15 ms·

Five mildly anti-Buddhist essays

• emptysongglass 4y ago
  This person is part of a weird New Wave of Twitterati Buddhists-not-Buddhists who are happy to throw out huge chunks of the dharma in the name of going their own way. It's not bearing good fruits. This person also wrote a long screed on divorce that was really about spritzing their favorite perfume scent and barely mentioning the person they divorced except as backdrop to the great “I”. [1] It's a new wave that thrives on egoic displays like these, undermining big portions of very helpful dharma teachings like ethics. Look folks, I know it's vogue in a post post post world to deconstruct all the things but there's a reason why Buddhism has thrived for thousands of years producing good, kind people and rebel dharmas have withered on the vine. Yes, there are exceptions but overall, it's been wildly effective as a method for awakening that also spares others violence. That said, there are good rebel dharma people out there like Daniel Ingram who do promote ethics as an essential cornerstone of practice (and it is, try it). The Twitterati of dharma are not it. They do not come bearing the gift of conscious revolution, they come bearing more poisoned seeds of self delusion because that's what Twitter thrives on: the grand illusion of Self thrumming to the crowd of their creation. In this particular article, Sasha declares that endgame meditation looks like more neuroses, pride and immoral acts and that's the dirty secret of the community. Well, yes, when your community looks like Twitter and you think you've endgamed Buddhism, that is what it will look like because you are not actually attained in anything other than building shrines to self. Sasha then declares at the end that one should build strong attachments to things and allow them to wound you, the exact opposite of craving and bondage, which the Buddha asks us to avoid. This person is playing games with the Buddha, playing games with dharma, and writes for a crowd that will pay them to continue playing these games. My ultimate point here, which weaves in with some of the rebukes I've been writing lately here, is more focus needs to be placed on fundamentals and really grokking them with the aid of actual accomplished teachers who have spent decades endgaming your chosen practice. People of real ethical fiber. People who do not need your money to continue existing, do not want it, and have no motive to take it. People like Thannisaro Bhikku [2] or honest to God forest monks or other renunciates who demonstrate supreme compassion, generosity, and whose actions are blameless. These are people worthy of giving advice on the topic. [1] https://sashachapin.substack.com/p/my-recent-divorce-andor-dior-homme https://sashachapin.substack.com/p/my-recent-divorce-andor-d... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%B9%ACh%C4%81nissaro_Bhikkhu https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%B9%ACh%C4%81nissaro_Bhik...
  • syawaworht 4y ago
    Yea, I don't think he's reached a point where he's seen the territory apart from the map. His post is still a lot of confusion running in circles in the space of concepts and mind. When it is seen clearly how the mind is delusion, then the rest of the teachings fall naturally from that observation.
  • WhiteBlueSkies 4y ago
    I've lost count of Tibetan masters that have abused their students. Buddhism is simply not what is thought of on first sight and he is absolutely correct about it. It's an incredibly depressing religion. The premise is basically get off the wheel(of samsara) and exist or cease existing in Nirvana and or keep suffering.
    • emptysongglass 4y ago
      This is why I write returning to fundamentals of practice, which is not Tibetan Buddhism. Tibetan Buddhism is the psychedelics of Buddhism: it's not for everybody and many people have touched its live wire and been smoked including teachers who Tibetan Buddhist students are taught to view as infallible deities. Zen has this same set of problems to a lesser degree. Go back to basics. Practice what is good at the beginning, the middle and the end. What brings harmony to you and your relationships. Let that be your test. The depression is assuming life has the lasting qualities we're seeking and continuing to be disappointed until we are crippled. People try and put that on Buddhism because they refuse to see it. The Buddha was actually offering an incredibly hopeful message: see this mass of aggregate sensations for what it is and be liberated, be truly happy without dependence on conditions, without dependence on the world to offer you anything. All it takes is to see people, interacted with people who are living examples of this, paragons of whatever is furthest away from this "depression" you ascribe to Buddhism. They walk around with huge smiles on their face. Every interaction with them is pure love, pure compassion. They do not have bad days and here they are with nothing more than a robe and a bowl to their name. May all people know real kindness, real happiness. I'll tell you here and now, what Sasha is peddling is not it. I strongly condemn what Sasha is offering and other teachers who assume the mantle of power for their own egos. He has abused his position of authority to distort the message of the Buddha, to bring confusion to the path and has brought confusion to his own life that is disharmonious, a life of more attachment not less, a life of imbalance not balance and he is passing out this message to anyone who will listen. This is very bad practice, very bad ethics, because he condemns not only himself, he condemns anyone who buys into his poison.
