Thoughts on Buddhism

[Laurens]

Greetings all,

I practiced Buddhism on and off in the past, and was up untill recently what you might call a 'religious Buddhist'. However in recent months I began to have my doubts about the whole thing. The attractive thing about Buddhism is that it poses itself to be completely free of the negativities seen in other religions, but to me given a dose of rational thinking it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

I lapped up all the stuff about rebirth (be very weary of calling it reincarnation to a Buddhist!) and karma and all the rest of it. Like other supernatural phenomina, rebirth can be easy to delude yourself into believing, especially when you have teachers saying 'look at nature you see things dying and being reborn in different forms every day' and also telling tales of people who have supposedly seen into their past lives etc.

Recently I've stopped to accept rebirth through these terms, and began to look at Buddhism in a very skeptical manner. It seems to me that Buddhism is just like any other religion, and in someways it could be considered worse, because is poses itself in such a way as to make you think that its not religious. It is true that a vast amount of Buddhism is philosophical. However, I start to see an awful lot of negatives in there, for example; Buddhism goes on about suffering, in Buddhist terms suffering is everywhere from the obvious old age sickness and death to the less apparent things where it poses everything enjoyable to ultimately be suffering. With me at least that had a brain washing affect, I was thinking in terms of everything being some form of suffering and thus it appeared that way and I started to feel a lot of guilt; 'I shouldn't be wasting time watching TV, I should be meditating' and feeling bad for having perfectly natural thoughts of sexual lust etc.

I tried to talk about these doubts to Buddhists and the response was that I was deluded and had the wrong end of the stick etc. I just felt like Buddhism had taken over all of my thoughts and was giving me too much grief for having a good time. Then when talking about rebirth, there are many who say that you cannot follow the Buddhist path without accepting rebirth as it is fundamental to 'the path' and not much point carrying on if you don't accept it. There is a lot of fear and hope surrounding rebirth also - which to me ties it in nicely with other religions, the following quotes illustrate that point:

"to take refuge, two conditions must be present -- fear of rebirth in the three lower realms, and faith in the power of the objects of refuge to protect you from this threat".
- Dalia Lama

"with no conviction in future lives, naturally there is no genuine concern about falling into the lower realms. Indeed there are many who lack conviction in the very existence of these lower realms ... Our practice of the Dharma itself is likely to be motivated by the eight worldly concerns, and if that is the case, it becomes doubtful whether our practice actually qualifies as a Dharma practice."
- Karmapa

I decided to stop affiliating myself with Buddhism, and I feel a whole lot better for it. I think there is a lot of good stuff I can get out of Buddhism - being a decent person for instance, and also meditation can be good to reduce stress etc. I just feel of late like the illusion of Buddhism being different to other religions has worn off and I'm starting to see the parallels. What are your thoughts on the matter? I'm hoping my criticisms of Buddhism won't be met with the same 'you're deluded' response as it did on Buddhist forums.

I feel like a weight has been taken off my shoulders being relieved of the burden of calling myself a Buddhist.

All the best
Laurens

[Frank]

I always hear spiritualists talking about evidence of reincarnation (e.g. the story of a kid who remembers being a fighter pilot in a previous war or something to that affect). These stories are commonly centered around something a kid might find pretty cool (like being a fighter pilot, soldier, fireman, etc.). I've never heard of someone remembering their prior life as a cow or insect. Maybe there are stories like this in Asia or wherever; and these sort of stories do tend to have distinguishing characteristics along cultural lines (which is an obvious red flag in itself).

All in all Buddhism has no more of an evidentiary basis than any other religion; and should accordingly be rejected by the rational thinker.

[Laurens]

I always hear these spiritualists talk about evidence of reincarnation (e.g. the story of a kid who remembers being a fighter pilot in a previous war or something to that affect). These stories are commonly centered around something a kid might find pretty cool (like being a fighter pilot, soldier, fireman, etc.). I've never heard of someone remembering their prior life as a cow or insect.

Indeed, but the stories are drummed up in such a way as to make them seem very believable. Most likely discarding important facts that might cast doubt over the claim.

I often wondered why none of the Buddhists I spoke to ever remembered past lives as a fly or a camel, or even as gods (gods in Buddhism are subject to rebirth also).

I think that they are most likely the product of our great ability to fantasize and imagine things in great detail.

[leo-rcc]

My thoughts on Buddhism are very few and far in between. I have little to no problems with it, but I don't really see much validity in it.

