My Criticism of Buddhism.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 сен 2024
- I was a Buddhism but I am not any longer and I recommend everyone to avoid it. There is a fundamental flaw at the core of Buddhism that I want to expose for people to consider that I have not heard anywhere else.
You pointed out pepople problems, not the problem of authentic teachings itself.
Albert Einstein......I am a deeply religious nonbelievers, if
there's a religion that could correspond to the needs of modern Science, it would be Buddhism!.............
ruclips.net/video/hTbz6wuDKyc/видео.htmlsi=F9vHFrBr5NYkNKMB.
Some very well thought through points especially regarding enlightenment. Wish you'd made some further videos on this subject. I often wonder if aspects of No-i and enlightenment embrace a kind of fetishisation of a mental health condition similar to depersonalisation . A kind of normalisation of depersonalisation.
Non-believer of buddhism does not go to hell.
Fake monks, nuns, gurus go to incessant hell (worst hell).
Blasphemy of buddhas & other religions' gods = ticket to hell.
Whether you are for or against buddhism, I urge you to read this entry book first - The Original Vows of Ksitigarbha Bodhisattva Sutra, to learn about basics of buddhism and karma.
Shakyamuni Buddha taught this sutra about this bodhisattva who is from another ancient world.
The constant pressure on submitting to a teacher or guru has always felt suspect to me. If the different angles of a doctrine, and its application, can't be explained in a book, I don't want anything to do with it.
But I do think there is a gap that is beyond explaining. I try to address it here. ruclips.net/video/v6RnXzUwqgg/видео.html&t
Non-believer of buddhism does not go to hell.
Fake monks, nuns, gurus go to incessant hell (worst hell).
Blasphemy of buddhas & other religions' gods = ticket to hell.
Whether you are for or against buddhism, I urge you to read this entry book first - The Original Vows of Ksitigarbha Bodhisattva Sutra, to learn about basics of buddhism and karma.
Shakyamuni Buddha taught this sutra about this bodhisattva who is from another ancient world.
Hi all
Whether you are for or against buddhism, non-believer of buddhism does not go to hell. Yay!
All fake monks, nuns, gurus go to incessant hell (worst hell).
Blasphemy of buddhas or other religion gods = ticket to hell.
Pls read - The Original Vows of Ksitigarbha Bodhisattva Sutra. It is the first book everyone should read for the basics of buddhism and karma, you do not need anyone to explain it.
This is the penultimate sutra taught by Shakyamuni Buddha about this bodhisattva from another world long ago.
For me, to learn & gain enlightenment in this lifetime will be great but its like trying to become a rocket scientist at 50. Hmm... I will try but will not kill myself over it.
Namo Amitabha
Thanks for your thoughts. I have my 5 cents to throw also. I don't really know where did you study buddhism and why they insist on the Lineage. Some people claiming to be teachers realy shoud be avoided. Buddhism is the only teaching where it is said very clear that you should not trust and believe ANYBODY, including Buddha himself. Everything should be put to a test, and if it corresponds with the teaching, it can be accepted, If not than it should be thrown away. Enlightment is not an impossible task as you may htink because of that teachers you had. It comes naturally when you learn little by little how to stop your your working superficial conciousness which we use in daily life and which is like a filter which doesn't allow to see the real picture. Once it stopped even for a moments (at first) than it is a start.
A little late to this party. But I'd love to get involved in discussion. I'm a fan of the zen koan: meet the Buddha on the road, kill him. Shouldn't this logic also be applied to one's guru?
Additionally, it seems that the Buddha's relationship with his particularly dogmatic followers was filled with tension and constants encouragement for the followers to attain a sort of independence. Just curious about your thoughts on that. I really appreciate your concern, though. there been plenty of egregious abuses of power in the Buddhist world.
Sorry for the late reply I haven't been checking this channel for a long time. I am not quite sure what depth of logic you are referring to in the koan or weather a koan is even supposed to be logical. Be unattached to your guru but then also be unattached to the koan if you are really practicing Buddhism. But that's an easy bit of Buddhist one-upmanship. That's also part of the Buddhist impossible task seek but don't be attached. Learn but don't value....
I would say that interest in the particulars of buddhas life and how he related to individuals is based on an assumption that he was enlightened and therefore enlightenment is a thing. If you think that enlightenment is a thing you are now in the process of being abused by that idea and anyone else who wishes to lie to you about it or those who are currently in the process of being abused by it themselves.
Non-believer of buddhism does not go to hell.
