Comments on: Criticism of Buddhism http://www.rabe.org/criticism-of-buddhism/ Sharing ideas and provocations on living single while happy. Reflecting on the social psychology of stereotypes and other cultural phenomena. Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:46:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Riglin http://www.rabe.org/criticism-of-buddhism/comment-page-4/#comment-7764 Riglin Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:12:21 +0000 http://www.rabe.org/criticism-of-buddhism/#comment-7764 As per my understanding, Buddhism - the teachings of Buddha. Sects of Buddhism - vehicles for Buddhists to board on to travel the path. Buddhists - people who believed in Buddha. True Buddhists - people who practice the teachings of Buddha. All Buddhists agree that the Tipitaka as a collection of suttas from the Buddha's time. Buddhist monastery rules were set by Buddha so that the Sangha community is in order and live in harmony. Buddhists take vows as an expression of dedication to practice Buddhism. Buddha is defined as 'the awaken one'. Buddhists who believe in rebirth/reincarnation or not, does not help in attaining enlightenment (nirvana) and it does not defines a true Buddhist or not. Kalama sutta points the way to identify and reject corrupted teachings. Recitation of Buddha's teachings were verified and organized into the Tipitaka. Like the Vedas, the suttas are clearly designed to be chanted. They are full of mnemonic devices – rhyming verses, repetitions, numbered lists, stereotyped phrases, etc. Even before the Buddha’s passing, monks and nuns would regularly chant the suttas in congregation. This made it difficult to add, delete or change anything once a sutta had been settled and committed to the memory of the monastic community. There are three types of Buddha: Sama-sam-buddha = One who rediscovers the teachings and teaches the masses as the historical Buddha did (Siddhattha Gotama). This is always misinterpret as only one Buddha in all of humanity. Paccekabuddha = A silent buddha. One who attains full enlightenment, but does not teach others. Arahant = Fully enlightened person, who might teach others, but not as the one who rediscovered the teachings, just as one who learned it from a current dispensation. Therefore, there are many Buddhas in humanity. As per my understanding,
Buddhism – the teachings of Buddha.

Sects of Buddhism – vehicles for Buddhists to board on to travel the path.

Buddhists – people who believed in Buddha.

True Buddhists – people who practice the teachings of Buddha.

All Buddhists agree that the Tipitaka as a collection of suttas from the Buddha’s time.

Buddhist monastery rules were set by Buddha so that the Sangha community is in order and live in harmony.

Buddhists take vows as an expression of dedication to practice Buddhism.

Buddha is defined as ‘the awaken one’.

Buddhists who believe in rebirth/reincarnation or not, does not help in attaining enlightenment (nirvana) and it does not defines a true Buddhist or not.

Kalama sutta points the way to identify and reject corrupted teachings.

Recitation of Buddha’s teachings were verified and organized into the Tipitaka. Like the Vedas, the suttas are clearly designed to be chanted. They are full of mnemonic devices – rhyming verses, repetitions, numbered lists, stereotyped phrases, etc. Even before the Buddha’s passing, monks and nuns would regularly chant the suttas in congregation. This made it difficult to add, delete or change anything once a sutta had been settled and committed to the memory of the monastic community.

There are three types of Buddha:
Sama-sam-buddha = One who rediscovers the teachings and teaches the masses as the historical Buddha did (Siddhattha Gotama). This is always misinterpret as only one Buddha in all of humanity.
Paccekabuddha = A silent buddha. One who attains full enlightenment, but does not teach others.
Arahant = Fully enlightened person, who might teach others, but not as the one who rediscovered the teachings, just as one who learned it from a current dispensation. Therefore, there are many Buddhas in humanity.

]]> By: betlmad http://www.rabe.org/criticism-of-buddhism/comment-page-4/#comment-7763 betlmad Fri, 27 Jan 2012 08:44:30 +0000 http://www.rabe.org/criticism-of-buddhism/#comment-7763 If "Buddhism is not about following a given set of rules, or anything like that" then how can you say for sure that "anybody taking advantage of others is not a true buddhist"? It seems to me rather suspiciously like "not taking advantage of others" is a rule you have set up in the name of "true buddhism". Well, and obviously, the distinction of a "true" X versus a "non-true" X smells suspiciously like a No True Scotsman argument. If “Buddhism is not about following a given set of rules, or anything like that” then how can you say for sure that “anybody taking advantage of others is not a true buddhist”? It seems to me rather suspiciously like “not taking advantage of others” is a rule you have set up in the name of “true buddhism”.

Well, and obviously, the distinction of a “true” X versus a “non-true” X smells suspiciously like a No True Scotsman argument.

