Buddhism, the religion that failed us or did we fail it?

[spidergoat]

Long term or short term doesn't matter. What does matter is that you are wrong and really in entirety so lets just take this off the table and chalk it up to fantasy (your fantasy\delusion). Even in circumstances of cremation there is nothing in those ashes that would have even the slightest effect on future organisms because as you know the ashes are entirely inert. ....

The debate isn't even over and you have declared yourself the victor. Bravo to you! Particles do get recycled, especially carbon, especially molecules of water. The atoms making up your body were probably once in a dinosaur, the water in your body was probably once a part of billions of other life forms.

None of is a creation ex-nihilo, from out of nothing.



That's how the Buddhist modernists typically interpret the traditional idea of reincarnation.

The thing is, in Buddhism there isn't any substantial temporally-extended self that somehow corresponds to and supports our name and identity throughout our lives. ...

Well said, I think this supports what I have been saying. If there is no persistent self, then the notion of a constantly renewing and recycling flow of matter becomes a plausible, if crude, description of reality. But, as we can see with John99's example, this kind of debate brings us away from essence of Buddha's teaching.

 

[John99]

The debate isn't even over and you have declared yourself the victor. Bravo to you! Particles do get recycled, especially carbon, especially molecules of water.

Spidergoat, They are still minerals.

The atoms making up your body were probably once in a dinosaur, the water in your body was probably once a part of billions of other life forms.

Probably. And what if they were? Does it make it any more different than if they were in a tree or a rock? OR not once part of billions (supposedly) other life forms?

“
The atoms making up your body were probably once in a dinosaur, the water in your body was probably once a part of billions of other life forms.
”

I would like to examine this further. In order to do this you must expand on it and tell me what brought you to this conclusion.

Is not life made in the pristine confines of a controlled environment, such as a lab, equal?

 

[spidergoat]

I'm not sure what you are getting at. The body is made of existing particles. The body gets reborn every time someone has a child. That child is imbued with the values and thought patterns of the cultures. This is what I'm calling reincarnation. It's a view of life that emphasizes the absence of boundries.

 

[John99]

Some of those things are correct. Obviously the last sentence is. I cant think of anything else to say though.

Edit: whooops, i mean one sentence in there, the one pertaining to nurturing of the child.

 

[Yazata]

If there is no persistent self, then the notion of a constantly renewing and recycling flow of matter becomes a plausible, if crude, description of reality. But, as we can see with John99's example, this kind of debate brings us away from essence of Buddha's teaching.

In the West, supernatural divinely-revealed religion seems to be locked in a death-struggle with empirical rationalism and physicalism. (That battle is well illustrated right here on Sciforums.)

The advances of science become blows against religion. Miracles cease. Beauty evaporates. To some people, nothing touched by science seems to have any meaning any longer and a crude mechanical nihilism reigns.

That's where I see potential in Buddhism. It's a view of things that is, or could become, consistent with a science that interprets events in terms of impersonal natural processes as opposed to the actions of transcendental personalities. While science has proven profoundly corrosive to Western spirituality, it's not all that dissimilar to Buddhism's own core insights.

That's where Buddhism might actually have something to teach us. Buddhism brings with it ethics, aesthetics and transformative spirituality of great beauty and sophistication. It speaks very effectively to a whole side of human life that science virtually ignores.

Snakelord quoted Daniel Dennett to the effect that Buddhism's greatest attribute is that it stays out of the way. But if Buddhism can help show mankind's humanistic side how to relax and accomodate to the scientific/physicalist/rationalistic juggernaut without being totally crushed in the process, if it can help us finally end the Western worlds centuries-long war between science and religion, then maybe it will have been of service after all.

 

[chaos1956]

Nope. There's no creator-god or monotheist king-of-the-sky. Traditional Buddhists in ancient times didn't deny the existence of gods exactly. But whatever gods might exist were simply conceived as natural beings, residents of higher and more refined but still natural planes of being. When it comes to Buddhism's purpose of eliminating dukkha, the gods are kind of irrelevant. They need enlightenment too, just like humans do. And since gods in their lush heavens are more tempted by pleasure and by power than we are, they might actually find enlightenment more difficult to achieve. There's an extraordinary humanistic idea in Buddhism that in some ways it's better to be a human being than to be a god.