• kordlessagain 4y ago
  Buddha didn’t invent Buddhism and none of the scriptures or discourses were written down until almost 400 years after he died. As Alan Watts used to say, Buddhism is essentially Hinduism “stripped for export”, given you really can’t be a Hindu if you don’t live in place where others are Hinduing. Much of what we know about his words and lessons were memorized by his followers, some of which had perfect audio recall. Buddha himself was purported to be capable of projecting imagery into the minds of others. Buddha likely indicated asceticism should be avoided and most would find some ease in the work they must do to be satisfied with life by following a middle way, or measured and balanced approach to living life as a householder. His followers were the exception to this guidance, as they sought a higher understanding and ability to teach others the dharma. This middle way is mostly derived from the logic of ethical behavior, and these truths may be discovered without assistance if one considers and puts attention on them. The Four Noble Truths are just a means to remember the pickle we find ourselves in with our thoughts and conditions and give way to the Noble Eightfold Path which indicates where we tend to wander from the path of understanding and peace with ourselves and others. Past that, the only way to see the truth of things is to sit and note breath until you see the truth for yourself. Then, suffering is reduced and you continue on, as if having seen the solution to a puzzle you didn’t know the answer to a moment ago. This is the more advanced route and not suggested for householders, nor should householders attempt to teach the dharma to others. In short, being a householder following the path means you be present with your thoughts. Here. Now. Avoid negative emotions. Speak your truths. Avoid dissonance. Break it where it helps the most people. And, above all, die well.
  • balsam 4y ago
    Now that you mention it, Christianity is Judaism stripped for export. And that’s discounting the BBC take that Jesus was a Buddhist monk.
    • wolfhumble 4y ago
      It would be if it wasn't for Jesus Christ, but then being a Christian wouldn't make any sense at all. From a Christian point of view – see Romans 11:11-31 – the Jews/Israel is seen as the cultivated olive tree, and all Christian Gentiles – i.e. all Christians that are not Jewish – are seen as "a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree" i.e. the Jewish/Israeli tree (Romans 11:24). So as a Christian Gentile you therefore take part in God's words and promises to the Jews/Israel as a grafted olive tree. But Jesus Christ brought something completely new to the table. He say about Himself that He came to fullfil the Law and the Prophets of the Old Testament (Matthew 5:17-20). He also said: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6). In this way Christianity is not Judaism stripped for export, Jesus Christ is the culmination of all that was said in the Law and by the Prophets.
• garbagecoder 4y ago
  Maybe the author overstates and understates some things but I’m glad to see some pushback on this pass that Buddhism seems to get. One only need look at Myanmar to see that Buddhism isn’t necessarily so perfect.
  • hulitu 4y ago
    From Christianism: "Do what the priest says, not what the priest does".
  • astrange 4y ago
    Buddhism isn’t an ethical system. Doesn’t argue against things like having slaves either.
    • nativecoinc 4y ago
      Isn’t trading humans one of the wrong professions to lead (contra right livelihood)? Then I don’t see how buying slaves could be right or neutral.
      • astrange 4y ago
        Trading them yes, but that only excludes trading them, not having them, accepting them as gifts, organizing your society around feudalism and serfdom, etc. (At one point Buddha says monasteries must accept gifts of slaves, other times that individual monks who must not accept them. He is sometimes maybe inconsistent.)
        • nativecoinc 4y ago
          How interesting. And inconsistent!
    • emptysongglass 4y ago
      That isn't correct. Morality is the first training of Buddhism. No real progress can be made without practicing right ethics first.
