the greatness of Gautam, why?

[Francis king]

yeah, but... the buddha himself says that these things we cling to, the ideas, the doctrines, etc, are sometimes in themselves fetters... I don't see why we can't, as westerners, take buddhism and shape it to suit ourselves better...

tell u what! let's all drink yak butter tea, and speak only in Tibetan- this is the way to enlightenment! Well, its worked for Guru so-and-so, so maybe it'll work for me... its precisely this slavish devotion to doctrine and tradition which is proscribed against in buddhism...it runs counter to everything we are taught about truth, and the nature of truth, and so too do the more "superstitious elements" of buddhism.

For instance, within the Bible there is a passage which, if we read it literally, exhorts us to pick up and subdue big poisonous snakes. Scores of holy rollers get bitten every year, and some of them die. If we, in the civilised west, laugh at these literalist xtians and their snake bites then should we not also laugh at the buddhist who thinks that Shinje weighs out the black and white pebbles in a little brass scale before we move onto heaven and hell?

I don't believe in angels with big wings flying round the earth doing Jehovahs bidding, and nor do I believe that peaceful bodhisattva's grant me benificient boons from buddhist seventh heaven... buddha himself didnt mention anything about shinje, and nor did he mention anything about bowing before big statues and nor did he mention any of the great buddhist deities that we all know and love now, either...

maybe we then in the west, aiming to strip Buddhism of it's ridiculousness, are not trying to change something which shouldn't be changed, but maybe its the nature of things to change... after all, we can only be present, and in the moment, and so maybe this is the expression of the moment, maybe instead of brown-nosing the gurus and elbowing our way into the upper echelons of the heirarchy and indulging in fantasy and speculation maybe buddhism is better off stripped back, pared down, thinned out...

as you may or may not know, there are two classes of teachings within the teachings of buddhism- we have definitive, and we have non definitive texts and teachings. Definitive teachings are those which deal with the nature of emptiness and the division of the two truths. Unfortunately, most of the buddhism which is presented to us is not based on these definitive teachings, and instead we have become immeshed in the cult of the guru, and the tinsel and baubles and pretty colours of alien cultures.

its precisely because I am a "westerner brought up in the tradition of democracy, skepticism, independence, anti-authoritarianism, and science/technology, yes most important, critical thinking" which makes buddhism all the more appealing to me, and buddhism is a fitting vehicle for my rationality, it accepts my anti-authoritarianism, and it allows me the independence that I find lacking in other "religions".

take the superstitious and ridiculous elements out of religion, do away with the miracle births and the magical powers and what do u have left? Hopefully, u should be left with a philosophy, a wisdom which has come from the mind, not a theosophy, or a study of God.

if there is no god, then how can there be a religion? buddha never mentions god, or suggests u worship a guru or father or master... and, if there is no-one to praise, then why pray? what is the purpose of prayer then? Is it just a method to self indoctrinate? Buddha doesn't tell me to pray. And he certainly doesn't tell me to pray to him.

so... why then do we pray? we pray because everyone else does. We pray because if we don't the group can tell we don't belong to it. We sit cross legged, even though it doesn't really matter how you sit. We learn foreign languages when our own tongue is perfectly servicable, we draw our buddhist artworks and we attend the festivals, we imagine fantastical higher beings are dissolving into our bodies and we spend years visualising overflowing vessels showering down rains of upala blossoms upon the unenlightened, but all religions do this... the beauty of buddhism is that it goes beyond religion, tradition, cultural differences, and if it doesn't then what u have in ur hand isnt buddhism at all, but a sorry approximation of buddhism...

but just because I'm a savage dirty westerner I'm not likely to come to ur temple and spit on your floor- rather, I'd be taking my shoes off and bowing, much as everyone else does... I'm not doing it though so you think I'm part of the gang, though, but soley for the benefit of those who might need to see it... and yes, I always wear clean socks... ultimately though, I would prefer to come into the temple when there are just a handful of earnest seekers in the house... I'm not big on public demonstrations...

[Tariki]

The madman runs to the East
and his keeper runs to the East:
Both are running to the East,
Their purposes differ.

(Zen Proverb)

Not quite sure exactly what this means in the context of Zen, but to my mind it does indicate that there can be as many reasons for "running to the East" as there are human beings, each being unique, each living their own unrepeatable life.

(There is an interesting Sutta in the Pali Canon of Theravada Buddhism, which depicts Ananda - the Buddha's closest disciple - speaking with great delight and awe concerning some of the wonderful birth stories of the Buddha that then abounded, full of marvels. The Buddha responds by saying........"That being so, remember this also as a wonderful and marvellous quality of the Blessed One. The Blessed One's feelings of pleasure, pain or equanamity are known to him as they arise, known to him as they are present, and known to him as they subside. So to his perceptions. So to his thoughts.")

[jiii]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

What do the Buddhist users here say about that? Should I stop altogether my criticism of Buddhism, and instead take up something less bothersome to one's conscience like what? like criticizing the brutality of violent sports like boxing and bullfight and cockfight and dogfight (also the aerial dogfight)?

What about it being a service to Buddhism, just like every criticism to any art or technology or science is a service to artists, technologists, scientists to do better?

