Why I Ditched Buddhism

I like to picture various religious figures hanging out in odd situations, sort of a Family Guy sort of thing. It’s very amusing.

I once toyed around with the idea of Buddhism. I believed the popular notion that it was not a religion, but rather a philosophy. It wasn’t until I really started to dig deeper that I began to see the familiar trappings of religion. Although Buddha had wisely claimed that he was not an avatar, it seems as though his followers still worshiped him as a god. Worst still, Buddhism makes claims about the natural world that it cannot possibly verify. Reincarnation? Check. Karma? Check. Both of these ideas are born out of nothing more than wishful thinking and the desire to see evildoers punished for their crimes.

There is a more “secular” form of Buddhism which rejects these concepts, but even then, its main tenants are somewhat disturbing. Is desire (or dukkha) really the cause of all suffering? Is it wise to eliminate our desire? I would venture to disagree. It is our desire that make us both wonderful and cruel. The difference, of course, lies in how this is channeled. But the point is still that even though some permeation of Buddhism may lean more on the side of philosophy than organized religion, it does not change the fact that it still maintains many of the same trappings of theology. Do we really need one more confusing, improvable philosophy around, or is it finally time to abandon the superstitious, supernatural world for the real one?

@Daniel,

I never imagined that I’d be posting as an apologist on UF, but here I am… First, I’d like to say I’m quite glad to see articles targeting my own religion too. I think it’s really great!.

I was brought up as a Buddhist, and i live in a predominantly Buddhist country. Just as many of you in the UF community are familiar with Christian Propaganda, I’ve been exposed to a whole lot of Buddhist propaganda for a long time. Right now, I am a theravadha Buddhist, but in a rather sceptical sense. I try to ignore most of the mythology and dogma that surrounds Buddhism, and instead try to learn from the life of the Buddha and his teachings as written in the Sutta pitaka. I will try to answer some of the questions raised in the article according to my understanding of Buddhism.

First of all, I’d like to say that the core of buddhism is what is known as the Eightfold path. The path is a way of life as specified by the Buddha in the Dhammacaccapavattana sutta. As i know it, the path can be followed independently of all of the dogmatic aspects of buddhism. One can merely follow the path and live a good and happy life regardless of what the belive about rebirth, etc. That said, I will now try to answer questions about those aspects of buddhism as asked in the article.

“…Like its parent religion Hinduism, Buddhism espouses reincarnation, which holds that after death our souls are re-instantiated in new bodies, and karma, the law of moral cause and effect. Together, these tenets imply the existence of some cosmic judge who, like Santa Claus, tallies up our naughtiness and niceness before rewarding us with rebirth as a cockroach or as a saintly lama…”

Reincarnation according to buddhism is an extremely complicated process. It is not correct to say that after death our souls are re instantiated, because as buddhists, we do not believe an immortal soul exists. According to the principle of Annatta, the buddha stated that our ’souls’ are transigent, in a state of perpetual flux. I don’t want to write much more on the nature of the soul here, in the interests of space… However, if anyone specifically wants to hear it, i’d be glad to post later. The point I am trying to make is that when an individual is reborn, the reborn person is not the same as the original. They are connected, yet different. So the principle of reincarnation is not as cut and dried as is implied. However, I will continue to use the word ’soul’ because I can’t really think of any other suitable term…

Now for the Cosmic Judge… What is implied is that once we die, we believe our souls are measured by an entity. That is not the case. Sadly, this explanation is also complex.

When we act, the moral implications of our action becomes a part of us. As we do good things, the good in those choices become a part of us, and vice versa. When an individual dies, part of his ’soul’ is the aggregate of the moral implications of the choices he made in his life. It is the ’soul’ itself that does the choosing and seeks out a new place to exist. There is no external judge involved here at all.

“…Much more dubious is Buddhism’s claim that perceiving yourself as in some sense unreal will make you happier and more compassionate. ..”

We don’t really try to percieve ourselves as unreal. What we do is try to reduce and/or remove our sense of ego, in effect, to become more and more humble. If you have minimised your own ego, you become less selfish, more compassionate, and more generous, because you think of the needs of others as more important than your own.

“…What’s worse, Buddhism holds that enlightenment makes you morally infallible—like the pope, but more so…”

Well, I do believe that an enlightened person is extremely wise, so he can in fact decide the best course of action in a given situation. But I would be extremely sceptical if I had a master who acts crazy, and uses enlightenment as an excuse for it. I’d like to invite everyone to please read the life story of the buddha and point out any instances where he acts crazily. I really don’t know any such instances, and to the best of my knowledge, after attaining enlightenment, the buddha did indeed always follow the best course of action for the rest of his life.

“…But what troubles me most about Buddhism is its implication that detachment from ordinary life is the surest route to salvation…”

We do indeed believe that detachment from physical desires is part of the way to salvation. (I’m not certain about it being the surest path…) However, that should be practiced through right mindfulness as per the eightfold path, and done gradually. Also, detachment from desire can be carried out by a layperson without abandoning his family. The buddha did decree that no monks will be ordained without the permission of their parents. This rule was established in order to prevent monks from abandoning their families in favour of the priesthood. As for the buddha’s leaving his own family, I believe that in doing so, he did find the path to enlightenment, and that did eventually benefit his family, as well as many others.

