Why I am not a Buddhist
12/20/2007
Prolegomena:
Before I begin this explanation of why I could not fit the protocol, let me first state that my reasoning for non-compliancy has to do with a few factors. These components corroborate my opposition to fully conform to asceticism, to which Gautama expressed a happy medium between the extremes.
Buddhism does not necessarily describe or attribute this non-conforming attitude as a result of a sinful nature. Perhaps this non-compliancy is because of a so-called previous lifestyle or it could be due to outside and internal influences. I am not saying I lead a life that does not have partial asceticism, but that meeting certain requirements to obtain intellectualism are not necessarily proven scientifically. For me it could seem rather pragmatic in nature, that asceticism is the only way to find truth, intellectualism, or prescribe any medical diagnosis and remedial prescription as originally intended.
I admit that following the Buddhist precepts 5, 8, or 10 are noble character building principles, but I am not readily convinced on the probability of the outcome in the next life. Buddha’s teachings or lifestyle was never considered infallible, in fact, he did not ask for his followers to have faith but to put his teachings to the test the veraciousness of his claims. That seems fair enough at face value, but will the results guarantee salvation such as statements that Christ made in the NT?
While I agree that some of the implications of Christianity also retort to self-denial; however, I could at best only apply myself to the five-precept path as the eight or ten precept paths (these are the only ones that one can obtain the true enlightenment and escapement of suffering) would prescribe me to leave my friends, family, wife and children behind to become a monk or beggar to escape the effects of karma and end the vicious cycle of suffering. It also should be noted that the five precept path is also outlined in the OT as I will show below.
Wikipedia describes the five precepts as:
1. To refrain from taking life. (non-violence towards sentient life forms)
2. To refrain from taking that which is not given (not committing theft)
3. To refrain from sensual misconduct (abstinence from immoral sexual behavior)
4. To refrain from lying. (speaking truth always)
5. To refrain from intoxicants which lead to loss of mindfulness (refrain from using drugs or alcohol)
Which are simliar to the OT (Exodus chapter 20 in order of relavence to this article):
1. You shall not murder
2. You shall not steal
3. You shall not commit adultery also shall not covet
4. You shall not bear false witness
5. Drunkeness in OT (cf Prov 20:1, Prov 21:17, 1 Sam 1:14, Isa 5:11, 22; 28:1, 28:7; 29:9; 56:12; Jer 23:9; 51:7; Joel 3:3. Psalm 60:3) There are also other verses in the NT that speak against drunkeness and mindfulness which come from such intoxicants.
Some of these five precepts in Buddhism, such as sensual misconduct are not clearly defined as they are in the OT and NT within the five precepts (but are in the eight and ten precepts which describe celebicy), so the interpretation could be relevant or vary in meaning. However I do believe that adultery which also the Bible covers fonrication are covered under sensual misconduct as the Buddhist would possibly agree with.
The eight-precepts encourage eating from sunrise to noon in which my low blood sugar will not allow such things, and refraining from a luxourious bed. So I would have to suffer the effects of improper glucose levels, sleepless nights, and possiblity of improper posture just to deter the sufferings of bad karma? For me I am not sure if that is an even trade-off, verses the remote possiblity my efforts would actually achieve anything truly noble but only in the eyes of a Buddhist or masochist. I have no problem refraining from jewlery (however my wife highly suggests me wearing a wedding ring) and dancing (which I have no ability to dance) and shows (to which I like going to shows to relieve boredom).
Irrelavancy in Emotiveness
While Christianity involves emotions, some Buddhists strive to no longer being susceptible to perturbation by the passions. As daunting a task as this would be and how much I try not to be suspectible from such negative or damping emotions, never the less achieving this status can be possible but not probable. To espouse this condition is possible one would have achieve chasity, calmness, serene which would entail removing one from the general public in essence to escape these barriers. As tempting as that sounds on some days, it doesn’t seem healthy for personal happiness for myself or my family in regards to my present worldview. What is the purpose of humanity and community if they only are contributing factors that are only there for opposition or resistance to achieve a state of Nirvana or enlightenment.
What is considered enlightenment
My questioning is... what exactly is this enlightenment that needs to be acheieved, in other words what needs to be known. I have asked this question from several practicing Buddhist but I couldn’t find one that had any definitive statements that would be considerd as a working standard. I am not suggesting I have exhausted all means to find this answer, but have not find anything definitive to this paradox. It seems like a great deal of work for something without standard earmarks. This could be because the teachings are based strictly upon philosophy.