Susma

Susma-

I can't help but realize that you seem to be quite proud of your 'demolitions' prowess. Although I don't really have any particular problem with you doing excercises in rhetoric, your unrelenting attempt to deconstruct Buddhism, and at that make it appear as if the deconstruction is an easy cinch, has, over the last few pages of posts, made me somewhat curious as to what exactly your underlying premiss or premisses actually are.

Many times, people on this board, including myself, have instructed you that various viewpoints you have expressed on the topic of Buddhism are not actually very accurate. You seem to have passed over many of these comments without a second thought...at least not a second thought that you felt compelled to post.

I suppose my confusion with your actual standpoint has to do with the fact that you don't employ any kind of approach to Buddhism, or the various topics concerning it which have been raised, that could in any way be called 'systematic'. That is to say, when I browse your numerous posts on this thread, I get the feeling that greatest depth your insights have to offer is: "Buddhism isn't very good; you shouldn't trust it."

Every post you make sounds reasonably intelligent...hey, some are even well-written...but when I juxtapose your various posts, I don't feel like your really expressing some kind of insight that is available to you which in turn differs much from Buddhism, so much as you are mostly taking each topic raised, examining it for logical weaknesses, and then proceeding to show (mostly using logic) that Buddhism's view on so-and-so is clearly incorrect, or if not, at least in need of repair.

The problem, Susma, is that your logical approach to deconstructing Buddhism really is the perfect cinch that I mentioned earlier. Anyone, even a Buddhist himself, if he was so inclined, could run through every line of every sutra in the entire Tripitaka, scouring them for 'inconsistencies' and leaving the whole thing in a big shamble of pages and words decorated with red-pen strikethroughs where passages were interpreted as 'rationally unintelligble' or 'impractical' or 'possibly misleading'. Buddhists aren't without logic, Susma. You should not assume, just because some lines from a sutra or a few words by a master can't make it through your rigorous testing criteria, that the ordinary Buddhist isn't perfectly aware of how Buddhism can be misused or misinterpreted.

You almost seem to think that the mere fact that you aren't a Buddhist makes you much more aware of the 'downsides' of religion, in general. But, quite honestly, Susma, I think nearly everyone on this forum could produce his or her own giant bulleted list of the terrible things it would seem man has done in the name of religion, or the foolish things he has believed in its defense, and all of the 'wasted' life he has exhausted for it. That, so far as I can see, is where most of your solid ideas actually lie...not concerning Buddhism specifically, but rather just religion at large. But then, you seem to channel this overall disagreement with religion, in general, into Buddhism, specifically. And, if I might add, it seems pretty clear that you are mostly against it...or, at least, those parts of it which don't give you the satisfaction of being the self-proclaimed wrecking ball of religious ideas and texts (for which purpose, there is at least one thing about Buddhism which you seem to enjoy).

Frankly, I just don't really see where you're going with this. If you were particularly familiar with Buddhism (and as I have mentioned in earlier posts, it is clear from some understandings you express of Buddhists ideas that you aren't), you would know that most of the flaws you have pointed out in the 'basic framework' have been addressed over the years by Buddhists themselves.

Of course, not in the sense you tend to address them. You see, what I find shaky in your lines of argumentation is this: you tend to work upon the assumption that wherever it is possible, by hook or by crook, to find some kind of ambiguity or one-sided language in religion, it inherently means that so-and-so portion of the religion should be eliminated. A paradox here...we shouldn't be confusing ourselves; a vague passage...why can't they just come out and say it?; any ethical idea...why should I bother; any belief at all...why should I pay any attention?

All of these are actually very good questions...questions that many Buddhists explore for themselves. Where you differ is that you're aiming mostly for destruction wherever you ask these questions. If you can't get an answer, or if logical analysis shows you otherwise, you condemn the pertinent message as being foolish, incorrect, impractical, or non-sensical. And, throughout this entire thread, I still have the unshakable feeling that you're a guy who has perhaps read about Buddhism here or there...maybe even gotten through a handful of books directly concerning it and only it, mostly with your mind alert and ready to interpret it in the most over-critical light imaginable.

And so, armed with sweeping general notions such as 'Give up your material desires and attachments', you set off to enlighten those mislead Buddhists which apparently aren't aware of the idiocy of their religion (because, if they were, they obviously would've ditched it already, right?).

The fact of the matter is that you, yourself, mention that criticizing Buddhism has, in one way or another, made you more spiritual, yourself. I imagine you mean that by examining the premisses expressed by Buddhism and finding problems with them, you feel like you've perhaps gotten more in touch with something that could be more genuinely called 'spirituality'.

Susma, that's also exactly what Buddhists do, too...they simply see no need to dowse the whole tradition with gasoline and drop a match on it once they've gotten what they want out of it.

Anyone can walk into a room and start trashing the place, Susma...it's not really all that tough. With a few well-placed words and the right crowd, a skilled talker can make Buddhism look totally ridiculous...and while he's at it, he can toss in a few one-liners about Christianity and Hinduism that are sure to go over well. But, so too can a skilled talker make just about anything they please look pretty foolish.

In light of having read a good deal of your own opinions, I would say that it is my opinion that your lack of timidity in investigating the validity of religious beliefs is refreshing, but your predisposition exclusively toward deconstruction techniques simply yields little or nothing that is really all that constructive and worthwhile. You oppose this and condemn that, but in the end none of your posts really come together to create anything but fragmentary criticism which, for the reason that it is in no way sytematic itself, actually REQUIRES Buddhism to make it look at all coherent.