• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Buddha Was Wrong, a Skeptical Buddhist Site

Nathyn

Thinker
Joined
Nov 19, 2006
Messages
141
On the eSangha forum, someone anonymously sent me a link to this site:

http://thebuddhawaswrong.com/

The majority of Buddhists are just as superstitious as other religions. They believe in flying monks, that there's literally six dimensions where we're reborn into after we die, that there actually is such a thing as qi\chi, especially the Tibetan Buddhists. Oh, and they consider it unethical to even say, "the Buddha was wrong." That's called "defaming the Buddha." For them, the Buddha is God and the sutras are their Bible. And a lot of them are into the traditional Chinese and Tibetan medicine which you guys know is pseudoscience.

Well, there is also a minority of "modern" Theravada and Zen practitioners which are skeptics and atheists. Most likely, this movement is the result of Buddhism entering America, because Theravada and Zen have been fairly widespread in America (as opposed to, say, Pureland Buddhism) and skeptical Buddhists seem to me to be exclusively western.

Anyway, these folks that run this website seem to be motivated by hatred, which isn't good.

But this one article on the Dalai Lama really made me laugh:

http://thebuddhawaswrong.com/dalai.php
 
Well, there is also a minority of "modern" Theravada and Zen practitioners which are skeptics and atheists.

There's one of the Theravada variety right here. Hello.

Most likely, this movement is the result of Buddhism entering America, because Theravada and Zen have been fairly widespread in America (as opposed to, say, Pureland Buddhism) and skeptical Buddhists seem to me to be exclusively western.

There sure are fewer sceptics among the 'native' Buddhists, but I wouldn't say 'exclusively western'.

Also, most of the superstition in Theravada and Zen countries have nothing to do with Buddhism, they come in addition to it.
 
strathmeyer said:
The Dali Lama is a homophobe? Who knew? I didn't know such bigotry was so widespread.
I wouldn't go that far. From what I understand, he sees nothing wrong with same-sex relationships as such, he is opposed to certain forms of sex (pretty much anything besides genital, I suppose). That rule includes eveyone, but obviously it effects his views on homosexuality negatively.

Still, he is not one to point fingers - especially not to non-Buddhists. Also, he seems open-minded enough to listen to new ideas.
 
Well, there is also a minority of "modern" Theravada and Zen practitioners which are skeptics and atheists. Most likely, this movement is the result of Buddhism entering America, because Theravada and Zen have been fairly widespread in America (as opposed to, say, Pureland Buddhism) and skeptical Buddhists seem to me to be exclusively western.

Yay for sceptics, i will see if they quote the alleged historical buddha or the folowers of the alleged historical buddha.

Time for Yrreg to appear.

Here is what I found, some good ,some attributions to the buddha that might or might not be the product of the AHB



From the buddha part:
http://thebuddhawaswrong.com/buddha.php
If you seen the guy below telling you that he is perfectly enlightened and there wont be another guy like him for another few aeons would you take him seriously?
...
yet he seemed to have no trouble seeing several gazillion years into the future.
Certainly the belief of some of the buddha's followers and up there with the sex change of Avolokiteshivara, but in some people's minds not a teaching of the AHB.


From the dammha part
http://thebuddhawaswrong.com/nibbana.php
It is a naïve belief held by beginner Buddhists that nibbana is a state of mind where a small part of whatever it is you are gets left over for eternity to enjoy the ultimate never ending bliss and happiness. However, the pali canon and numerous Buddhist monks make it clear that it is not a state of mind and absolutely nothing is left over. It is complete extinguishment of mind and matter from the subjective viewpoint of the 5 aggregates.
I think there has been a great discussion about the subject of nibbanna on this board, and miost would disagree with this characterization of nibbanna.
With this being the case, nibbana only makes sense in the context of a rebirth world view therefore, without rebirth, there is no need for nibbana
...
Buddhist monks waste their whole lives trying to attain a state of non existence which happens automatically at death
I would disagree with these statements as well.

http://thebuddhawaswrong.com/rebirth.php
Without the concept of rebirth, the rest of Buddhist philosophy breaks down and becomes irrelevant
I disagree with this as well.

http://thebuddhawaswrong.com/meditation.php
But so what? Why all the dogma? Why all the cultural baggage and superstition? Why all the religious mumbo jumbo?
i agree.