[LukeMC]

I've had a soft spot for Buddhism for a number of years now, but only to the extent that I enjoy a poetic representation of their ideas. For example, I do not believe that I will ever materialize on this planet again once I've died. I accept that the "stuff" that makes me up now will dissipate into the Earth and be passed back through the food chain and be present in new life for as long as life can sustain itself. In such a sense the idea of "rebirth" can be played in a poetic fashion, and as I understand it, the Buddhist interpretation of rebirth isn't that "the self" goes on into another life, as Buddhists would reject the notion of "self" to begin with. As such, I find myself agreeing in a strictly poetic sense with the concept of life being a continuum of beings paving the way for new beings.

Also, I do believe that what I do in this life could potentially affect the life of organisms after me. If I plant a tree and ask to be buried beneath it when I die, I'll be providing some source of nutrients to this newly growing tree and directly affecting it's life. The "stuff of me" will go into that tree and my wish to be a part of the tree will be embodied within it. However, I do not accept for a moment that if I have bad thoughts and act upon them that future life will consciously or subconsciously be affected by this. I only accept this to the extent that I would accept "Politician A created policy X and it has affected life long after Politician A has died". You see, Buddhism appears to capture concepts which are entirely valid yet places a weird mystical air about them. So I would accept that my actions in this life WILL affect future life, but not in the sense that there's some weird conscious seeds being planted in future life by way of my actions.

On another note, lets take a look at suffering.

"# Suffering is caused by craving. This is often expressed as a deluded clinging to a certain sense of existence, to selfhood, or to the things or phenomena that we consider the cause of happiness or unhappiness. Craving also has its negative aspect, i.e. one craves that a certain state of affairs not exist.
# Suffering ends when craving ends. This is achieved by eliminating delusion, thereby reaching a liberated state of Enlightenment (bodhi)"

The first statement is misleading at best, wrong at worst. Some suffering is purely and simply caused by being kicked in the face and it hurting. We have a nervous system and when something is going wrong, it tells us so. Your personal cravings for tranquility, happiness or a steaming hot night with the waitress will have nothing to do with the pain you feel from a stab wound. You'll be craving comfort and wishing the pain to go away, but that is most certainly not the cause of your pain. If it was, medicine would come in the form of a doctor saying "just accept the pain, don't crave recovery" or something equally ridiculous and non-constructive.

However, if the statement read "much suffering is caused by craving" then I'd entirely agree. I can speak from personal experience and say that I had a painfully intense craving for something which lasted 18 months and took me to the brink of insanity. It was only when I let go of that craving and stopped wishing for something I couldn't have that I was finally mentally healed. Living in a world of fantasy, a world that does not exist (living in the future I guess) can cause a lot of pain. Wanting things you don't have can make you feel down about your current situation. There are plenty of instances where this is the case. As such, I'd agree that in some cases, suffering ends when craving ends.

Once again though, I cannot stress enough that this idea shouldn't be taken at a fundamentalist level of absoluteness. All voluntary actions stem from a desire to do something. If we did not "want" food, we wouldn't go out and buy it. It is through acting on cravings that we can function as beings. Craving also leads to personal achievements. Even seeking "enlightenment" and letting go of your cravings is in itself a craving for enlightenment. Simply, you shouldn't take the ideas of a religion to their logical extreme. With moderation, you can accept many of the ideas surrounding a religion without subscribing to it in a devotional manner. In that fashion, I find myself quite attracted to Buddhism and Taoism but not to the extent that I'd become a Buddhist or Taoist.

I think there is a lot of good stuff I can get out of Buddhism - being a decent person for instance, and also meditation can be good to reduce stress etc. I just feel of late like the illusion of Buddhism being different to other religions has worn off and I'm starting to see the parallels.

This just about sums it up. I practise meditation myself and read into yoga, Taoism, Shinto and Buddhism (each to varying degrees) and find many concepts that are complementary to my desires and my lifestyle. However, I understand that accepting one single religion as being correct, all-encompassing, etc, would be foolish as they all have their own shortcomings, delusions and unjustifiable claims. The fact that you've realised this shows that you're well on your way to a more (healthy?) perspective on life, and I'm glad to hear that you're feeling better for it.

Best wishes

[deicide110]

There really isn't to many holes you can shoot in buddism. It sounds like the most believable of the lot.
We can't deny it's beauty in philosophical terms. At least it concentrates on the development of the individual as an instrument in themselves rather than an instrument of above

[Frank]

I always hear these spiritualists talk about evidence of reincarnation (e.g. the story of a kid who remembers being a fighter pilot in a previous war or something to that affect). These stories are commonly centered around something a kid might find pretty cool (like being a fighter pilot, soldier, fireman, etc.). I've never heard of someone remembering their prior life as a cow or insect.

