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.
“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. ”
I have met a few people who make the claims of having no goals. There are really two sides to this. Most of us know that Buddhism does have goals, and practitioners do have goals. One of the practices, however, is not to be attached to attaining results from ones own practice. I think this can be mis-understood by some Buddhists, leading them to think that there are not any goals at all. I’ve heard Zen practitioners talk like this, as some lean towards nihilism, due to their own mis-understanding of the practice.
It’s a bit like the common misconception that Emptiness can be equated to nothingness!
“Reach the state of nirvana.”
I’ve never understood that one. If we have supposedly all had infinite previous lives, then why are we not all enlightened an infinite time ago? I think that the basic Buddhist teachings give one a very basic overview of how to start trinaing the mind towards liberation. The Buddha one told one of his followers that what he was teaching them is like a handful of leaves. In reality, there is a forrest.
Rachel, as you should already knew there are basically five precepts that a true Buddhist would follow. If at anytime a teaching from a Buddhist teacher e.g. Zen master, Lama, Theravada or Mahayana teacher, has broken any of this precepts, I would consider it as deviant teaching.
Do you consider deviant teachings as the same as the original teachings (dhamma) of Buddha? Do you call these deviant teachings as Buddhism?
Buddhism should be defined as the original teachings (dhamma) of Buddha and not as how the Buddhists lived it out. Buddhists are just followers of the Buddha dhamma and many, including the teachers are not fully enlightened and may make mistakes like those in “Zen at war” which you group into as Buddhism.
Violence has no place in Buddhism, simply because there is no such teaching in the Buddha dhamma. I can’t say the same for the Abrahamic religions, not even for Christianity because Jesus had said that he did not come to bring peace on earth.
Who wrote up the dhamma? It wasn’t the Buddha. When was it written? I believe that was century after his death. How can you then claim that this is the real dhamma? Where did Jesus say that he did not bring peace to Earth?
Why is it so hard to accept that Buddhist teaching has lead to violence just like any other religions’ teachings? There is no such thing as pure Buddhism. There is only the interpretation of the teachers and students and readers. To dismiss something as “deviant” simply because it doesn’t fit with your interpretation misses the opportunity to look into what created the (mis-)interpretation. You are missing an opportunity to “look deeply” as Thich Nhat Hanh would call it. Overall, it seems like the defenders of Buddhism as peaceful are attached to the notion that Buddhism is better than other religions. I am saying that it’s just as open to interpretation as other religions.
You’re right about the uncertainty of the source of Buddhist teachings. Did Buddha Guatama teach the Lamrim as in Tibetan Buddhism? Did he teach Tantra? Not sure. Did he exist at all as a person? I don’t know for sure. Tibetans had their own take on things. It may or may not have been taught by Guatama.
I’d be very interested to know of any supposed Buddhist teachings that apparently lead to violence and suffering. The Zen teachings of Japan are so simple: Renunciation, moral discipline, concentration, great compassion, emptiness.
Where, in your view do you think violence came from within the Zen practice of Japan?
No one wrote ‘up’ the Buddha dhamma. Just three months after Buddha’s parinibbana, the First Buddhist Council was held to protect and preserve the teachings. A total of 500 arahants attended this meeting to verify all the teachings of Buddha. They memorized the sutras and past it down orally to the next generation and this to the next and so on until it was finally written ‘down’. The Pali canon is the original teachings of Buddha. If any later add-on that does not confirm with the Pali canon or breaks any precept like killing or aggression towards others then it should be considered as deviant teachings. Buddha dhamma and deviant teachings are two very different thing. We can’t put it together under Buddhism.
Jesus message in Matthew 10:34: “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.”
Buddha dhamma is not like the Abrahamic religions where if you are not with us then you are the heathens. In Buddhism, there is no such derogatory word for non-Buddhists. Buddhists are taught to treat every being the same with compassion, loving-kindness and generosity. When Buddhists uphold the five precepts and avoided the three poisons – hatred, greed and ignorance, I don’t see how Buddhist teachings could lead to violence. This is pure Buddhism that cannot be interpreted in any other way. Unlike the message by Jesus quoted here and many others found in the Bible and the Quran.
Could you show us a verse from the Pali canon that advocates violence? If you can’t then this is how difficult to accept that Buddhist teaching has lead to violence just like any other religions’ teachings.
Riglin wrote: “Buddha dhamma and deviant teachings are two very different thing. We can’t put it together under Buddhism.” Why not? Buddhism is more than the teachings of the Buddha.
Paul wrote: “Where, in your view do you think violence came from within the Zen practice of Japan?” I think I’ve addressed this before… It’s basically a mixture of the culture of Japan and the focus on the teacher within Buddhism.
Riglin wrote: “Buddha dhamma is not like the Abrahamic religions where if you are not with us then you are the heathens.” Yet, you call any Buddhist teaching you don’t agree with “deviant”…
Riglin asked: “Could you show us a verse from the Pali canon that advocates violence?” I am not familiar enough with the Pali canon, nor am I able to read the originals. You can only claim that Buddhism is peaceful if you restrict your definition of Buddhism to the Pali canon, which is a very narrow description and I am sure Buddhist from non-Theravada schools would already disagree with.
It’s funny that you’re making such a big deal of my usage of “writing up” and your contrasting “writing down.” It’s essentially the same unless you’re in the hair-splitting mode you’re in where Buddhism isn’t really Buddhism.
Yes, Buddhism may be more than the teachings of Buddha but violence and aggression are definitely not part of it. When there are violence and aggression teachings found in a stream of Buddhism then it has deviated from the Buddha dhamma.
The Pali Canon and the other two main canons namely the Tibetan Kangyur and the Chinese Buddhist Canon are recognizably the “same” works although they are separated by time and geographically. The different branches, each one emphasizes on certain aspect of Buddha’s teachings and all will lead to the attainment of nibbana. There’s no problem with different schools accepting the different canons.
