. Should I concern myself with baseball bats because some people use them to commit violent acts? Should my Jewish friends be worried of Germans because of what the Nazis did? Should we investigate the Beatles because of the way Charles Manson was influenced by them? Is this not the same logic you’re using in your argument?
No, it is not the same logic. However, because I am German, I feel a special obligation to learn from the German history that brought us the Nazis. It is part of our German history. Just because Germany also produced people like Goethe, Schiller, and Kant, we cannot say that the Nazis aren’t really German. That latter part is what you are saying: Because I don’t like what certain sects of Buddhism have done, I claim that they aren’t really Buddhist and be done with it.
A few points:
1. The conventional definition of Buddhism is Dharma, as transmitted by Buddha
2. The act of killing arises from delusion, and is not Dharma, irrespective of any debatable details within different Dharma texts
3. Throughout history, Buddhist practitioners, scholars, teachers, and Buddhist leaders have practiced a mix of Dharma and non-Dharma.
“Because I don’t like what certain sects of Buddhism have done, I claim that they aren’t really Buddhist and be done with it.”
Killing is not Dharma. See point 2 above.
“Paul wrote: “Do you regard the action of harming and killing another sentient being a valid action to include within the definition of Buddhism?” It is part of the history of Buddhism and thus cannot be ignored when looking at Buddhism.”
See points 1-3 above.
“Let’s take a look at it and stop pretending that Buddhism has always been peaceful.”
See point 3 above.
“Was it something inherent in Buddhism that made this possible (the importance of teachers or the emphasis on karma might be potential options)”
Interesting point that one. How can killing arise from a correct grasp of Karma?
“or did it require the interplay with something else (the desire of the Zen sect to stay in power, for example)?”
People have killed each other throughout history in order to propagate their sect. BUt, i’ll have to bring point 2 above, in again.
Basically, I can’t see how the act of killing can arise from Dharma itself.
Paul
“Because I don’t like what certain sects of Buddhism have done, I claim that they aren’t really Buddhist and be done with it.”
No, it’s more like, “Because these Buddhist sects aren’t practicing Dharma, I claim they aren’t really Buddhist.”
Learning from their history is one thing, sure, but using them (with them being the exception to the rule) as a basis to criticize Buddhism is, quite frankly, an invalid argument. Hitler twisted various philosophies to fit his agenda, but that says nothing about the philosophies themselves and everything about the individual interpreting those philosophies.
“The conventional definition of Buddhism is Dharma, as transmitted by Buddha.”
Not sure what convention you’re referring to here. According to Merriam-Webster “a religion of eastern and central Asia growing out of the teaching of Gautama Buddha that suffering is inherent in life and that one can be liberated from it by mental and moral self-purification.” According to the Britannica, Buddhism is “religion and philosophy that developed from the teachings of the Buddha” – note that it developed from not is. And even the Buddha Net defines Buddhism differently than you do: “Buddhism is a religion to about 300 million people around the world. The word comes from ‘budhi’, ‘to awaken’. It has its origins about 2,500 years ago when Siddhartha Gotama, known as the Buddha, was himself awakened (enlightened) at the age of 35.”
Jim: Note that what I did is use the examples listed in Zen at War to content that “is not the peaceful religion that we’ve been led to believe.” This is using the scientific method: “All Buddhists are peaceful” is the hypothesis. One counter-example can disprove that hypothesis: Imperial Zen. The way you try to dismiss this counter-example is by claiming that this isn’t really Buddhism.
I think all of this goes back to what you’ve written before, Paul: “we are working with differing definitions of Buddhism.” The problem is that we both think ours is the valid one, which means that we can argue for a long, long time. I think that dharma – or the teaching of the Buddha – is part of Buddhism, probably the essential part of it. But it is not all of it.
Cool. I think we’ve cleared that one up then.
Cheers Rachel.
Paul..
