The Single Biggest Flaw in Buddhism?

[atanu]

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.

First, when we say "I cherish my individuality", do we know whence this I? Who finds it sounding 'hellish'?

Second, being the All need not mean that the All cannot be many or cannot assume a chosen form.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Being the All need not mean that the All cannot be many or cannot assume a chosen form.

That's the single biggest flaw in Hinduism, innit?

 

[atanu]

I was not talking of Hinduism. However, this understanding, IMO, is the greatest strength of Hinduism. Ha. Ha.

 

[aoji]

To me, Buddhism fails when it says that desire is the root of suffering.

Supposedly, no desire can be fulfilled, and if one thinks it can then one usually finds that another desire has taken its place or has modified it (what we call "reality".) Since no desire can be fulfilled because it comes from a mind that is always changing its mind, and which is always producing desires, then it has to create frustration when the desire is not fulfilled, when the desire fails to make one "permanently" happy, or when one sees that the result is not what they wanted.

As living beings life brings us a new experience every moment and every experience usually creates a desire for another, or a prolongation of the present experience, which cannot happen (like the monkey that keeps pushing the button for more cocaine and then starves to death.) We all want pleasurable experiences to last and painful experiences not to go away but rather never to have happened.

The mind's ultimate desire, supposedly, is for it not to die and to live forever. Supposedly, at the moment of death the mind releases its desires 'into the ether,' where the un-fulfilled desires traps energy (or where like-energy attracts like-energy, or where one's desires cause a coalescence of all the energies), where upon it latches onto another consciousness before birth (manifests as a person), or at the time of birth, and that consciousness now inherits it as karma, as a mental imprint of sorts, as an unconscious driving force.

Where one's mind stumbles is over the question of evil, specifically how someone evil can be born to someone good. As a question of potentialities, how can an evil potential be born to two good potentials? It's all hind-sight, of course, because one realizes that the environment had a lot to do with the manifestation of that reality; every new-born looks innocent, but ultimately DNA and environment (time and place) create fate and destiny.

 

[EtuMalku]

Ultimately, are we not left with two simple solutions concerning desire?
1) Eliminate it
2) Fulfill it

 

[ak.yonathan]

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 ?

Maybe because there are a lot of similarities between His teachings and Eastern Asian philosophy.

 

[ak.yonathan]

Ultimately, are we not left with two simple solutions concerning desire?
1) Eliminate it
2) Fulfill it

We definitely should try to eliminate it, trying to fulfull it is futile, I believe that the laws of science guarantee that. The universe has been cursed, you will never get what you want.

 

[EtuMalku]

We definitely should try to eliminate it, trying to fulfull it is futile, I believe that the laws of science guarantee that. The universe has been cursed, you will never get what you want.

That's utterly untrue . . . the objective universe is our tool if we learn to use it, and everything we desire in our subjective universes can be fulfilled.

 

[metis]

Ultimately, are we not left with two simple solutions concerning desire?
1) Eliminate it
2) Fulfill it

A lot depends on how one may define the term "desire". Dharma does not teach that we can't love, have compassion, want what's best for people or even ourselves, etc. However, even these positive "desires" can turn negative if they become an attachment that creates suffering in ourselves or others,

Agree?

 

[crossfire]

We definitely should try to eliminate it, trying to fulfull it is futile, I believe that the laws of science guarantee that. The universe has been cursed, you will never get what you want.

The first line from Buddha's first dhamma talk after his awakening:

"There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction: painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathagata — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.​

You don't indulge the unprofitable desires, (to do so would be the extreme of self-indulgence) and you don't fail to fulfill the profitable desires (to do so would be the extreme of self-affliction.) You seem to be leaning towards the extreme of self-affliction.

Generating desire towards fulfilling specific goals is also part of the Noble Eightfold Path: specifically Right Effort

"And what, monks, is right effort? (i) There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen. (ii) He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen. (iii) He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen. (iv) He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This, monks, is called right effort.​

 

[ak.yonathan]

The first line from Buddha's first dhamma talk after his awakening:

"There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction: painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathagata — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.​

You don't indulge the unprofitable desires, (to do so would be the extreme of self-indulgence) and you don't fail to fulfill the profitable desires (to do so would be the extreme of self-affliction.) You seem to be leaning towards the extreme of self-affliction.

Generating desire towards fulfilling specific goals is also part of the Noble Eightfold Path: specifically Right Effort

"And what, monks, is right effort? (i) There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen. (ii) He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen. (iii) He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen. (iv) He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This, monks, is called right effort.​

I highly doubt that is what the Buddha taught.

 

[crossfire]

I highly doubt that is what the Buddha taught.

I linked to the suttas I quoted from. If you want to reject the suttas and just make it all up, hey, you can believe what you want to believe, in spite of contrary evidence.

 

[Mycroft]

I would have assumed that Buddhism's single biggest flaw is it's inability to prove the existence of a human spirit, or that people return from the dead to live a new life, etc.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I would have assumed that Buddhism's single biggest flaw is it's inability to prove the existence of a human spirit, or that people return from the dead to live a new life, etc.

Isn't that a flaw of all religions?

 

[Mycroft]

Isn't that a flaw of all religions?

But this thread is about Buddhism's biggest flaw.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But this thread is about Buddhism's biggest flaw.

I guess Buddhism says you keep getting reborn, but without the luxury of a soul.

 

[Banjankri]

It's been 7 pages now, so I don't know if your concerns are still present, but I am not willing to read it all. Forgive me.

I hope that they'd completely revisit samsara, karma and nirvana and start with a clean slate.

The slate is clean, and you are the one who needs to revisit those concepts. Although, your doubts are coming from misunderstanding, it's not your fault. There is one big flaw in Buddhism which causes all this confusion, and it is authority based mentality. It gives foundation for hierarchical structures which are impossible to inspect. You have hundreds of "certified" preachers, who are basically free to say whatever they want. You read something in one teaching, and in another one, you read something totally opposite. Paradoxes and alternating negations are common. You need to be very suspicious to not get lost in all this mess, because in this subject, every branch, every point of view is deep as hell. Nobody has time and resources to inspect them all.
Pick whatever looks legit, and work with that. You will discover new things, and they will overlap with what was already written. This is how you will know who is right. Buddhism is a difficult investigation, not a walk in the park. We all know that messages get modified with time, and it is up to us to rediscover the truth.

If everything in reality is impermanent (anicca), then by which mode would an 'eternal bliss of nirvana' exist?

Nirvana is not eternal bliss, it's extinction. It's good to know from the start, what are you looking for in Buddhism (or any other doctrine).

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Nirvana is not eternal bliss, it's extinction.

That doesn't sound very appealing.

 

[Banjankri]

That doesn't sound very appealing.

Interestingly, eternal paradise full of virgins was still free at that time.

 

[crossfire]

<...>

Nirvana is not eternal bliss, it's extinction.

Nice Pun! (Although extinguishing the fire might be a better description, imo)