A very true aspect concerning enlightenment and the view of people who consider themselves "Gods". Although the reference should be used against the excess of temptation in today's world. It is not to say that temptation doesn't happen, but when it does it is important to come to a conscious decision about repercussions of your decision. For example the in the Myth of Sisyphus, it is his duty to push the rock up the hill and in that time he is conscious of his actions, but when he is walking down the hill, he has control over his conscious thoughts. If he decides to take a little longer than expected to complete the task of walking down and is able to enjoy the momentary relief from suffering more power to him. The point of his "suffering" is to make him think of his crimes, but If he only thinks of his experiences that have brought him joy in life he can temporarily escape his suffering. Therefore escaping his eternal punishment for a time. Still it is important for him to complete his task of understanding his punishment. If he is able to push the stone and have humble thoughts of escape, then who is to say he is still receiving the punishment. If he is happy with his eternal existence or repetitious work, has he not come to terms with himself and his actions as well as accepted his punishment? The escape from "suffering" would then be complete, but it takes Sisyphus an eternity even without the distractions and temptations from the real world to accomplish this. Which is why many who see themselves as "good" are unable to free themselves from earthly distractions, and those who are seen as "evil" are unable to escape their work, but it is easier for them to escape their suffering. The "good" are always distracted and the "evil" are always accepting of their life. I'll let you find the grey line, its a big one.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

I should add that the monks performed other services as well. They traditionally (and in many cases still do) run schools and serve as a village's schoolteachers. Some Asian countries boasted relatively high levels of literacy compared to other preindustrial societies, largely for that reason. The monks also had important social roles in caring for the indigent and the aged.

It was Buddhist monks from China who brought then-modern Iron Age civilization to Bronze Age Japan, Korea and other countries. In particular, they taught them to read and write, making available to them all the literature and philosophy of China.

They may have created cultural colonies, but they did not actually impose Chinese rule upon them. Contrast this to what the Christian and Muslim "holy men" did to every hapless people they discovered. When they found Bronze Age civilizations in Mexico and Peru, they obliterated them, burning the Aztec libraries and melting down the Inca art treasures... because they were "heathen." Half a millennium later, the native peoples of the Americas are still struggling to recapture their identities, while Japan and (half of) Korea are major players in world civilization.

The native peoples of the Antipodes and sub-Saharan Africa, who hadn't invented civilization yet, are in even worse shape after their encounter with the Christians.

I should first mention that the doctrine of reincarnation is not necessary to Buddhism. Secondly, only some concepts of it are supernatural. The particles in the body do go into the Earth and are incorporated into plants and such and are eaten again to make new bodies. Additionally, our patterns of thought are passed on to our children through culture.

Buddhism happily embraces and assimilates new knowledge and wisdom, and is quite respectful of modern science. After all, both Buddhism and science are quests for knowledge.

I've always said that civilization has become a super-organism of which we are the cells, and like any lifeform it keeps on living even though its individual components die and are replaced. This is perhaps another perspective on the concept of reincarnation and I wonder what a Buddhist scholar would say about it.

 

[rcscwc]

About the question-
Buddhism, the religion that failed us or did we fail it?

Before we have attempt to dissect the discussion and study it, let us attempt to understand the question.

Buddhism-Buddhism is a religion and philosophy encompassing a variety of traditions, beliefs and practices, largely based on teachings attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, commonly known as the Buddha. (Wikipedia)

Religion-Religion is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or a set of beliefs concerning the origin and purpose of the universe.It is commonly regarded as consisting of a person’s relation to God, gods, or spirits. (Wikipedia)

Now, these are my personal views, my subjective views
1)I do not claim these as the universal view.
2)I do not intend to impose my view on anybody.
3)I only intend to throw light on some of the research I had carried, and to rationally accept or reject suggestions, critcism and inferences from this discussion. From those who try to dig deeper and not throw mud around.
4)I have tried to clear inconsistencies as far as possible however I invite anybody to point out the irregularities.

The essence of word religion has been defiled and contaminated with ideas of blind-worshipping beautifully and intricately carved stones and metal objects , absent-minded recitation of sacred words, and to be shepherded by religious heads suffering from intellectual impairment and carrying a briefcase of political agenda. The word itself has become a curse. [1]

Originally, in the true sense of the word, religion is simply something that shows you The Way. It never forces you. It allows you to be, to understand your essence, to celebrate your presence and to guide you towards fulfillment.

