The Buddha Was Wronged.
Feb 8, 2008 11:24:27 GMT 1
Post by Shi Da Dao on Feb 8, 2008 11:24:27 GMT 1
The Buddha Was Wronged.
Introduction.
This document is a critical assessment and deconstruction of the extended essay entitled ‘The Buddha Was Wrong’ (http://www.thebuddhawaswrong.com/) written by the author who wishes to be known as ‘onemind’, and copyrighted for the year 2008. The document maybe freely distributed for non-commercial use.
The anonymous author has written the essay over approximately 49 pages. The essay is organised into 5 sections, the core of which evolve around the traditional structure of ‘Buddha’, ‘Dharma’, and ‘Sangha’, well known within contemporary Buddhist literature, following the so called ‘Three Baskets’ (Tripitaka) of teachings that constitute Buddhist history and philosophical theory in all schools of Buddhist thought, be it Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana or Tantrayana. The other two sections are comprised of the ‘Introduction’, and the ‘Conclusion’.
The Lord Buddha.
Despite the title ‘The Buddha Was Wrong’, at no time in the 49 pages does the author attempt to explain exactly ‘where’ the Buddha was ‘wrong’, or indeed address the issue of any errors the Buddha may have made. And there is good reason for this glaring omission. It is well known that when approaching physical death, the historical Buddha is reported as saying
‘All things are transient, work-out your own path with diligence.’
This one simple statement serves to undermine the entire philosophical premise that The Buddha Was Wrong is predicated upon. The author is confusing the personal angst that is felt toward the institutional structures of modern Buddhism, with that of the actual ‘Teachings’ (Dharma) of the historical Buddha. As if the former represented the latter, and that there are no differences between the two. This is incorrect.
At no point in the essay, does the author address the Buddha’s teachings, or teaching method. If the author had been so motivated, the fact that the earliest reference to the historical Buddha outside of Buddhist sutras, is approximately 200 years after His death – viewable on stone inscriptions dating back to emperor Ashoka, would have been discovered.
When the author rhetorically asks at the end of the ‘Buddha’ chapter, ‘So, who was the Buddha?’, and then replies ‘No one knows.’, the author is really saying that he/she ‘does not know’. Furthermore, the Buddha is mentioned by the Jainist movement, and the Jain teacher Mahavira is mentioned in Buddhist sutras – showing that both schools coincide historically and mutually attest to one another’s existence.
The main historical issue surrounding the life of the Buddha, is the ‘exact’ dating of His existence. His teachings do not demand that He be viewed as a ‘God’, or that He be followed with a ‘blind’ faith. His path of freedom from psychological suffering, does not hinge on the reality of His physical existence – or non-existence. Both are mistaken assertions as regards the Buddhist teachings.
The Dharma.
The section on Dharma is perhaps the most disappointing in the entire essay. The author had a chance in this section to delve into Buddhist philosophy, and attempt a negative re-appraisal of the entire genre of ‘Mind-led’ freedom teachings. Instead, and inaccordance with the ‘missing the point’ motif of the first section, the author spends many pages criticising and misrepresenting the parapsychological work of Professor Ian Stevenson.
This academic has been researching the psychological phenomena of ‘Near Death Experience’, and its related subject of ‘Out of the Body Experience’. Neither of these two subjects appear within the teachings of the Dharma. The author’s ridicule of these two subjects, should not of course detract from the fact that there is a very interesting body of circumstantial and observational evidence within this field of study.
The author misunderstands Buddhist teaching. It does not evolve around the single premise of ‘re-birth’. Infact, re-birth as a philosophical concept is very common in early Indian thought, and can be seen to pre-exist Buddhism. The Buddha had to teach people who accepted and believed in somekind of ‘continuation’ after physical death. The author of The Buddha Was Wrong
attempted in this section to deconstruct Buddhist teachings on ‘re-birth’, by using Western science. And it is peculiar that the author did not see the simple scientific correlation between Western science and Buddhist philosophy – namely Newton’s Laws of Thermodynamics, which state in part;
‘Energy can not be created or destroyed, it can only change shape.’
This has tremendous philosophical implications for the physical plain, implications the Buddha thoroughly explored within His teachings. The author does not address any substantial Buddhist teachings, and certainly not the obvious Buddhist premise that the Mind can be used to ‘change’ the Mind, and one is left wondering as to what extent the author has actually been trained in Buddhist philosophy. Particularly when he/she claims that ‘many’ Buddhist teachers ‘use an anomaly in the in the field of neuroscience’ to justify meditational practice. The logical impasse here, is akin perhaps, to a Christian monastic referring to NASA film footage of space, so as to understand Heaven! The two subjects are not connected and it would be grossly ‘dishonest’ to assume that they are.