From the section on the sangha
http://thebuddhawaswrong.com/sangha.php
After spending a lot of time in various monasteries, both east and west, it is hard to tolerate the hypocrisy and sheer foolishness of such places.
Makes sense to me.

http://thebuddhawaswrong.com/dana.php
If you need anymore clues that holy people throughout the ages preach generosity as a fund raiser look no further than Buddhism. Rock up to any multi million dollar Buddhist monastery and see the rich business men making their donations in hope for a better rebirth.
I agree.
Blasphemy you say Mr Dogmatic monk? Disrespecting the sangha leads to the hell realms does it? How long must the people of this world tolerate this parasitical relationship with an elite spiritual class? It is blatantly obvious with the Catholic Church and various Jewish organisations and it would be a mistake to exclude Buddhism from this farce.
Quite true, but not all buddhists follow the silly dogma.
 
Last edited:
Also, remember that the Dalai Lama does not speak for Buddhism. He only speaks for Tibetan Buddhism, which is both a small denomination and very different from other forms of Buddhism.
 
I've never understood the venom and hostility that some people have when criticizing Buddhism. I can understand criticizing it from a logical or skeptical standpoint, but it seems like some of these people just have so much out and out hatred, it makes me wonder what their motivation is.
 
Maybe you're just confused because some people like to be big jerks on the Internet? I assure you I hate most things equally.
 
Hi all,

I am the author of this website and appreciate the comments.

Geez you skeptics are fast, its only been up for a few days and your already pulling it to peices :P

Anyway, these folks that run this website seem to be motivated by hatred, which isn't good.

??

Hatred? I'm sorry that you get that impression. Other than my immature nazi page about esangha i think i have presented my views in a respectful manner.

Anyway, its not "folks" running this site, just me :)

Thanks again for the critique. Any further construcive critisism is greatly appreciated.

Cheers
 
I think there has been a great discussion about the subject of nibbanna on this board, and miost would disagree with this characterization of nibbanna.

I would appreciate a link to that discussion.

I have had many emails about my definition of nibbana and i stand by it. All this pureland, eternal happiness, all is one stuff is not in the pali canon. There are greater scriptural backing for the cessation of existence than there is for some kind of eternal heaven.

I think the best definition of nibbana written was by the famous western monk, Ajahn Brahm which i will post below.

This is an excerp from ajahn brahms book: "Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond".

What Nibbana is Not

In this chapter I will explain enlightenment as the buddha meant it to be taught, that is, with precision and clarity. I will also describe the final parts of the process during which it occurs. But first I will comment on what nibbana is not.

Dumbing Down Nibbana

Whenever Buddhism becomes fashionable, there is a tendency to change the meaning of nibbana to suit more people. The pressures born of popularity will bend the truth to make it more accomodating. Teachings are very well recieved when they tell people only what they want to hear.Furthermore, vanity induces some Dhamma teachers to explain nibbana in ways that do not challenge their own unenlightened state. This all leads to a dumbing down of nibbana.

One can read in modern buddhist literature that enlightenment is nothing more than passive submission to the way things seem to be (as distinguished from the way things are, seen only after jhana). Or that the unconditioned is merely the easily accessible mindfulness-in-the-moment, within which anything goes-absolutely anything. Or that the deathless state is simply a nondual awareness, a rejection of all distinctions, and an affirmation that all is one and benign. The supreme goal of buddhism then becomes little more than the art of living in a less troubled way, a hopeless surrender to the ups and downs of life, and a denial of dukkha as inherent in all forms of existence. It is like a neurotic prisoner celebrating his incarceration instead of seeking a way out. Such dumbed down Dhamma may feel warm and fuzzy, but it is a gross understatement of the real nibbana. And those who buy into such enchanting distortions will find they have bought a lemon.

