The Buddha Was Wrong, a Skeptical Buddhist Site

[Taffer]

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.

I can only speak of Chinese Buddhism, but in that, reincarnation and other things are spoken of in philosophic terms, not as concrete ideas. So your blanket of "all Buddhists" is a bit off. You cannot judge all Buddhism on what the Lama says.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Hiya Dustin!

It comes down to a number of things, I really despise most forms of fundamental Xianity, but have met many a decent fundamentalist. I could blame the structure of the church for the behavior of the individuals, and I sure used to foam at the mouth about it.

However obnoxious I find the particulars of the institutions and the behavior of the individuals i can not blame the individual who might or might not have existed and was called Jesus and who might or might not have made the statement attributed to them. In fact I am still rather a fan of the teachings of Jesus.

Now when it comes to your post. There are a number of questions that can be answered to generate my POV:

1. Who made the statements that " "universal truths" are and the "only way to true happiness" . Not the AHB? The four noble truths (definitly vaued laden words there) are the four noble truths about what? Suffering ? And while the buddha(alleged and likely mythological) stated that he felt he found the cause of suffering and the path to it's easing, he also put a lot of stock on self examination, critical thinking and rejecting his path f one disagreed with it.

2. Who made the statements about "meaning of life and understanding of the universe" ? And should buddhism be held to the statements of a particular woo woo individual?

i and many others have stated repeatedly and endlessly on this forum that there are many foolish, mistaken, superstitious and stupid beliefs that are practised in buddhism.

However is one examines the Pali canon which had five hundred years of oral traditions and then was edited by a mass conclave after the alleged teaching of the alleged historical buddha, you will find that the 'buddha' was rather careful in the statements that they made, that there is a rather careful statement of the teachings, that there is an underlysing foundation of critical thought and that self knowledge and scepticism seem to be encouraged.

Now this does not of couse prevent the followers of the AHB from acting really stupid, the first major schism in buddhism was caused by what? A debate over wether an arharant has seminal emisions after attaining a state of nibbanna? And then there is the syncretic path of the phenomena known as relions. So yes, the majority of buddhists around the world may engage in foolish superstitions and dangerous woo beliefs.

Just as the Xians have argued if Jesus wore a purse and others have made statements that "Jesus would support the Iraq war."

So one can find the lotus above the mud or the jewel in the sows ear.

 

[Dancing David]

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?

Calling one's self 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.

I completely agree and totaly understand, there is a lot, and I mean a whole lot of foolish nonsense in buddhism.

There are answers if you want to know them. The AHB taught that a person should examine the teachings and judge them for merit and then if they are found useful to follow them.

I doubt you can show that the AHB said they had found the meaning of life.

The buddha taught the following.

There is suffering and a way to ease that suffering.

There is impermanence in all things. There is no self or soul.

There is a way to live your life to reduce suffering.

The buddha(AHB) did not teach that there was one and only one true path, the buddha did(AHB) not teach reincarnation. The buddha(AHB) taught that he was human. The buddha(AHB) taught that there were other paths and other teachers. The Pali Canon is alleged to contain the teachings of a number of people, Sariputta very notably.

The buddha(AHB) did appear to have some issues with recognizing the equality of women.

The AHB died after eating poison mushrooms or bad pork.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

1. Who made the statements that " "universal truths" are and the "only way to true happiness" . Not the AHB? The four noble truths (definitly vaued laden words there) are the four noble truths about what? Suffering ? And while the buddha(alleged and likely mythological) stated that he felt he found the cause of suffering and the path to it's easing, he also put a lot of stock on self examination, critical thinking and rejecting his path f one disagreed with it.

But you aren't answering my questions and you're asking many yourself when you're supposed to be the Buddhist.

2. Who made the statements about "meaning of life and understanding of the universe" ? And should buddhism be held to the statements of a particular woo woo individual?

Didn't Buddha? Doesn't Buddhism?

Here are some more "truths" of Buddhism...

• Refrain from using a high, luxurious bed.
• Refrain from dancing, using jewelery, going to shows, etc.
• Refrain from eating at the wrong time (only eat from sunrise to noon)

i and many others have stated repeatedly and endlessly on this forum that there are many foolish, mistaken, superstitious and stupid beliefs that are practised in buddhism.

Where do they come from? What makes you a Buddhist if you don't practice them?