Indeed, but the stories are drummed up in such a way as to make them seem very believable. Most likely discarding important facts that might cast doubt over the claim.

I often wondered why none of the Buddhists I spoke to ever remembered past lives as a fly or a camel, or even as gods (gods in Buddhism are subject to rebirth also).

I think that they are most likely the product of our great ability to fantasize and imagine things in great detail.

My thoughts exactly. Again many of the stories originate with young children (toddlers mostly); not exactly a reliable source (obviously a highly impressionable age, and even if their parents didn't wittingly influence their fantasy, any number of things, most of which probably can't be traced, influence the thoughts of infants and toddlers). Moreover, these stories can be categorized along the lines of culture, which seriously damages their credibility.

I certainly appreciate the fact that people are mostly raised to believe what they believe; and in most cases even clergymen and theologians were raised in their respective belief systems (and sincerely believe the stuff, although I'm sure that's not true in all cases). I think Darwin made a comment at some point about the debate between theism and atheism (or softer varieties of skepticism). He said (I'm paraphrasing) it's not an issue that will be settled through debate; rather religion will wane over time in accordance with scientific advancement and the dissemination of scientific knowledge to the populace. I think he was exactly right.

[Laurens]

I think the problem with 'religious Buddhists' is that they see the Buddha as an infallable charicter who's every word should be taken as ultimate truth. I think the Buddha should be seen less as an infallable deity, and more of an example of a great human.

For example, the Buddha probably taught rebirth because in India at the time it was generally accepted that rebirth occured from life to life. The Buddha was not the originator of this concept. The Buddha's insights into suffering and the nature of the self, should take preceedence over the supernatural and he probably intended this to be so.

I think rather than an infallable god-like figure the Buddha should merely be viewed as a great thinker deserving of respect, and great thinkers can be wrong about some things. The main things I admire about the Buddha are the way he sought to shake up the current caste system and promote equal rights, not only for humans, but for animals also, he promoted free-thinking and spirituality in a time when all the spiritual knowledge was reserved for the Brahmin caste. He was a great rationalist of his day, and provided a great philosphy for people of his time.

I still have respect and admiration for the guy, but I don't see him as infallable and the only source of truth any more, I merely view him as a great teacher who had some amazing insights for his time.

Its sad that for many people Buddhism has become about lighting joss sticks and reciting supposedly magical mantras, or having superstitions about which way your Buddha is facing and getting worried when you forget to take your magic amulet off when you go to the toilet. Just the kind of meaningless gibberish that the Buddha sought to elliminate.

[Frank]

I think the problem with 'religious Buddhists' is that they see the Buddha as an infallable charicter who's every word should be taken as ultimate truth. I think the Buddha should be seen less as an infallable deity, and more of an example of a great human.

I admit I'm not extremely familiar with Buddhism (nor do I intend to become anymore familiar with it than I am right now), but I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Buddha never called himself a deity or infallible (and never advocated anyone else viewing him as such). I think there's different schools of thought in Buddhism (and the view you're referring to here is a later innovation). Maybe later followers thought they had to compete with Jesus or something ... who knows?

[Laurens]

I think the problem with 'religious Buddhists' is that they see the Buddha as an infallable charicter who's every word should be taken as ultimate truth. I think the Buddha should be seen less as an infallable deity, and more of an example of a great human.

I admit I'm not extremely familiar with Buddhism (nor do I intend to become anymore familiar with it than I am right now), but I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Buddha never called himself a deity or infallible (and never advocated anyone else viewing him as such). I think there's different schools of thought in Buddhism (and the view you're referring to here is a later innovation). Maybe later followers thought they had to compete with Jesus or something ... who knows?

Yeah, I don't think the Buddha ever called himself such and didn't want anyone to make statues of him etc. However in Tibetan Buddhism (and possibly other forms) for example, they view the Buddha as omniscient - even going so far as to call him 'The Omniscient One'. In earlier forms of Buddhism, the Buddha is less of a deity, but he is still regarded as an infallable source of truth. These forms of Buddhism they often regard the texts as the main source of teaching (quoting them frequently on message boards!) and any departure from what the Buddha taught is largely frowned upon.

Whether or not the individual schools view the Buddha as human, they all place him beyond doubt and criticism.