Author Topic: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism  (Read 3659 times)

Offline Solitary (OP)

I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
« on: August 21, 2015, 04:53:29 PM »
http://atheism.about.com/b/2009/05/28/whats-wrong-with-buddhism.htm?utm_content=20150821&utm_medium=email&utm_source=exp_nl&utm_campaign=list_atheism&utm_term=list_atheism

Although Buddhism seems so different from religions like Christianity and Islam that it doesn't look like it should be in the same category, it still shares with other religions a very basic element: a belief that the universe is in some fashion set up for our sake -- or at least set up in a manner conducive to our needs. In Christianity this is more obvious with the belief in a god that supposedly created the universe for our benefit. In Buddhism, it is expressed in the belief that there are cosmic laws that exist solely to process our "karma" and make it possible for us to "advance" in some fashion.

This is one of the most fundamental problems with religions -- pretty much all religions. Although it's more of a problem in some and less of a problem in others, it's still a fairly consistent problem that people are falsely taught that there is something in or above the universe that has picked them out for special protection and consideration. Our existence is a product of luck, not divine intervention, and any improvements we achieve will be due to our own hard work, not cosmic process or karma.

This is based on the various schools of Buddhism that have been corrupted by other religions, His original and ideas in later life to not support this in any way.  Buddha never thought he was divinely inspired, or thought he was a god. In fact, he never believed in the divine period. He never believed in Karma or any other magical thing. His was just a philosophy of life, almost identical to Schopenhauer's. I have had terrific arguments from modern Buddhist that claim the Western mind cannot understand Buddhism. I take this as a compliment. The modern schools are nothing like what he taught, in the beginning of his life or later before he died from eating poison mushrooms. This criticism is based on Hinduism, not the original teachings of Buddha himself.  Why is it seem that everyone has to make everything divine when it isn't?   :wall:
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Offline peacewithoutgod

Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
« Reply #1 on: August 21, 2015, 05:35:08 PM »
Buddhism is a lot of things different from the Abrahamic religions, so what the fuck and la de dah? On bullshit, it is not arguably any less. On that, this forum really needs to add a bullshit-shoveling smiley. :toilet:
« Last Edit: August 21, 2015, 05:41:24 PM by peacewithoutgod »
There are two types of ideas: fact and non-fact. Ideas which are not falsifiable are non-fact, therefore please don't insist your fantasies of supernatural beings are in any way factual.

Doctrine = not to be questioned = not to be proven = not fact. When you declare your doctrine fact, you lie.

Online aitm

Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
« Reply #2 on: August 21, 2015, 06:28:17 PM »
Buddism, like religion, is the belief that man can be far more than he is. It is in all aspects, preferable to religion, but still nonetheless…hokum.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Online Shiranu

Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
« Reply #3 on: August 21, 2015, 06:33:06 PM »
Buddism, like religion, is the belief that man can be far more than he is. It is in all aspects, preferable to religion, but still nonetheless…hokum.

This is where I make a terrible atheist; that is a bad thing... how?
"Too curious flower, watching us pass, met death; Our hungry donkey." - Basho

"You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty." - Mahatma Gandhi

Offline peacewithoutgod

Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
« Reply #4 on: August 21, 2015, 06:55:11 PM »
Buddism, like religion, is the belief that man can be far more than he is. It is in all aspects, preferable to religion, but still nonetheless…hokum.
Ok, since when was Buddhism not a religion? The absence of deities isn't even 100% true with all forms of it, and they all have plenty of woo-woo to go around.
There are two types of ideas: fact and non-fact. Ideas which are not falsifiable are non-fact, therefore please don't insist your fantasies of supernatural beings are in any way factual.

Doctrine = not to be questioned = not to be proven = not fact. When you declare your doctrine fact, you lie.

Offline Baruch

Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
« Reply #5 on: August 21, 2015, 07:44:43 PM »
Like any old sophisticated cultural item, Buddhism is not just one thing, but a whole family of things.  Which version one is talking about, is important.  Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana et al.  Also what kind of nirvana? ... one kind is annihilation of the ego.