Fake monks, nuns, gurus go to incessant hell (worst hell).
Blasphemy of buddhas & other religions' gods = ticket to hell.
Whether you are for or against buddhism, I urge you to read this entry book first - The Original Vows of Ksitigarbha Bodhisattva Sutra, to learn about basics of buddhism and karma.
Shakyamuni Buddha taught this sutra about this bodhisattva who is from another ancient world.
That is only a métaphore.
The beef is that you haven't realized the basics of buddhism if you stumble to Buddha - ish person or someone you keep as Buddha. Because you are, and you have always and already been Buddha, so searching for Buddha is like Buddha rode on the shoulders of Buddha looking for Buddha.
"Killing" Buddha is an instruction to remind this, and to remember there is no difference between Buddha-mind and Buddha-mind, the Dharmakaya Buddha.
Killing Buddha you are killing the idea that there's some hierarchy between enlightened beings, due to the false self. "Exterminate" that false identity of yours. Mind is Buddha. How could you even stumble to Emptiness, Dharmakaya Buddha on your way and kill the featureless yet indestructible Buddha-nature which has no beginning or end? As your own nature has no beginning or end.
Non-believer of buddhism does not go to hell. Yay!
Fake monks, nuns, gurus go to incessant hell (worst hell).
Blasphemy of buddhas & other religions' gods = ticket to hell.
Whether you are for or against buddhism, you should first read this entry book - The Original Vows of Ksitigarbha Bodhisattva Sutra, to learn about basics of buddhism and karma.
Shakyamuni Buddha taught this sutra about this bodhisattva who is from another ancient world.
Great vid, also it's often taboo to really talk about attainments and progress (although this is precisely the goal) on the 'path' so you don't even know if the teacher has any legitimacy.
Some guys do claim their own attainment. Non-monks, though. You can't be sure as an outsider that someone is enlightened whether they claim it or hide it anyway, so...
@@Quinceps you can be sure that they're not enlightened because enlightenment doesn't qualify as a thing even within their own philosophy.
Non-believer of buddhism does not go to hell.
Fake monks, nuns, gurus go to incessant hell (worst hell).
Blasphemy of buddhas & other religions' gods = ticket to hell.
Whether you are for or against buddhism, I urge you to read this entry book first - The Original Vows of Ksitigarbha Bodhisattva Sutra, to learn about basics of buddhism and karma.
Shakyamuni Buddha taught this sutra about this bodhisattva who is from another ancient world.
maybe Buddhism is the best of what we have from religions, but all this must change - more verified goals and methods must appear, relationships must change... let's look...
Thanks for your opinion. I was disappointed by Buddhism too. Good luck in your searching.
Thanks.
Cults & wrong action is why they hace lineage , to keep the teachings pure. If anyone just claimed they had proper transmissions of teaching how could you check if they were authentic? Are all teachers pure? No! But with proper liniage you can get a good idea if that teacher had proper teachings. It dosent mean they use it wisely! You are confusing Tantric gurus with all types of teachers and thats missleading.
I am explaining why Lineage is the inevitable outcome of the toxic relationship that forms from a power play like obtaining the unobtainable or whatever explanation for enlightenment you may be attached to. Try to be less attached to whatever you think proper teachings are. I made no technical distinction of Tantric or otherwise I explained the mechanism of manipulation that is inevitable when a teacher teaches Buddhism. The manipulated often resent having it pointed out to them.
What then about guys who already claim their arahantship? Thinking of Daniel M Ingram. He doesn't seem like the typical liar to me, anyway.
Sorry for late reply your comment got lost. There are those who "claim their arahantship" and are bad liars and nobody ever hears of them because they fail to convince anyone. Then there is a group who are good liars who "claim their arahantship" and they don't seem like typical liars because they are good at lying.
Non-believer of buddhism does not go to hell.
Fake monks, nuns, gurus go to incessant hell (worst hell).
Blasphemy of buddhas & other religions' gods = ticket to hell.
Whether you are for or against buddhism, I urge you to read this entry book first - The Original Vows of Ksitigarbha Bodhisattva Sutra, to learn about basics of buddhism and karma.
Shakyamuni Buddha taught this sutra about this bodhisattva who is from another ancient world.
Non-believer of buddhism does not go to hell.
Fake monks, nuns, gurus go to incessant hell (worst hell).
Blasphemy of buddhas & other religions' gods = ticket to hell.