• spicymaki 4y ago
  I practiced Zen Buddhism for many years and left my sangha due to many of the points that Sasha brought up: Many of the teachers and students I knew were not rising above their neuroses. Many of them were masking their life problems with the Buddhist aesthetic as opposed to really working with them. We would cycle through the same concerns repeatedly without any progress. I started to figure out that the process was to drop the issue and disengage with it. The problem is that does not work outside of a sheltered monastic community because you need to face your problems constantly in the real world. I agree that many modern Buddhist schools stray away from the Buddha’s original teachings (as we know it from the Pali Cannon). Many branches won’t even really teach what Buddha said; only interpretations from later traditions. We did not talk about Buddha much in Zen practice at all. Much more time was given to Dōgen, and the Chinese masters than to Buddha. In Zen everyone is a Buddha so Siddhartha Gautama (O.G. Buddha) gets marginalized. There is also a pantheon of Buddhas which dilutes things even more. Buddhism has a pretty straight forward thesis (Four Noble Truths), but it has become esoteric after centuries of appropriation and reinterpretation. Modern Western Buddhism pushes meditation above all of the other practices. We spent more time meditating than anything else, which was different than how the early Buddhists and even how most Buddhists in Asia practice. This leads to people thinking that all they need to do is sit and not change anything about their lives and it will magically work out. In fact in Japanese Zen Dōgen essentially states that sitting with the correct posture (zazen) is enlightened practice itself. This enlightenment is transitory, so one could imagine that the longer you sit zazen the more time you get to stay in this enlightened state. You can see how this could become an obsession. This in practice leads to a lack of engagement which would have you thinking you are actually putting in the work, but you are just eschewing reality. Buddhism has a rich tradition of debating and challenging teachers. In fact the Pali Cannon is full of these debates. However, these days if you bring up a question or objection to some teachers they don’t really engage with you. In Zen you can cover up inconsistencies with esoteric vocabulary and wave it away. Just sit and it will be okay. Buddha in the Pali Cannon was actually more human than we give him credit for. He made mistakes and learned from them (even after nirvana). He got old and died. He scolded his monks for breaking monastic rules. The Buddha represented in the Pali Cannon can be raw at times which goes against the ideal Buddha archetype. +1 from a long time fan of the Buddha
  • 4y ago
• mxmilkiib 4y ago
  BSWA focuses the 'early Buddhist texts' https://bswa.org https://bswa.org Their YT is great https://youtube.com/@BuddhistSocietyWA https://youtube.com/@BuddhistSocietyWA Related is https://suttacentral.net https://suttacentral.net
• dang 4y ago
  If you like this, Evan Thompson's book "Why I am not a Buddhist" (a riff on Bertrand Russell's "Why I am not a Christian") is an interesting critique of Buddhist modernism. His father started the Lindisfarne Association, which was a sort of highbrow hippie ecumenical colony, well known in the post-60s counterculture (somebody here will know a lot more about this than I do!), where the likes of Stewart Brand and the Dalai Lama would rub shoulders on panels. So he grew up around spiritual luminaries and consciousness-raisers. The American adaptation of Buddhism matured in circles like this, so he had a front-row seat, but from a child's perspective. There's an interesting discussion at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heSq98tNTlM&t=9s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heSq98tNTlM&t=9s between Thompson and Robert Wright, who wrote "Why Buddhism is True" and who, although he oddly insists he isn't, seems exactly the sort of well-intentioned Buddhist modernist the OP (and Thompson) are writing about.
  • simonebrunozzi 4y ago
    This is really interesting. Thanks a lot for sharing. Right now I am reading quite a lot of stuff by Christopher Hitchens, which as you might know was very vocal about religious topics (and very much against most of it). I haven't found much that he has said about Buddhism [0], but I'll check Thompson's book very soon. [0]: https://trueancestor.typepad.com/true_ancestor/2007/05/christopher_hit.html https://trueancestor.typepad.com/true_ancestor/2007/05/chris...
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • damontal 4y ago
      Hitchens didn’t really address Buddhism in any meaningful way. He made a quip once about the Buddhist saying this glass of scotch isn’t really there and Hitchens’ response was something about how he rejected that take because he enjoyed the scotch. He seemed to dismiss it because it was a religion rather than address any of its positions in a substantial way. Probably because he couldn’t give as forceful or witty a counter argument to it as he could Christianity.
• airesearcher 4y ago
  The author has a very limited understanding of Buddhism - and as he even mentions, he has not studied Vajrayana, the higher levels of the teachings. Therefore he doesn’t really have a clue and frankly is just intellectualizing about what he does not actually understand. There are MANY completely incorrect portrayals of what Buddhism is about in those essays - based on his many wrong views and limited knowledge. This is a case of someone who failed to overcome the delusions of their own mind and instead decided to let it write essays about why that failure is not actually a failure. Nice try, but just digging a deeper hole in Samsara.