However is one examines the Pali canon which had five hundred years of oral traditions and then was edited by a mass conclave after the alleged teaching of the alleged historical buddha, you will find that the 'buddha' was rather careful in the statements that they made, that there is a rather careful statement of the teachings, that there is an underlysing foundation of critical thought and that self knowledge and scepticism seem to be encouraged.

Where did Buddha say that his followers should believe what they see as true and not what he himself has said?

If this is the case(which I doubt it is) what is the value of Buddhism?

Now this does not of couse prevent the followers of the AHB from acting really stupid, the first major schism in buddhism was caused by what? A debate over wether an arharant has seminal emisions after attaining a state of nibbanna?

Huh?

And then there is the syncretic path of the phenomena known as relions. So yes, the majority of buddhists around the world may engage in foolish superstitions and dangerous woo beliefs.

I don't know what you mean in the 1st part.

Just as the Xians have argued if Jesus wore a purse and others have made statements that "Jesus would support the Iraq war."

Wore a Purse?

So one can find the lotus above the mud or the jewel in the sows ear.

I don't know what this means either.

 

[Taffer]

• Refrain from using a high, luxurious bed.
• Refrain from dancing, using jewelery, going to shows, etc.
• Refrain from eating at the wrong time (only eat from sunrise to noon)

Citation?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Calling one's self a buddhist.

So basically "Buddhist" is a meaningless term that can be applied to anyone who calls themselves a Buddhist?

I completely agree and totaly understand, there is a lot, and I mean a whole lot of foolish nonsense in buddhism.

That's not the point. I'm saying Buddhism as a movement is worthless.

There are answers if you want to know them. The AHB taught that a person should examine the teachings and judge them for merit and then if they are found useful to follow them.

"AHB"? Buddha said this? What if we found his teachings not to be useful? Are we relegated to an eternity of bad karma?

I doubt you can show that the AHB said they had found the meaning of life.

The buddha taught the following.

There is suffering and a way to ease that suffering.

There is impermanence in all things. There is no self or soul.

There is a way to live your life to reduce suffering.

Quite the cherry picker aren't you?

The buddha(AHB) did not teach that there was one and only one true path, the buddha did(AHB) not teach reincarnation. The buddha(AHB) taught that he was human. The buddha(AHB) taught that there were other paths and other teachers. The Pali Canon is alleged to contain the teachings of a number of people, Sariputta very notably.

So the Buddha did not teach reincarnation, did not believe his followers should follow him and taught that they should follow other teachers? Assuming this is true (which I doubt it is), What is the value of "Buddhism"? What does "Buddhism" even mean? How is it different from "Nothing" in your own definition.

The buddha(AHB) did appear to have some issues with recognizing the equality of women.

The AHB died after eating poison mushrooms or bad pork.

Wikipedia doesn't mention his last meal being poison.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Citation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism#.C5.9A.C4.ABla:_virtuous_behavior_and_the_precepts

 

[andyandy]

So basically "Buddhist" is a meaningless term that can be applied to anyone who calls themselves a Buddhist?

There is no absolute definition of "Buddhist" any more than there is an absolute defintion of "Christian" or of what is "moral" or "ethical"....

has the penny finally dropped?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

There is no absolute definition of "Buddhist" any more than there is an absolute defintion of "Christian" or of what is "moral" or "ethical"....

has the penny finally dropped?

I won't get into moral philosophy in this thread since it's off topic, However here is what the dictionary says about Buddhism.

Buddhism-

a religion, originated in India by Buddha (Gautama) and later spreading to China, Burma, Japan, Tibet, and parts of southeast Asia, holding that life is full of suffering caused by desire and that the way to end this suffering is through enlightenment that enables one to halt the endless sequence of births and deaths to which one is otherwise subject.

Buddhist-

one who follows the teachings of Buddha

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Buddhist

Here's what it says about Christianity.

Christianity-

of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.

Christian-

One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

You say there is no absolute definition of Christian? I'm an atheist who does not believe in much of what Jesus Christ taught. If there is no absolute definition of Christian then I can rightfully call myself a christian? Is that what you're saying?

 

[andyandy]

You say there is no absolute definition of Christian? I'm an atheist who does not believe in much of what Jesus Christ taught. If there is no absolute definition of Christian then I can rightfully call myself a christian? Is that what you're saying?

what a surprise - the old "it must be absolute because it's in the dictionary" argument...i assume you have dictionary.com in your favourites

Your definitions are nowhere near sufficient - how do you define Christ? How do you define belief? You can reach for the dictionary but it won't give you an absolute answer.