If there was one thing Buddha ever wanted , it was that people could spend time contemplating his teachings than idol worshipping him.
Even Buddha was contemplative about the possibility of his philosophy running down into the hands and minds by manipulative and hypocritic people. He knew, that rather than good, his message could do more harm. It could fall into the hands of these mediocre people, the fundamentalists, scholars, politicians and priests, who might make a doctrine out of it and stir the crowd in the directions of their own wordly gains.
If there was a way, he would have wished that he could have been the ugliest person in the world.
Ugliest beyond perception of the most skilled painted or sculptor. Well, the Rocket Men in Afghanistan; and the chalk-equipped 'X loves Y' couples in India have been trying their best; but believe me, he is still angry. To turn him into an expansive religious fetish, is to miss the essence of what he taught. Is to miss Buddhism.

Buddhism was not a religion, but now it has become one. There was no need to add an 'ism' to it, in the first place. We can no longer deny that there is a 'Buddhist religion' because everywhere we look, Buddhism is displayed as a religion. What most Buddhists in the world practice is the naive, ritualisitc, and redundant parts of Buddhism which I guess they invented themselves. The real treasure of Buddhism lies in the profound, immune and infallible wisdom which flowers the human intellect. The teachings of Buddha. The Four Noble Truths, The Eightfold Way, The Thirty Seven prequisites to Enlightenment. Buddha never set out to create a system of organizing society, Buddhism. What he taught was only a means of liberation.

About the arguement-
We can not even speak of Buddhism's failure or success because most of it's offshoots do not represent it's true philosophy.
I won't talk to you about the success or failure of the religious side of Buddhism.
Like other scholars and pseudo-intellectuals, we would go into a myriad of arguements and counter-arguements, going around in circles, throwing dirt and making Buddha sigh. Again missing the point.

Now when we talk with respect to Buddhism's ultimate goal, If Buddhism ends the suffering of one person, it was successful. On that account, Buddhism has failed miserably. Maybe only one in countless thousands reached enlightenment. Who even knows?

Buddhism , directly presented an ineffable yet an intricate and paradoxical framework of philosophy, that went beyond the bedtime storytelling, and definitely not something that makes you sleep (pun intended). While most of it is simple contemplative truth, any person too mired in the world of Maya may not understand it. And it loses it's practical value because most people do not have enough time, resources and energy to gather a clear vision of it. It may even be misunderstood, it has been. It may be even manipulated, it has been.

Another object for concern for people is it's emphasis on detachment from life. Taking cues directly from Buddha's life, the path to enlightenment was supposedly to leave behind everything, spouse and children, family and all material possessions. I suppose, none of us would like to beg around for food, shelter and clothing- the basic things for survival. Absistence from procreation, is the human life itself a curse? Isn't this anti-spirituality? Now it becomes important to ask oneself if a religion that makes you surrender important social, economic, physical aspects and also the spiritual aspects of a human life is actually the right path.

They say Buddhism, was a path, carved, for a selected extraordinarily abnormal few, those who had this courage to be schizopreniac and remain aloof of the immediate reality. For people devoid of courage and unable to stand-up to face life's challenges.

My understanding about it's current relevance-
Now, we must understand that Buddisht philosophy is nothing but like science.
Buddha outlined that-
1)Do not accept anything on (mere) hearsay -- (i.e., thinking that thus have we heard it for a long time).
2)Do not accept anything by mere tradition -- (i.e., thinking that it has thus been handed down through many generations).
3)Do not accept anything on account of mere rumors -- (i.e., by believing what others say without any investigation).
4)Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures.
5)Do not accept anything by mere suppositions.
6)Do not accept anything by mere inference.
7)Do not accept anything by merely considering the reasons.
8)Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions.
9)Do not accept anything merely because it seems acceptable -- (i.e., thinking that as the speaker seems to be a good person his words should be accepted).
10)Do not accept anything thinking that the ascetic is respected by us (therefore it is right to accept his word).
The Buddha even discounts blind faith in one's teacher.
Studying Buddhism is like a personal experiment. Only you can dig to the depth of things. For the fact is that any person can embrace the Buddha’s teaching, and even become a genuine Buddhist contemplative (and, one must presume, a buddha) without believing anything on insufficient evidence.
So in many respects, Buddhism is very much like science.