I am sure that some Buddhist claims can be verified through basic testing, but nothing that I would consider as qualifing such as rigorous gage R&R testing. This philosophy is only a means in working to obtain a state or perception of moral goodness, but at the same time this focus is only individualistic not necessarily to help others in need or having compassion with someone less fortunate. If we are all in it for ourselves, what is the true purpose of so many?
Obvious Questions or propositions
Why is there something rather than nothing
Why do we exist
How did human life begin
How did the population grow
Why do we die
How do we define absolute morals
Why do we speak so many different languages
What knowledge or works are needed to obtain enlightenment or to stop the cycle
No claims of someone being a Christian in the previous life (reincarnation)
When did suffering begin and why
Is denial of self (ascetism) really the answer to suffering
How can one recall a past life only in portions if they are the same soul/entity
How can one learn from past mistakes if they cannot recall all previous mistakes/sufferings
What was created first, the soul or the physical (how did reincarnation begin)
How do you explain population exceeding death rates (shortage of reincarnates)
What is the sense of being punished for actions we do not remember
Where do the new souls come from
Are some souls created, while the old ones reincarnate
Is the soul incognizant apart from the human mind
Why did this philosophy take so long in coming to pass if this concept has been around since the beginning of time
I have a host of other questions that the Buddhist worldview cannot answer with any degree of certainty. The first seven questions are typical to establishing grounds that define any worldview. Buddhism was never put in place to answer such philosophical questions but more of an answer as to why suffering exists and a reactionary response against orthodox Hinduism.
Philosophical versus Theology
It should be noted that Wikipedia claims: The Four Noble Truths were originally spoken by the Buddha not in the form of a religious or philosophical text, but in the manner of a medical diagnosis and remedial prescription in a style that was common at that time.
To be revised, concluded, and continued later...
Just some observations on your assessment of Buddhist.
ReplyDeleteYou are right is saying that there is a similarity between some of the 10 commandments and the 5 precepts. You are wrong however, is saying that practicing the 5, 8 or 10 precepts is the only way that leads to enlightenment. The B specifically denies that morality leads to enlightenment, only wisdom can do that. Morality is important but alone it is not enough. You also fail distinguish between the 5 precepts which concern morality and the 6th to 10th precepts which clearly do not pertain to morality but are practiced by the clergy and by serious lay people once a month as a way of encouraging detachment and making space for mental peace. Your knowledge of B is so poor I am wondering if you are just ignorant of it or you are deliberately trying to make it look as superficial as possible. Either way, it does not do your otherwise interesting wed site any good by promoting falsity.
You comment that it would be difficult to the degree of improbability to be free from (negative) emotions. Have you ever tried? I seem to recall that the Bible says 'Be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect.' I also recall that Jesus said that if someone slaps you on the cheek that you should turn the other cheek. In both cases this would require a great deal of, not just mental discipline, but detachment from negative emotions, exactly what Buddhism aims to do.
You comment that you could not find anyone who could explain enlightenment to you. I will give you the benefit of the doubt but there is plenty of excellent literature on the subject. If you are genuinely interested in knowing (and understanding can lead to informed disagreement which is far better than scoffing, belittling and distorting) make the effort to find out. In short, enlightenment is a direct and immediate apprehension (as opposed to a belief in or an idea about) the significant quality or reality, i.e. that it is unsatisfactory (you would say sinful), impermanent and without self-nature. This knowledge is said to bring about a complete change in how we relate to reality - no clinging to life, no fear of death, no hatred or jealousy, just a peace, joy and acceptance of the way things are.
While on the subject of ultimate goals, I have never got a satisfactory answer from a Christian as to what heaven is like. Is there really bodily resurrection (the Bible seems to be in two minds about this) and if so do the beings in heaven remain for eternity the same age at which they died? If only the soul goes to heaven, where exactly is this soul? Is it in the heart, the mind, some part of the mind, the brain? If the soul only goes to heaven does it retain all the memories, dispositions, traits and inclinations it had when in the body? If it changes completely (as some maintain) can the person really be deemed to be the same as the person who dies. If it is the same, does it still harbor hatred, jealousy, pettiness, etc? What exactly to the beings in heaven do for eternity, which is, I think you will agree, a very long time? How do the beings in heaven feel knowing that at least some of their family and friends are in hell for eternity? I have quite a few questions I could ask you on this matter, not of which were provided for me by the Bible.