“…It suggests that life is a problem that can be solved, a cul-de-sac that can be, and should be, escaped…”

Well, the buddha said that suffering is a part of existence. That fact is the first of the four noble truths as stated in the dhammacakkapavattana sutta. If we think about it, there are many spects of life that do cause us sorrow and suffering. It was this fact of life that motivated Siddhartha Gautama to seek enlightenment in the first place. So I think that life does have intrinsic problems, which can be escaped.

“…All religions, including Buddhism, stem from our narcissistic wish to believe that the universe was created for our benefit, as a stage for our spiritual quests…”

Buddhism does stress on improving the self. However, it does so to change one’s perception of the universe. In that way, I suppose it could be that the universe becomes a ’stage for our spiritual quests’. However, nowhere in the buddhist canon have I seen any statement or indication by the Buddha that implied that we are the raison de etre of the universe.

I’m really sorry for the unpardonably huge comment, Daniel… I do welcome any comments or questions.

Cheers!

I called myself a buddhist for a short period of time. I was drawn in by the lack of a god and had thought maybe this would resolve my issues with the other faiths I had considered.

As has been stated by a few others, I think there are some good things to pull out of Buddhism, such as meditation for aiding concentration, Zen’s implicit message for finding your own path, and the concept underlying karma/reincarnation. The first two have been explained to some degree by others and I don’t wish to repeat. As for karma, I find it something worth preserving in the abstract.

Steve said somethings about it being cause and effect. While I agree, I add it is describing altruism as well. As I see it, altruism is a very difficult idea for a person to wrap their head around. Sure it seems simple, do for others without expectation of reciprocation. However, that seems immediately counter intuitive and mutually exclusive to a person’s desire to better themselves. What karma (and to some degree “Heaven and Hell” and other supernatural judiciaries) does is quantifies benefit to the altruistic individual. It creates an incentive to help others, which we all are likely to agree is a socially beneficial activity, by saying you get a supernatural benefit. In the case of buddhism and hinduism, this is a better life next time around and in the abrahamic religions it is heaven.

As between the two, I think karma/reincarnation is less psychologically damaging as it deals in degrees of ‘goodness’ as opposed to the thresholds and absolutes of the sin/judgment system. At the same time, the karma/reincarnation system is more likely to act as a justification for an inflexible class structures with a potentially large number of categories (e.g. the caste system) while the sin/judgment system is more likely to result in large numbers of people trying to exceed the sinful damning threshold and therefore result in larger investment into religious institutions. Ultimately, neither of these options seem particularly desirable in comparison to just teaching people that helping others is beneficial to society and consequentially yourself.

PS – Sorry for the long comment. It didn’t seem like that much when I thought about it.

I’m not sure if anyone makes it this far down, but… I like this paragraph:

All religions, including Buddhism, stem from our narcissistic wish to believe that the universe was created for our benefit, as a stage for our spiritual quests. In contrast, science tells us that we are incidental, accidental. Far from being the raison d’être of the universe, we appeared through sheer happenstance, and we could vanish in the same way.

Happenstance, yes, but you could also argue that in a vast universe it is almost inevitable that somewhere, sometime intelligent life will evolve. And then starts to wonder why it’s there.

Buddhism’s one of those things that seem like they might appeal to an atheist, since it’s “more of a philosophy than a religion” but… ten minutes on Wikipedia and you quickly see that there’s just as much wacky bullshit there as in any other religion.

Perhaps I should have said “as commonly practiced by its everyday adherents, as opposed to the opinions of dilettantes that really have only vaguely heard about it, or apologists that wish to praise it above all else”.

Redditers are rarely scientists in any meaningful sense of the word.

Firstly, thank you for opening up the dialogue on this topic through providing a forum where people can discuss their ideas about atheism and air out their discontent with religion. I would like to respond to this post first by stating the concepts I think Buddhism emphasizes most which are, universal love/compassion and freeing ourselves from suffering. That is, the point of Buddhism, if you will, is to free ourselves from the constant stream of self inflicted suffering by means of a path that can most simply be described as a compassionate way of relating to the world around us. Let us now dive into some of the generalizations I’ve noticed people here have regarding Buddhism and my informal responses to them:

