Basic questions and misunderstandings about Buddhism

[camerata]

I see from recent topics that there are still a lot of basic misunderstandings about Buddhism cropping up here, as they do on all Buddhism forums. It seems that these misconceptions circulate endlessly on web boards because no one relies on authoritative sources (eg. Bhikkhu Bodhi or P.A. Payutto) for information anymore. When we look for answers on zenquote.com or Wiki we aren't likely to get solid, consistent information and we are likely to get confused by the often major differences between the different schools of Buddhism. A few examples of these basic misunderstandings:

Buddhism is nihilistic: The Buddha taught on two levels depending on his audience. To his monks he taught nibbana in this life. To the laity he taught generosity, morality and rebirth. Ven Payutto says that even when the Buddha talked about rebirth to his monks, it was after talking about nibbana in the here and now. So the focus of the teachings was liberation from dukkha in the life. It's difficult to see how this could be considered nihilistic.

Buddhism is selfish: It's true that the Buddha left his wife and child, but he did it to find liberation for all of humankind. They lived in a palace, so it wasn't like they were left in the street. His wife immediately became an ascetic, and later became a bhikkhuni and an arahant. Later, after the Buddha visited them, his son and the rest of his family became monastics. Clearly this wasn't a selfish action. Another accusation is that Buddhists selfishly only seek enlightenment for themselves. This is largely Mahayanist propaganda. The Theravada view is that you can't guide others to liberation unless you've had a taste of it yourself.

Monks are a burden on society: It's clear from the Pali Canon that the Buddha set up the monastic order to be symbiotic with the laity. The laity provide material support and the monks provide spiritual support. Monks are expected to teach the Dhamma, which ultimately means teaching people to be happy and at peace. They are no more a "burden on society" than any other teacher. AFAIK, monks growing their own food is a relatively recent development that comes from Japanese Zen. In their demeanor and teachings, monks also provide the laity with a kind of proof that peace and happiness can indeed be attained by practice.

Following Buddhism will result in extinction of the species: The Buddha never said everyone should become monks. The idea that everyone should do what a "prophet" says is the right thing is the Abrahamic idea of religion. There is no reason why any of us can't raise children to adulthood and then later do whatever it takes to attain nibbana. It might be easier to start early, but it isn't necessary.

"I don't suffer": A common comment is, "I don't suffer!" so why should I bother with Buddhism? But "suffering" is a loose translation of dukkha, which means unsatisfactoriness or dis-ease. Everyone experiences dukkha. It's just a matter of how serious it is and whether we want to put up with it or not.

[trd]

By putting yourself in the position of challenging what is the correct understanding of Buddhism, you immediately fall into a trap when you say:

....."This is largely Mahayanist propaganda. The Theravada view is that you can't guide others to liberation unless you've had a taste of it yourself."......

In that one post you are effectively saying

Theravada right

Mahayana wrong

The title of your post therefore should have been "Basic questions and misunderstandings about Theravadin Buddhism"

The irony is that you are looking for a consensus in Buddhism but show discrimination from within it. This should be a big clue to you that the truth you seek is beyond concepts and belief. Which incidentally is what Buddhism has been saying all along.

[nongai]

So many topics on this forum just end up with people picking holes in other's posts instead of making useful comments.

Since this is th Thai visa forums we are interested in Thai Buddhism which is Theravada. Not much interest in Mahayana, but it is well known that Mahayana like to look down upon the Arahant/self enlightened idea to push their Boddhisatva ideal as being better.

I lost interest in Tibetan Buddhism, not implying that Tibetans are not devout, because I find they put too much emphasis upon having a Lama/guru and tend to worship their monks, deities, gurus, Boddhisatvas more than the Buddha himself. Too much ritual, and it seems Thai Buddhism is going the same way with all these huge statues of beloved monks, Mae Kuan yim (Chinese and not based upon a real person), etc.

