trientalis

Here's an interesting commentary on Buddhism. I found the concluding paragraph appealing.

"Buddhist Retreat"

Seraphim

Another example of Confusion from the West ... You guys should give it a new name ... Confusianism (I don't think that is proper thought, too near to Confucious).

The main difference between a Buddhist in the East and a Buddhist in the West is ONE -

Buddhist in the East attend to follow what monks or those who practise Buddhism by letting go of their desires and all had to say.

Buddhist in the West however attend to follow some "wisemen" from a University who has a degree or a doctrate in a certain field such as Theism had so say. This "holymen" comes out with books about their opinions and that is good enough to explain Buddhism or any other religion or principles.

No wonder your whole society is falling on your face ...

If you want to seek truth, follow your path to seek it. You expect someone to show you the truth, then you are not seeking anything but another excuse.

Sarpedon

I would rather follow the advice of a scholar instead of that of a monk. The reason being is that clergy, whatever the sect, rely on the hard work of others for their support. Buddhist theocracies are every bit as bad as "western" theocracies. The difference between a clergyman and a scholar is there is less conflict of interests on the point of view of scholars. A scholar supports him or herself through work. A clergyman depends on the support of others. Therefore, clergymen have always encouraged ignorance, passivity, and obedience from their lay followers. It is the same whether or not you are in the "east" or in the "west". Don't try to pretend that buddhist monks don't defraud, fornicate, and molest, just like their "western" counterparts. The reason that so many "westerners," like myself, are attracted to buddhism is, I think, because the clergy are superfluous. If one learns to meditate, reads the scriptures, and obeys them, it is not necessary to have priests. The buddhist clergy survives not by espousing the principles of buddhism, but by encouraging non-buddhist superstitions. Where in the scriptures does the buddha tell us to make offerings? Where does he tell us to build temples? Where does he tell us to ordain priests and to preform rituals? Rather than blindly following the teachings of those who have it in their best interest to deceive us, we follow those who, through study, try to get to the heart of the matter. I am skeptical even of these. "Westerners" are used to being cheated. We are skeptical of everyone who comes along claiming to have "the truth". Usually, these people are frauds. I determine the truth on my own. To help me I consult the works of scholars. I also peruse the scriptures of various religions, and primary philosophy sources. I generally ignore the works of priests, because they have shown time and time again that they cannot be trusted.

Now ask yourself, who is approaching this problem from a more mature and wise direction? The one who blindly accepts the words of the bald men? Or one who listens to everything, and makes his decisions based off everything he can learn? Perhaps our society is "falling on its face, " but there are many societies that have never stood up to begin with. It is amusing to hear criticisms from those countries that try so hard to invent some reason to feel superior, when the evidence shows that there is no reason. So, will you stop insulting me because of the color of my skin, or the region of my birth? Or will you continue to delude yourself and imagine that your dirtbag little country is somehow better than mine?

tk

I have the exact opposite view. While there may be some point in the preceding paragraphs, the last paragraph's assertion that Buddhism believes "the universe was created for our benefit" is not true.

lugotorix

Yup, it's interesting alright, if only because it's more well-written than most dismissals of Buddhism. It still contains quite a lot of misinformation, though.

This quote:
especially stands out and show that he knows diddly squat about Buddhism. The most basic introduction to Buddhism will explain that

• the lack of a soul is the most distinctive teaching of Buddhism.
• Karma is viewed as a natural law, much like gravity, which doesn't imply any sort of external judge.

He also states that Buddhists believe that I wonder where the hell he got that from. I've read quite a few sutras and never seen that stated or implied.

It's obvious this guy has an axe to grind. I see that he's the author of a book titled Rational Mysticism; maybe he's trying to peddle his own ideas by knocking the percieved competition. The final paragraph gives him away, when he says that all religions stem from narcissism -- evidently he's psychic and is able to look deep into the minds of all religious folk and divine their motivations.

Too bad he didn't approach this with an open mind and take the time to actually learn about Buddhism before dismissing it so cavalierly.

lugotorix

andy_d

That's completely untrue.

Don't let your personal prejudices about the west get in way of the facts, Seraphim. I'm inclined to think from that comment that you don't actually have any experience of Buddhism in the West.

lugotorix

Your bigotry and close-mindedness is showing again. Have you ever been to a Western country? I doubt it quite a bit, since your ignorance of the state of Buddhism here is astounding. For the most part, professors of Buddhist studies are not at all famous -- most of their work is published in scholarly journals that only other professors see. The most prevalent books in all of the bookstores I visit are all written by Asian monks -- the Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hahn, Master Sheng-yen, Sogyal Rinpoche, etc.