1. Buddhism is not rational because the Buddhists I’ve met weren’t rational.
a) While this may seem like a perfectly reasonable approach, as it was mine for a number of years, it has some shortcomings. Most notably, Buddhism has several large branches or traditions which each emphasize different parts of the Buddha’s teachings; some of which even expand upon the original teachings with their own writings that weren’t written that long ago. Some examples of traditions would be Theravada, Mahayana and Zen. In the end, what this boils down to is that you have Buddhists who are Atheists, Agnostics, Mystics, Spirit Worshippers, Materialists, Non-Materialists, Christians, Jews and everything in between. While this may not fit your particular definition of what a “real Buddhist” is, this surely satisfies most Buddhists definition. Including Thich Nhat Hanh and the Dalai Lama who often suggest that one ought not to completely ditch whatever spiritual tradition one is comfortable with.
2. Buddhism believes in Mystical nonsense such as reincarnation, karma and enlightenment.
a) Reincarnation: Reincarnation is often referred to as “Rebirth” here in the west thanks to reincarnation so often being associated with the concept of a “soul”. For a Buddhist, there is no part of a person that has any solid, fixed, or unchanging qualities. That is to say, Buddhists generally don’t think of being reborn as a person’s second chance at life in another body, although I am sure that there are those that misinterpret what the Buddha meant and think otherwise. This would indeed be fanciful thinking, even by the Buddha’s admission. What rebirth means exactly is somewhat a point of contention amongst Buddhists as there are many varying views on the matter. The rough sketch of the argument can be broken into two main camps:
• Some noticeable essence of a person being transferred into another living entity
• The transfer of energy from a living entity into other living/non-living entities. (Similar to how science views the matter but perhaps a bit looser on limiting what transfers)
b) Karma: Karma, as referred to in a Buddhist context, is not the popularly formed notion of there being a universal cosmic force/deity stating that what goes around comes around and if you act really good this lifetime you’ll be reborn as a prince while if you lie you will be reborn as a frog. After all, being a prince or a frog both only “matters” if we associate some positive or negative attachment to these things, but we will come to attachment later. Essentially, Karma, in the Buddhist sense of the word, is the acknowledgement of cause and effect. It would be more appropriate to say, “Try not to drink now otherwise it will be much harder when you try to stop drinking 10 shots later”. It is a very pragmatic view with a whole slew of confusion surrounding it.
c) Enlightenment: Ah such an abused word. Let us keep this one simple since the Buddha spoke so softly on this matter. He would talk about enlightenment as an “awakening” but mostly describes it by negation. Meaning, he would tell us what it is to awaken by telling us what it is not. He drew a correlation to a flame extinguishing, with the flame being the constant stream of thought/attachment to thought. I don’t want to concentrate on this one too much since I’m hardly enlightened, but would like to point out that the simplest way we could view this overused word is “true happiness”. It is what happens after your mind stops running on its own destructive patterns permanently.
d) In addition: The Buddha gave sermons to people of all backgrounds. Some of these people were not very educated and had some very established views of both what Karma is and what life they would be reborn into. Many scholars believe that the Buddha used the examples of rebirth as an allegory in order to reach the minds of his contemporary listeners in ways that they could understand. He has also been quoted to note the transparency of his examples to the laypeople when talking with his closest followers. While this superficially may seem as an apologetic view of some fanciful tales Gautama actually believed in, it should be noted that Karma, Rebirth and anything else taken upon words alone should be carefully examined firsthand and definitely not be used as a substitute for the true essence of the teachings.
3. Detachment is absurd. How can we achieve “True Happiness” by removing ourselves from everything?
a) The Buddha started out on his own spiritual journey and hit a lot of road bumps along the way. In the end he found what he termed “the middle way” which is to mean, avoiding the extremes of any philosophy or view. This would also include asceticism and being spiritually dogmatic. Gautama left his wife, this is true, but I wonder if the Buddha would have acted in the same manner? You see – the Buddha didn’t become enlightened until about 7 years of giving everything from starvation to contemporary mysticism a chance. None of that brought him closer to enlightenment; however, one of the insights that did bring him peace was the understanding that the vast majority of human suffering does have a root cause. The primary source of our suffering is due to the attachment to a particular view of our situation. He found this to be true partially because attachment depends on a false view of the world, that is, thinking anything within our world is “fixed” or stagnate.
4. I like to read, I like to argue, and I like to play with my wife and kids and these things make me happy.
a) Hey, if anything makes you happy, then by all means, don’t let me, Buddha or anyone else convince you otherwise. What the Buddha says on this matter is simple. These insights of his are the things that he has found to be beneficial to him and those set on freeing themselves from attachment to suffering. If these suggestions don’t work for you, and I mean really don’t work for you? Don’t use them. It’s that simple. The only thing that the Buddha does ask of us is to be completely honest in our inquiry into the true nature of whatever it is we think “makes” us happy. Is this object the true source of our happiness? As the Buddha would explain it, the true source of happiness is within us. These objects merely bring us temporary joy but the real joy is what can be found inside of us.
5. Of course there is a self. I’m here talking to you aren’t I?
a) Yes and no. The unique Buddhist teaching of “no-self”, “emptiness”, or anatta is perhaps one of most profound insights upon which Buddhist teaching is built. Saying that nothing in this world has an intrinsic existence could best summarize the concept of emptiness. Though the Buddha expanded upon this idea to show that since we have no permanent self or soul, we can’t reasonably say what is the absolute nature of reality is and therefore cannot make accurate flash judgments about the world around us, but I digress. The fact of the matter is that the Buddha taught that “you”, “me” and anybody else are a collection of sense, matter, and other natural phenomena. Sure there is a you that is here reading along, judging, thinking, but is that really what you are? Perhaps a better way to put it is that there is no “fixed” version of you, meaning that while you may think and act as if you are the same person you were a moment ago, your internal physical, emotional, perceptional, mental and conscious states are constantly in flux. To put it simply, the “I” we conventionally use in conversation does not intrinsically exist and serves merely as a way to casually relate to things. It is the moment we start relating to this imaginary “I” as more than just a functional reference and let our egos inflate. This is one of the primary causes of suffering.
6. In the end, Buddhism is just another religion to be scrapped.
a) Well, I am sorry to say that if you hold this harsh view as an absolute truth, there is not much I or anybody else would be able to do to show you otherwise. And so, even in the halls of honest inquiry and scientific exploration, dogmatism can rear its ugly head. But of course if we would, for a moment, entertain the notion of Buddhism not “just being another religion to be scrapped” we can have an honest investigation of why this is so. Carl Sagan (hardly an apologist for malarkey) has been known to praise Buddhism as one of the religions that has best potential to be reconciled with science. In fact, the Dalai Lama (The leader of one of the more mystical Tibetan traditions) has even shown his dedication to reconciling the two worlds of science and Buddhism by offering countless talks to the scientific community and tending towards modern scientific interpretations of traditional topics such as Karma and Rebirth.
7. All religions, including Buddhism, stem from our narcissistic wish to believe that the universe was created for our benefit, as a stage for our spiritual quests. In contrast, science tells us that we are incidental, accidental. Far from being the raison d’être of the universe, we appeared through sheer happenstance, and we could vanish in the same way.
a) Buddhist teachings would contend that the universe, as we know it, has come about as the direct result of an infinitely countless series of occurrences, which date back to an infinitely countless time. Everything we see is hardly an accident but is due to a relationship with the universal law of cause and effect that is interrelated with everything else in this universe. Perhaps this accidental view that is spoken of so often is more of a cultural assumption rather than the be-all and end-all of what the universe has yet to reveal to us through scientific exploration.