Banana Nibbana

When I was a teenager, I asked many Christian teachers to explain the meaning of god. Either they would tell me what it was not or they would give me an answer that was unintelligible. For example, they would say God is "the ineffible" or "the ultimate reality" or "the ground of all being" or "infinite conciousness" or "the pure knowing".

Later I asked many Buddhist teachers to explain the meaning of nibbana. Either they would tell me what it was not or they would give me an answer that was unintelligible. For instance, they would say nibbana is "the ineffible" or "the ultimate reality" or "the ground of all being" or "infinite conciousness" or "the pure knowing". Then insight arose: I've heard such mumbo-jumbo somewhere before! For the very same reasons i rejected meaningless descriptions of god as a youth, so even now I reject all the gobbledygook descriptions of the Buddhist nibbana.

Some definitions of nibbana are plain oxymorons, such as, for example, "non manifest conciousness" or "attuning to the ungraspable". Conciousness is that essential part of the cognitive process that makes experience manifest, so "nonmanifest conciousness" actually means "nonmanifesting manifesting" or "unconcious consciousness" which is nonsense.One can only attune to what is possible for the mind to grasp, so the latter definition becomes "attuning to the unattunable" or "grasping the ungraspable". These and other similar descriptions are mere foolishness dressed up as wisdom.

The underlying problem is that it is very embarrassing to a Buddhist not to have a clear idea of what nibbana is. It is like getting on a bus and not quite being sure where the bus is going. It is worse when your non buddhist friends ask you to describe where you are heading on your buddhist journey. So, many Buddhists resort to obfuscation, meaning bamboozling their audience with unusual combinations of mystical sounding phrases. For if your listeners dont understand what you're saying, then there is a good chance that they'll think it profound and consider you wise!

Such crooked descriptions of nibbana are so lacking in straight forwardness, so bent out of line, that I call them "banana nibbana". Experience tells us that, when one knows a thing well and has frequent and direct experience with it, then one will be able to supply a clear, detailed, and starightforward description. Mystification is the sure sign that the speaker does not know what they're talking about.

Demystified Nibbana

The Remainderless Cessation of Body and Mind

In the time of the Buddha, even simple villagers understood the meaning of nibbana. For nibbana was the word used in common usage for an oil lamp being extinguished (see Ratana Sutta, Sn 235). When the oil was used up, or the wick had burned out, or a wind carried the heat away, the villagers would say that the flame had been "nibbana-ed". Nibbana was the word used in ordinary usage that described the remainderless ending of a natural process, whether it was a simple flame, or this complex body and mind..or a fashionable curiosity box. When one penetrates to the heart of this insight, then there is nothing at all to lose and nothing to be annihilated. Only when there is some persistent entity there to begin with can we use the word annihilation. But for the remainderless ending of the empty natural process, we call it cessation. Nibbana is the empty and natural process of body and mind doing its cessation thing.
 
Last edited:
Hi all,

I am the author of this website and appreciate the comments.

Geez you skeptics are fast, its only been up for a few days and your already pulling it to peices :P



??

Hatred? I'm sorry that you get that impression. Other than my immature nazi page about esangha i think i have presented my views in a respectful manner.

Anyway, its not "folks" running this site, just me :)

Thanks again for the critique. Any further construcive critisism is greatly appreciated.

Cheers

Welcome to the forum!

I think that your critiques of structural buddhism are great. As I have said to friends and with friends in the past, "It is not religion I can't stand, it is just religous people." :)
 
I would appreciate a link to that discussion.

I have had many emails about my definition of nibbana and i stand by it. All this pureland, eternal happiness, all is one stuff is not in the pali canon. There are greater scriptural backing for the cessation of existence than there is for some kind of eternal heaven.

I think the best definition of nibbana written was by the famous western monk, Ajahn Brahm which i will post below.