[camerata]

Well, I was pointing this out in the context of misunderstandings about Buddhism that arise because people look for answers on the Internet instead of in the Canon, which is supposedly common to all schools of Buddhism. There are probably a lot more Mahayana sources on the Internet but many of them are not Canonical, and this confuses the beginner. I am not saying Mahayana is wrong in general, but that it is wrong in this particular accusation and as a result it is often leveled at Buddhism as a whole. The view of Mahayana is that Mahayana Buddhism is not selfish because of the Bodhisattva Ideal. The view of Theravada is as I stated. In other words, Buddhism overall is not "selfish." But in differentiating itself from Theravada, Mahayana texts were often extremely derogatory about what they called the "Hinayanists." This is a matter of record. See The Zen Teaching of Huang Po, the beginning of the Lotus Sutra, etc. The misunderstandings I mention above apply to the whole of Buddhism.

[Brucenkhamen]

....."This is largely Mahayanist propaganda. The Theravada view is that you can't guide others to liberation unless you've had a taste of it yourself."......

In that one post you are effectively saying

Theravada right

Mahayana wrong

I think that's a good point.

I've heard Christians and athiests etc come up with the same criticism, the Buddha also is also recorded as fielding questions with similar objections in the early texts, so it's not just Mahayana propaganda.

Also it's not just a Theravadin view but one outlined in the early Buddhist texts and of pre-sectarian Buddhism. Of course Mahayana wouldn't have seen the need for reform if the sangha at the time were beyond reproach.

So in that one post I think he is effectively saying;

Theravada consistent with Early Buddhism in this respect,

Some Christians, athiests, and Mahayanists not fully appreciating how the path of practice works.

[camerata]

So many topics on this forum just end up with people picking holes in other's posts instead of making useful comments.

Since this is th Thai visa forums we are interested in Thai Buddhism which is Theravada. Not much interest in Mahayana, but it is well known that Mahayana like to look down upon the Arahant/self enlightened idea to push their Boddhisatva ideal as being better.

I lost interest in Tibetan Buddhism, not implying that Tibetans are not devout, because I find they put too much emphasis upon having a Lama/guru and tend to worship their monks, deities, gurus, Boddhisatvas more than the Buddha himself. Too much ritual, and it seems Thai Buddhism is going the same way with all these huge statues of beloved monks, Mae Kuan yim (Chinese and not based upon a real person), etc.

Let's not get side-tracked onto debates about different schools of Buddhism. As you say, we have a few posters here who seem to enjoy criticising, and none of them identify as Buddhists.

This topic is about misconceptions regarding Buddhism as a whole, so I think it's easier to rely on the Pali Canon and its Chinese/Tibetan equivalents to answer. In some cases (eg. "Was Buddha a vegetarian?") the answer will be school-specific.

[camerata]

....."This is largely Mahayanist propaganda. The Theravada view is that you can't guide others to liberation unless you've had a taste of it yourself."......

In that one post you are effectively saying

Theravada right

Mahayana wrong

I think that's a good point.

I've heard Christians and athiests etc come up with the same criticism, the Buddha also is also recorded as fielding questions with similar objections in the early texts, so it's not just Mahayana propaganda.

That's why I said "largely" Mahayana propaganda.

[trd]

So many topics on this forum just end up with people picking holes in other's posts instead of making useful comments.

Since this is th Thai visa forums we are interested in Thai Buddhism which is Theravada. Not much interest in Mahayana, but it is well known that Mahayana like to look down upon the Arahant/self enlightened idea to push their Boddhisatva ideal as being better.

I lost interest in Tibetan Buddhism, not implying that Tibetans are not devout, because I find they put too much emphasis upon having a Lama/guru and tend to worship their monks, deities, gurus, Boddhisatvas more than the Buddha himself. Too much ritual, and it seems Thai Buddhism is going the same way with all these huge statues of beloved monks, Mae Kuan yim (Chinese and not based upon a real person), etc.

I think you make a very valid point about ritual.

[camerata]

One off-topic post has been deleted. We aren't interested in anti-religion/anti-Buddhism opinions here, thanks.

[camerata]

Soldiering on, then... here's one that isn't so easy to answer.