I welcome any rational discussion and encourage you all to read everything you can about these things! =)

I’ve been very interested in Buddhism myself.
The Buddha guy told his disciples “do not believe what I say, try it for yourself” which was quiet radical, I liked it a lot even if I could never buy all the metaphysical package.
Then I went to a circle, and they were worshiping images of holy guys and cultivated a lot of hostility towards Muslims.
Their embarrassed, shallow explanations didn’t satisfy me, I was hugely disappointed.

As today, I find many of their teachings very useful and practical: when it comes to true happiness, love and fulfillment, “eastern” philosophies are a lot more advanced than western stuff, and I’m doing some meditation by myself, yet I happily stick with Metaphysical naturalism.

Like.

Marcus? You sound like a very nice guy, but you preach the same crap as every other dogmatic buddhist I’ve ever known. If you do go to Thailand, remind me to give you a letter of introduction to the skinheads at Wat Pa Pong and Ajahn Chah’s skeleton (He was responsible for my name). There are two bits of buddhism worthy of adoption and practice – great doubt and great determination. The rest is either baggage or rubbish. Not so strangely, these are the same two bits that constitute the practice of science. Good luck with your Abidharma, bud.

I didn’t “wish” you anything, Marcus – wishes have no meaning for me. Wishing is as common to buddhism as it is to every other religion. Perhaps even more so, since it involves wishing for stuff like smaller noses in future lives .

Buddhism in Thailand and other predominately buddhist countries is as corrupt, cultish, self-serving and vacant as other religions are elsewhere. Two of my sisters-in-law are caught in the Dhammakaya cult there. The few actual buddhas that I know don’t even call themselves buddhists. That’s because there really is no such thing. I prefer the label “buddhismists” – it seems to fit better They are the ones who babble about buddhist dogma, buddhist views, buddhist philosophy, buddhist practice, “spirituality”, etc. etc. etc. And some of them get their Toyotas and new houses blessed by the local abbot…

When the argument gets tough, though, it eventually comes down to buddhist practice, which has been defined and redefined for 2500 years or more. I should remind you that this is the single place in all of the Pali Canon that’s almost totally neglected, undescribed, but entirely fucked over in the next 2500 years by the sects that arose from analyzing something that cannot be described (yet). Yana Yana Yana… I have yet to meet anyone who has managed to wake up by following the ‘yanas. Instead, they turn into the ‘yanas themselves. It’s a meme thing, I suspect.

But go see for yourself. Forget about buddhism. Start right where you are, and stay there. You can’t help it, anyway – there’s nowhere else to go. Remember: great doubt and great determination. That’s really all you need (the courage, of course, is implied).

We hear that Buddhism’s core is the process of becoming free from attachment which produces freedom from suffering. But why do almost all of the great practical methodologies for the actual reduction of human suffering come out of western, rational systems? Why has Buddhism, in this 2500 years, not produced a social system comparable to science or rigorous secular, higher education? Why do Buddhist monks sit for decades detaching from the “I” that doesn’t exist? My inclination at this point is that it’s in fact selfish. I think this is so because of the overriding focus down on the inner world of “attachment”. I have practiced Buddhist mindfulness meditation and find it quite helpful but I also find western emphasis on empiricism and engagement to be important.

Working toward the overall well fair of the world seems a lot more important than spending one’s time becoming a Bodhisattva.

Buddhism is not a religion, never was.

All religions, including Buddhism, stem from our narcissistic wish to believe that the universe was created for our benefit, as a stage for our spiritual quests. In contrast, science tells us that we are incidental, accidental. Far from being the raison d’être of the universe, we appeared through sheer happenstance, and we could vanish in the same way.