 

[Dancing David]

But you aren't answering my questions and you're asking many yourself when you're supposed to be the Buddhist.

They are simple questions. If you don't want to answer them then don't. But please be sanrky if you wish, it is not my problem.

Didn't Buddha? Doesn't Buddhism?

I make no assumptions about what you know or don't know so I state what i believe and have studied.

The buddha is alleged to have been a male who lived in northern india 2500 BCE, he founded a system of philosophy and practice. He had many followers, they spread to many different places. There is a thread of monastic buddhism which was an oral tradition set down five hundred years later when a bunch of monks got together and recited the oral tradition and wrote down what they felt was consistant with the recitations.Tthey say they just recited thier seperate oral traditions and wrote down the ones that agreed with each other. This is the so called Pali Canon.

Meanwhile there were other strains of monastic buddhism that spread. In the Mahayana tradition buddhism merged with many different local traditions, in the mahayana traditions anything which leads to enlightenment is considered to be buddhism. Most of thier traditions were written down at various times after the writing of the Pali canon.

So there are multiple threads to what comprise the teachings of the buddha. There is the 'southern' monastic tradition where there is an oral tradition that is collated and edited five hundred years after the death of the AHB. There are all the other traditions of buddhism which are monastic in origin but much more syncretic.

So what is a teaching of the buddha? Some will say that anything put in the mouth of the buddha is a teaching of the buddha. Many (myself included) take the historical perspective that from the archeological perspective the Pali Canon seems to be very consistant with the recording of an oral tradition of buddhism that is self consistant, either through the stated process of collation or a process of editing an oral tradition.

The texts of the other traditions are harder to verify as to the date of writing and transmission from the Alleged Historical Buddha. There are similarities in the teaching of certain stories and doctrines, there is a complete divergence of other stories and doctrines.

So two and a half thousand years later we are left with what? A set of documents, one that is an edited and collated version of an oral tradition written two thousand years ago. Then there is a huge variety of documents written at various times in various places.

Which is the teaching of the AHB? Most likely none of them, no more than the Gospels represent the actual teachings of Jesus. We can look at the similarities in the documents, it would appear that the four truths and the eightfold path and some of the precepts are very consistant. In buddhism most schools take the Pali Canon to be the best source of the teachings of the buddha. It is the source of most of the sutras/suttas. The Pali canon does seem to represent the most consistant of the documents, it contradicts very few of the things that are consistant across all the documents. But that is also because it is the source text for much of buddhism.

So I tounge in cheeks state the the Pali canon is the "teachings of the buddha".

But anything placed in the mouth of the buddha is also a 'teaching of the buddha'.

And as to what comprises a buddhist, any one who calls themselves a buddhist.

Here are some more "truths" of Buddhism...

• Refrain from using a high, luxurious bed.
• Refrain from dancing, using jewelery, going to shows, etc.
• Refrain from eating at the wrong time (only eat from sunrise to noon)

Where do they come from? What makes you a Buddhist if you don't practice them?

It depends upon the tradition and calling yourself a buddhist.

Some traditions practive 'no harm to life' others eat meat, they are all buddhists.

What makes you a buddhist is following the eightfold path and the 'teaching of the buddha'.

Where did Buddha say that his followers should believe what they see as true and not what he himself has said?

Many places, I can cite my sources, can you?

According to the story of the death of the buddha his dying words were "Be ye lamps unto yourselfs", he is alleged to have told Ananada when he was wailing about the loss of the buddha.

The Kalama sutta is the main one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalama_Sutra

If this is the case(which I doubt it is) what is the value of Buddhism?

It is up to each person to study the buddha's teaching and decide the value for themselves.

The value or lack thereof is up to the individual. I can tell you what I find to be valuable.

Huh?

You have a teacher (alleged) and you have the followers, 2 1/2 thousand years later how do you decide what is a teaching of the teacher and what is a teaching of the follower? That is called history.

The first big schism in buddhism came about because of an argument over wether an arharant/arhat would have seminal emissions when they slept. Sounds silly to me.

I don't know what you mean in the 1st part.

Misspelling. the phenomena of religion is syncretic. I believe it means aquiring other traditions.