In Buddhism there is not, as in most other religions, an Almighty God to be obeyed and feared. The Buddha does not believe in a cosmic potentate, omniscient and omnipresent. In Buddhism there are no divine revelations or divine messengers. A Buddhist is, therefore, not subservient to any higher supernatural power which controls his destinies and which arbitrarily rewards and
punishes. In Buddhism, the enlightenment is there and it's there, right now. Since Buddhists do not believe in revelations of a divine being Buddhism does not claim the monopoly of truth and does not condemn any other religion. But Buddhism recognizes the infinite latent possibilities of man and teaches that man can gain deliverance from suffering by his own efforts independent of divine help or mediating priests.

Now talking of detachment , Buddha never insisted that becoming a saint in it's entirey is the requisite for his teachings. He abandoned because he was ready. Enlightenment is only for few who have the courage to face the greatest fears and dissolve the boundaries of duality. But any common man can always apply Buddha's teachings to even modern life , as much as one understands it- the essence of it. Primarily, everything human does , he does it acting on his desire and hatred. Both arise from fear. Our everday life revolves around chasing desires and acting on hatred. One desire leads to another, similarly hatred leads from one to other. And our life goes on experiencing varying both in time and magnitude, different levels of pain and pleasure, in different packets, coarse and subtle.

The Buddhist principle is of gradual withdrawal, of becoming a bit less ignorant and more aware of our active desires, of taking one step at a time. Not rushing , tripping over, falling and then blaming it as a "crazy" religion. Of cultivating a seed, and watching it over, of cultivating gradual de-attachment and awareness, tasting the life's happiness and sorrows a bit less often. And using the empty space of mind thus generated to contemplate on our inner self, our innate feelings. Reach to the roots of our hatred and desires, ask if attachment to them will truly give us an everlasting peace? In reflecting in this way, we can decide better on- what to do and not do. We can then cumulatively cut on life's excesses and inculcate a sense of appreciation for the things we have. We can start to enjoy life better and be thankful for all that we have. Ultimately if one can become less desirous , more contented; less hateful, more loving; less selfish and more kind; less judging and more compassionate; less ignorant and more aware then Buddhism is the cosmic religion.

conclusion
Ultimately, Buddhism as a religion in it's today's sense may decline, die , reincarnate and grow but it's philosophy will live on. As at any point of time, there will always be people who will take "a teaching which takes a view of life that is more than superficial, a teaching which looks into life and not merely at it, a teaching which furnishes men with a guide to conduct that is in accord with its in-look, a teaching which enables those who give it heed to face life with fortitude and death with serenity."

[1] - Here I do not attend to hurt the sentiments of any religious community, also one, of which I belong to.
The words here have been intentionally bolded because my point is that anyone practising anything without questioning it is not at all religious. My comments are not directed at those who are aware of what they are doing.

It failed. At least in India. And that is a very crucial subject: Why it FAILED in India? The answers are complex and philophical. Forget about PERSECUTION or genocide, they never happened. Hindus found a very spiritual solution: They elevated Buddha as the Nineth Avatar!!

A hymn extols Him: Keshava in Buddha's body, victory to the Lord of Universe. It is a part of Hymn for the TEN avataras. Last, Lord Kalki, is yet to appear.

 

[Non-Logical-Idea-Guy]

OP

You're quite right, Buddha did not want his words to become scripture, which is why he spoke in different dialects when in different regions, so that no one priesthood could capture all his teachings in one language in one text.

His ability to speak in these different dialects came from the fact that, as a member of a rich family, especially one in which his mother had died, he would have been raised largely by different maids throughout his life- as still happens in many very wealthy families in the East and to an extent the West. And, as in these days you only had to travel a small amount of distance to reach a local dialect which was hugely different to the other one, it is also supposed by historians that the Buddha as a youth became proficient in many different local dialects.

So, to a point, this is where your argument becomes somewhat redundant. The Buddha's true words were spoken piecemeal in different regions of the world in different dialects, and were not put into a set of 'central scriptures' long after his death. So yes, his words and philosophies do not remain pure in the religioin of Buddhism. But he never intended them to, and how were they supposed to? So to criticise Buddhism for distorting the Buddha's teachings into hearsay is pointless, because hearsay is how they were kept alive long enough to even write a distorted account. Instead, you yourself are making the mistake of believing that there are or ever were any of the Buddha's teachings wholly intact.

So in answer to your question, no one failed Buddhism. And remember, Buddha isn't a deity, anyone else's teachings are just as valid if they produce results, which current Buddhist teachings certainly do.