From your def. of Buddhism, where would you think that the problem lies within Buddhism then, that can potentially cause political leaders / teachers etc to start killing?
P.
Here’s one example, within the book, ‘Zen at war’, that illustrates the concept where Buddhist teachings are distorted, as a result of either mis-understanding the teachings or purposely twisting them in order to mitigate ones own negative actions. This type of distortion often involves the doctrine of Emptiness (‘Shunyata’ Skt.)
Taken from http://www.mandala.hr/5/baran.html, written by Josh Baran:
Statement from Colonel Aizawa Saburo, during his trial for murdering another general in 1935:
“I was in an absolute sphere, so there was neither affirmation nor negation, neither good nor evil.”
This is a text-book example of the mis-understanding of Zen Buddhism, and/or an attempt to try to mis-represent Zen as an excuse for killing. The common ploy used with these cases is to mis-represent emptiness (Shunyata. Skt.) in teachings within the dharma as a doctrine of nihilism, where everything is essentially equated with nothingness. An example being along the lines of:
‘If there is no thought when killing, no good, no evil, no conceptual mind, no self, then there must be no karma generated.’
Of course, the victim doesn’t enter into the equation.
The comment by Josh Maran:
“This approach to Zen is ultimately a perverse narcissism or even nihilism. Of course, the obvious question that was never asked – if there is no self, why is there any need to kill?”
I would class this as one of countless examples of mis-representing Dharma as a result of either mis-understanding or deliberate distortion, in order to mitigate their own acts of killing.
Emptiness is not nihilism.
Paul
“From your def. of Buddhism, where would you think that the problem lies within Buddhism then, that can potentially cause political leaders / teachers etc to start killing?”
As I recall from “Zen at War,” the primary reason for the intertwining of Buddhism and Imperial Japan was a conscious decision of the leadership of the Zen sects. Fabio Rambelli summarizes this well in of the book:
Now, the other question is, how could they get away with this? I agree with you that the Buddhist support of Imperial Japan seems inconsistent with the core teachings of Buddhism, so why didn’t people, especially other Buddhists, speak up?
Three things come to mind – I haven’t really studied this thoroughly, so these are just guesses:
* The reliance on teachers. As far as I know, especially in Zen Buddhism, the teacher is very important. This develops a trust between the pupil and the teacher that allows abuses at the personal level but because the teacher-student relationship is so emphasized, questioning a teacher in general is discouraged. This would lay the ground-work for blind following, which is what happened in Imperial Japan.
* The idea of karma. Karma is a powerful idea to explain and maintain the status quo. Why are people poor or sick? Well, because they did something wrong in a previous life. There is absolutely no way to disprove this!
* Discouragement of actually questioning the teaching. This is a tricky one because some skepticism is encouraged within Buddhism (at least here in the West). But, as I’ve pointed out, skeptical doubt is considered a hindrance. The fourth thing “conducive to the abandonment of doubt” is a “firm conviction concerning the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha.” Again, this stresses the importance of not doubting what others in the Sangha are saying. Combine this with the previous two points, and you have powerful motivation not to question anything, especially when all teachers are convincing you that meditation helps warriors etc.
“The reliance on teachers” and “Discouragement of actually questioning the teaching” both go against the Kalama Sutta, which teaches how to discern religious teachings, the final point being, “Do not go upon… the consideration, “The monk is our teacher.”" The Kalama Sutta openly asks students to question their teacher.
So what you’re saying, Jim, is that no one in Buddhism relies on teachers without questioning their teaching?
Actually, that leads to a good overall question for both you & Paul. Using your definition of Buddhism as only the dharma, how would you answer Paul’s question: “From your def. of Buddhism, where would you think that the problem lies within Buddhism then, that can potentially cause political leaders / teachers etc to start killing?”
No, I’m saying that those who don’t are not following the Buddha’s teachings in the Kalama Sutta.