You claim that Buddhism teaches that 'we are all in it for ourselves' a calumny that Christians have flung at Buddhism for a long time. Please go to my wed site www.buddhismatoz.com and look up Brahma Vihara, compassion, kindness, love, sympathy, tolerance, etc.
Concerning your 20 questions or propositions, as a Buddhist I would find most of these to be irreverent. For example the first. Buddhism claims to be concerned with the immediate human predicament, not with questions like 'why there is something rather than nothing.' To paraphrase the Buddha - your house is on fire and when the fire brigade arrive you ask them how they knew about the fire, what route they took, how many km per hour they drove to get there, etc. And if a Buddhist did want to know the answer to such questions he or she would ask those most qualified to know - a scientist or a physicist, not a theologian. Most of your other questions show, if I might be so bold, an abysmal knowledge of Buddhism. For example, you refer to the soul several times apparently without knowing that one of the central teachings of the Buddha is that there is no soul. I might add that although Buddhism does not, or feels it unnecessary to provide answers to most of these questions, I don’t know that the Bible answers them either, except perhaps No 2,3 and 6. I hope some of my answers and my web site help your revised version to be a little better well-informed
Kind regards
S Dhammika
[quote]Just some observations on your assessment of Buddhist.
ReplyDeleteYou are right is saying that there is a similarity between some of the 10 commandments and the 5 precepts. You are wrong however, is saying that practicing the 5, 8 or 10 precepts is the only way that leads to enlightenment. The B specifically denies that morality leads to enlightenment, only wisdom can do that. Morality is important but alone it is not enough.[/quote]
This would depend on which sect of Buddhism correct?
According to Timothy Tennent, he stresses that there are three main branches of Buddhism. Again, those sources I quoted were from Wikipedia at the time of my notes, maybe you should make corrections to that source. I was not stressing any morality gaining enlightenment, however the teaching of the elders does suggest removing one from society, becoming a Monk. I again ask what is this wisdom that is needed?
[quote]You also fail distinguish between the 5 precepts which concern morality and the 6th to 10th precepts which clearly do not pertain to morality but are practiced by the clergy and by serious lay people once a month as a way of encouraging detachment and making space for mental peace. Your knowledge of B is so poor I am wondering if you are just ignorant of it or you are deliberately trying to make it look as superficial as possible. Either way, it does not do your otherwise interesting wed site any good by promoting falsity. [/quote]
I wouldn’t say ignorant, these were just my notes at the time from Wikipedia (a mere response to wiki), not a thesis by any stretch of the means. I make this apparent in my writings in the preamble. A blog is not a website, it is a blog. Again, these are my notes, not a final conclusion.
[quote]You comment that it would be difficult to the degree of improbability to be free from (negative) emotions. Have you ever tried? I seem to recall that the Bible says 'Be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect.' I also recall that Jesus said that if someone slaps you on the cheek that you should turn the other cheek. In both cases this would require a great deal of, not just mental discipline, but detachment from negative emotions, exactly what Buddhism aims to do. [/quote]
Yes, it would be difficult to be free from emotions, as we are emotive beings. Emotions are laughing, crying, hate, love, physical/emotional pain, and so on. Trying has nothing to do with the matter; it is factual that we are emotive.
Being perfect? Do you really know what that means according to the Bible and the genre? Please don’t tell me you are using Webster’s’ definition. Some people misuse the verse about turning the other cheek; again this is specific to the context. Nowhere does the Bible claim for a Christian to be a doormat for physical abuse in all circumstances. You also forget to mention that Jesus and the Father both show anger within the Bible. So having or showing anger has nothing to do with your so-called definition of being perfect. You seem to be distorting, scoffing, belittling and distorting as well. Sorry I am just quoting your reply here. See how unwarranted this is on your part?
[quote]You comment that you could not find anyone who could explain enlightenment to you. I will give you the benefit of the doubt but there is plenty of excellent literature on the subject. If you are genuinely interested in knowing (and understanding can lead to informed disagreement which is far better than scoffing, belittling and distorting) make the effort to find out. In short, enlightenment is a direct and immediate apprehension (as opposed to a belief in or an idea about) the significant quality or reality, i.e. that it is unsatisfactory (you would say sinful), impermanent and without self-nature. This knowledge is said to bring about a complete change in how we relate to reality - no clinging to life, no fear of death, no hatred or jealousy, just a peace, joy and acceptance of the way things are. [/quote]
That is correct to date, I have asked many from the Buddhist community to explain what is needed to be learned to obtain true enlightenment that would end the cycle of reincarnation. Your answer seems rather ambiguous to the question of enlightenment. I will quantify this later.
