• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Single Biggest Flaw in Buddhism?

Straw Dog

Well-Known Member
Hello Leftimies,

Yes, most Buddhisms are probably flawed and just as dogmatic as any other philosophy, religion, way of life, etc.

If everything in reality is impermanent (anicca), then by which mode would an 'eternal bliss of nirvana' exist? Wouldn't the impermanent nature of reality demand that an enlightened being, too, would ultimately have to succumb to impermanence? This concept of attaining lasting enlightenment makes absolutely no sense within the context of impermanence.

Some schools teach the Two Truths, relative and absolute, as a means of reconciling this issue, among others. Impermanence is relative while nirvana is absolute. They are two sides to the same coin. Of course, these can also be interpreted in different ways and may not actually resolve the issue.

The Zen interpretation is that "samsara is nirvana" and surmounts to a dogma of "Let's just not think about it." This strikes me as a cop out because it is a legitimate question to ask.

The bigger issue seems to be the desire to reach nirvana is a seemingly unavoidable obstacle. Enlightenment is a moral imperative and yet it may be impossible to fully realize for the majority of ordinary beings.

Also, if a person inherits karma from previous lives, then wouldn't the bond between a person and his merit be, likewise, permanent? If karma is inherited, from one iteration to another, over the course of reincarnation, and it eventually results in a permanent nirvana, then isn't this bond of merit and the person by definition a permanent phenomena?

Yes, this view of karma conjures a false sense of eternal continuity and an illusion of control: everything that happens to us is the direct result of our own past actions that we are solely responsible for. There is no completely closed system of consequences and many things happen for unknown reasons. Due to the vastness of variables in an open system, there will probably be a fair amount of unintended consequences that we cannot control. Think chaos theory...

I likewise do not agree that because of suffering, you must escape the world, and isolate yourself to the monastery. Even if self doesn't exist, and is not-self at its root, what difference does it make what one thinks? Indeed, deluded or enlightened, all are not-self, all are emptiness. Isn't any monastic practice by definition futile? What can one expect to gain?

The majority of Buddhists are laypersons, but becoming a monk does still seem to be the ideal. Although many schools emphasize engagement in the world, the old school does tend to be all about escaping the world of dust. I wouldn't necessarily say that their efforts are completely futile and different monks probably have different personal goals. Many people obviously still benefit from practicing Buddhism despite its flaws.


Could it be possible to be a Buddhist who:

(1) Agrees with the 'fundamentals' of the Buddhist analysis of reality
(2) Disagrees with the conclusions and solutions that Buddha arrived to (i.e. monastic escapism)
(3) Re-defines certain concepts, like Samsara, Nirvana and Karma, in opposition to what Buddha taught.

I suspect this would be akin to establishing a new school of thought, which would be likely to be viewed as heretical, so there might not be much point in doing so. But what do you think? Would it be a valid course of action?

Is there a single valid course of action? Or just different courses of action unfolding depending upon a variety of constitutional and circumstantial conditions?

I've mostly been influenced by Buddhist and Taoist teachings, but find myself branching away from both traditions. Life is messy and there probably isn't a pure or perfect path towards total escape from the causes and conditions of life, so I say stop trying to be perfect and forget about purity. It's about embracing the messiness of life, accepting a degree of uncertainty, the groundlessness of situations, and allowing ourselves to flow openly rather than thinking ourselves into a box.
 
Hi, everyone. Today I would like to put forward a topic pertaining to Buddhism, its analysis of reality, the conclusions it draws and the solutions that it presents us with. And, more broadly, why I disagree outright with those solutions. I would remind the reader that I've been within the Buddhist sphere of thought for over three years by now, so I'd like to think that this is not a biased opinion that I'd like to present here.

Various things that Buddhism posits, such as the Five Aggregates, Three Marks of Existence, Emptiness and many others, are valid points of view. In fact, I still subscribe to these ideas today. But I just don't see how one would naturally arrive at the conclusions and solutions that Buddhists draw from these.

Indeed, the conclusions and solutions presented to us by Buddhism is what I consider to be its biggest flaws. They are in most part rooted in a number of inconsistent concepts in the Buddhist thought itself, and these inconsistent concepts are namely: Nirvana as a realm of existence and Karma as a cosmic law that is inherited by a person through the different iterations of reincarnation. Let me explain myself here.

If everything in reality is impermanent (anicca), then by which mode would an 'eternal bliss of nirvana' exist? Wouldn't the impermanent nature of reality demand that an enlightened being, too, would ultimately have to succumb to impermanence? This concept of attaining lasting enlightenment makes absolutely no sense within the context of impermanence.

Also, if a person inherits karma from previous lives, then wouldn't the bond between a person and his merit be, likewise, permanent? If karma is inherited, from one iteration to another, over the course of reincarnation, and it eventually results in a permanent nirvana, then isn't this bond of merit and the person by definition a permanent phenomena? Once again, this is inconsistent with the main points of Buddhist thought, and I find that these are the biggest issues that Buddhism needs to address in the near future. And rather than explaining them away by space magic, I hope that they'd completely revisit samsara, karma and nirvana and start with a clean slate.

