Is Buddhism a Failure?

S.A.M.

S.A.M.

uniquely dreadful
Valued Senior Member
Buddhism is also a failure as a religion. The only surviving Buddhist societies are the ones that don't follow Buddhism.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm sorry SAM buddhists in SEA Asia don't proselytize but the religion certainly is being practised. I don't see Buddhism in the west as a living religion, its all mental exercises and trend.
 
I think you'll find that the religion has been apostasised to become prolific. As a religion, it is a failure. It did exist for 1000 years in India, before it was pushed aside as incompatible with the society that most people desired. Desire being the main purpose of living, apparently and antithetical to Buddhist values.
 
S.A.M. said:
Buddhism is also a failure as a religion. The only surviving Buddhist societies are the ones that don't follow Buddhism.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the Chinese presently beating the snot out of your Uighur friends. Unless you're going to tell me China is no longer a buddhist society, which would be about as valid as claiming that none of the muslim countries today are truly muslim.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
S.A.M. said:
I think you'll find that the religion has been apostasised to become prolific. As a religion, it is a failure. It did exist for 1000 years in India, before it was pushed aside as incompatible with the society that most people desired. Desire being the main purpose of living, apparently and antithetical to Buddhist values.
Click to expand...

Most Buddhists in SEA don't define their religion by detachment from desire, its defined by the traditions and practises of their everyday life, like visits to the temples, giving to monks, care for the spirit houses etc. Its in the West that there is this notion of Buddhists sitting and meditating everyday for 'release'
 
Lucysnow said:
Most Buddhists in SEA don't define their religion by detachment from desire, its defined by the traditions and practises of their everyday life, like visits to the temples, giving to monks, care for the spirit houses etc. Its in the West that there is this notion of Buddhists sitting and meditating everyday for 'release'
Click to expand...

Exactly. Hence you have the Tibetan Buddhist king who skinned the Banpo if they did not convert to Buddhism, the Dalai Lama who ran a medeival landowner serfdom where 90% of the people were slaves to the decadent 5%, the junta who oppress the minions and tear down churches and mosques in Burma and the Sinhalese who consider the Tamils as terrorists for deigning to question their rights as the Chosen people of the Buddha.
 
No SAM, you are confusing politics with religion and religious practise in everyday life. By the way the Junta isn't reflective of Buddhism in Myanmar, the monks despise and suffer under the Junta like all groups suffer under the Junta.
 
True, but Buddhism is the religion of getting over your suffering. So for the monks to feel oppressed is quite anti-Buddhist of them.

I'm not confusing religion and politics, I'm just indicating that as a religious system, Buddhism is incompatible with society.
 
Buddhism is not a religion for 'getting over ones suffering' that's a western interpretation, Buddhism is about an acceptance of suffering as a part of existence, to refuse sufferng is to refuse the flux of life, this is something entirely different. Buddhism doesn't suggest force for change. I wouldn't consider Buddhism as incompatible with society, actually I would say that because of Buddhism countries like Thailand and Cambodia are very relaxed, tolerant of differences and different lifestyles and compared to many societies less dour. In short they smile more, are more easy going, they tend to think of the future but content with today, there's less worry in this type of disposition. They don't compete with other religions, are accepting of everyone elses god. I certainly prefer living in a Buddhist society than an occidental one.
 
I bet they also overlook human rights because of this kind of attitude. Thats what happens in India.
 
India isn't primarily Buddhist. But I don't think human rights incompatible with Buddhism, don't confuse regimes with religions. I have never met a Cambodian who wasn't concerned with human rights, also I think the most vibrant and concerned for human rights are the Buddhists from Myanmar, I have yet to meet one who wasn't wholly conscious of the lack of human rights in their country. If they didn't care for human rights Vietnamese monks would not have protested during the Vietnam war and monks in Myanmar wouldn't get killed and risk long prison sentences. You are grossly exaggerating again and seem to show a kind of lack of insight into society vs. government.
 
Perhaps, but I am looking at religion as a social system here, not as a belief system. Per se, Buddhist societies have evolved primarily as serfdoms, with a master/slave relationship between the monk and the bhikshu, who is supposed to provide for the monk while he goes around trying to achieve Nirvana. As such, this system has been incompatible with society and has broken down in every single place where it has been attempted and has been transmuted to match some preexisting social systems which work.
 
S.A.M. said:
Perhaps, but I am looking at religion as a social system here, not as a belief system. Per se, Buddhist societies have evolved primarily as serfdoms, with a master/slave relationship between the monk and the bhikshu, who is supposed to provide for the monk while he goes around trying to achieve Nirvana. As such, this system has been incompatible with society and has broken down in every single place where it has been attempted and has been transmuted to match some preexisting social systems which work.
Click to expand...

You do realize that many Buddhists go into the temple and put on robes for short periods of time and don't necessarily stay and become full fledged monks, don't you. Its the civilians who support the monks yes, much like jews support their synagogues which are financed by their temple members. Since the temples in Buddhist societies are highly revered and are an integral part of the life of their citizens I don;t think its wrong that they are supported in such a way, furthermore I dont see why you do. Its absolutely rubbish to catorigize the relationship between a head monk and disciples a slave/master relationship. The obedience is one of teacher/disciple, 'venerable's' as they are called in Cambodia are dismissed for abuse as its incompatible with their temple life.

Show me in which buddhist society where it has broken down? Even in communits Vietnam it is practised. You say that every single place where it has been attempted; where what has been attempted? You say it has been transmuted to match some preexisting social system? Give a present day example. I get the impression you don't know very much about Buddhism nor buddhist societies at all:D

I'm sure if one of the members here had said Muslim societies were in disarray because islam is a faulty disingenuous social system based on slaves and master religious leaders you'd get upset right?
 