Whether you are for or against buddhism, I urge you to read this entry book first - The Original Vows of Ksitigarbha Bodhisattva Sutra, to learn about basics of buddhism and karma.
Shakyamuni Buddha taught this sutra about this bodhisattva who is from another ancient world.
a true arahant wouldn't boast their archievements to others, this contradicts the path itself on how to become (eventually) an arahant, begs then the question if said claimer archieved anything at all... if one does it especially in our supramodern egodriven world is a fraud
Were you Zen or Chan Buddhist?
No, But I did go on a Chan retreat ones and Zen was a particular interest that I shared with some friends.
@@nik8099 I don't think of it as modern neurology. But I get your use of the frase. I would maybe say psychological structure or personal reality interpreting algorithm or something else that sounds ridiculously pretentious.
Non-believer of buddhism does not go to hell.
Fake monks, nuns, gurus go to incessant hell (worst hell).
Blasphemy of buddhas & other religions' gods = ticket to hell.
Whether you are for or against buddhism, I urge you to read this entry book first - The Original Vows of Ksitigarbha Bodhisattva Sutra, to learn about basics of buddhism and karma.
Shakyamuni Buddha taught this sutra about this bodhisattva who is from another ancient world.
Hi friend. I would like to ask you to watch this short video to appreciate the RUclips translation of subtitles into English. This video clarifies the situation with modern Buddhism using the example of the Tibetan Karma Kagyu lineage. ruclips.net/video/MhfhonDhY5E/видео.html
@@hyyong4780 my version doesn’t believe in hells
Poor, unfortunate guy doesn't seem to understand a bit on mahayana, enlightenment, emptiness, nor know aything about the different schools of tibetan buddhism, i.e. what are the differences and why there is differences. Nor to get a guru-student relationship either. Maybe he has never been at school, or university? So no teachers ever, just reading at home. Or maybe not even reading, cause the books have been written by someone else? Not adapted to be taught, so to say, cause not accepted to be. A self-made man, thru and thru, who knows? Seems he hasn't understood at all what he's looking for in buddhism. So tried to become not a bodhisattva, but a pratyekabuddha, i.e. all by his own. And just because of that not studied, but focused on polishing his ego, not realizing that's the case. Sounding still quite self-centered, after all his buddhist(?) years, and that's why this video.
sorry for late reply. You don't seem to have anything to say about the psychological entrapment mechanism that I describe. But you do seem to have a lot to say about me personally. Thats fine to ad hominem is not illegal. But do you have anything to say about toxic relationships, psychological traps or biased thinking and the way that Buddhist interpretations of reality can relate to these phenomena?
It isn't buddhism to blame. It isn't the lineages. Or teachers. It is the "western" psyche which should be analyzed. We have intellectual and scientific lineages too. Political ideologies. We have teachers in the universities. We have here in the west cornucopia of things which we are very tempted to turn sometimes immediately to cult-ish practices and thought processes, buddhism as well. That is why I have never felt familiarity to the western buddhists. They haven't got even the basics however long they have been buddhists. But that's not a fault of buddhism. Which by the way came to west very short time ago and when it came it came by theosophists and coloured by their interpretation of it. And theosophy like all the new age stuff is based on ego building and ego polishing. In the west we have a long tradition of orientalism and exoticism too which are bubbling under when people hear about buddhism and are twisting the perspective so that it is thought of something magical and otherworldy. While buddhism is extremely concrete, practical and immanent and there's not any transcendent "beyond" whatsoever in buddhism. I know in hinayana buddhism nirvana for example is thought to be a different kind of realm or sphere, but that's exactly why it is called hinayana, the lesser vehicle, because it stops there where buddhism really begins. That is why they don't understand mahayana at all and keep it and all the mahayana sutras, tantras, practices, it's theory and philosophy heretical and not even buddhism.
@@lloydproductions2429 Enlightenment. What is that? Well, it's a very bad translation, and as we know devil's in the little details. Like in the screwed up concepts in the very beginning.
Enlightenment is not a task, not a goal, not an attainment. Nothing futural. Nothing such but simply 'becoming insightfully to one's senses' and realizing that one has been "enlightened" all the time, from the very beginning. But self, and especially ego and how it functions, which is something quite different than a self, as those who has studied the german philosophy from Kant to Hegel and then to Heidegger are knowing very well, which is a necessary tool to survive from our childhood to our death bed when old, and nothing else, has been in our way as an obstacle in a myriads of ways because we had identified ourselves with that tool and it's functins our whole life, and entangled to its whims neurotically.