It is very clear from the Indic traditions – Hinduism and Buddhism – that we are incidental to the universe, and not central to it. If nothing else, read “The Parade of Ants” in Chapter 1 of “Myths and Symbols in Indian Art and Civilization”, by Heinrich Zimmer.

The next thing to note is that the Indic traditions are about the quest for happiness. Perhaps in Buddhism, happiness may be defined as the absence of sorrow. In Hinduism, happiness is positive. A young, strong healthy man who has the whole wealth in the world – count his happiness as a single unit of happiness, then the Upanishads, in a famous verse, tell us that the happiness of one who has realized the Absolute is 10^20 (1 followed by 20 zeroes) times that.

Detachment is not meant to be disconnection from life. A good metaphor is water off a duck’s back – the duck swims in the water, dives in the water, derives its sustenance from the water, and yet water rolls off the duck’s back.

Lastly, if you come from a culture with religion, you will see religion in all things. Neither Hinduism nor Buddhism is a religion in the sense that Christianity is a religion. Few people from the East or the West understand this; Indians think Christianity is like Hinduism and get a false picture of it,and Westerners think Hinduism is an analog of Christianity and get the wrong idea too. This is because there is a mapping between the elements of the two systems, and we tend to assume that these elements then play the same function. It is non-trivial reading, but the best I can do is point you to
this.

I have to say that the article which began all of this is a terribly crude summary by a hostile witness, who seems to know nothing of where Buddhism began, or what it can be. You might as well try and judge what Jesus actually said by referencing the modern Catholic church, or Rick Warren. I think it’s a shame that Florien confuses his own ignorance and shallowness with what Buddhism actually is and can offer.

Zen de-emphasizes a lot of the silliness in Buddhism like reincarnation, particularly in the West. Many teachers reject such notions entirely.

A Zen teacher would say that you are trying to grasp the teachings of Buddhism with your intellectual mind, which is why you are finding weird concepts to be unpalatable, when really they aren’t even the point. A lot of what you are calling your “interest in Buddhism” is just fiddling around with fun concepts to tickle your intellect, until you no longer find them satisfying and then reject them. That isn’t identification with Buddhism’s teachings at all. That’s just playing games.

Non-attachment (not “detachment”) doesn’t mean you stop loving your wife. It means you realize that the hold that your love was attached to (your ego) is illusory. The love doesn’t go away, it just doesn’t drag you around anymore. It’s viewed in the wider context of reality.

Westerners don’t have a hard time with Buddhism because it’s just another version of Christianity with a different flavor. They have a hard time because they are so inexorably hinged to their cultural perceptions, they end up finding sin, heaven, hell, God, the Devil, and everything else in a spiritual tradition which has nothing to do with any of these things. The run back to Science — which really has nothing to do with answering the questions spirituality addresses — is a sure sign that we’re completely driven insane by our drive to rationalize everything.

Buddhism is not a feel-good religion, and a lot of Westerners approach it with the attitude that it should be. Neither is it a cool philosophy, where you get to accumulate a bunch of fancy terminology. It’s a practice, and that practice is up to you and you alone. So rejecting Buddhism on the basis of a few odd ideas like reincarnation — very much a product of their time and place — misses the point entirely.

I’ll happily respond to a real critique of Buddhism – but all you offer here is quotation of some remarkably shallow assertions, coupled with a few ideas you dismiss without any analysis whatsoever. Offer a serious critique, and I would have something to respond to. If John Horgan thinks that taking a class and reading a few trendy books then quitting constitutes a real attempt to practise Buddhism, I’d say that he illustrates the workings of karma quite nicely: shallow endeavour, shallow fruit. As for his claims about science seeking truth, sorry, but the majority of scientists and historians of science would see that as at best a questionable claim. I personally am not religious, but I don’t have much time for this sort of Dawkinsian strawman either.

Main advantages of Buddhism over Christianity

1) Buddhism as a philosophy. Buddha is best appreciated when he is seen as a Plato rather than as a Jesus. 2500 years ago, Buddha warned of superstition, his deification by worshippers, and other corruptions.
2) Less historical baggage. Christianity, historically, started out as religion of empire which means politics and religion are often intertwined and too often inextricable. Buddhism has largely considered politics as a distraction to its priorities.
3) Compatibility with science. Buddhism deals quite little with the physical world and deals more with what happens inside one’s mind. Science neatly leaves a gap between what is objective and subjective. See the interest between neuroscience and Buddhism. The Big Bang, geology, evolution is incompatible with the teaching of most Christian groups (see poll numbers for evolution).
4) Surprisingly pragmatic in the modern world. You learn skills in handling your emotions, your ability to focus and concentrate, learn good dietary practices, dealing with stress. These are skills to function in the modern world. Christianity too often stresses the rejection of not only the modern world but of the world in general (Godly vs worldly).
5) Less complex metaphysics. Christianity requires a huge framework of things to learn. Sin, salvation, God, evil, souls, angels, resurrection, heaven, hell, the Bible itself is not immediately accessible. A large theological bureaucracy often leads to confusion and contradictions. There are also a number of rituals that too often clouds its original purpose (take Christmas for example). Buddhism is simpler in theory (nonattachment, mindfulness, dukkha) and in practice (meditation, breathing).
6) Less emphasis with historical truth. One of Christianity’s boldest claims is that it is an inerrant text of history and must therefore spend time and energy to support such claims. Buddhism sees this as a distraction and emphasizes the present than the past.