Whether we are familiar with the canons or not, we have never heard of any violence or aggression in Buddha’s teachings. This is enough to counter your view that Buddhism leads to violence just like any other religions’ teachings. In contrast, we could easily find acts of violence in other religions’ teachings.
Your view is based on the Zen teachers involving themselves in the war of aggression. When Buddha was archiving nibbana, Maya appeared and promised him all the material wealth and power in the world if he stops his quest. I think the Zen teachers concern were lured by Maya with similar promises. Their actions then are not in line with Buddhism. How can we accept it as Buddhist teachings lead to violence? I can agree with you if you change your view to ‘deviant Buddhist teachings lead to violence’. Buddhism is harmless and peaceful, no doubt about it.
I do find a big difference between ‘writing up’, as in creating stories from our imagination and ‘writing down’, as in recording down the teachings of Buddha.
“Riglin wrote: “Buddha dhamma is not like the Abrahamic religions where if you are not with us then you are the heathens.” Yet, you call any Buddhist teaching you don’t agree with “deviant”… ”
Not [b]any[/b] teaching. Riglin used ‘deviant teachings’ within the context of a teacher who breaks any of the five precepts; In the context of this discussion, teaching that killing is ok. This would clearly be a deviant teaching.
“Paul wrote: “Where, in your view do you think violence came from within the Zen practice of Japan?” I think I’ve addressed this before… It’s basically a mixture of the culture of Japan and the focus on the teacher within Buddhism.”
Going deeper still, what do you think would cause a teacher of Buddhism (which we all know advocates refraining from killing as the first major precept) to teach that killing is ok? What would cause this?
Riglin wrote: “This is enough to counter your view that Buddhism leads to violence just like any other religions’ teachings.” That is not my view. My view is that there is nothing within Buddhism that prevents the teaching of violence within the context of that religion. Just as many Christians argue that Christianity is peaceful ignoring history and the quote from Matthew you gave, you are ignoring history. It was not one teacher; it was a whole time period during which violence was a part of Buddhist teaching. Simply calling this deviant teaching is an apologist approach and neither serves history nor Buddhism.
Paul: I invite you to look deeply into why teachers in Imperial Japan would teach that killing is okay within certain contexts. This last part is probably important: They didn’t tell people to go around killing others. They developed an elaborate rational for soldiers killing during war, for example. If you give teachers a lot of power, sooner or later, that power will be abused. In Japan, Buddhist monks of certain sects were representing the Imperial court; they were part of the state machinery, which created an incentive for them to support that machinery. Their Buddhist training did not prevent them from sanctifying killing. Also please note that I am not “blaming” Buddhism for the violence. I am just trying to counter the myth that there has been no systematic violence within Buddhism. “Zen at War” has documented that. What I am asking is that Buddhists accept this as historical reality rather than claiming that this isn’t “real” Buddhism. Even if it is deviant teaching, as Riglin calls it, it is still presented as Buddhist teaching.
Brian Victoria makes a similar point: “Zen scholars such as Ichikawa Hakugen make it clear that the rational for Zen’s support of state-sponsored warfare in general, and Japanese militarism in particular, is far more deeply entrenched in Zen and Buddhist doctrine and historical practice, especially in its Mahayana form, than any Japanese Buddhist sect has yet to publicly admit.” (p. 157). There are also summaries and book reviews of Victoria’s book that make similar points as I do, for example here and here.
Overall, the point I am trying to make is that there is no system – philosophical, religious, or otherwise – that can prevent violence per se. Rather than trying to distance ourselves from this sad and frustrating reality, it might be more helpful to accept this and look at how we can use the system/teaching to help people counteract violent impulses. You cannot really address a problem until you acknowledge that it’s there. And simply telling people that they aren’t real Buddhists isn’t going to prevent them from following through on the teaching that says that being a soldier is the ultimate fulfillment of Buddhist teaching.
Riglin: “Writing up” is not the same as “making up,” which seems to be how you’re interpreting “writing up.” I can write up a recipe, which is the same as writing it down, just like “cracking a window” is the same in some parts of the US as “opening a window.”
Riglin wrote: “Buddhism is harmless and peaceful, no doubt about it.” Better read up on the history of Buddhism – I think you’re attached to a too rosy view of Buddhism! As Vishvapani put it:
Paul: I can highly recommend Vishvapani’s write up. He is addressing the question regarding the origins of the violent teachings much better than I have been able to do.
Reading Vishvapani’s write up, I realized that the arrogance that leads us to think that Buddhism is better than other religions might be at the bottom of Japanese Zen’s embrace of violence.
It is clear to me that, developing arrogance, based on attachment to ones own views, be they Buddhist or otherwise, can generate anger in the mind towards someone who disagrees with us. Within all Buddhist teachings I have ever come across, including Japanese Zen, this arrogant mind can be caught in the early stages, so as to stop it evolving into hatred and violence. This is a basic Buddhist teaching of mindfulness.
If someone were to not take this advice, and let a mind of arrogance develop into hatred, then that person is not practicing Dharma at that time.
If the Zen ‘masters’ of Japan, in that period were to look at their own mind, and practice patience, and compassion for others, then there would have been no violence.
So, the fault lies in the individual, as always. There has always been systematic violence within populations of Buddhist culture. One could say that it is due to the impure karma (or states of mind) of the individuals/groups of people.
It is valid to say that, if these people purified their minds, then there would then be no violence.
So, looking logically, of course there will be violence within Buddhist cultures. There always has been, there is still, and there always will be. Because the people who practicing have impure minds.