Buddhism is sexist: Popular Buddhism does appear to discriminate against women, particularly with the view that a women needs to be reborn as a man to attain nibbana. This view is nonsense, though, as many females become arahants in the Pali Canon. It's true that the set-up of the Sangha was initially men only, and then favoured male monks over female monks (bhikkhuni), but we have to look at how this happened. The Pali Canon has the Buddha persuaded by Ananda to allow women into the Sangha, but according to scholars this scenario is unlikely. The Buddha had already admitted Untouchables and a serial killer to the Sangha, which the laity wasn't happy about, and he also admitted children without parental permission until there were complaints about that too. It was considered beyond the pale to allow women to become wandering renunciants. Also, there were practical problems to consider. Having sex was a serious violation of the monastic code. But what happened if a bhikkhuni was raped? Would she have violated the code? How would anyone know if it was consensual or not?

Again, according to scholars, the Buddha's influential step-mother was threatening to set up her own separate Sangha if the Buddha didn't accept women, so eventually he did, making a dire prediction that they would one day bring down the Sangha. To my mind this wasn't so much a mystical foretelling as a logical extrapolation of what might happen with a laity unhappy with a female Sangha. So it seems to me that the Buddha himself wasn't "sexist" but he had to consider very carefully the long-term effect of admitting women to his Sangha. There was at least one female (Khema, wife of King Bimbisara) recorded in the Canon as attaining arahantship before entering the order of bhikkhuni.

[camerata]

And another one I've come across:

Buddhism is anti-gay: At the turn of the millennium the Dalai Lama was asked to write a book about Buddhist ethics. When the publisher saw that he had written that homosexuality violated the lay precept on sexual misconduct he was asked to remove that section (as it would be offensive to many) and he did. The only source he gave for that view was "a traditional text" - i.e. not canonical. If there are traditional texts or views condemning homosexuality, they don't come from anything the Buddha said in the Pali Canon. Harvey's Introduction to Buddhist Ethics maintains that the precept on sexual misconduct applies to any sexual orientation.

[nongai]

Sure. Sexual promiscuity and cheating upon a partner, married or not, are still breaking the 3rd precept, whether gay or staight.

Breaking precepts is about fine detail not just big issues. Any action which causes suffering such as not actually killing but beating and causing physical and mental suffering breaks the first precept.

Any sexual misconduct which causes physical or mental suffering, rape, cheating, etc. breaks the third precept whatever the sexual orientation.

Gays can also be loyal and good couples and keep the precepts.

If one is born gay, it is because of past karma, so being gay itself is not sinful, but will probably bring much mental suffering in this life because of the general dislike of these times.

[Mamasun]

Hi, Sorry to post here, but d0en't find any post speaking about :

Is it allowed to put a Tangka Buddha on the wall over the bed  ? !!! it is now the only place i hace to face east !!!

 

 

[rockyysdt]

So many topics on this forum just end up with people picking holes in other's posts instead of making useful comments.

Since this is the Thai visa forums we are interested in Thai Buddhism which is Theravada. Not much interest in Mahayana, but it is well known that Mahayana like to look down upon the Arahant/self enlightened idea to push their Boddhisatva ideal as being better.

I lost interest in Tibetan Buddhism, not implying that Tibetans are not devout, because I find they put too much emphasis upon having a Lama/guru and tend to worship their monks, deities, gurus, Boddhisatvas more than the Buddha himself. Too much ritual, and it seems Thai Buddhism is going the same way with all these huge statues of beloved monks, Mae Kuan yim (Chinese and not based upon a real person), etc.

 

I personally never thought that way.

 

Regardless of where we are, or what the majority practice in Thailand, isn't this Forum more about what the Buddha was attempting to teach us, rather restricting our discussions to a particular sect or deviation?