This is an excerp from ajahn brahms book: "Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond".


Sorry about the typos in my post. Just about any thread started by Yrreg will give good results, I will try to find the specific ones involving the discussion of nibbana.

Ajahn Brahms sounds interesting.The issue for many buddhists on this thread is that there is a difference between what the AHB taught and what is actualy practised in many syncretic versions of buddhism. I certainly agree that like most human endevours about 90% is nonsense.
 
Isn't doubting reincarnation and the words of the Buddha the 10th unwholesome action in Buddhism? How can you be a skeptical Buddhist when the religion is so rigid in it's interpretations of what the "universal truths" are and the "only way to true happiness" is? Isn't it a bit presumptuous to assume that a 2,500+ year old philosophy has the answers on the meaning of life and understanding of the universe? About as presumptuous to believe a 1,800 year old text called "Genesis" does.
 
Isn't doubting reincarnation and the words of the Buddha the 10th unwholesome action in Buddhism? How can you be a skeptical Buddhist when the religion is so rigid in it's interpretations of what the "universal truths" are and the "only way to true happiness" is? Isn't it a bit presumptuous to assume that a 2,500+ year old philosophy has the answers on the meaning of life and understanding of the universe? About as presumptuous to believe a 1,800 year old text called "Genesis" does.

Kindly cite your source for this information. I have always stated that there are some very religous and superstitious aspects to buddhism. Which school holds that to be the tenth unwholesome action?

I have found that the buddha cited in the Pali canon appears to have been either heavily edited or the AHB was not as superstitious as thier followers.
 
I would appreciate a link to that discussion.

Here are some links to the discussion on this board.
Almost all the sceptics agree that the majority of buddhist practices and the like are total hogwash and foolish mummery. Some take my perspective that what is alleged to be from the Alleged Historical Buddha does not contain the same level of nonsense.

Prior to the arrival of yrreg there were occasional conversations regarding buddhism. But hes purred greater effort from us and really helped me clarify my thinking about what i consider to be buddhism.

Karma

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61734

Tanha, purpose of life

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55812

Sceptics and buddhism(a thread I started)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50217

Nirvana, rebirth, annatta
(Perhaps the introduction of yrreg and buddhism)
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48138
 
Last edited:
Kindly cite your source for this information. I have always stated that there are some very religous and superstitious aspects to buddhism. Which school holds that to be the tenth unwholesome action?

I have found that the buddha cited in the Pali canon appears to have been either heavily edited or the AHB was not as superstitious as thier followers.

I read it from one of the Dali Lama's books. The 10th unwholesome action is listed as being "Wrong views" which include denying the fact that consciousness is eternal(afterlife or reincarnation) as well as the efficacy of moral actions. I don't know about any sources.

Perhaps you could address the other parts of my post.
 
I read it from one of the Dali Lama's books. The 10th unwholesome action is listed as being "Wrong views" which include denying the fact that consciousness is eternal(afterlife or reincarnation) as well as the efficacy of moral actions. I don't know about any sources.

Perhaps you could address the other parts of my post.

You must have missed this:

Also, remember that the Dalai Lama does not speak for Buddhism. He only speaks for Tibetan Buddhism, which is both a small denomination and very different from other forms of Buddhism.
 
You must have missed this:

I didn't miss it. That fact doesn't make the Dali Lama wrong about the 10th unwholesome action. The fact is, Buddhism is like any other religious movement. It has it's dogmas and it's religious leaders and it has numerous "sects" like any other religious movement does. I frequently see people claiming that they are Buddhists but they don't believe in reincarnation, karma and don't even always follow what the Buddha himself said. So in what sense are they Buddhists? What makes one a Buddhist? Even if it's simply following what the Buddha said, what makes one thing that what the Buddha said is true? As I mentioned earlier, it's absurd to think that some Indian philosopher or spiritual leader 2,500 years ago figured out the meaning of life, cause of suffering, path to end suffering, and path to "enlightenment" whatever that really even means.
 

Back
Top Bottom