So, in short:
People with DELUSIONS + Buddhist teachings + Practice of Dharma over 40 years
= A high level of fundamentalism with some people, with little progress made in decreasing delusions
+ Some improvement (lessening of delusion) with some people
+ Greater levels of improvement with others
+ A minority reaching a cessation of delusion (Liberation)
But, as long as we make progress along the path, then that is good.
EDIT:
I should augment ‘People with DELUSIONS’ to:
‘People with DELUSIONS, of massively differing individual qualities and differing types delusion, and differing mental capacities for Dharma practice’
Anyone who thinks that everyone should be peaceful all the time, just because they practice Dharma is not being logical or realistic.
Will Buddhists fight in the future? Definately.
Rachel, thanks for the link. I’ll do a deeper study on your point of view.
Hi,
At risk of boring you all to tears, I’m going to put an idea out there. Given the Kalama Sutra (the statement about not believing things just because we’ve read it or heard it from anyone else, but only if it agrees with our own reason and experience), should not the question ‘what is buddhism’ be determined simply by what is testable and discoverable NOW in relation to the stated goal of alleviating suffering, rather than by what is written in ancient books, or what past people have done in the name of ‘buddhism’?
After all, is not the question ‘what is science’ determined by what is testable and discoverable now, rather than by what science books from a hundred or five hundred years ago said, or by what certain individuals have considered to be science in the past (i.e., marxism and social darwinism)?
I mean, sure, we should acknowledge and learn from history, but we don’t need to say that past misguided definitions of ‘buddhism’ are buddhism NOW, anymore than marxism and social darwinism are science NOW.
Just a thought.
-Sam.
I had the worst time with a so-called buddhist master, abused and psychologically damaged and subsequently again with other masters. And I’ve almost *never* met a friendly buddhist in my 16 years of involvement. There’s just not much care or warmth or outreach to the sick or disadvantaged, things which seems intrinsic to Christian culture which is focused on community, and not ultimately individual efforts towards liberation as in buddhism (I have mental health problems but not one buddhist showed any interest in helping or providing support, and there were many occasions when the mentally ill were abused verbally or emotionally, in numerous settings and under different sanghas and masters).
I’ve met quite a few buddhists in that time, but, realistically, the people who go to my local country church are much, much warmer, more caring and genuine. I think that’s more important than philosophy and unrealistically idealistic notions of mental, physical and verbal conduct. Basically, any normal thing like watching tv, reading a book, enjoying a meal is an “outflow” and therefore a downfall in Buddhism. What a depressing, joyless religion.
Buddhism just made my life worse. I wish I never got involved or even heard about it.
Hi Elizabeth,
That sounds awful. I know what you mean about people in the Buddhist Sangha being unhelpful, and abuse happening. The thing with Buddhism, is that it attracts a fair amount of people who have emotional problems. Just because someone is labelled as being a buddhist ‘master’, or a revered teacher, doesn’t mean anything about the person’s inner realisations, or qualities. I must agree, that I too generally find Christian circles to be a friendly and helpful bunch.
The thing you mention about how enjoying things is considered to be a downfall in Buddhism is strange. In all the teachings I have ever come across, especially in the Tibetan traditions, it’s not enjoyment that is the downfall, but the attachment to the thing. In short, if I’m watching a great movie, and someone turns it off right at a good part, then it’s also cool. I’d ask what’s going on, but my mind would remain strong and happy, instead of getting pissed, and feeling angry.
It’s an issue with some people in my group, that they think that they have to give up everything external, like going to movies, and playing sport, etc. This is not right. What meditation does, is get rid of the attachment to it. Selling all my music, and retreating into a cave and trying not to enjoy anything, is not going to lead me anywhere. It’s going to just stretch my mind to breaking point.
Over the months and years, the things that I once did that I found comfort in when I was down, like phoning friends at 2 in the morning, or watching movies, etc, I still enjoyed doing when I wanted to, but, I no longer needed them as a support, because I found that I was much happier, and able to deal with horrible situations far better than before. When my meditative concentration got stronger, my mind also got lighter throughut the day.
I guess, what I’m saying, in conclusing, is.. don’t take what the teachers say too seriously. We just need common sense. But, sit down and up the concentration.. and, things will begin to go smoothly…
That was well said, Paul.
Hey i found this page interesting and would like to clear up a few things. I am buddhist and belong to a sect of buddhism that requires us to explore others faith. first off buddhism is not a religion it is a philosophy and if were to explore the texts further it would make more sense that some of the criticisms that you have may go away. This is no attempt to convert you what so ever there are several places in various texts that say that all religions and faiths are true because they are all attempting to reach the same goal. “All roads eventually lead to rome.” Western buudhism is the way it is because not many people are willing to leave their old beliefs behind in the american dream… it is how you described it but not for all or even most sects here in the west only some. The reason why so many people are reborn is because we are trying to reach something that is the equivalent to reaching the state of Jesus Christ and according to several texts such as Kalachakra trantic vedic scriptures enlightenment is the main way to end suffering and we must become at a level that is the same as christ to achieve this. True practioners of buddhism are extremely peaceful and try never to harm things as little as possible. The ones that are harming things are deviating from the philosophy as do other people of all faiths everywhere. No one religion has all the answers or is the only answer this is why my sect chooses to explore other religions. Suffering in buddhism is caused by human greed, intolerance, hatred, misunderstanding, selfishness, etc. that are present in all of us and causes suffering for ourselves and others. so in a sense there is a systamatic creation of suffering. Yes buddhist ideals are extremely idealistic but so are many other faiths such as christianity where one is supposed o become christ like. I do not believe that any religion is dangerous or bad all realities can exist simultaneously. Thank you for your time hope this helps if it only confuses you or makes you angry or give off negativity i sincerely apologize.