To answer your question, I don’t think the problem lies in Buddhism. I think the problem lies in the way individuals used Buddhism to justify their actions. When desperate enough, we can attempt to justify almost anything. I don’t know the specifics of what the Zen At War book discusses, but it should be apparent to anyone that using Buddhism to justify the killing of others is clearly a misuse of the teachings of the Buddha.
If Buddhism is Dharma, what is Christianity?
Dodgy Dharma teachers:
There have been numerous works, the main one of which I am familiar with, are the writings of Je-Tsongkhapa, the Gelugpa master from Tibet. It is said that, if one follows a teacher that is non transmitting sensible Dharma, then the student will become poisoned also. The reliance on an external Guru teaching wrong views is extremely dangerous.
So, due to the impure nature of humans, and the amount of so called ‘masters’ out there who teach wrong views, like killing, there are disaters.
It is advised by JS, and many other masters, to be sensible, and to check out the teachings, and the Guru (Vajrayana / Mahayana) and scrutinise what is being taught.
It is advised in all the Tibetan lineages that the teachings be pulled apart, scrutinised, burned, mulled over, questioned, … With any teachings, there are going to be teachers who mis-understand, or deliberately twist the content, to further their own agendas.
It is really common sense, in this day and age to stear well clear of any so called Dharma teacher that promotes killing and war. Nowadays, there are a lot of teachings now proliferating. People nowadays have more sophisticated discrimination, and are more in the know.
Karma
Concepts like karma can be meditated on, and the benefits felt in ones practice. I know from my own experience that it helps me a lot. I don’t know the mechanics of karma, or if it functions at all in the way that Buddhist teachings explain it. But, I understand how to use the idea of Karma in order to practice Dharma and gain valuable insight. If I reject the idea of Karma, I won’t be able to practice the Lamrim, which, from my experience of it so far, has done for me exactly what it says on the tin.
The different sects in Tibet have faught and killed each other. I have a friend who has been meditating in the Theravadin traditions for 25 years. He remembers some of his previous lives; one in which he was killed by rival sects in China. It put him off ordaining for a bit! Since I started meditating, I’ve had a few insights into things too. I just have to keep developing my concentration, principally on the Lamrim and Mahamudra.
So.. Yes.. Buddhist sects, organisations, individuals, teachers, scholars, etc have commited attrocities over history. It’s sad, and it is the human condition. But, personally, I know that, to make progress, I really do have to keep trying to develop insight into the nature of my own mind, using the guidelines from whatever virtuous tradition I feel connected with. Right now, it’s the NKT.
P.x
“If Buddhism is Dharma, what is Christianity?”
The teachings of Jesus / what has been interpreted from the bible. But, again, it is sensible to assume that it does not include killing.
I find this area more interesting, as it challenges our conventional view of things.
“5. Nirvana and Self (any reason for having 5 before 4 )
It is interesting that a lot of the Buddhist apologists seem to miss the ultimate goal of Buddhism: to reach enlightenment or nirvana. ”
I’m not sure what you mean here. Does this mean that a lot of Buddhists don’t know why they are practicing? I thought that the motivation to reach liberation comes from the 2 noble truths, doesn’t it?
“Anybody who says that is criticized: Buddhists don’t have goals, you’re misunderstanding things, well, just look through the comments here… ”
Don’t Buddhists have the goal of reaching enlightenment / liberation / realising the nature of mind?
“But if you read Buddhist text (I have only read them in English), it is clear, though, that this is what the goal is. And that’s why we’re reborn here on Earth because it’s the perfect middle ground. Of course, then your question comes up: why do so few of us reach that state? (changing your question slightly, hopefully, though maintaining the idea).”
What state is that? The human state, or nirvana?
P..
I have heard a lot of Buddhists claiming that Buddhism doesn’t really have any goal therefore we can’t see that the goal can’t be reaching nirvana. It sounds like you’re not one of them. And I agree that the Noble Truths lead exactly to that motivation.
Reach the state of nirvana.