[rockyysdt]

On 23/05/2016 at 3:34 PM, camerata said:

1. Buddhism is nihilistic: The Buddha taught on two levels depending on his audience. To his monks he taught nibbana in this life. To the laity he taught generosity, morality and rebirth. Ven Payutto says that even when the Buddha talked about rebirth to his monks, it was after talking about nibbana in the here and now. So the focus of the teachings was liberation from dukkha in the life. It's difficult to see how this could be considered nihilistic.

Buddhism is selfish: It's true that the Buddha left his wife and child, but he did it to find liberation for all of humankind. They lived in a palace, so it wasn't like they were left in the street. His wife immediately became an ascetic, and later became a bhikkhuni and an arahant. Later, after the Buddha visited them, his son and the rest of his family became monastics. Clearly this wasn't a selfish action. Another accusation is that Buddhists selfishly only seek enlightenment for themselves. This is largely Mahayanist propaganda. The Theravada view is that you can't guide others to liberation unless you've had a taste of it yourself.

Monks are a burden on society: It's clear from the Pali Canon that the Buddha set up the monastic order to be symbiotic with the laity. The laity provide material support and the monks provide spiritual support. Monks are expected to teach the Dhamma, which ultimately means teaching people to be happy and at peace. They are no more a "burden on society" than any other teacher. AFAIK, monks growing their own food is a relatively recent development that comes from Japanese Zen. In their demeanor and teachings, monks also provide the laity with a kind of proof that peace and happiness can indeed be attained by practice.

Following Buddhism will result in extinction of the species: The Buddha never said everyone should become monks. The idea that everyone should do what a "prophet" says is the right thing is the Abrahamic idea of religion. There is no reason why any of us can't raise children to adulthood and then later do whatever it takes to attain nibbana. It might be easier to start early, but it isn't necessary.

"I don't suffer": A common comment is, "I don't suffer!" so why should I bother with Buddhism? But "suffering" is a loose translation of dukkha, which means unsatisfactoriness or dis-ease. Everyone experiences dukkha. It's just a matter of how serious it is and whether we want to put up with it or not.

 

 

1. Buddhism is nihilistic:

 

The community is split over "the here & now" vs "what happens when you die".

Many teach that it's about achieving a state rather than getting to a place.

And yet, so much has been written about something continuing beyond awakening/death, but this would be not mind/body.

So isn't it either "all over when you die (nihilistic), or something "not self" continues.

Therefore Buddhism can only non nihilistic if it affirms something (not self) beyond death.

 

Monks are a burden on society:

 

If a Monk uses the robe as a vehicle to prosper (charade) then he is a burden, particularly on the poorest who give generously.

 

"I don't suffer":

 

To live is to suffer. My understanding is that suffering continues upon Awakening in this life, but there is no longer attachment to suffering.

 

Anatta: "Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found".

 

Following Buddhism will result in extinction of the species:

 

Judging but the human condition (deeply attached to greed, delusion, & aversion) there is not much probability of this occurring.

 

 

 

[rockyysdt]

On 25/05/2016 at 8:38 AM, nongai said:

 

If one is born gay, it is because of past karma, so being gay itself is not sinful, but will probably bring much mental suffering in this life because of the general dislike of these times.

 

Doesn't this assume past lives?

What does sexual orientation have to do with karma?

Does this karma also place you in an appropriate homophobic environment in order to meet out an suitable level of suffering to match the misdeeds?

Is Karma homophobic (who could have thought up such a punishment?).

 

Isn't the community split between "re birth moment to moment" vs "re birth life to life", and didn't the Buddha emphasise that it was all about extinguishing Dukkha by Awakening in this life?

 

Isn't past lives, re birth to future lives, and Awakening to Nibbana  forever, more about the religious who crave immortality whether it be in a form or formless state?

[gregk0543]

"Not to do evil, to cultivate what is good, to purify ones own mind, this is the teaching of all the Buddhas."

 

Any one disagree with this? Maybe we can start here. Then we have to ask what is evil what is good, how do we purify our own mind.

But does your view of buddhism accord with this is the first question?

 

Thanks for starting the topic. But maybe the misunderstandings start earlier up the logic tree and the arguments are the result of those.

Two buddhists three opinions?