I also have many other questions, but I seriously doubt the Buddhist worldview could answer with certainty, not that Christianity answers them all either. I am a skeptic, not so much as belittling as your assertions are incorrect and unwarranted. I am making an effort, but please pardon me if I take my time and qualify through this discernment period. As the saying goes, faith seeking understanding.
There was no belittling that was purposely vindictive; if so you need to give specific examples and I will reword them. I think you assume too much, simply because I have stated my caveat within the article.
So again the problem isn’t so much the quantity, but the quality of data available.
[quote]While on the subject of ultimate goals, I have never got a satisfactory answer from a Christian as to what heaven is like.[/quote]
There is plenty of information about heaven. Some have a “folk religion” based view, but I could only comment on what is known in scripture. There are a number of verses about heaven, but not so sure you would want to read them or not?
[quote]Is there really bodily resurrection (the Bible seems to be in two minds about this) and if so do the beings in heaven remain for eternity the same age at which they died?[/quote]
There is one view in the OT, and the NT orthodox view. Some may not have training in literary forms, history, or any understanding of the concept of Grammatico-historical Exegesis. Yes, as Christians we believe in the bodily resurrection, just as Christ’s perhaps you need to read up on creedal statements?
In the intermediate state when the body dies the soul goes to the Lord. In OT times there was the belief/teaching of the soul going to Abraham’s bosom until resurrection of the Messiah.
There is no mention of doing away with time in heaven, but there is mention of doing away with the bondage of/to decay.
My questions for you would be: When enlightenment is reached to which body does the soul go to? As we know, the birth rate exceeds the death rate, as the population continues to grow exponentially, where do these new souls come from? When does ensoulment take place? Why can’t the soul remember all things in a previous life?
[quote]If only the soul goes to heaven, where exactly is this soul? Is it in the heart, the mind, some part of the mind, the brain? If the soul only goes to heaven does it retain all the memories, dispositions, traits and inclinations it had when in the body?[/quote]
Deuteronomy 6:5
Orthodox Judaism and Christianity would believe in the physical resurrection, so your questioning is invalid to orthodox views.
The OT Hebrew as Heb “heart.” In OT physiology the heart (לֵב, לֵבָב; levav, lev) was considered the seat of the mind or intellect, so that one could think with one’s heart. [NET notes]
Heb “soul”; “being.” Contrary to Hellenistic ideas of a soul that is discrete and separate from the body and spirit, OT anthropology equated the “soul” (נֶפֶשׁ, nefesh) with the person himself. It is therefore best in most cases to translate נֶפֶשׁ (nefesh) as “being” or the like. [NET Notes].
There are two views (diversity) of the Body and Soul:
Dichotomy (Which is the historical view) views Body, and soul.
Trichotomy (Which is not the historical view) view Body, soul, spirit.
One also must admit there is some unity and diversity in teachings in the three main views of Buddhism as well as Christianity. Essentials and non-essentials for salvation.
[quote] If it changes completely (as some maintain) can the person really be deemed to be the same as the person who dies. If it is the same, does it still harbor hatred, jealousy, pettiness, etc? What exactly to the beings in heaven do for eternity, which is, I think you will agree, a very long time? How do the beings in heaven feel knowing that at least some of their family and friends are in hell for eternity? [/quote]
These are all answered within the Bible; you need to do more research. To answer with your mantra:
“Your knowledge of B[ible] is so poor I am wondering if you are just ignorant of it or you are deliberately trying to make it look as superficial as possible. Either way, it does not do your otherwise interesting commentary any good by promoting falsity.”
[quote]You claim that Buddhism teaches that 'we are all in it for ourselves' a calumny that Christians have flung at Buddhism for a long time. Please go to my wed site www.buddhismatoz.com and look up Brahma Vihara, compassion, kindness, love, sympathy, tolerance, etc.[/quote]
Correct, but you misunderstood my view. It wasn’t so much as Buddhist aren’t kind (albeit the militant branch) but as a works based salvation. Emphasis is placed highly upon achieving. While some are naturally nice, others may become nice only for a pragmatic view to earn something. That is what I believe. I also understand that after enlightenment occurs it could be a natural process; however one cannot truly discern others being genuine. This works in all worldviews unfortunately.