(I can't believe I'm even bothering -- I pretty much wrote you off the first time you started spouting your bigotry and prejudice. Too bad you have such a closed mind; you might actually learn something here otherwise.)
I don't know what you think that is, but it's not Buddhism. This is:
There you have it, from the Buddha himself. stating that Buddhas show others the path. Maybe it would help dispel some of your mistaken notions if you studied some Buddhist scriptures

lugotorix

monkey mind

<adhominem>

You are rascist. You are ignorant of the Buddha's teachings. You are ignorant about the west. You are ignorant about the east. You stick your nose in where you are not invited. You give terrible advice, completely unsolicited. Your english is bad. I hope you can understand what I am saying. Stick to ninjitsu.

</adhominem>

bagong

Hello, I'm new here. I've been lurking for a week now and have been meaning to post; that article of my religion was enough to kick me out of my lethargy!

As lugotorix pointed out, the author has completely misunderstood one of the fundamental tenets of Buddhism, which makes me question whether he is in any position to critque it at all.

I'd like to know what type of "research" can reveal the effects of meditation, which are purely internal psychological. How can you scientifically measure someone's "degree of enlightenment"?

Anyway, I should add that I actually agree with him: meditation for the average householder is little more than glorified "quiet time". The Buddha clearly intended for meditation to be performed by "professionals": people who dedicate their full time to following the path. The traditional role for the Buddhist laity is to cultivate sîla (ethical behaviour) and give material assistance to monks. The idea that everyone can and should meditate is a 20th century Western one that I strongly disagree with.

First he claims Buddhists believe in souls, now he says we believe in "nonexistence": clearly his understanding of anattavâda is confused. Anatta does not mean that we (or anything in the world, for that matter) don't exist, only that none of our constituent parts can be identified as the seat of a personal/individual identity.

The personal testimony of people who have attained yathá-bhúta-ñána-dassana (knowledge and sight of things as they are; i.e. the direct experience of anatta) claims that it is fundamentally different from other mystic feelings.

Obviously such testimony will only hold weight with people who are already Buddhist, but as I said at the beginning, I don't see any way to argue scientifically/ objectively about the effects of meditation.

Examples of misbehaving monks do not constitute a refutation of Buddhist doctrine; only that people do not always live up to it. There is no expectation that simply becoming a monk will automatically grant enlightenment. In fact the opposite is true; it is recognised that the path is exceedingly difficult, and monks will be subject to mistakes.

Sorry Lugotorix, but this is actually true. The arhant (the lowest class of enlightened being) obtains the permanent extinction of all the "cankers", which implies that he is incapable of performing bad deeds.

However, as I said, there is no belief that every Buddhist teacher is actually enlightened. In fact, it is generally accepted that genuinely enlightened beings are extremely rare, and any claims about enlightenment (as a rule made on behalf of the monk by lay devotees; no traditional monk would dare claim it for himself) are treated with extreme scepticism. So there is virtually no practical danger of a teachers abusing this doctine to claim moral infallibility, at least in traditional Theravádin society.

Buddhism makes no apology for claiming that all ordinary human life is ultimately unsatisfactory, and the only way to escape from that dissatisfaction is to escape from householder life itself. However, that does not mean that Buddhism believes it's impossible to life a mostly pleasurable life as a householder. One of the great things about Buddhism is that it accomodates different goals and lifestyles for different people, according to their mindstates.

Ok, I've covered my main objections to the article, although this post ended up longer and more preachy than I had originally planned.

Seraphim

From andy_b

That's completely untrue.

Don't let your personal prejudices about the west get in way of the facts, Seraphim. I'm inclined to think from that comment that you don't actually have any experience of Buddhism in the West.

What is not true?

That "scholars" and "experts" who holds a doctrate title from a University somewhere have better saying about something which they may not have any experience about AND you people consider THAT is something to pounder about?

That this "Experts" don't know a crap when comes to giving away everything and following ones' path for sake of finding himself. Go and see the author of this crap and see whether he is with his family or whether he had left everything to seek what he feels is the truth.

That books like this is an INSULT to Buddhism (hell, ANY religion and teachings) and it don't follow the Buddhism or any of its principles. Buddhism is a path WHICH one can CHOOSE to follow or not to SEEK answers, it is NOT an answer to your question.

In that context, stop wasting yourself with other people's opinions, because like you and me, this people do not know either of us nor our problems.


Wrong Boy, I know perfectly well about East and West. It is you and your buddies who seems to know anything about Buddhism other than what is written in the Books or the Net.

Buddhism never offers anyone solutions, only possible answers which in the end determined by YOURSELF. If you choose to listen to some scholar from some fancy University tell what he thinks is correct, then you are not doing anything by yourself. You are making the same mistake as you make with Christianity and Islam which is trust another to find an answer for you.