(Note: this is from the persective of a non-practitioner)

1) Scientology is the science of the mind. Think of L. Ron Hubbard as Plato rather than Jesus.

2) It has almost no historical baggage, being quite new.

3) The only science it’s “incompatible with” is Psychology, and I’d claim that Buddhists, while not as vehement about it, would claim that the western science of psychology is largely wrong as well.

4) It’s all about skills for dealing with the modern world. “revolves around [reincarnation of] the “thetan”, believed to be the individualized expression of the cosmic source, or life force” (from the Wikipedia article). Involves cleansing yourself of the “reactive mind”.

5) Claims little metaphysics beyond the same sorts of metaphysics that practiced Buddhism does, at least until you get to the higher levels (at which point, admittedly, it gets extremely silly), .

6) Doesn’t say much about the past (again, at least until you get to the higher levels).

Most of its criticism has revolved around their brainwashing techniques, focus on paying for their services, etc., etc.,

Sadly, very little of the popular criticism has focused on whether it actually *works*. There’s really no evidence that it does. Indeed, most of the evidence seems to indicate that it leads largely, if not solely, to cultish fanaticism.

So I guess I’d say that useful criticism of Buddhism would revolve around a similar center. Does the practices it preaches actually achieve the goals it espouses (this is where the weird central contradiction I mentioned earlier comes it… it seems that one has to give up “Buddhism” in order to achieve the goals of _Buddhism_).

I haven’t seen much evidence for this, personally, at least any that is more than anecdotal. Certainly, almost any practice will work for *someone*. The question is whether it’s any better than a placebo. Mind you, I’m not especially against placebos, per se… they do work to a considerable degree. Indeed, the contradiction of the “placebo” is almost the same as that of Buddhism.

But, for example, is there any evidence that the specific espoused Buddhist meditation practices work better than simply sitting calmly and reflecting on good things in your life?

If not, then that’s a form of superstition that’s worth criticizing (noting, of course, that “criticism” itself is not a Buddhist goal or practice :-).

What attracts me to Buddhism is precisely that it tells us something we don’t want to hear. Instead of appealing to our self-regard (as in, “God wants you to know that you are special”) it tells us that there really is no such thing as “you” or “me”, that “self” is an illusion. Instead of making eternal bliss the goal of life, it calls for the annihilation of the self, or the abandoning of this illusion of the self.

Karma seems like wishful thinking, but at least it’s more elegant and naturalistic than the Judeo-Christo-Islamic form of punishment-by-divine-authority. In Buddhism, since the distinction between “self” and “other” is illusory, there is no difference between harming another and harming one’s self. The karmic retribution we experience is supposed to be the result of our own actions. If there was a system of universal justice (I don’t think there is one), it would look like karma.

Finally, when I try to understand reality on a philosophical level, my conclusions always seem to point towards something like Buddhism. For example, when I read about subatomic particles and try to understand what it means that matter is composed of packets of energy that have mass, but no volume, it occurs to me that the universe may be made of what we would consider to be “nothingness”. Then, when I try to figure out what we mean by “nothingness”, it occurs to me that the concept itself may have no meaning, or the distinction between “nothing” and “something” may be meaningless. All of which leads me back to Buddhist ideas, or what I think are Buddhist ideas.

The “self” is another thing that I have come to think of as an illusion. The person I was at the age of five is nothing like the person I am now; in fact, I probably have more in common with total strangers than I do with the person I used to be. I have had the strange experience of reading entries I wrote in a journal a mere fifteen years ago, and feeling that I was reading something by a complete stranger.

So, with the caveat that I haven’t studied Buddhism at all, but know it on a superficial level (although, I think, less superficial than John Horgan), those are the reasons why I find it attractive on the whole. Even the parts I don’t believe in, like Karma, have a certain elegance that I like. And, as for reincarnation, although I am skeptical, as far as I understand those claims have been investigated and have not been conclusively debunked. Of course, I’m going by Wikipedia.

“But what troubles me most about Buddhism is its implication that detachment from ordinary life is the surest route to salvation. Buddha’s first step toward enlightenment was his abandonment of his wife and child, and Buddhism (like Catholicism) still exalts male monasticism as the epitome of spirituality.”

Catholicism exalts both monasticism (male and female) and marriage and family life. Some people are devoted to the life of the spirit from early on, and, giving all their time to contemplation or works of charity, have no need or desire for earthly blessings or family life or sex. Others need to live in this world and having families and children. People of both kind become saints in great number. It would be just as wrong for someone who had a vocation to family life to become a monk, as for someone who had a vocation to the religious estate, or to the priesthood, to marry and have a family.

We do not especially like Buddha’s abandonment of his family in favor of enlightenment, any more than we like Gaugins’s abandonment of his (or Marx’s abandonment of his) in favour of art or economics. But these men had, it seems, made a mistake; born to give themselves totally to an overriding idea, they instead burdened themselves with families. They did not for that reason ignore the call to the thing that mattered most to them. Whether they were right in doing so, who knows?