I don't think you know much about the history of Buddhism :)

Just look up the system as it has been for the last few thousand years.
 
S.A.M. said:
I don't think you know much about the history of Buddhism :)

Just look up the system as it has been for the last few thousand years.
Click to expand...

No SAM you are asserting something, it is up to you to prove your assertions not up to me to show you my knowledge or lack of knowledge of Buddhist history. Just answer the questions I posed and give me the examples. We are not speaking of Buddhist history.
 
Lucysnow said:
No SAM you are asserting something, it is up to you to prove your assertions not up to me to show you my knowledge or lack of knowledge of Buddhist history. Just answer the questions I posed and give me the examples. We are not speaking of Buddhist history.
Click to expand...

Here is a starting point for you then.

Buddhist society in Tibet

Prior to 1959, there were three main social groups in Tibet: ordinary laypeople, lay nobility, and monks.[1] The ordinary layperson could be further classified as a peasant farmer (shing-pa) or nomadic pastoralist (trokpa).[citation needed]

The Tsang (17th century) and Dalai Lama (Ganden Podrang) law codes distinguished three social divisions: high, medium and low, each in turn was divided into three classes, to give nine classes in all. Social status was a formal classification, mostly hereditary and had legal consequences: for example the compensation to be paid for the killing of a member of these classes varied from 5 (for the lowest) to 200 'sung' for the second highest, the members of the noble families.

Nobles, government officials and monks of pure conduct were in the high division, only - probably - the Dalai Lama was in the very highest class. The middle division contained a large portion of the population and ranged from minor government officials, to taxpayer and landholding peasants, to landless peasants. Movement between classes was possible in the middle division.[2] The lower division contained ragyabpa ('untouchables') of different types: e.g. blacksmiths and butchers. The very lowest class contained executioners, and (in the Tsang code) bachelors and hermaphrodites.[3]

Human lease peasants

Human lease peasants (mi-bo) did not have heritable rights to land. They were still obligated to their 'owning' estate under their status as mi-ser. In contrast with the taxpayer families and householders, they had the freedom to go wherever they wanted and could engage in trade or crafts[15]. When farming, they might lease land from taxpayer families and as payment take on work for those families. Like the householders the landless peasants also used resources in their own individual capacity which were non-heritable.

The relative freedom of the mi-bo status was usually purchased by an annual fee to the estate to which the mi-bo belonged. The fee could be raised if the mi-bo prospered, and the lord could still exact special corvée labor, eg for a special event.

The status could be revoked at the will of the estate owner. The offspring of the mi-bo did not automatically inherit the status of 'mi-bo', they did inherit the status of 'mi-ser', and could be indentured to service in their earlier teens, or would have to pay their own mi-bo fee.[2]

The ragyabpa or untouchable caste were the lowest level, and they performed the 'unclean' work. This included fishermen, butchers, executioners, corpse disposers, blacksmiths and goldsmiths. Ragyabpa were also divided into three divisions: for instance a goldsmith was in the highest untouchable class, and was not regarded as being as defiled as an executioner, who was in the lowest.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_classes_of_Tibet
 
And so you take Tibetan history and use it as an example for all Buddhism and Buddhist society? Prove that their very special form of Buddhism is pracitised in all Buddhist countries, which its not, and that their system of divine Buddhist leader as head of government is common in all Buddhist nations, which it isn't, and then you would have a point SAM. Tibeten Buddhism is an offshoot only practised by very few, which is why the Dalai Lama isn't the spiritual leader and head of all Buddhists.

Sorry SAM its a red herring attempt to prove your very broad arguments and its in no way indicative of Buddhism or Buddhist societies as a whole. Its like one of the members using the Taliban as an example to describe all of Islam.
 
No I look at the similarities of the monk bhikshu system in all places, from Tibet, to Burma [where the junta has supplanted the monks] to Nepal to Sri Lanka to even Dharamsala where the erstwhile Lama has estabished his mini serfdom and conclude that the system does not work. Apparently the desire to be free of suffering overcomes the desire to live with it with every single time.
 
No SAM the Junta is a purely militaristic state that hasn't the least bit of Buddhist doctrine it it. What you seem not to notice is that the Tibetans still revere their leaders and their traditions and that hasnt been supplanted with anything even as the Chinese took the region. Where is this supplanted system elsewhere SAM? In democratic Thailand and Cambodia? Communist China, Vietnam and Lao (which developed from Western threats) What about democratic S. Korea and Taiwan? Bhutan up until recently had an absolute monarchy but has now opened up to other political parties and expects parlimentary elections. Now under ALL these diverse POLITICAL systems Buddhism is STILL practised. What you are describing is rubbish, has no connection to reality.
 
SAM: Apparently the desire to be free of suffering overcomes the desire to live with it with every single time.

Again in what Buddhist country do they practise the desire to free themselves of suffering? Buddhists lead normal lives as far as I can tell so far, work, marriage, children, shopping, love, divorce, t.v, music, dancing. They are not sitting prostate eating only a bowl of vegetables and rice.:rolleyes:

This is becoming tedious. Its only in the West do I hear of Buddhism in terms of 'ending' suffering as opposed to an understanding as suffering being part of the flux of all nature ie; birth, youth, health, sickness, old age and death. Happiness and misery, fortune and misfortune. It teaches that all these things should be taken in stride as existence is precarious and not limited to a single state of being.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top