Abrahamic religions seem to maximize the ego ... as does Hinduism (another family of things).  Buddhism is the only religion that minimizes the ego.  Notice, doesn't annihilate the ego (in general), just minimizes it.  Buddhist deities are more like archangels than gods.

Now why would one want to annihilate the ego?  Isn't that as extreme as maximizing it to G-d status?  Could it be that some atheists are also nihilists, that their atheism is part of how they express their nihilism?  I see no requirement that an atheist be anti-ego.  But a nihilist would be anti-ego ... and some Buddhists seem to be nihilist.  Others are not ... as outlined by the initial poster.

Some will claim that some forms of Buddhism are simply psychological self analysis.  Others will claim that the Buddha only mentions karma and deities, because he is dealing the Hindus.  And it is unclear the relationship between the various Buddhisms of the present, vs the supposed original.

So is the ultimate skepticism, nihilism?  Do you believe in nothing, not yourself, not even your belief in nothing.  Then why listen to you, unless you want to pay me a fee for psychoanalysis ;-)  And if humans aren't special, then cannibalism is OK if I am not a vegetarian?
« Last Edit: August 21, 2015, 07:46:21 PM by Baruch »
שלום

Offline Aupmanyav

Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
« Reply #6 on: August 22, 2015, 03:00:14 AM »
.. it's still a fairly consistent problem that people are falsely taught that there is .. He never believed in Karma ..
Why do you jump at something false that was taught? Perhaps it was for the benefit of the society. I thought if anything existed in Buddhism, it is karma, not even the doer of deeds.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2015, 03:02:05 AM by Aupmanyav »
"Brahma Satyam Jagan-mithya" (Brahman is the truth, the observed is an illusion)
"Sarve Khalu Idam Brahma" (All this here is Brahman)

Offline Baruch

Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
« Reply #7 on: August 22, 2015, 05:43:53 AM »
Aupmanyav ... don't know where you are coming from, in regards to Buddhism, so don't feel disturbed what I might say about it now or later ;-)  Namaste.

Evidence would indicate that Theravada Buddhism is the one closest to the original, and that on that basis Buddha was more Indian, and less Universalist, than he was interpreted outside of India, at a later date.  Mahayana and Vajrayana claims, are based on a contact with the spirit of the Buddha (Buddhakaya) at a later date ... it is the result of exegesis of early sutras by first Buddhists in Andhra, and later by Buddhists in Kashmir.  These "spiritual" sutras didn't exist in the time of Emperor Ashoka.  But something like the Dhammapada and the gathas of the monks and nuns, are part of the oldest layer of the Tripitaka.

So my educated guess, is that Buddha was not just being "skillful" when preaching in Hindu terminology.  But in his time, Hinduism was still evolving (and still is) .. so he belonged to an anti-Brahmin faction, which was Kshatriya in origin.  In Hinduism as it developed, absorbed many influences, including Buddhism, such that Buddhism died out under the influence of Advaita theology, undermining the Kshatriyas and reestablishing the dominance of the Brahmins.

How do you like The Hindus by Wendy Doniger?
« Last Edit: August 22, 2015, 06:22:04 AM by Baruch »
שלום

Offline Aupmanyav

Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
« Reply #8 on: August 22, 2015, 12:11:06 PM »
Aupmanyav ... don't know where you are coming from, in regards to Buddhism, so don't feel disturbed what I might say about it now or later ;-)  Namaste.
 
So my educated guess, is that Buddha was not just being "skillful" when preaching in Hindu terminology. 

How do you like The Hindus by Wendy Doniger?
Don’t worry, Baruch. What you say about Buddha is not going to disturb me. I have two Gurus and Buddha is one of them (the other is Sankara of Advaita, non-duality). I am a Kashmiri.

I think Buddha was quite skillful. He retained ‘karma’ for the benefit of society. We have a saying in Hindi, from Rama Charit Manas of Goswami Tulsi Das, which goes like this:

‘Bhaya bin hot na preet, Gopala’ (O Gopala (Krishna), love does not develop without fear).