“It seems legitimate to ask whether a path that turns away from aspects of life as essential as sexuality and parenthood is truly spiritual.”

Before commenting on the idea here, I would like to comment on the language. “It seems legitimate to ask whether…”–what a delightfully tortuous way of saying “I don’t like”! Very typical of the way we speak now. Does it mean anything? Is it ever illegitimate to ask anything?

On to the idea, two things strike me. First, does he think sex and parenthood are essential to everyone? If so he has a narrower view of the range of human possibilities, in this regard at least, than most religions do. Judiasm may demand that every man marry and have children; Catholicism and Buddhism, in practice, hold the doors open to both paths. If he wants to assert that sex and parenthood are really essential to all people, he may, although in view of how many awful parents there are and have been, I wonder at it; but I find bizarre the fact that he uses the word spiritual. Marrying and having children may be part of life which all are supposed to experience, but if I wanted to criticise a religion that encourages celibacy I would hardly accuse it of being insufficiently spiritual; rather the opposite.

“From this perspective, the very concept of enlightenment begins to look anti-spiritual: It suggests that life is a problem that can be solved, a cul-de-sac that can be, and should be, escaped.”

Here we have it again; this writer seems to have his own private definition of the word “spiritual” which rather differs from that of most men. If he wants to say that we need to live the life of the flesh, he may, but why call it anti-spiritual?

“All religions, including Buddhism, stem from our narcissistic wish to believe that the universe was created for our benefit, as a stage for our spiritual quests. In contrast, science tells us that we are incidental, accidental. Far from being the raison d’être of the universe, we appeared through sheer happenstance, and we could vanish in the same way.”

This is seriously off the wall, and I am surprised that there are people who find it reasonable or interesting. It is true that religion–the ones that we know, anyway–will never leave Man totally insignificant, never say that he is a mere speck which came into existence by accident and whose disappearance from the universe will be a matter of no importance. But religion is a major abdication of the narcissicm of the infant and the primitive in all of us. Christianity does not teach that the universe was created for our sake, but that we were created for God’s sake–He made us for purposes of His own which we but dimly understand, and which we are supposed, in great humility and with great patience, to try to understand. Science does nothing of the sort which this writer seems to think. It describes how things have happened and happen; that spectacle has led some to atheism and others to greater faith, but it cannot contradict any statement about why man was created because it does not and cannot address why questions to begin with. And for anyone tending towards atheism or unbelief to accuse belief of narcissism is seriously strange.

The Medium Lebowski has said something which I find fascinating. He writes:

“As I see it, you get this one shot at life. That’s it. So, do you want to spend it meditating 24/7 or being the best that you can be in your particular field? (Business is mine.) I went with the latter because I want to challenge myself, see how far I can go, and enjoy the best that life has to offer because I have also experienced the worst.

IOW, I want a full life with all its trials and tribulation. I love watching documentaries about Tibet but every time I see a monastery scene, I can’t help but think that all those monks are wasting their lives on a superstition. Some of them have the potential to make contributions to the world as scientists, artists, leaders, but instead they spend every waking moment chanting and meditating in the lotus position.”

I personally agree that this world is not all illusion or tears; I too want to live in this world while I am here, and the fact that the majority of believing Christians and Buddhists have done so, rather than withdrawing to monasteries, suggests that this is not an unusual attitude. But does Lebowski see that his own values are at least as arbitrary and rationally unsupportable as those of
anyone devoting himself to Zen contemplation? His idea of the good life and of success–on what rational grounds does getting made Vice President in charge of Advertising, say, outrank Senior Monk, in any view of Success? The material rewards? But most “successful” businessmen spend many hours in stressful meetings and cubicles and commutes for a relatively short amount of time spent, say, on vacation or enjoying pleasures. And even if the pleasures are many and great, do they give happiness? It was reflections such as these that led to religious perceptions in the first place. The monk derives, perhaps, more pleasure from the view of the mountains or flowers which he has through the monastery window that you do from the fluorescent office interior by which you are surround much of the time; his simple fresh vegetables may taste better, in the end, than the best restaurant meal that you enjoy; and he believes that what he is accomplishing with his life’s work is of greater value than you believe yours to be–because you certainly will never make for your work the supernatural claims which he makes for his. And of course, if you view his work as superstition, you find it absurb and tragic; it would be so, if he regarded it as superstition too. But he probably regards 99% of what the New York businessman spends his time fretting about as utterly meaningless, and you will have a harder time justifying your work to him than he would justifying his work to you. As a general rule, the farther we remove ourselves from a field, the smaller the things in it seem to be. You see the life of the Tibetan monk as monotonous and pointless because the whole system by which it is supported is not visible to you; no doubt the world of the New York business men is every bit as pointless and monotonous when viewed from a monastery in Tibet, and for just as excellent (or better) a reason. And the last I heard, art and leadership go on just as much there as here. It is true that they are not doing scientific research, but then neither are more than a tiny percentage of our population either.

