The Single Biggest Flaw in Buddhism?

[Leftimies]

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?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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?

It might be better to focus fully on Confucianism for a while, and put Buddhism to one side while you do so. Trying to mix-and-match different traditions can get confusing and frustrating.

Are you meditating regularly? You might find that it comes down to which methods of mediation and practice you find most beneficial, where those methods come from isn't always so important.

 

[George-ananda]

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.

Anicca teaches that there is no permanent individual self (lower-case 's'). But that doesn't mean there is no universal One/Self (capital 'S') that we all become one with after extinguishing the ego (individual self). This state is what is called Nirvana. Our sense of individual existence was actually always an illusion per the concept of anicca. We are really all One. In my Hindu/Advaita terminology we are all in the process of Self-Realization (capital 'S').

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

To me, Buddhism fails when it says that desire is the root of suffering. Sounds like another ploy to keep the slaves quiet.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Anicca teaches that there is no permanent individual self (lower-case 's'). But that doesn't mean there is no universal One/Self (capital 'S') that we all become one with after extinguishing the ego (individual self). This state is what is called Nirvana. Our sense of individual existence was actually always an illusion per the concept of anicca. We are really all One. In my Hindu/Advaita terminology we are all in the process of Self-Realization (capital 'S').

That sounds like hell to me.

 

[George-ananda]

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 think what needs to be added to your understanding is the existence of an impermanent soul that lasts through many, many experiences and ends in Liberation (absorption of the individual soul in Nirvana).

 

[George-ananda]

That sounds like hell to me.

And Nirvana to those who understand it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

And Nirvana to those who understand it.

I understand it. It just sounds hellish. I cherish my individuality and I do not wish to be assimilated into the Brahman Borg because of its self-induced psychological issues.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Anicca teaches that there is no permanent individual self (lower-case 's'). But that doesn't mean there is no universal One/Self (capital 'S') that we all become one with after extinguishing the ego (individual self). This state is what is called Nirvana. Our sense of individual existence was actually always an illusion per the concept of anicca. We are really all One. In my Hindu/Advaita terminology we are all in the process of Self-Realization (capital 'S').

Sure, but that's Hinduism rather than Buddhism.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I think what needs to be added to your understanding is the existence of an impermanent soul that lasts through many, many experiences and ends in Liberation (absorption of the individual soul in Nirvana).

Again, that's Hinduism.

 

[metis]

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?

The reality is the answer to the above is "yes". Old Sid taught that all dharma needs to be tested by fire and that one should go primarily by their own experiences and observations, with help from good teachers of course. HHDL has stated, for example, that if a particular teaching is contradicted by science, go with the latter as dharma was given and recorded by those who knew less and were much more open to superstition.

Some Buddhist even object to the use of the name "Buddhism" as it can conjure up something that is like written in stone and is unchanging, neither of which actually applies to how dharma can and should be perceived.

Buddhism is more a methodology than a religion per se.

 

[George-ananda]

I understand it. It just sounds hellish. I cherish my individuality and I do not wish to be assimilated into the Brahman Borg because of its self-induced psychological issues.

I understand your thinking and was there myself. You can't exist as an individual for infinity without going insane. Brahman is ever-creating and we are that Brahman enjoying individual experience for as long as the craving for individual experiencing remains.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Buddhism is more a methodology than a religion per se.

That's the cool thing about it, there is no requirement to take on a set of beliefs. It's a path of discovery.

 

[George-ananda]

Sure, but that's Hinduism rather than Buddhism.

I don't think the Dalai Lama would have a problem with what I said and he's under the umbrella of Buddhism.

 

[Leftimies]

It might be better to focus fully on Confucianism for a while, and put Buddhism to one side while you do so. Trying to mix-and-match different traditions can get confusing and frustrating.

Are you meditating regularly? You might find that it comes down to which methods of mediation and practice you find most beneficial, where those methods come from isn't always so important.

Practice in another thing. I have always been a contemplative person, who likes to dwell in the realms of reflection and logical inquiry. This is not what an orthodox Buddhist would do in meditation, which for a Buddhist would be more about realizing the not-self, I suppose. The Confucian meditation practice, Jìngzuò, on the other hand is a meditation with the presence of the ideas, views and reflections of oneself and the world. I must say, the more I have studied the works of Confucian scholars, particularly Zhu Xi, I find myself agreeing on many points, much more so than with Buddhism. So I suppose that in that sense, the answer to my question should be fairly obvious.

Also, now that I think about it, me clinging onto Buddhism now for no good reason is a fairly good sign that my spirit was never truly with Buddhism in the first place, which is a religion of non-attachment and not-clinging. That and, well, being a humanist and a Confucian at the same time is not problematic at all, while the same is not necessarily true with Buddhism, which at times, manifests moderate nihilist tendencies.

But aside from my personal practices, do you think that such a thing as Buddhism without 'permanent nirvana' or the 'permanent tathagata' and with a more materialistic view on samsara (as the fluctuation of matter from form to form, and possibly as ideas/views from generation to generation) and karma (strictly cause and effect; no cosmic morality), is a possibility?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I don't think the Dalai Lama would have a problem with what I said and he's under the umbrella of Buddhism.

The thread is about Buddhism and throwing in Hindu ideas will only confuse matters.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But aside from my personal practices, do you think that such a thing as Buddhism without 'permanent nirvana' or the 'permanent tathagata' and with a more materialistic view on samsara (as the fluctuation of matter from form to form, and possibly as ideas/views from generation to generation) and karma (strictly cause and effect; no cosmic morality), is a possibility?

If you mean a more secular approach to Buddhism then that already exists in the west. I really wouldn't waste too much energy on such questions though. Better to focus on the meditation practices like Jìngzuò that you find most beneficial. I've stayed with Buddhism long-term mainly because I like the practices, meditation and mindfulness in particular. I'm not too concerned these days with all the doctrinal questions.

 

[Robert.Evans]

It might be better to focus fully on Confucianism for a while, and put Buddhism to one side while you do so. Trying to mix-and-match different traditions can get confusing and frustrating.

Are you meditating regularly? You might find that it comes down to which methods of mediation and practice you find most beneficial, where those methods come from isn't always so important.

Or just having a sleep

I think the expression is, boot on the other foot

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Or just having a sleep

It's not like having a snooze during the church sermon, you have to stay awake when you're meditating. The Zennies will hit you with a stick if you fall asleep in the meditation hall.

 

[Robert.Evans]

That's the cool thing about it, there is no requirement to take on a set of beliefs. It's a path of discovery.

Make it up as you go along then