I likewise do not agree that because of suffering, you must escape the world, and isolate yourself to the monastery. Even if self doesn't exist, and is not-self at its root, what difference does it make what one thinks? Indeed, deluded or enlightened, all are not-self, all are emptiness. Isn't any monastic practice by definition futile? What can one expect to gain?


Further Reflections:

All of these things have lately drawn me towards Confucianism and some types of Confucian Shintō, which are pretty simple in their framework and Shintō in particular is open to creation of new systems of thought (just as long as the rituals remain untouched) and both systems have some pretty interesting philosophical concepts to ponder about, particularly social concepts, but also metaphysical. However, I am not quite ready to abandon ship when it comes to Buddhism, because it has a lot of thought to offer.

Could it be possible to be a Buddhist who:

(1) Agrees with the 'fundamentals' of the Buddhist analysis of reality
(2) Disagrees with the conclusions and solutions that Buddha arrived to (i.e. monastic escapism)
(3) Re-defines certain concepts, like Samsara, Nirvana and Karma, in opposition to what Buddha taught.

I suspect this would be akin to establishing a new school of thought, which would be likely to be viewed as heretical, so there might not be much point in doing so. But what do you think? Would it be a valid course of action?
Leftimies
Thanks for the post on flaws in Buddhism. I don't agree that Buddhism is completely flawed but I think the philosophy has to be connected or pieced together correctly for it to be
logically/rationally sound. The points you highlight make it seem that Buddhism is really a version of Taoism which honestly I think we could say the thought structures are like cousins
to one another.
My first idea to reply about is Nirvana as a realm of existence. There really isn't a flaw here if the disciple/devotee understands that Nirvana means highest intelligence( in activity).
What I mean is that Nirvana never meant a place of eternal bliss for the little living entity. The bliss of Nirvana is a higher consciousness bliss. The raft of personality surely has to be
given up to get the long glimpses of that nature. Because it's higher this is why seemingly bad and tough situations still go on in our regular world but Nirvana is still there over all.
Also, Nirvana and Samsara compliment each other. It may be that one existing points out the other or throws it into relief, that's so one may perceive its actuality. Here I would say though you have the ying/yang of Tao under a different name.
As far as Karma is concerned it really isn't inherited by a person because a person as an independent thing is not taken to be a reality in Buddhism. What is real is the Dharmakaya
or Supreme Dharmakaya or all the Dharmas of the entire reality.
Looked upon from the viewpoint of the individual identity I agree reincarnation makes no sense but reincarnation of the entire cosmic manifestation is likely the only reincarnation that
has ever happened, happens, or will happen. What that really means I suppose only consciousness truly knows or I guess Transcendental consciousness.
Looking to the scriptures of Buddhism I suppose it would mean sooner or later you as a soul will find yourself the Buddha in an incarnation.
Further, the eternal bliss of Nirvana exists by two modes which complement each other eternally or non-eternally if you want to label it that. The eternal bliss of Nirvana exists by the
mode of the unmanifest. Nirvana is empty of emptiness in that every seemingly existent object/entity must be there for it to be a reality but at the same instance, simultaneously, Nirvana
is empty of inherent being in that if every so called thing is coming to be or in process of transformation where is the thing that is truly manifest?
Ones bond is not to Karma actually but the Dharmakaya/Supreme Dharmakaya-entire reality. As far as karma being permanent, the points you make show how a ying/yang realness
to the world will stubbornly never go away however I don't think Buddhists would disagree on that matter.
Lastly, if all is "not-self" as you claim towards the end of your post you are correct, nothing would have an inherent value over any other such thing but merely for the experience itself.
So it follows then that living a monastic life isn't lesser or greater but is like any other life it just is. Hope this is at least entertaining to read.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Hi, everyone. Today I would like to put forward a topic pertaining to Buddhism, its analysis of reality, the conclusions it draws and the solutions that it presents us with. And, more broadly, why I disagree outright with those solutions. I would remind the reader that I've been within the Buddhist sphere of thought for over three years by now, so I'd like to think that this is not a biased opinion that I'd like to present here.

Various things that Buddhism posits, such as the Five Aggregates, Three Marks of Existence, Emptiness and many others, are valid points of view. In fact, I still subscribe to these ideas today. But I just don't see how one would naturally arrive at the conclusions and solutions that Buddhists draw from these.

Indeed, the conclusions and solutions presented to us by Buddhism is what I consider to be its biggest flaws. They are in most part rooted in a number of inconsistent concepts in the Buddhist thought itself, and these inconsistent concepts are namely: Nirvana as a realm of existence and Karma as a cosmic law that is inherited by a person through the different iterations of reincarnation. Let me explain myself here.

If everything in reality is impermanent (anicca), then by which mode would an 'eternal bliss of nirvana' exist? Wouldn't the impermanent nature of reality demand that an enlightened being, too, would ultimately have to succumb to impermanence? This concept of attaining lasting enlightenment makes absolutely no sense within the context of impermanence.