Wore a Purse?

Google, "Two Popes", "i dui Papi", Avignon Papacy

I don't know what this means either.

If ya don't know I won't tell you.

 

[Dancing David]

So basically "Buddhist" is a meaningless term that can be applied to anyone who calls themselves a Buddhist?

Then it would have the meaning of 'someone who calls themselves a buddhist' or 'someone who says they follow the path of the buddha'.

That's not the point. I'm saying Buddhism as a movement is worthless.

What is the eightfold path?

"AHB"? Buddha said this? What if we found his teachings not to be useful? Are we relegated to an eternity of bad karma?

Alleged Historical Buddha.

Then they are not useful, And so what?
An eternity for something that has no soul and no self. I doubt it.

Quite the cherry picker aren't you?

I like cherries more than snot.

Read much on how to determine the original source in history in your sarcasm class?

So the Buddha did not teach reincarnation, did not believe his followers should follow him and taught that they should follow other teachers? Assuming this is true (which I doubt it is),

Ah, proof through assertion.

What is the value of "Buddhism"? What does "Buddhism" even mean? How is it different from "Nothing" in your own definition.

Pick more snot, you seem to be full.

The eightfold path.
The people who call themselves buddhists.
"The absence of things" Vs. "people who call themselves buddhists."

Wikipedia doesn't mention his last meal being poison.

Ah, Wikipedia, i suppose if you have only one source it is not a bad one.

 

[Taffer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism#.C5.9A.C4.ABla:_virtuous_behavior_and_the_precepts

I see your citation fails to mention that these "rules" are universal for all Buddhists.

 

[Ryokan]

Calling one's self a buddhist.

There is no self

 

[Ryokan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism#.C5.9A.C4.ABla:_virtuous_behavior_and_the_precepts

Please note that the rules mentioned here, except the five precepts, are monastic rules, not rules for the man in the street. It would be devastating to humanity if every one of us practiced chastity

Also note, as Wikipeda does, that none of these rules start with 'thou shalt not'. They're just guidelines to a better life.

 

[Solus]

I looked at Buddhism years ago and it is more appealing to a person who has had to put up with suffering. The problem with Buddhism like all the other religions though is the supernatural aspects, that's the part I just could never buy into, some of the philosophy is nice though. I'd take Buddhism over christianity if I had to chose a religion that much is sure.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

what a surprise - the old "it must be absolute because it's in the dictionary" argument...i assume you have dictionary.com in your favourites

Your definitions are nowhere near sufficient - how do you define Christ? How do you define belief? You can reach for the dictionary but it won't give you an absolute answer.

We're using a language to communicate. This is the English language. In the "English language" we use specific words to communicate specific ideas. In order for any language to have any meaning it must have definitions for words. The Dictionary uses common usage to define words. The common usage for the words in question was how I defined them given this context.

If you want to make up definitions for words, be my guest. Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously or even understand what you're saying. A word must have a specific number of definitions per context. If a word has numerous definitions for a specific context then the word is pretty much useless and ambiguous. [SIZE=-1][/SIZE]

 

[Taffer]

Not every Buddhist version has supernatural aspects.

In particular, Chinese Buddhism is rather devoid of the supernatural.

Ancient Chinese Buddhism, that is.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

They are simple questions. If you don't want to answer them then don't. But please be sanrky if you wish, it is not my problem.

So your defense of Buddhism is ignore questions asked about it and ask your own questions?

I make no assumptions about what you know or don't know so I state what i believe and have studied.

So?

The buddha is alleged to have been a male who lived in northern india 2500 BCE, he founded a system of philosophy and practice. He had many followers, they spread to many different places. There is a thread of monastic buddhism which was an oral tradition set down five hundred years later when a bunch of monks got together and recited the oral tradition and wrote down what they felt was consistant with the recitations.Tthey say they just recited thier seperate oral traditions and wrote down the ones that agreed with each other. This is the so called Pali Canon.

How is this relevant?

Meanwhile there were other strains of monastic buddhism that spread. In the Mahayana tradition buddhism merged with many different local traditions, in the mahayana traditions anything which leads to enlightenment is considered to be buddhism. Most of thier traditions were written down at various times after the writing of the Pali canon.

How is this relevant?