Finally, is it possible to be really successful in business without adding something to the greed, the stress, and the wastage (of resources, for example) of the world? Our modern civilisation, which has made so many wonderful things possible (air travel, cancer research) has also dramatically wrecked a lot of the world; what we have given with one hand we have smashed with the other. I too feel that I want to live in all the trials and tribulations of the “world” despite everything, but I would be highly cautious before I adopted a tone of superiority over those who see something better in contemplating the eternal mysteries.

I’m an ex-Buddhist.

First, what I found attractive:

1) Buddhism is a human-centered religious practice.. It’s an answer to human needs. Unlike many religions, it isn’t about how we please to an all-powerful god (in fact, Buddha denies such a being exists).

2) It contains many insights. Buddhism teaches us not to make our happiness contingent on things outside of ourselves and to be content with little. It also teaches that things are impermanent and that conditions change. (BTW, Horgan completely misunderstands what Buddhism means by anatta. Anatta means that there is no eternal, unchanging soul…)

Why I’m not a Buddhist:

1) Buddhism, at it’s heart, is an answer to a problem I don’t think is real. Buddha taught people how to stop being reborn. If the mind emerges from the brain, then we won’t suffer after death.. (Buddha called the view that consciousness ceases with death ucchedevada or annihilationism.)

2) Buddhist karma, rebirth, cosmology and other doctrines seem false. Buddha explicitly taught that there are magical powers available to those who meditate (he flew, shapeshifted into fire and water, multiplied himself and teleported). Also Buddha regularly chatted with (mortal) deities and taught them.

3) Similar to Horgan, I think Buddhism’s teaching on how we should live isn’t best. Sex and romance is good. And the monk’s life doesn’t seems more like a waste than something especially virtuous.

To talk about Buddhism, Christianity, or any spiritual practice as some sort of monolithic set of beliefs and doctrines that all people who call themselves “Buddhists” or “Christians” follow is missing the point entirely. There are literally dozens of Buddhist and Christian sects with different and distinct emphases. Many Christians do not believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus. Many Buddhists don’t go along with the idea of physical reincarnation, particularly Zen Buddhists.

Ideas such as reincarnation and resurrection are metaphorical for many practitioners. And many of the tenents of the world’s great religions can be considered in a metaphorical light — which doesn’t make them less true.

This thread is, in essence, the microcosm of the shift in religious debate since the so-called Enlightenment: that all religions and/or spiritual practices conform to a set of “laws” or “facts,” in parallel to the so-called “facts” produced by science. It’s a hopeless argument.

That said, I’ve been a Methodist, Catholic, Episcopalian, and now Zen Buddhist. It’s been a long and winding road, but for my personal spiritual practice, Zen feels like the most congenial way for me to express and practice my own spirituality. It is a practice that continually asks questions and doesn’t pretend to know what’s going on. As my own teacher once said, “How could we know?” And I know of no other practice that urges its students to “Kill the Buddha.”

@Stephen
it isn’t about how we please to an all-powerful god (in fact, Buddha denies such a being exists).

Buddha did not deny it. He said there maybe such beings yet they are not important to us humans (also the same about the age and scale of the universe) as we are the only present solution to the problems we face and to depend on these beings is only temporary. Such is the action of Karma where each moment is but a frame in a larger reel which does not have an start or end, which can never be repeated or reproduced.

And the Buddha taught the higher beings (say gods) need a person to yield or believe in them to have any power over them and a awakened human is more in control of his/hers life than any god or demon can have influence or curse, posses, help them.

Reincarnation, which seems to be one of the most compelling reasons for many to refuse Buddhism is a largely misinterpreted concept. I have seen some very good explanations in above posts and i hope a wiser person than me could elaborate on this to you. But in my limited skill i will tell it is not about a soul. there is no soul. no one awareness which is reborn. It is more like an ever changing candle which upon reaching its end, the flame can be transferred to a new candle yet neither the candle or the flame are the same as was the previous candle in all its moments. it is only momentary and transitory.

also about miracles and illusions i will tell briefly a Jataka tale my dad told me once.
One day the Buddha was waiting for a row boat to cross a river with that lands king. He was waiting patiently till the boat came. A passing by ascetic told he did not need to wait for the boat and in a haughty manner flew over to the other side. Many bystanders were impressed and talked why the great Buddha did not go so and the ascetic was superior. The king asked the Buddha why he did not fly and in answer the Buddha asked a bystander how much the boat ride would cost. The he told the king that was how much the ascetics magic was worth and calmly waited for the boat to arrive.

so what the morale was that these miracles can be done by many (in his time) who have developed their disciplines but nirvana, kindness and humility are not so easy to achieve. i hope this is correct.

Namo thassa bhagawato arahato samma sambuddhassa

As with all religious writings, it’s metaphorical. Problems always stem from people taking them too literally. The idea of detachment can also, unfortunately, be taken too literally. It’s just a way of being and knowing inside that any love or any feeling at all is your own creation. The actual act of detaching would only be a lesson in that. You can do it without actually leaving. The salvation or enlightenment comes from the knowing that it is all inside you. The only reason I would agree that it is not “spiritual” is because the word “spiritual” has taken on too many connotations at this point. Just like the word “religion”…. That is where “zen” comes in… getting rid of all the words. Just feel it.