Hi Paul,
I am interested in learning more about your group? Where are you based out of? (…If you don’t mind me asking a more personal question). I am most curious where you obtained your level of clarity from? Are you self-taught? Or have a background in education? – The ease of your articulation would suggest as much.
I, myself, am a university student, and came across this page while searching for some insight into what might be critical analyses of Buddhism (which has indeed been a futile challenge thus far). However, after being penalized on my last term paper for concluding that it would seem arrogant to postulate a refutation of Buddhist doctrines at such an admittedly elementary level of understanding – reading over some of your posts was both comforting in its affirmation of my conclusion, but also wonderfully stimulating.
I would be most appreciative, should you be so inclined, to learn more from you on the subject of Buddhism?
With sincere thanks and enjoyment
- L
Hi LaRouvia,
Thanks for your comments. I’ve been practicing with the NKT, in London for a few years now. The NKT was founded by a tibetan monk, called ‘Geshe-la Kelsang Gyatso’. It’s a rapidly expanding organisation, with branches all over the world now. I wanted to try meditation about 5 years ago, as I found myself becoming very agitated at things, when I moved to London! I just wanted to feel generally happy, and more at peace with things.
I can explain things to you if you like.. My email is ‘pjgasson@yahoo.co.uk’.
Paul.
Hi Rachel,
I’m afraid I don’t have the time to write a full reply to your critique, but I will simply say that most of your points are not valid because your information on Buddhims seems somewhat erroneous (e.g. ‘suffering’ is not a proper translation for the Pali word ‘dukkha’). And you will need to understand the doctrine of Paticcasamuppada before writing a critique of Buddhist philosophy.
TVS
Hi Rachel,
I have read vexen’s page, and your comments, with great interest.
Somehow, the issue bugged me. I’m not a buddhist per se, but I consider myself strongly influenced by buddhism. I was trying to find an answer that is neither accusing nor apologetic.
Here’s what I came up with:
In order to attack or defend buddhism, we first have to maintain an idea of buddhism in our heads, that we can then see as something permanently existing in the real world.
We then have to label this “buddhism” thing as either good or bad, and then we have to identify with this “buddhism” thing, or with some “contrary to buddhism” thing. And then we are ready to defend our position.
I guess you already know where this is going, right?
Certainly, this is one way of dealing with things.
Another way is to say that there were really only a few zen masters in Japan who interpreted certain scriptures so that they meant that Japanese imperialism was good. And there were (and are) a certain number of people who interpret the karma doctrine so that they can blame the victims of suffering for their own suffering.
And now the question is not so much whether buddhism is inherently good or bad – but rather, did those zen masters, in doing so, help alleviate suffering, or did they create even more suffering? And ultimately, while it is interesting, even this is just an academic question. The only *real* question is this: How do *I* want to deal with the karma doctrine? Do *I* want to use the nirvana doctrine to recline into a self-satisfied state of bliss, or do I want to use the strength it gives me to help my fellow men? How can *I* live my own life so that I help alleviate suffering – my own suffering, and that of other sentient beings?
In my life, buddhist meditation has helped me overcome depression and (I hope) become a better human being. I also fell into a few traps at certain points, and committed quite a few “buddhist” stupidities, stopped to practice and started again, and found that with more experience, it was better than before. Whether some of this applies to you, or whether you choose to find support in buddhism, or in christianity, or in marxism, is ultimately irrelevant. With regard to religion, I contend that the meaningful question is, how can we create religious rituals that actually HELP people? How can we create communities, sanghas, zendos, that avoid the pitfalls of hierarchy and power struggles as much as possible? How can we in the west learn from the east, and do it our own way?
vijeno: I have to admit that I almost didn’t read your comment. I’ve gotten a bit leery of comments to my pages critical of Buddhism because they seem to revert to attempting to convert me, which imo is (a) pointless and (b) offensive. But you are not doing this – and I appreciate that! In addition, I really like the questions that you raise at the end because ultimately, that is my aim with my critiques: Instead of blindly following some doctrine or another, we need to look at it and see if what we’re doing is helping ourselves and others to become better people. If we’re increasing suffering, I think, we’re doing something wrong! And I also think that we need to look critically at things like Zen in Japan and decide if there’s something within Buddhist doctrines that encourages such approaches. Imo, such critical evaluation can help us figure out how to create communities without the pitfalls you mention. I don’t think that there can be any system of ideas that cannot be abused, so it is important that we maintain vigilance and a (self-)critical attitude. Unfortunately, I sometimes find that this is not the case in Western Buddhist circles. Simply becoming defensive is not going to help us… We need to answer the questions you raise!
Rachel,
thanks for your kind and constructive answer. I didn’t expect it, really, since so much time has passed since your original posting.
I hope to come back to this later today. Right now, I find it important to note one thing:
I did not come here and come up with something relevant. To the contrary! When I read vexen’s and your comments, initially I DID get defensive about buddhism. (And I don’t even call myself a buddhist!) We’re all prone to attaching ourselves to a thought-system, it’s a danger inherent in every human being. It took time and effort to see how I was attached to my own idea of buddhism, to employ compassion with myself and to look deeper.
I think that is the one basic most important thing – grant myself the time to overcome the attachment, time and again, and never think that, just because I’ve studied buddhism, I’m magically better than my catholic neighbours. It is utterly important to keep in mind that I am prone to attachment, and you are as well, therefore there is no reason to judge each other.
Apart from that, I think there are a few good rules of thumb – they’re not general rules, they’re not 100%, but I think they’re good guidelines what to be wary of:
* Religious leadership + political leadership = trouble. The two should not be combined, because political parties as well as religious organizations tend to rouse groupthink, us/them mentality and attachment to the organization instead of its ideas. The effect gets multiplied by combination.