The point of buddhism is not get completely rid of our ego, and that's why Dalai Lama, for example, and all the other teachers are just like any other guys without anything mystical excess in them. Still having their ego as anyone else has.
Taking guru, which means simply teacher, not anything mystical other, as a human being who has a reddish nose and nauseating hair in his nostrils and a bad breath is however a catastrophical mistake in the very beginning.
The point of buddhism is liberation, becoming what one already is. An experienced teacher, who has in his lifetime evolved a skill to recognize the amount of our entangledness to our ego, it's typical manners, how we function and react when it is irritated, and especially what is the stage of our blindness to see our ego and it's reactionary functions, reflect it, then first make us to aquaint our ego. He doesn't do that by giving theoretical lectures, philosophical and psychological, because they doesn't help at all. Vice versa. Our ego becomes only more fat and cunning learning theoretically what it is. The only effective way is to put ourselves to do something which seems to be just odd whims of the teacher's nasty personality and a proof of his total fakeness. To do something which doesn't make any sense, is ludicrous, shameful for a sane adult to even try, is almost impossible to execute. Yet that is how we become conscious of our ego and it's functions and see it's whims like from a well polished mirror. One cannot tame his ego, the monkey mind, before one has recognized it non-conceptually and non-intellectually. It has to be exhausted with some mindless action was that some silly buddhist practice, repeating a strange mantra, doing totally obsolete work, sitting in zazen, or let's say thinking some stupid koan we think is something extremely wise packaged to a one sentence when it actually isn't. Then at some moment comes an insight. Just like that. Which typically makes one laugh because that's the only thing one can do after realizing what's what and what isn't. And at this point realizing, if not realized earlier, that it was a mistake to take teacher as a teacher, when "he" was nothing but Buddha and Dharma all the time. Like absolutely everything else is and has always been. Only after the kind of insight one is ready and able to really listen and understand the teachings and that everything makes equally sense and simultaneously nothing at all make sense. Can without ego coming every second to one's way understand so that one becomes able to teach the others. One comes to his senses. Finally realizing he doesn't need any buddhism at all. But...has fell in love with Dharma so that doesnt want to get rid of it, ever. Realizing it's impossible to get rid of it. And that's the enlightenment. That's happiness. Liberation.
May i know buddhist view on abortion?
@@antiabrahamicreligion Buddhadharma is a way of liberation. That should always be remembered. I haven't ever stumbled to a question about abortion in buddhist thinking. There's a golden rule not to do any harm for any sentient being. In the times of Sakyamuni pregnancy was usually at such a point that abortion could have been understood as killing. In our times the embryo isn't yet sentient being as sentient beings are understood, and it's possible to take a remorse-pill shortly after or abort the pregnancy after only days when there's only microscopical entity and two lines showing there's certain hormones in blood.
There's no any skillful advice for all the particular cases, so I am not able to answer to that in the name of the totality of buddhism. It's clear, however, that abortion isn't the best way to deal with unintentional pregnancy.
A video called a criticism of Buddhism spends its time criticizing people and not Buddhism
Buddhism without people would be a very unusual religion.
It doesn't criticise people at all it states facts about people that makes them incompatible with a healthy relationship with Buddhism.
to me it sounded more of a criticism of later (at least to me, fringe) sects of buddhism out of the mahayana and vajrayana traditions that have more emphasis on stuff like master student relationship in high regards, vehicles (on how he talked about nibbana and the path itself) and little of the actual teachings of the buddha (because they have their own scriptures: sutras made long after the og texts, the pali canon)
Thier view of abortion@@motozappa225
The big issue you seem to be pointing out is issue of bad modern teachers.
My teacher for fifteen years has never taken advantage of anyone. With regards to the teacher-student relationship, requirements are detailed for both the student and the teacher - and not just the student.
The problem is that there are many unqualified people giving other people “instructions” in their own mishmash for the sake of extorting money out of clueless people, having more sex with young men or women, and getting a big name. Obviously, this kind of behavior disqualifies you from being a valid teacher of many conventional subjects, much less of Buddhism.
The responsibility of the student (according to Buddhism) is to asses the validity of the teacher based on ethical behavior over a long period, knowledge over a long period, and their response to difficulty over a long period. If the teacher demonstrates they are valid on that basis, then you can commit to them, but the Dalai Lama recommends seven years of investigation. The ways good students test teachers is a subject of serious study.
See “The Guru Drinks Bourbon?”