[quote]Concerning your 20 questions or propositions, as a Buddhist I would find most of these to be irreverent.[/quote]
To me I wouldn’t care about being irreverent in your eyes.
[quote]For example the first. Buddhism claims to be concerned with the immediate human predicament, not with questions like 'why there is something rather than nothing.' [/quote]
Again this is a basic worldview question, and it is valid. This is the foundation of worldviews, either you can answer it or you dodge it completely.
[quote]To paraphrase the Buddha - your house is on fire and when the fire brigade arrive you ask them how they knew about the fire, what route they took, how many km per hour they drove to get there, etc.[/quote]
Yes, I am familiar with this teaching as Timothy Tennent has covered variations of this in his classes.
[quote]And if a Buddhist did want to know the answer to such questions he or she would ask those most qualified to know - a scientist or a physicist, not a theologian.[/quote]
For science, yes I ask scientists. Did you know about Hugh Ross and other Christian scientists? Where do you think science originated historically? I also seek only qualified people, just as you wouldn’t ask a scientist about theology, you would ask a theologian. So basically, you ask questions pertaining to a person’s particular field of study, not that they have absolute certainty on all views. So again your point is rather moot.
[qutoe]Most of your other questions show, if I might be so bold, an abysmal knowledge of Buddhism.[/quote]
My answer as if I might be as bold as you, your questions seem abysmal knowledge of Christianity. Again, if you read correctly this was not a final synopsis, merely notes thus far. You assumed my studies were complete and that only makes you look ignorant of the article in general.
[quote]For example, you refer to the soul several times apparently without knowing that one of the central teachings of the Buddha is that there is no soul.[/quote]
I disagree as you need to be specific as you may be over-generalizing these teachings. (Anatta) Would you admit that Theravada Buddhism's stance on many beliefs of soul after Death are explained in the Brahmajala Sutta?
[quote]I might add that although Buddhism does not, or feels it unnecessary to provide answers to most of these questions, I don’t know that the Bible answers them either, except perhaps No 2,3 and 6. [/quote]
It is irrelevant whether Buddhism can answer worldview questions? Does not feel, what type of answer is that really?
For me I like to have answers to my questions before I accept any teachings from any person despite who they claim to be. If that person does not know, but makes an honest effort I respect that. However, if one merely side-steps the question to promote philosophical or basic rants, or claims that I am irrelevant in my quest for knowledge I walk away. The Bible answers your questions in this reply.
[quote]I hope some of my answers and my web site help your revised version to be a little better well-informed
Kind regards
S Dhammika[/quote]
Thanks and when I have time after I finish my undergraduate studies, I will continue to add more to my blog page. I also hope you will do better research on Christianity to be a little better well informed.
[quote]Buddhism claims to be concerned with the immediate human predicament, not with questions like 'why there is something rather than nothing.[/quote]
ReplyDeleteSo, lets say if I claimed to only care about the immediate human predicament, could I be warranted and not placing much tutelage on historic philosophies such as Buddha? Let’s say I don’t really care of Buddha’s immediate human predicament, but only cared about what is relevant to “my” immediate surroundings or predicament? Could I also be warranted by the same initial premise of Buddha (his discourse against many earlier teachings such as in Hinduism)? In other words, if Buddha can think, and therefore was, then I could think therefore I am correct? If Buddha had to find enlightenment on his terms, then so could I, correct? And by these terms or precepts I could then be completely correct in my quest? I say this because I am not so sure Buddha made any claims to being omniscient, but merely asks one to try his philosophies correct?
In juxtaposition according to history, Jesus made claims of certainty. In fact there was one specifically; "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6).
So begins the Trilemma of Jesus, Lord, Liar, or Lunatic…
If I wasn’t truly concerned with the “something rather than nothing” mindset, then what makes you think I should be concerned with anything concerning any so-called human predicament? If I didn’t really care why I was here, why should I care about why anyone else is here for that matter? What if I were to accept things as they were (illusion or not) and call them natural, would I truly be wrong? If yes, then why?
If adding to the teachings of Buddha is OK to some, then apparently there was some enlightenment not fully realized or recognized by the movement until later? In other words much like a progressive revelation, and if no then why are teachings added and accepted by some of the sects of Buddhists?