We love our parents, social laws, wife, so as not to loose their love. If there is no benefit, you may not find people engaging in good deeds. So, Buddha retained the carrot and sword policy (which you find in all religions as also in society) without subscribing to Gods or soul. I think he used minimal hocus-pocus, but only that which was necessary.

I have not read Wendy Doniger except for a few excerpts long ago, some I agree with some I do not agree with. I think Wendy, apart from the atrocious last books or articles, has written something sane about Hinduism too. You see, one could spend time doing better things than read what people say Wendy has written. I have my views no Wendy can change that.

As for Hinduism, it was always developed to the best of its times. It has a dynamic format, something like Wikipedia. It is still the most developed with Advaita.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2015, 12:18:23 PM by Aupmanyav »
"Brahma Satyam Jagan-mithya" (Brahman is the truth, the observed is an illusion)
"Sarve Khalu Idam Brahma" (All this here is Brahman)

Offline peacewithoutgod

Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
« Reply #9 on: August 22, 2015, 01:46:10 PM »
Don’t worry, Baruch. What you say about Buddha is not going to disturb me. I have two Gurus and Buddha is one of them (the other is Sankara of Advaita, non-duality). I am a Kashmiri.

I think Buddha was quite skillful. He retained ‘karma’ for the benefit of society. We have a saying in Hindi, from Rama Charit Manas of Goswami Tulsi Das, which goes like this:

‘Bhaya bin hot na preet, Gopala’ (O Gopala (Krishna), love does not develop without fear).

We love our parents, social laws, wife, so as not to loose their love. If there is no benefit, you may not find people engaging in good deeds. So, Buddha retained the carrot and sword policy (which you find in all religions as also in society) without subscribing to Gods or soul. I think he used minimal hocus-pocus, but only that which was necessary.

I have not read Wendy Doniger except for a few excerpts long ago, some I agree with some I do not agree with. I think Wendy, apart from the atrocious last books or articles, has written something sane about Hinduism too. You see, one could spend time doing better things than read what people say Wendy has written. I have my views no Wendy can change that.

As for Hinduism, it was always developed to the best of its times. It has a dynamic format, something like Wikipedia. It is still the most developed with Advaita.
Dude, while I'm sure that swastika tattoo means something entirely different to you from Arianism, you should know better than to display it on a Western-dominated site!
There are two types of ideas: fact and non-fact. Ideas which are not falsifiable are non-fact, therefore please don't insist your fantasies of supernatural beings are in any way factual.

Doctrine = not to be questioned = not to be proven = not fact. When you declare your doctrine fact, you lie.

Offline Baruch

Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
« Reply #10 on: August 22, 2015, 02:02:59 PM »
With swastikas ... and an educated Jewish person ... there is no offense ... since I know what it means.  Also I know what the Star of David means in the East ... the heiros gamos of Vishnu/Lakshmi.  So I hope no Hindus take offense either ;-)

You have enlarged my acquaintance with you, for which I am thankful.  As a Kashmiri, you have a lot of spiritual heritage to live up to.  My leanings regarding Buddha is also framed by (upaya)  Did you ever watch the TV program, Bones of the Buddha, regarding Piprahwa stupa?  Also the video Jesus in India?
שלום

Offline Aupmanyav

Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
« Reply #11 on: August 22, 2015, 02:14:24 PM »
Dude, while I'm sure that swastika tattoo means something entirely different to you from Arianism, you should know better than to display it on a Western-dominated site!
I think it gives me a chance to inform people of the real import of Swastika (Swasti - we wish you well) which has been used in all civilizations including the Jewish from time immemorial barring the nasty period of Nazism. Yes, I am supposed to be from the Indo-Aryan stock and I am very interested in the history of Aryans, though my views differ from the European (Aryans were invaders, marauders and victors) or even the Indian view (Aryans were Indians). Aryans were none of these. They were the people who were displaced from their sub-Arctic homeland by the advent of ice-age and their culture has left imprints right from Denmark to Combodia. Please allow me to show you what Swastika means to us:

Om sarvesham swastir bhavatu, Sarvesham shantir bhavatu;
Sarvesham purnam bhavatu, Sarvesham mangalam bhavatu.
Sarve bhavantu sukhinah, Sarve santu niramayah;
Sarve bhadrani pashyantu, Ma kaschit duhkha bhag bhavet.