So there are multiple threads to what comprise the teachings of the buddha. There is the 'southern' monastic tradition where there is an oral tradition that is collated and edited five hundred years after the death of the AHB. There are all the other traditions of buddhism which are monastic in origin but much more syncretic.

How is this relevant?

So what is a teaching of the buddha? Some will say that anything put in the mouth of the buddha is a teaching of the buddha. Many (myself included) take the historical perspective that from the archeological perspective the Pali Canon seems to be very consistant with the recording of an oral tradition of buddhism that is self consistant, either through the stated process of collation or a process of editing an oral tradition.

So the teachings of the Buddha are the teachings that the Buddha taught?

What a concept!

The texts of the other traditions are harder to verify as to the date of writing and transmission from the Alleged Historical Buddha. There are similarities in the teaching of certain stories and doctrines, there is a complete divergence of other stories and doctrines.

So?

So two and a half thousand years later we are left with what? A set of documents, one that is an edited and collated version of an oral tradition written two thousand years ago. Then there is a huge variety of documents written at various times in various places.

So?

Which is the teaching of the AHB? Most likely none of them, no more than the Gospels represent the actual teachings of Jesus.

So none of the teachings in Buddhism actually came from the Buddha?

We can look at the similarities in the documents, it would appear that the four truths and the eightfold path and some of the precepts are very consistant. In buddhism most schools take the Pali Canon to be the best source of the teachings of the buddha. It is the source of most of the sutras/suttas. The Pali canon does seem to represent the most consistant of the documents, it contradicts very few of the things that are consistant across all the documents. But that is also because it is the source text for much of buddhism.

So?

So I tounge in cheeks state the the Pali canon is the "teachings of the buddha".

So Just that?

But anything placed in the mouth of the buddha is also a 'teaching of the buddha'.

You're contradicting yourself over and over.

And as to what comprises a buddhist, any one who calls themselves a buddhist.

This makes no sense. Either there is an accepted teaching of Buddhism or there isn't. If there is then those who follow those teachings are Buddhists. If there isn't then "Buddhism" is a meaningless term.

It depends upon the tradition and calling yourself a buddhist.

So why would anyone want to call themselves a "Buddhist" again?

Some traditions practive 'no harm to life' others eat meat, they are all buddhists.

Just because they say so eh?

What makes you a buddhist is following the eightfold path and the 'teaching of the buddha'.

I thought you just said that what makes someone a Buddhist is calling themselves a Buddhist? Taking that back now?

Many places, I can cite my sources, can you?

Cite them then.

According to the story of the death of the buddha his dying words were "Be ye lamps unto yourselfs", he is alleged to have told Ananada when he was wailing about the loss of the buddha.

So in the end the Buddha contradicted all of his teachings and told his followers to follow themselves?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalama_Sutra

It is up to each person to study the buddha's teaching and decide the value for themselves.

The value or lack thereof is up to the individual. I can tell you what I find to be valuable.

Either the teachings of Buddha contain truth or they do not. Either they should be followed as a religion or they should not. Simply following a few aspects of Buddhism doesn't make one a Buddhist anymore than doing unto others as you would have them do unto you makes you a Christian.

You have a teacher (alleged) and you have the followers, 2 1/2 thousand years later how do you decide what is a teaching of the teacher and what is a teaching of the follower? That is called history.

And if you can't discern fact from fiction in what were really the teachings of Buddhism then you're left with a hodgepodge of stuff that are self contradicting and contain little meaning. (A lot like your posts)

The first big schism in buddhism came about because of an argument over wether an arharant/arhat would have seminal emissions when they slept. Sounds silly to me.

So does Buddhism in general.

Google, "Two Popes", "i dui Papi", Avignon Papacy

You didn't answer my question.

If ya don't know I won't tell you.

Uhh...





You really need to work on your spelling and internal consistency. Your post is full of back tracking and contradictions that I really have no idea what your position is now anymore than I did when I first posted it.

 

[Taffer]

We're using a language to communicate. This is the English language. In the "English language" we use specific words to communicate specific ideas. In order for any language to have any meaning it must have definitions for words. The Dictionary uses common usage to define words. The common usage for the words in question was how I defined them given this context.

If you want to make up definitions for words, be my guest. Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously or even understand what you're saying. A word must have a specific number of definitions per context. If a word has numerous definitions for a specific context then the word is pretty much useless and ambiguous. [SIZE=-1][/SIZE]

So we can only use words by how they are in a dictionary?