]]> By: brent mosher http://www.rabe.org/criticism-of-buddhism/comment-page-4/#comment-7761 brent mosher Fri, 27 Jan 2012 03:31:33 +0000 http://www.rabe.org/criticism-of-buddhism/#comment-7761 Define "true Buddhist". And explain how, if there is such a thing as a "true Buddhist" there needs to be over 400 sects of Buddhism. If there is a "true Buddhist(m)", shouldn't one be enough? Please give me one thing upon which all Buddhists are in agreement. If Buddhism is not about following any set of rules (or anything like that), why do Buddhist monasteries have so many? Why do they take vows? Define what a "buddha" is? Would you care to tell the "Buddhists" who believe in reincarnation that they are not true "Buddhists" because true "Buddhists" do not believe in reincarnation? Would you like to tell one of the sects who believe THEIR sect is uncorrupted, and that the other sects are not so pure theat thye in fact have got it all wrong and YOU represent TRUE Buddhism? How are the teachings of the "Buddhas" any different from those of any wise person who doesn't need (or hasn't had thrust upon them) the title of Buddha? If THE Buddha supposedly taught 80,000 (!) lessons, how does a Buddhist remember them all. What would be the point in giving out 80,000 instructions to people who have trouble remembering seven digit phone numbers? Was their only one Buddha? One Enlightened Being in all of humanity? Doesn't that sound a little Christ-like to you? Rather suspicious? Are claims of the supernatural part of Buddhism or not (including the belief in a Undying Conciousness taht goes beyond the death of the physical body)? Is Buddhism anything more than a claim to follow the Four Fold whatever and the Eightfold this and that, which ANYONE can claim to be doing (and, y'know, since we're all imperfect, failing at most of the time) without bothering to call themselves a Buddhist? These claims that we are only critizing "Buddhists" and not "Buddhism" is tiresome. Buddhism is what Buddhists make it...Buddha lived and died thousands of years ago, and no one has any more idea of who he was than we do Christ. Zen monks slap their students around if they aren't paying enough attention...think Buddha would have approved? Careful now...a REAL Buddhist might be lurking out there who will disagree with your answer. Define “true Buddhist”. And explain how, if there is such a thing as a “true Buddhist” there needs to be over 400 sects of Buddhism. If there is a “true Buddhist(m)”, shouldn’t one be enough? Please give me one thing upon which all Buddhists are in agreement. If Buddhism is not about following any set of rules (or anything like that), why do Buddhist monasteries have so many? Why do they take vows? Define what a “buddha” is? Would you care to tell the “Buddhists” who believe in reincarnation that they are not true “Buddhists” because true “Buddhists” do not believe in reincarnation? Would you like to tell one of the sects who believe THEIR sect is uncorrupted, and that the other sects are not so pure theat thye in fact have got it all wrong and YOU represent TRUE Buddhism? How are the teachings of the “Buddhas” any different from those of any wise person who doesn’t need (or hasn’t had thrust upon them) the title of Buddha? If THE Buddha supposedly taught 80,000 (!) lessons, how does a Buddhist remember them all. What would be the point in giving out 80,000 instructions to people who have trouble remembering seven digit phone numbers? Was their only one Buddha? One Enlightened Being in all of humanity? Doesn’t that sound a little Christ-like to you? Rather suspicious? Are claims of the supernatural part of Buddhism or not (including the belief in a Undying Conciousness taht goes beyond the death of the physical body)? Is Buddhism anything more than a claim to follow the Four Fold whatever and the Eightfold this and that, which ANYONE can claim to be doing (and, y’know, since we’re all imperfect, failing at most of the time) without bothering to call themselves a Buddhist? These claims that we are only critizing “Buddhists” and not “Buddhism” is tiresome. Buddhism is what Buddhists make it…Buddha lived and died thousands of years ago, and no one has any more idea of who he was than we do Christ. Zen monks slap their students around if they aren’t paying enough attention…think Buddha would have approved? Careful now…a REAL Buddhist might be lurking out there who will disagree with your answer.

]]> By: zenner http://www.rabe.org/criticism-of-buddhism/comment-page-4/#comment-7760 zenner Fri, 27 Jan 2012 03:09:46 +0000 http://www.rabe.org/criticism-of-buddhism/#comment-7760 excellent !!! excellent !!!

]]> By: jack smolensk http://www.rabe.org/criticism-of-buddhism/comment-page-4/#comment-7676 jack smolensk Sat, 14 Jan 2012 08:47:55 +0000 http://www.rabe.org/criticism-of-buddhism/#comment-7676 Question, what does the fact that buddhists in japan are immoral have to do with me believing in the buddha's teaching. I could care less what others that call themselves buddhists do. Buddhism is not about following a given set of rules, or anything like that, and anybody taking advantage of others is not a true buddhist. To Anybody that likes this article and agrees with it i have news for you: you are not criticizing buddhism in any way, you are criticizing organized religion. none of this has to do with the actual teaching of any buddhas. Question, what does the fact that buddhists in japan are immoral have to do with me believing in the buddha’s teaching. I could care less what others that call themselves buddhists do. Buddhism is not about following a given set of rules, or anything like that, and anybody taking advantage of others is not a true buddhist. To Anybody that likes this article and agrees with it i have news for you: you are not criticizing buddhism in any way, you are criticizing organized religion. none of this has to do with the actual teaching of any buddhas.

]]> By: vijeno http://www.rabe.org/criticism-of-buddhism/comment-page-4/#comment-6405 vijeno Mon, 05 Dec 2011 07:29:32 +0000 http://www.rabe.org/criticism-of-buddhism/#comment-6405 It is interesting to see how, in today's rationalistic discourse, everybody tries to depict it as if everyone else were coming from belief, while the speaker doesn't hold any beliefs at all. Regardless of whom you ask - it will always be THE OTHERS who are religious. Even radical fundamentalist christians will often chant the mantra "Christianity is not a religion - it is a personal relationship with christ". It is interesting to see how, in today’s rationalistic discourse, everybody tries to depict it as if everyone else were coming from belief, while the speaker doesn’t hold any beliefs at all. Regardless of whom you ask – it will always be THE OTHERS who are religious. Even radical fundamentalist christians will often chant the mantra “Christianity is not a religion – it is a personal relationship with christ”.

]]>