The author manifests an obvious bias toward Theravada Buddhism, and seems to allow this bias to distort the Mahayana teachings – which as well as containing ALL the Theravada teachings, also contain an amazing array of mythic and imaginary aspects, suited to the exploration of the Mind beyond the scope of conservative Buddhism. The mistake the author is making here, is that Theravada does not have its own imagery, or indeed its own peculiar doctrinal interpretations, that if taken out of context, would certainly open this school to the kind of ridicule the author aims at the Mahayana movement. Any subject misrepresented and then taken out of context, can be distorted in this way.
The Sangha.
Many of the religions of the world have developed at one point in their history, a stream of endeavour that maybe called ‘monastic’, or ‘priestly’. Buddhism is no exception to this phenomena, as it expresses a deep rooted, and often earnest requirement within the spiritual seeker, to actually strive toward the goal of spiritual fulfilment. In this respect, the author of The Buddha Was Wrong demonstrates that he does not understand Buddhist monasticism in either its Theravada or Mahayana form. For if he/she did, then it would be obvious that a Buddhist monk, as initiated by the Buddha, is nothing more than a beggar on the physical plain. Material considerations become secondary to internal, meditational development.
A monk or nun is physically ‘below’ the laity. Where they may have an advantage is in their meditational endeavour, and the wisdom that results from such an endeavour. If a monk or nun believes that he/she is ‘superior’ to the laity that support them, then this attitude is wrong and more inner development is required. If the author views the Buddhist monastic establishment as a ‘threat’, then that is the author’s own opinion and has nothing to do with the establishment of the monastic framework in either its traditional or contemporary manifestations.
The insulting of His Holiness the Dalai Lama is of course a matter of personal angst within the author’s mind.
Conclusion.
The main psychological thrust of the extended essay entitled The Buddha Was Wrong – authored by ‘onemind’, is, I think inspired by a negative internet forum experience. A well known Buddhist website is mentioned in this essay, and the unfair treatment the author suffered on that website seems to be the motivational force behind this essay. The author confuses many strands within this work. He/she never addresses ‘where’ exactly the Buddha was ‘wrong’, and this tends to invalidate the entire essay. Instead we are left with a random set of poorly researched materials, disguised thinly as a philosophical attempt to deconstruct Buddhism, but in reality appears to be simply an expression of a mind that feels that it has been unfairly treated within the cyber-community.
Thank you.
Introduction.
This document is a critical assessment and deconstruction of the extended essay entitled ‘The Buddha Was Wrong’ (http://www.thebuddhawaswrong.com/) written by the author who wishes to be known as ‘onemind’, and copyrighted for the year 2008. The document maybe freely distributed for non-commercial use.
The anonymous author has written the essay over approximately 49 pages. The essay is organised into 5 sections, the core of which evolve around the traditional structure of ‘Buddha’, ‘Dharma’, and ‘Sangha’, well known within contemporary Buddhist literature, following the so called ‘Three Baskets’ (Tripitaka) of teachings that constitute Buddhist history and philosophical theory in all schools of Buddhist thought, be it Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana or Tantrayana. The other two sections are comprised of the ‘Introduction’, and the ‘Conclusion’.
The Lord Buddha.
Despite the title ‘The Buddha Was Wrong’, at no time in the 49 pages does the author attempt to explain exactly ‘where’ the Buddha was ‘wrong’, or indeed address the issue of any errors the Buddha may have made. And there is good reason for this glaring omission. It is well known that when approaching physical death, the historical Buddha is reported as saying
‘All things are transient, work-out your own path with diligence.’
This one simple statement serves to undermine the entire philosophical premise that The Buddha Was Wrong is predicated upon. The author is confusing the personal angst that is felt toward the institutional structures of modern Buddhism, with that of the actual ‘Teachings’ (Dharma) of the historical Buddha. As if the former represented the latter, and that there are no differences between the two. This is incorrect.
At no point in the essay, does the author address the Buddha’s teachings, or teaching method. If the author had been so motivated, the fact that the earliest reference to the historical Buddha outside of Buddhist sutras, is approximately 200 years after His death – viewable on stone inscriptions dating back to emperor Ashoka, would have been discovered.
When the author rhetorically asks at the end of the ‘Buddha’ chapter, ‘So, who was the Buddha?’, and then replies ‘No one knows.’, the author is really saying that he/she ‘does not know’. Furthermore, the Buddha is mentioned by the Jainist movement, and the Jain teacher Mahavira is mentioned in Buddhist sutras – showing that both schools coincide historically and mutually attest to one another’s existence.