* Hierarchy will always tend to create power struggles and power abuse, because people become attached to their power and try to defend it no matter what. That’s not to say that hierarchy is only bad (it’s necessary in many contexts), but we should always be wary of the leaders. Also, I doubt that the Indian or Tibetan ideas of religious leadership are applicable in today’s West. We are still traumatized by WWII and the nazis, in general I think most people here are not very good at dealing with religious authority figures.
* There is no need at all to accept the whole package. It is perfectly fine to practice meditation for health and calmness. It is perfectly fine to reject karma, rebirth, or even all of buddhism. As a buddhist practitioner, I would suggest to keep an open mind in those matters, and not to be surprised if the meditation led you to accepting karma, but that’s just my irrelevant opinion
* Your karma is none of my business. I think this is so important, I have to repeat it: Your karma is none of my business! It is said that only a buddha can grasp the exact mechanics of karma, so we shouldn’t dabble in “you’re a spastic diplegic, therefore you killed your wife in your last incarnation, you loser!”
* Never let yourself be tricked into abandoning critical thinking. Meditation does NOT mean to stop thinking! If you have the impression that something is going wrong and that the teachings in some community are somehow bad, don’t look for the fault in yourself and force yourself to keep going to that place – take your time, take a leave from that community to sort things out for yourself, and when you’ve calmed down and are ready to engage in rational thinking, do so, and come up with your own answers.
* And finally, buddhist doctrine is only useful inasmuch as it helps a person to practice lovingkindness towards themselves and others, and mindfulness.
Okay, I wrote up the whole thing right now.
Rachel,
What an interesting discussion. I was frustrated to see how much flack you received for your honest criticism. I find it a common phenomenon, when religion is criticized, that folks will resort to defending the philosophical basis of their teaching and ignore the problems brought on by “organization” and “institutionalism”. While I have no qualms with the philosophy/teaching of Guatam Buddha, I believe the organization of his philosophy into a hierarchical, gender based, system, has probably led to more suffering than it has alleviated. I am in favor of a truly egalitarian society, but I have yet to find any “organized religion” that has truly advocated for such a thing. While I have benefited deeply from some buddhist teachings, I do my practice (as many westerners do) unaffiliated. I think contact with the West is changing the face of buddhism. I know Sam Harris got a lot of flack for the direction he took in “The End of Faith”, but I don’t think he was advocating for Buddhism as a religion. I think he was pointing out, that from a point of studying the nature of mind/consciousness, buddhism had some interesting practices that, once removed from all the religious dogma, might actually be usefull!
Rachel
I haven’t read all the correspondence above, but I wanted to add my own bit. I’ve been meditating now for several years and so took an interest in Buddhism. I went on a month long retreat, read several books and spoke with many long-time Buddhists. My conclusion: Buddhism is a religion like any other. It’s adherents are just as dogmatic and defensive as any fundamentalist Christian, and many of their beliefs are simply ludacris. They tend to get very offended when you point out the religious aspects of their heritage. They claim they are not dogmatic, yet I never found any mechanism by which any of their articles of faith can be tested. I live near Halifax, so the group (I want to say sect, if not cult) I encountered was Trungpa Chogyam, whose disciples bend over backwards to rationalize his promiscuousness and alcoholismm, the latter of which resulted in his death at age 47. Yet his books go on and on about the sanctity of life…
And yes, the standard response to any criticism, like the Christians, is to say “you just don’t understand”. Precisely how many books or years am I to spend studying Buddhism before the believers will accept my criticisms? I was told by one of these benevolent souls that if I rejected Buddhism, then I was walking away from THE Truth and would suffer the consequences. That, more than anything, made me see just how dangerous this so-called non-religion was. It’s the same old mind-fucking (excuse the language) by people who want you to accept the same intellectual cop-out they’ve learned to live with, preying on insecure people looking for “an answer”. Substitute Buddha for Jesus, Enlightenment for Salvation, Reincarnation for Heaven and Samsara for Hell and it’s the same old song and dance.
What is particularly annoying about the Buddhists, though, is their unfailing ability to rationalize and deflect critique. If you question reincarnation, they say you don`t have to believe in it. What then, I would ask, is the minimum requirement for being a Buddhist. They are also quite dishonest with newcomers. When I first inquired about taking vows, I was told you can keep your old religion and still be a Buddhist. But the vows themselves are quite explicit about not following any other path once you become a Buddhist. Then there`s the lavish temples, the heirarchies, the sectarianism and oh yes, I can here the believers now: but that`s not the fault of the teachings. Wake up boys and girls. You form an organization around any belief system and it becomes corrupted. Power enters the picture. The stories around Buddha are as ridiculous as the ones around Christ. And your teachings and practices are hardly above reproach. Beware of anyone who claims to know the truth.
Meditation works.But it is NOT some mystical path. If I want to improve my body, I go to the gym. If I want to improve my mind and mental health, I meditate. The Buddhists I met had some pretty rigid beliefs about how you should meditate, and made some wild claims as to its benefits. Tonglen is one example. I did Tonglen for weeks, and absolutely nothing happened. It is prayer by another name. I found most Buddhists to be poor listeners. They`re so sure they have the answer and the truth they don`t see or hear the person right in front of them. Jargon can do that to a person. One of the reasons I rejected Buddhism is becasue I could see it happening to me. I was starting to look at the world through the filter of Buddhism, and I did not like it. I find it funny that a group of people who talk so much about freeing your mind blah blah blah are so eager to adopt a set of rituals, beliefs and jargon handed to them from on high by what is in effect a priesthood, and then set about denying they are a religion like any other. I`m not expecting to achieve enlightenment, and anyone who says you can is selling you a bill of goods.