With regards to enlightenment, this conclusion grows out of direct experience, not some ambiguous assignment of an impossible task from above. The possibility of enlightenment is evident when you’ve gotten a taste of what your mind is and what the nature of reality is. Nirvana is a very easy and natural conclusion of even beginner experience. Full Enlightenment is also natural conclusion, but requires a bit more experience.
The notion that the idea of “me” will “own” that state is a bit ridiculous. Even western psychology knows there is no “self” in there among the various mental and physical components, see Sam Harris. This is not a koan, nor a mystical quandary. It’s common sense.
In conventional terms, “you” will be awakened or enlightened. That is clear, but at that time, subjectively, there will also be the knowledge that the “self” only exists on the basis of imputation. It is not existent in and of itself, nor is it self-sustaining. It’s not an atomistic center, owner, nor controller of your body or mind. It is not eternal. It is a valid and useful imputation, and therefore existent, but not in the way it appears to naive unexamined perceptions.
Lineage is important because institutions have the potential to preserve valid teachings. Because the propensity for self-deception is astronomically high, each person needs to have a teacher. Therefore, a string of teachers going back to the Buddha is very important.
I think you will find that spiritual 'teachers' fleecing people is a tale as old as time. Your Buddha spoke about some Confucius made reference to them as well. But the 'that guy's lying to you and I'm telling the truth' line is the norm for all salespeople. If you believe them you'll have in the past been sold that belief.
I remember a requirement though I think it was in zen Buddhism for the student to perceive buddhahood in their master even when it is evidently not present. But none of this is relevant to the fact that the setting of the impossible task induces a toxic relationship between the person who sets the task and the person who endeavours to fulfill it.
In reference to the teacher that you seem to be quite possessive off. Your validating and upholding their toxic perception of the world is abuse enough.
It doesn’t actually prove your point to say, “There have always been teachers who are like this.” That has no bearing on the issue. Of course, there have been. It also doesn’t make the case to say, “They will tell you that they aren’t like the other guy.” Of course, they will.
If we apply the above logic as a rule, we can’t trust any authority who claims that other sources of information are incorrect. We also can trust any source of authority which has members within its ranks who have moral downfalls. By this rule, we’re throwing out all of western academia... we’re throwing out everyone besides ourselves. It’s rhetoric, not an valid argument.
Regarding the practice of seeing the teacher as a Buddha, I have found from personal experience that this teaching is not emphasized in all Buddhist circles: it’s not found in the Theravada at all, for example. It’s not emphasized in Tibetan teachings until you’re under an advanced student under a tantric Lama. I can’t speak to Zen in general, but my teacher studied Zen for 40 years and never gave us that teaching, at all.
Further, the task set by Buddhism isn’t impossible, but it is very difficult. Also, simply defining a relationship based on a very difficult (or even impossible) task as toxic, and then saying, “Therefore, it’s toxic.” Isn’t an argument. It’s just more rhetoric; you’re affirming the consequent.
@@modernwesternbuddhism7671 why did you mention Modern Teachers? "The big issue you seem to be pointing out is issue of bad modern teachers." It's not a 'modern' issue. If you point something out and I show that it's a stupid thing to think, it's on point. I am doing you a favour by clearing out presuppositions that I just wrong. Or at least helping you move towards right speech.
You could also do with working on your logic. Scam artists do x does not equate to everyone that does x is a scam artist.
Anyway what is my point can you explain it to me? You have not written anything that addresses it at all. You don't appear to have understood it based on your last paragraph.
“Scam artists - does not equate.” I couldn’t have said it better myself. You point is rhetorical: anyone who says x isn’t a necessarily a scammer. That would be ridiculous.
On the whole, I’m sorry you had this terrible experience. My heart goes out you, and I hope you find happiness with whatever path (or non-path) you choose. From direct personal experience, I can tell you that not all Buddhist training environments are like the one you described above.
@@modernwesternbuddhism7671 Why do you put necessarily in to the logic equation and call it ridiculous? It is logic A leads to B does not prove that B leads to A. How can that be retorick? Have you read any philosophy?
I am not sorry that I was given the opportunity to see through Buddhist retorick. It has allowed me the opportunity to help people like you who are lost in it. People who are willing to lie twist words and make false accusations in order to defend their attachment to a toxic teaching. i.e. behave toxically to defend toxicity.
You can move beyond this, you can be a better person.
This is my path at the moment ruclips.net/video/v6RnXzUwqgg/видео.html