The main historical issue surrounding the life of the Buddha, is the ‘exact’ dating of His existence. His teachings do not demand that He be viewed as a ‘God’, or that He be followed with a ‘blind’ faith. His path of freedom from psychological suffering, does not hinge on the reality of His physical existence – or non-existence. Both are mistaken assertions as regards the Buddhist teachings.
The Dharma.
The section on Dharma is perhaps the most disappointing in the entire essay. The author had a chance in this section to delve into Buddhist philosophy, and attempt a negative re-appraisal of the entire genre of ‘Mind-led’ freedom teachings. Instead, and inaccordance with the ‘missing the point’ motif of the first section, the author spends many pages criticising and misrepresenting the parapsychological work of Professor Ian Stevenson.
This academic has been researching the psychological phenomena of ‘Near Death Experience’, and its related subject of ‘Out of the Body Experience’. Neither of these two subjects appear within the teachings of the Dharma. The author’s ridicule of these two subjects, should not of course detract from the fact that there is a very interesting body of circumstantial and observational evidence within this field of study.
The author misunderstands Buddhist teaching. It does not evolve around the single premise of ‘re-birth’. Infact, re-birth as a philosophical concept is very common in early Indian thought, and can be seen to pre-exist Buddhism. The Buddha had to teach people who accepted and believed in somekind of ‘continuation’ after physical death. The author of The Buddha Was Wrong
attempted in this section to deconstruct Buddhist teachings on ‘re-birth’, by using Western science. And it is peculiar that the author did not see the simple scientific correlation between Western science and Buddhist philosophy – namely Newton’s Laws of Thermodynamics, which state in part;
‘Energy can not be created or destroyed, it can only change shape.’
This has tremendous philosophical implications for the physical plain, implications the Buddha thoroughly explored within His teachings. The author does not address any substantial Buddhist teachings, and certainly not the obvious Buddhist premise that the Mind can be used to ‘change’ the Mind, and one is left wondering as to what extent the author has actually been trained in Buddhist philosophy. Particularly when he/she claims that ‘many’ Buddhist teachers ‘use an anomaly in the in the field of neuroscience’ to justify meditational practice. The logical impasse here, is akin perhaps, to a Christian monastic referring to NASA film footage of space, so as to understand Heaven! The two subjects are not connected and it would be grossly ‘dishonest’ to assume that they are.
The author manifests an obvious bias toward Theravada Buddhism, and seems to allow this bias to distort the Mahayana teachings – which as well as containing ALL the Theravada teachings, also contain an amazing array of mythic and imaginary aspects, suited to the exploration of the Mind beyond the scope of conservative Buddhism. The mistake the author is making here, is that Theravada does not have its own imagery, or indeed its own peculiar doctrinal interpretations, that if taken out of context, would certainly open this school to the kind of ridicule the author aims at the Mahayana movement. Any subject misrepresented and then taken out of context, can be distorted in this way.
The Sangha.
Many of the religions of the world have developed at one point in their history, a stream of endeavour that maybe called ‘monastic’, or ‘priestly’. Buddhism is no exception to this phenomena, as it expresses a deep rooted, and often earnest requirement within the spiritual seeker, to actually strive toward the goal of spiritual fulfilment. In this respect, the author of The Buddha Was Wrong demonstrates that he does not understand Buddhist monasticism in either its Theravada or Mahayana form. For if he/she did, then it would be obvious that a Buddhist monk, as initiated by the Buddha, is nothing more than a beggar on the physical plain. Material considerations become secondary to internal, meditational development.
A monk or nun is physically ‘below’ the laity. Where they may have an advantage is in their meditational endeavour, and the wisdom that results from such an endeavour. If a monk or nun believes that he/she is ‘superior’ to the laity that support them, then this attitude is wrong and more inner development is required. If the author views the Buddhist monastic establishment as a ‘threat’, then that is the author’s own opinion and has nothing to do with the establishment of the monastic framework in either its traditional or contemporary manifestations.
The insulting of His Holiness the Dalai Lama is of course a matter of personal angst within the author’s mind.
Conclusion.
The main psychological thrust of the extended essay entitled The Buddha Was Wrong – authored by ‘onemind’, is, I think inspired by a negative internet forum experience. A well known Buddhist website is mentioned in this essay, and the unfair treatment the author suffered on that website seems to be the motivational force behind this essay. The author confuses many strands within this work. He/she never addresses ‘where’ exactly the Buddha was ‘wrong’, and this tends to invalidate the entire essay. Instead we are left with a random set of poorly researched materials, disguised thinly as a philosophical attempt to deconstruct Buddhism, but in reality appears to be simply an expression of a mind that feels that it has been unfairly treated within the cyber-community.
Thank you.