Hi Brent,
I agree with a lot of what you say. I’ve grown leery of buddhists who say buddhism isn’t a religion, because so often it turns out their buddhism involves one or more of three things: faith, worship, and the supernatural, any one of which makes it a religion in my book. Even those who insist buddhism is a philosophy and not a religion often insist that every word the Buddha spoke must be held as true even if its untestable or if testing finds it to be wrong, which makes the man’s lightest utterance unquestionable dogma. They argue that it’s all about ‘confidence in one’s teacher’, as though our teachers and pioneers in every other field are expected to be omniscient and infallible.
However, I do think all this is a pity, because I really do think that buddhism can be practiced as a purely secular philosophy, where Buddha is in the category of Socrates and Newton rather than Jesus and Mohammed, where Buddha is held to be a discoverer of certain truths which can be tested and verified, and where anything he said that is not testable or verifiable (like rebirth) is cast aside and ignored. Just like we accept Newton’s laws of motion and universal gravitation, but reject his beliefs in the occult. I *might* tentatively call myself a secular or philosophical buddhist (a label which I take to refer to someone who practices, in everyday life, whatever part of Buddha’s philosophical and meditative teachings that can be tested and verified). But I do fear the label has been tarnished by those buddhists who I absolutely consider to be religious (whether they think they’re religious or not).
Hi Brent and Sam,
I think that fundamentalism or dogmatism really have little to do with whatever teaching people are dogmatic about, and more with the psyche of those people. It’s pretty obvious that dogmatism appear in every single religion.
I find it fascinating when people tell me about dogmatic buddhists, because whenever I met buddhists in real life, they were distinctly non-dogmatic. Maybe it’s just a coincidence, or some unconscious selection bias thing.
Anyway, while I think that every religion is prone to dogmatism, I think religions have better or worse “safety clauses” against it, and I think that buddhism has a very clever mechanism that you can throw in the face of every dogmatist out there: All concepts are empty; and the dharma is a concept; therefore the dharma is empty. It is really as simple as that. If they answer that the dharma is not a concept, then they’re referring to something that cannot be rendered in language, and that can never be identical to their claims (because those can obviously be rendered in language rather well).
So… as for practice, meditation has helped me, a LOT, getting more calm and more focused. And I cherish it. But that does NOT make it a cure-all. It DOES take away passion from your life. And of course, that’s fine, if that’s what you want. But that doesn’t mean that everybody should want that at every given moment in time. I do not want that, right now, so I don’t meditate.
Again, it’s simple. It’s like a sport. Everyone knows that weight-lifting can do lots for your health; but not everyone is expected to become a full-time body builder. So why would everyone who studies buddhism be expected to become a monk?
Ultimately, I think dogmatism is a form of spiritual peer pressure. You’re either a true believer, or you’re not one of us.
I don’t think that’s something we should fall for.
vijeno
One more thing: I really think it’s about relaxing. And not only about relaxing in the face of challenges (which is good practice, methinks), but also – and probably even more importantly – relaxing in the face of one’s own beliefs; be they buddhist or christian or whatever. Believe it or not, it is legitimate to laugh about buddhist beliefs. Quite often, they are inherently funny. To me, that’s what I really take from buddhism.
@vijeno
Yes. Maybe what makes the difference is whether people place testability above Buddha, or Buddha above testability.
@Sam
Yes, I agree. I’m quite fond of the idea that one should take from whatever source, whatever one finds to be working and beneficial, and just leave the rest. Well, on the other hand, spiritual paths require a certain commitment for at least some time, and they are about changing one’s self, so this is, of course, not quite solid ground. And of course, “testability” is a very subjective thing when it comes to one’s very life; who is to judge whether my life improves, except myself, after all?
But basically, yeah, I guess I agree.
My question still stands. If I am to approach Buddhism with a “take what you want and leave the rest” attitude, what then, is a Buddhist? What is the minumum requirement for calling oneself a Buddhist, or for people to form an organization around something called Buddhism? A Christian I knew said that God was love. If so, then what is the point of calling yourself a Christian? What does the whole story of Christ have to do with god being love? Why is Christ necessary at all? It’s one thing to take this tack that Buddhism is just about lightening up and not attaching to beliefs. It’s another to then ignore or cop-out when it comes to taking a hard look at what Buddhism, deviant or not, propogates. I attended one lecture where this affluent Buddhist spoke in the slow, calm way Buddhists like to talk about how Reincarnation may in fact be a political convenience, he didn’t know, and left the issue at that. I’d like to know if it is! Because if it is, then shouldn’t the doctrine of Reincarnation be put under intense scrutiny, given the number of so-called gurus and their followers who use it as a form of legitimization for their position in Buddhist heirarchies, including and maybe even especially the Dalai Lama? If Reincarnation is a political convenience, then I am troubled by the Buddhists I have met who have told me that even if I don`t believe in Reincarnation, I should still try to live my life as if it were true! I should live my life according to a belief that may be nothing more than an elaborate justification for the succession of a living god who rules over a theocracy. (my question mark isn`t working on my keyboard…)And how, exactly, is this any different from Christians telling me I should live a certain way so I increase my chances of getting into Heaven. These belief systems have deep implications. Some Jews in the Warsaw ghetto believed at first that the Nazis were God`s way of punishing the Jews for religious transgressions. To say that my Karma is none of your business is one thing, but the fact remains many intelligent Buddhists think otherwise. I was told by one Buddhist, who was a practicing psychotherapist, that my atheism was insane, as was theism, and the the Buddhist middle path of non-theism was the true path. He then went on to explain that Reincarnation could be hard to accept for people who had difficult lives. No shit. Of course, he was a therapist making $90 per hour and living in a four-story house in the richest part of the city, and I`m a proud member of the working poor with a crummy childhood and the resulting mental health problems. Another Buddhist told me not to be angry about my problems, because I have nothing in this life I didn`t ask for, presumably while I was floating around in the Bardo waiting for my return flight to earth…please don`t let these people loose on the children`s cancer ward…another Buddhist, very well educated, had four daughters, one of whom was acting out sexually by dating a man over thirty while she was still a teenager. His explanation for her behaviour – her Karma from a previous life. Not her brain chemistry, not her home life, not some incident in her life he may not even be aware of, nope, it was her Karma…
My question to Buddhists – how much of this evidence does one have to pile up until critics like me stop getting answers like, `that`s not true Buddhism`, or, `you don`t have to believe that if you don`t want to`. The point is many of you believe it. The point is many of your so-called gurus believe it and profit from it. The point is all these beliefs have profound impacts on the way we shape our society. And as Buddhism increases in popularity in the West, your beliefs are going to matter.