Auspiciousness (swasti) be unto all; peace (shanti) be unto all;
fullness (purnam) be unto all; prosperity (mangalam) be unto all.
May all be happy! (sukhinah), May all be free from disabilities! (niramayah);
May all look (pashyantu) to the good of others, May none suffer from sorrow! (duhkha).
http://www.hinduism.co.za/shanti.htm
« Last Edit: August 22, 2015, 02:17:35 PM by Aupmanyav »
"Brahma Satyam Jagan-mithya" (Brahman is the truth, the observed is an illusion)
"Sarve Khalu Idam Brahma" (All this here is Brahman)

Offline Aupmanyav

Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
« Reply #12 on: August 22, 2015, 02:32:25 PM »
With swastikas ... and an educated Jewish person ... there is no offense ... since I know what it means.  Also I know what the Star of David means in the East ... the heiros gamos of Vishnu/Lakshmi.  So I hope no Hindus take offense either ;-)

You have enlarged my acquaintance with you, for which I am thankful.  As a Kashmiri, you have a lot of spiritual heritage to live up to.  My leanings regarding Buddha is also framed by (upaya)  Did you ever watch the TV program, Bones of the Buddha, regarding Piprahwa stupa?  Also the video Jesus in India?
No. No question of an offense. We love both the signs. I have a lot of images from India where the two exist side by side, most famously, in a synagogue in Cochin, Kerala, our southern-most State, and where the Jews landed some 2,500 years ago and since then have lived happily in peace and prosperity. Here are some of them (starting with the synagogue):







Thanks for the kind sentiments. I am quite familiar with the Buddhist history and monuments in India and Pakistan. Not much interested in videos. Christianity and Islam because of their monotheism do not sit with me. (Is not Judaism too monotheistic: Yes, but they are mostly not crazy about it)
« Last Edit: August 22, 2015, 02:54:19 PM by Aupmanyav »
"Brahma Satyam Jagan-mithya" (Brahman is the truth, the observed is an illusion)
"Sarve Khalu Idam Brahma" (All this here is Brahman)

Offline Baruch

Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
« Reply #13 on: August 22, 2015, 02:49:04 PM »
This is not a surprise, and probably not to German scholars traveling in the East in the 1920s and 1930s.

As a follower of Shankara ... do you feel any alienation between you aren the more popular Vaisnava or Saiva followers?  Hindu fundamentalists might find Advaita Vedanta ... suspiciously Buddhist.  How do you feel about the division between Saiva followers in N vs S India?  How do you feel about the followers of Durga in Bengal?  And what about the transgendered representations of divinity like Ardhanarishvara vs transgressive Tantra?

I have found Sanskrit most difficult to study, but I can follow a little in a bilingual Gita.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2015, 02:56:33 PM by Baruch »
שלום

Offline Aupmanyav

Re: I completely disagree with this assesment of Buddhism
« Reply #14 on: August 22, 2015, 03:06:48 PM »
:) No, not at all. Since Brahman is one, Vishnu, Krishna or Shiva, all are forms of Brahman only. Advaitists can be moderators between warring Vaishnavas and Shaivas. The theist fundamentalists do say that, but with so many references about Advaita in Upnishads, we do not give them any ground (BTW, I am an atheist advaitist Hindu. You see advaita, non-duality, does not even allow a God). Hinduism takes form according to people. Bali Hinduism is so different, but it still is Hinduism. By that standard North and South India are not far from each other. Well what would the Gods do, if there was no Shakti (power). It is a part and parcel of them. No problem about transgenders, prostitutes or eunuchs; we have special Goddesses for them. Bahuchara in North India and Yelamma in South. All can find refuge under the Hindu umbrella.

Late, time to sleep. Bye, Baruch. Nice to have met you.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2015, 03:10:31 PM by Aupmanyav »
"Brahma Satyam Jagan-mithya" (Brahman is the truth, the observed is an illusion)
"Sarve Khalu Idam Brahma" (All this here is Brahman)