Also, if a person inherits karma from previous lives, then wouldn't the bond between a person and his merit be, likewise, permanent? If karma is inherited, from one iteration to another, over the course of reincarnation, and it eventually results in a permanent nirvana, then isn't this bond of merit and the person by definition a permanent phenomena? Once again, this is inconsistent with the main points of Buddhist thought, and I find that these are the biggest issues that Buddhism needs to address in the near future. And rather than explaining them away by space magic, I hope that they'd completely revisit samsara, karma and nirvana and start with a clean slate.

I likewise do not agree that because of suffering, you must escape the world, and isolate yourself to the monastery. Even if self doesn't exist, and is not-self at its root, what difference does it make what one thinks? Indeed, deluded or enlightened, all are not-self, all are emptiness. Isn't any monastic practice by definition futile? What can one expect to gain?


Further Reflections:

All of these things have lately drawn me towards Confucianism and some types of Confucian Shintō, which are pretty simple in their framework and Shintō in particular is open to creation of new systems of thought (just as long as the rituals remain untouched) and both systems have some pretty interesting philosophical concepts to ponder about, particularly social concepts, but also metaphysical. However, I am not quite ready to abandon ship when it comes to Buddhism, because it has a lot of thought to offer.

Could it be possible to be a Buddhist who:

(1) Agrees with the 'fundamentals' of the Buddhist analysis of reality
(2) Disagrees with the conclusions and solutions that Buddha arrived to (i.e. monastic escapism)
(3) Re-defines certain concepts, like Samsara, Nirvana and Karma, in opposition to what Buddha taught.

I suspect this would be akin to establishing a new school of thought, which would be likely to be viewed as heretical, so there might not be much point in doing so. But what do you think? Would it be a valid course of action?

A 400 pound guy preaching self restraint.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
I don't disagree. ;)
That's as agreeable as I can expect, Spiny old chap :).

So it is time for you to convert/Convert/CONVERT to 'continuation' Buddhism! The evidence for 'continuation' and the mind beyond materialist borders is I believe to any objective observer overwhelming. This 'continuation' belief is objectively better if you study the evidence and as you just agreed is subjectively better too. You 'non-continuation' types are the flat-earthers of 500 years ago:)!
 

Rick O'Shez

Irishman bouncing off walls
So it is time for you to convert/Convert/CONVERT to 'continuation' Buddhism!

Not in the sense of taking on a belief about it, that wouldn't work for me. I've been practising Buddhism for 35 years and have looked at this question from a number of different directions, these days I have an open mind about it. This issue doesn't seem very relevant to my practice on a day to day basis.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Not in the sense of taking on a belief about it, that wouldn't work for me. I've been practising Buddhism for 35 years and have looked at this question from a number of different directions, these days I have an open mind about it. This issue doesn't seem very relevant to my practice on a day to day basis.
OK, it's what works for you I take it. Me? I need more to prevent the nihilistic and depressive, 'Why bother?' bent. And I believe the universe gives us that.
 

Rick O'Shez

Irishman bouncing off walls
OK, it's what works for you I take it. Me? I need more to prevent the nihilistic and depressive, 'Why bother?' bent. And I believe the universe gives us that.

I feel that too sometimes, I guess though for me it's the old truth v. comfort question.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
I feel that too sometimes, I guess though for me it's the old truth v. comfort question.
Actually between 'truth' and 'comfort', I would choose 'truth' myself. I believe 'continuation' is the truth beyond reasonable doubt and I have been an avid student of the many subjects collectively called 'paranormal' and all the pro vs skeptic debates. I was once an atheist-materialist and I do feel I can listen to all the evidence and argumentation objectively (but we each have to do that for ourselves).
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
The Buddha did not weigh 400 lbs, all the actual statues of him show him quite skinny. The 400 lb guy is Confucious, I think.
 

von bek

Well-Known Member
images-1.jpeg


This is not the Buddha! It is Hotei.
 

Leftimies

Dwelling in the Principle
The Buddha did not weigh 400 lbs, all the actual statues of him show him quite skinny. The 400 lb guy is Confucious, I think.

Buddha didn't weigh 400lb, and neither did Confucius. Confucius wasn't a fat man either, he was way too busy to travel all around feudal Chinese kingdoms, teaching societal theory, to grow obese.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
IMHO the single biggest flaw of most Buddhists is that they have no soul, or at least believe they don't, can't swallow that one, everything else, almost, makes good sense to me.
A good jazz band suffices nicely.
 

chessplayer

Member
I was in a Bible study meeting and someone piped up " Jesus was a Buddhist , you know !" anyone know what he was on about , How could he have thought that Jesus had been a Buddhist , any ideas anyone ?
 

Rick O'Shez

Irishman bouncing off walls
I was in a Bible study meeting and someone piped up " Jesus was a Buddhist , you know !" anyone know what he was on about , How could he have thought that Jesus had been a Buddhist , any ideas anyone ?

Yes, it's true, Jesus was a Buddhist. This is all recorded in the lost suttas of the Spiny Nikaya. ;)
 
Top