I burned my dharma books. I have nothing to do with the Buddhists. I have continued to meditate because it works. And I continue to get better. And I`ve done it on my own, and have rejected just about everything I was told by the Buddhists. The cultish worship of gurus and the constant reference to The Buddha as if he were some extraordinary being are religious phenomena. I was told the Buddha achieved enlightenment after passing through many thousands of lifetimes, To put it bluntly, how the fuck would anyone know that. The person who said this was way high up in the Shambala organization. He was revered like a rock-star. No one questioned a word he said. It was ridiculous. And all the while, the people in attendance clearly thought their belief system was superior to the Christians. This is not the case of one or two deluded individuals on power trips. This is systemic, this is what Buddhism has become.
Personally, I took the meditation and left everything else. After I was told I hadn’t suffered enough and was not serious about the dharma because I failed to meet another Buddhist’s expectations for me when I went on a month long retreat, I burned all my Dharma books. (Which brings up another point: At the retreat we were informed no dharma books were to ever touch the floor. This included photocopies of chants contained in cheap duotangs like school kids put their book reports in. This is pure fetishism and superstition. And then they get offended when Buddhism is refered to as a religion.)
I`ve read through all the posts on this site now regarding Buddhism. It still strikes me that most of the defenses of Buddhism are either the you just don`t understand true Buddhism kind, or the Buddhism is an empty concept take what you want variety, which may be good advice, but sidesteps the difficult questions about what Buddhism has become and the belief systems it supports. If reincarnation is a political convenience, then that political convenience needs to be exposed and dismantled. The Dalai Lama is a hypocrit if he is aware of this and does or says nothing about it. If people are using organizations like Shambala to fulfill their private need to present themselves as authorities, or as a way of copping out and submitting to an authority,then this needs to be exposed and called out.
You don`t need a guru. You don`t need something that calls itself Buddhism. And Lord knows we don`t need another religion that hasn`t got the guts to call itself what it truly is.
PS – I also wanted to speak to this notion of the true Buddhism a bit. I had this Christian friend who said he`d found this church that was the REAL THING. It wasn`t some suburban yuppie comfort food for the obscenely affluent looking for some justification for their destructive lifestyles, nope, this was the REAL THING. The true word and spirit of CHRIST. Many of the above posts have the same flavour, only they have found THE TRUE BUDDHA. And all the other Buddhists are THE UNTRUE BUDDHISTS. How about this – there is no TRUE BUDDHA. There is no TRUE CHRIST. There are people. There is suffering. There is meditation which may alleviate that suffering. There are some truths which will hopefully occur to you if you sit down and shut up long enough to listen. The rest is religion.
Hi brent,
I took the freedom of pointing a buddhist discussion group to this thread, and I would like to refer you to my posting there:
http://community.livejournal.com/buddhistgroup/63754.html
There are simply more buddhists there than here…
I will reply in more detail later on!
@ Brent
You ask what is the true buddhism. Well, what is the true, say, darwinism? Is it evolutionary theory as given by darwin himself and fixed in The Origin of Species, or is it evolutionary theory as determined by the evidence? There is a crucial difference here, as Darwin got a few important things wildly wrong, for example the idea that the mechanism of inheritance was a ‘blending process’, which would actually make evolution unworkable. Darwinism even got misused and abused in the form of ‘social darwinism’, which had deplorable consequences. But no, testing and evidence determines what is to be kept of Darwin’s original formulation and whatever other versions of it were spawned after him, not to mention that which was discovered later and needed to be added to the original formulation (i.e., genetics). And yet, because modern evolutionary theory is still fundamentally about the development of biological complexity and diversity via the mechanism of natural selection, it is still called ‘darwinism’. Why can’t buddhism be the same? Why can’t we keep what is found to be true, jettison what is found to be false or unfounded, while still calling it buddhism because it is still fundamentally about the alleviation of mental suffering via the mechanism of meditation to transcend the feeling of ‘I’? This isn’t to ignore all the things that other people believe under the label ‘buddhism’, like karma and rebirth. There’s no reason why we can’t still criticise erroneous beliefs and versions of buddhism and decry their consequences, just as we criticised erroneous aspects and versions of darwinism in the past.
In short, evidence and testing determines the ‘true’ buddhism. What else? Now, why doesn’t all this apply to discovering, say, the ‘true’ version of the aztec religion? Because there’s nothing at all in the ancient aztec religion that survives the criterion of evidence and testing, and so we just don’t talk about a ‘true’ version of the aztec religion. Of course, we may ask why we need labels at all, whether ‘buddhism’ or ‘darwinism’. That’s really up to you. But since you were brought up this notion of the ‘true’ buddhism, I thought I’d answer.
How can you compare a scientific theory to the dogma of a religion? They entail totally different concepts. The first can accept change because some new fossil is discovered or whatever and the body of knowledge is expanded but the second revolves around ways of living and thinking which are universal and eternal and have only to do with the human condition.
