Essential Elements of Buddhism
When I was first reflecting on the essentials of Buddhism, I thought of the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path. Then I realized, if we step back even more, the essential element of Buddhism is the Buddha. Who was the Buddha? From the IMS Website’s dictionary: “Fully awakened one (Sanskrit); specifically the historical Buddha, Sakyamuni, who lived and taught in India 2,500 years ago” (more details are at Spirit Rock). So, this guy, Sakyamuni or Siddhartha Gautama, was the one who started it all. His teachings, the wisdom he gained from sitting under a Bodhi tree 2,500 years ago, is what is still today being taught as Buddhism. What evidence is there for this Sakyamuni? As far as I know, there is even less than for the historical existence of Jesus. So, zero. What happens to all the teachings if the teacher did not exist?
I suppose the argument that Buddhists might bring forth is that the teachings, the Dharma (“the Buddha’s teachings, truth, the basic building blocks of reality”), is so fundamental that it is just floating around to be glimpsed by any meditator who just sits long enough. When I was a child asking skeptical questions about Christianity, the answer often was “God’s ways are mysterious.” I quickly began to see that answer as a cop-out, used when adults just didn’t know what they were talking about. Floating dharma, truth that is out there to be grasped by anybody who wants to, sounds just like that. But aren’t scientists doing that as well, just searching for a truth that is out there? Well, no. First, they are not searching for The Truth, as the Buddhists do. Second, science is not searching for something predefined, again The Truth. They are open to multiple possibility, sometimes even contradictory explanations. Many Buddhists are claiming that the Buddha encourages scientific inquiry. They forget to mention that this inquiry is limited: We are to verify for ourselves that The Truth he discovered is really The Truth (and all Buddhist assurances are that it is). If we become skeptical, we are warned that this is a hindrance: skeptical doubt is “the kind of doubt that undermines faith.” That would be akin to a scientist having a hypothesis and only being interested in proving that hypothesis, any evidence to the contrary is dismissed as a hindrance. The Buddha’s ways are mysterious.
You might be wondering why I am so obsessed with questioning Buddhism, proudly preventing my enlightenment by embracing a hindrance. Actually, I reached enlightenment. Arrogant? Maybe. What did my enlightenment entail? Not a discovery of The Truth, just seeing things more clearly: There was no Buddha, hence his teachings are nothing sacred and can be questioned, there is more to suffering than what the Four Noble truths say, Enlightenment is some sort of elusive state nobody reaches anyways, and, finally, there is a ton of money involved. That’s what it always boils down to, isn’t it: money.
However, I am also disheartened by my fellow skeptics that they feel that there is value in Buddhism (like Sam Harris) or see nothing wrong with them (like Richard Dawkins) (there are a few exceptions, fortunately). What is wrong with Buddhism? I don’t see followers of Kant driving around in Audis financed by their students (actually, I don’t even know if there are people who are “Kantians”). Yes, money again. If Buddhism were just like any other philosophy, it would be taught like any other philosophy but it is not. It does not encourage critical thought, as I pointed out above and in my essay. It discourages it by putting doubt in the same category as anger. But more insidiously, I think skeptics’ focus on Buddhism prevents us from asking the most fundamental question that Buddhism claims to have answered: what is the origin of suffering? I agree that part of our suffering is created through our thinking: we can certainly add to our pain by fighting reality. However, there can already be a ton of pain in that reality. Reality is that there is poverty, that there is injustice, and that there is death of the innocent. That suffering exists without any mental add-on. That suffering ceases when we create a more just society. By claiming that we can cease to suffer by following an eightfold path, Buddhists willfully ignore the system side of suffering, which admittedly will require a lot more work to change than simply sitting on a cushion. That is the problem with Buddhism: Like all other religions, it cements the status quo by redirecting focus away from system issues to personal issues. And that is precisely why Buddhism is a religion, not a philosophy: Buddhism is not interested in discovering how things are, it is interested in teaching people one limited explanation of how things are and condemning doubt of that teaching and thus preventing change.
Share this post with others:
Here’s my take on Buddhism. It’s basically a non-mystical perspective. I believe that Siddhartha Gautama did exist even though there is no archaeological evidence. I won’t go into why, but I also believe, like some of the suttas state, he was just a man, not a god. In my opinion, his entire story, that is, his teachings and life were highly embellished. In other words, he wasn’t a prince or the son of a great king, etc. The best that can be ascertained is that he was the son of the elected leader of a province that belonged to a kingdom that was ruled by a warlord type of king. Further, he was from the farmer class that took up arms when required. He was not from the warrior class.-source Spirit of the Buddha by Martine Batchelor.
Now, I believe Siddhartha was fairly observant and basically said, “there’s a lot of ‘dukkha’ in life”. He never really said suffering as ‘dukkha’ is translated by Sanskrit and Pali scholars as ‘unease’. But it, apparently, can mean several similar ideas such as fear, anxiety, disease, dislike, nervousness, panic, etc. and of course, suffering.
With that, I believe he figured out that if he released himself psychologically from these things that caused suffering or he didn’t cling and grasp to them (2nd noble truth) he could highly foreshorten or eliminate his suffering. For example, instead of suffering or living in a state of fear, denial or what have you over the fact that someone you love, like a parent, spouse, child etc. is going to die, may get sick, hurt or other, accept that fact that these things are inevitable, that they are a part of life, and do your best to enjoy your loved ones while they’re around and healthy. Also, accept the fact that the same is going to happen to yourself and try to enjoy life while you can. No point fretting over the fact you are going to die one day. (The greatest fear next to public speaking suffered by human individuals.)
I believe that people over-do this whole enlightenment/awakening thing. I thing that Siddhartha awakened when he realized certain truths like the four noble truths, the truth of impermanence, and the truth of interdependent origination which, I think, is just integration. I also think his awakening had a lot to do with realizing that there were no Gods or God, and if there was, God has no affect or involvement on anyone’s life. He was probably an atheist but saw no point in even discussing it. I don’t believe that Siddhartha believed in devas or any other god-like entities but he may have ‘humored’ people by talking to them in a way that they would understand what he was getting at. Basically, his awakening was realizing that the current way people thought about things (2500 yrs ago) wasn’t truth and wasn’t very realistic.
One of his big realizations was that being ascetic got you nowhere, and in fact, could seriously harm you. From this he realized that the ‘middle’ way was an extremely good approach to life, but not the only approach. That is, too much of something doesn’t always work as does too little of something doesn’t always work. For example too much work makes you stressed, and too little work can make you lazy.
I believe that most Buddhism has been added to by cultural beliefs (as well as self-centered individuals but much of it is cultural). For example, Tibetan Buddhism is heavily influenced by the pre-Buddhist Bon religion. And, Tibetan Buddhism is so popular today because of the unfortunate circumstances regarding what happened in and around 1959 to Tibet.
Basically, to me, Siddhartha Gautama’s teachings and realizations were a lot simpler then what they’ve grown into, or that they have been highly embellished, and made to be highly mystical. One should take into consideration the beliefs at the time and that Siddhartha had to explain things to people who held these beliefs. It would be like talking to a born-again Christian about, say, how the bible is full of errors and that it is actually biblical scholars that have mostly been the determinants of this fact, and not a bunch of heathen satanists sitting around looking for a way to discredit the beliefs of the born-again Christians.
Now, if one removes the ‘mysticism’ and sticks to the ‘core’ beliefs it’s a pretty good philosophy to live life by.