@ Redkiwi
I wasn’t comparing a scientific theory to a religious dogma, because all along I’ve been advocating buddhism in the form of secular philosophy, and it’s buddhism as secular philosophy that I’m talking about here. Religious dogma is indeed a whole different kettle of fish, and one I have nothing to do with. Thing is, if anything is actually true in buddhism about the mind and human condition, then it’s actually just a field of knowledge, where the true is kept and the false is jettisoned, allowing understanding to grow. Therefore I was comparing two fields of knowledge, not science and fossilised dogma.
Look, when you talk about a concept, like Buddhism, you talk about it in it’s entirety, both good and bad because that’s what makes it it. You can’t just say, well I’ll take this part here and I’ll call myself a buddhist, because you might as well call yourself twenty other ways from twenty other belief systems that have that principle also. You can’t be a buddhist, christian, muslim or whatever else without accepting the system with all its pros and cons, else you are a certain type of christian, muslim, etc. and once you start stripping the systems of most of their parts then you really just start adapting into something entirely different. In the same way you can’t talk about buddhism after you’ve stripped it bare to what suits you because that will just create confusion.
@RedKiwi
Meh. Call it buddhism, don’t call it buddhism, I don’t care. Frankly I’m starting to be inclined towards not calling it buddhism just to avoid this immensely boring argument.
@Sam and RedKiwi,
One of the very fundamental goal of buddhism, in my view, is to see how we get attached to our concepts. “This is buddhism” – “No, THIS” is buddhism – those questions of definition are addressed in several sutras. They’re ultimately futile. Buddhism, on that level, is just a concept. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter whether buddhism is a religion with superstitions and hierarchy, or not. What matters is that, yes, people do get opressed by religious leaders, and yes, people fall for superstitions.
People do get told that they can’t reach enlightenment because they’re of the wrong gender. People do get told that they were born with a terrifying and debilitating disease because they did something bad in a past life.
But on the other hand, if you look at buddhist scriptures, you find enough material to decry this sort of fear-mongering.
If I’m pressed for a definition of a buddhist, I’d say: everyone who – on some level – believes that the Four Noble Truths aptly describe the human condition and hint at a way to end suffering. That’s because all well-established buddhist schools obviously accept the Four Noble Truths.
On the other hand, there is no central authority to define who is a buddhist and who isn’t – so if you call yourself a buddhist, then you are a buddhist, plain and simple.
Hi brent,
I`ve read through all the posts on this site now regarding Buddhism. It still strikes me that most of the defenses of Buddhism are either the you just don`t understand true Buddhism kind, or the Buddhism is an empty concept take what you want variety, which may be good advice, but sidesteps the difficult questions about what Buddhism has become and the belief systems it supports. If reincarnation is a political convenience, then that political convenience needs to be exposed and dismantled. The Dalai Lama is a hypocrit if he is aware of this and does or says nothing about it. If people are using organizations like Shambala to fulfill their private need to present themselves as authorities, or as a way of copping out and submitting to an authority,then this needs to be exposed and called out.
Well… yes, I see what you’re aiming at, and I agree. I think that “buddhism is an empty concept” does not at all contradict taking action against personality cults and the use of reincarnation as a political instrument. One is about working in favor of autonomous human beings – the other is about what I personally make of buddhism. But ultimately, isn’t it the same thing? If I were to talk to someone who follows a guru or thinks the Dalai Lama is some godlike creature, I’d point out to them that they’re conceptualising buddhism and that they can take whatever they want from the scriptures – if they decide to follow a leader, that’s their prerogative, but if anyone claims that buddhists HAVE to follow a leader, then that’s clearly wrong. So I think the “take what you like” attitude actually harmonizes with political action.
A Buddhist is someone who by practicing the Buddha Dhamma is stopping to cling to a permanent self and stop clinging to form. This is what one should practice in a retreat. Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. One does not come out from a retreat getting tangled more in form.
Hope this helps.
@vijeno and riglin
I’d agree with this definition. If the label ‘buddhist’ refers to anything at all, it is acceptance of the four noble truths, the transcendence of the permanent ‘I’. This is the only thing unique to buddhism, and so it is the only thing that makes the label ‘buddhist’ meaningful at all. So of course it must be your attitude to the four noble truths that determine whether you’re a buddhist, not your attitude to things like karma and rebirth.
If I recall correctly, though, the fourth noble truth is tied to the eightfold path as a way out of suffering and then the eightfold path is tied to the notion of karma and rebirth… It’s in “The Heart of Buddha’s Teaching” by Thich Nhat Hanh, which is only partially online and I don’t have my paper copy anymore. See page 10 for a graphic of the four noble truths. Karma shows up in several of the 8 steps on the path…
So, this shows the integration of this religion that RedKiwi mentioned in the comment from July 6: You cannot pick and chose – you get the whole thing, starving ghosts and all…
@Rachel
Unless you, yourself, think belief in karma and rebirth are necessary in order to perform right speech, right action, right livelihood and so on, then you must agree that the four noble truths (including the eightfold path) can be accepted without karma and rebirth.
Ah, yes. That’s why I had decided not to participate in these discussions anymore: As soon as I think I found a contradiction, the person slips away like an eel through some hole of their making… Basically, Sam, Buddhism then is what you make it to be, changing it as you see fit to advance your argument. Thus, any argument that I make cannot possibly present any evidence that might change your mind. To me, that is the essence of religion… I will keep quiet again now. It’s a waste of time & energy to say anything…
(Addendum on July 9: Please note that I misunderstood, Sam! He clarified his position in another comment. Thanks, Sam, and sorry for misunderstanding!)
Rachel, have you read this? Hopefully this article will give you a more balance view.
“Zen at War and the Opposite of Equanimity” by Barbara O’Brien
http://buddhism.about.com/b/2010/02/04/zen-at-war-and-the-opposite-of-equanimity.htm