  • quonn 4y ago
    How is „ Vajrayana, the higher levels of the teachings“? It‘s one of three large subgroups. It would be like calling Catholicism the higher level of the teaching as opposed to protestant forms …
    • skissane 4y ago
      That's the traditional Vajrayana teaching. It claims Buddhism has three "vehicles" – "Hinaya" (a pejorative term for Theravada and its extinct cousins) being the lowest, Mahayana being the middle, Vajrayana being a highest. While obviously other Buddhists reject this, many Vajrayana still believe and teach it. Rather different from Christianity. I've never heard a Catholic claim "Protestantism is the lowest level of Christianity, Orthodoxy is in the middle, Catholicism is the highest". That might not be a bad statement of how some Catholics think, but I'd be rather surprised if any Catholic would ever actually put it that way.
      • quonn 4y ago
        In Zen (part of Mahayana) many historical texts calls the other two branches the „lesser two vehicles“. So some obviously also believed that.
• odiroot 4y ago
  > Also, the modern focus on meditation is, well, modern—a result of Buddhism finding purchase in the psychology-loving West as a sort of innovative lifestyle choice. Most lay Buddhists of history did not engage in meditation. This is the part that resonated the most with me. Never understood this (western) obsession with meditation. I have a few friends, born and raised in Buddhist homes; not a single one of them was taught to meditate. In any case, I still have a lot of respect for Buddhism. Remember your good friend, breath.
  • KerrAvon 4y ago
    Meditation is the fundamental novel thing in Buddhism that western religions simply don’t have. Prayer has kind of the same benefits, but as a layperson I’ve never experienced anything at a Protestant or Catholic church as powerful as Buddhist group meditation. It’s like experiencing AR but without technology, drugs, herbs.
    • kibwen 4y ago
      I think this is the effect that singing hymns is supposed to provide, though doubtlessly the euphoric effect is most pronounced in a grand cathedral with its glorious acoustics.
  • gizajob 4y ago
    But meditation is the main focus of zen Buddhism, which took the practice back to _what the Buddha actually did himself_ to become enlightened, which was sit under the bodhi tree and meditate until the truth came to him. Other Asian traditions have long reached the point where it's the monks and priests who do the Buddhism same as in Catholicism it's the Pope and the priests who are the main channels of actual Christianity. For example, Pure Land Buddhism relies on chanting the nembutsu, a chant that is designed to bring you to the Pure Land aka Heaven eventually, none of this is in the original Buddhism, hence why Zen and similar sects tried to strip out all the fluff and accoutrements that they considered needlessly tacked on to the original Buddhism, with the idea of returning practice back to what truth and reality means for you, because your subjective experience is necessarily unique to you, and any words or teaching added in to it are going to be trivial compared to what you find out for yourself about how the world presents to you and your life, hence the need for meditation to give you the space and time and peace to work that out.
• sheldorx 4y ago
  [flagged]
  • dang 4y ago
    In principle, sure, but I don't think it's a meaningful question because the contexts around Islam and Buddhism could not be more different, at least in online Western culture, which HN is part of. If an article appeared with that title, it would already be written for a completely different reason. You can't take such a title as an abstraction and perform substitutions on it and get meaningful results. Edit: I suppose I should clarify one more bit. For HN we would decide this based not on the title, but rather on the article—whether or not it can support an intellectually curious conversation without devolving into flamewar, as the site mandate calls for (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). My take on the OP was "yes it can", although we're starting to see religious flamelets eating into the margins even in this thread.
    • selimthegrim 4y ago
      If you read a bit about Islam’s encounter with Indian religions (Al-Biruni, Shahristani, Derryl MacLean), you’ll see it’s a bit more complicated than that. Islamic converts in Sindh came primarily at first from the predominantly Buddhist regions. In the Hacker News context I do agree with dang though.
  • elefanten 4y ago
    I certainly hope so. It would be quite surprising and unfortunate if not.
  • Jeaye 4y ago
    I think this is a fair question to pose and I'm glad you asked it.
• thefaux 4y ago
  I was recently reading Richard Hamming's The Art of Doing Science and Engineering which has a quotation (page 25) allegedly from the Buddha which I think gets at the heart of many of the issues described in the article: The Buddha told his disciples, "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own common sense." I say the same to you--<i>you must assume responsibility for what you believe.</i>
  • musicale 4y ago
    > Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own common sense RIP quantum mechanics, economics, public policy, law school, etc.. I do think this is good advice regarding many things however. Cryptocurrency and NFTs, for example.
    • naet 4y ago
      You can still agree with your common sense on the things you mentioned (public policy, quantum mechanics, etc). Do a little research and decide if you think it's plausible or not. You can also disagree and that's fine too. There is plenty still up for debate even if you are believing the so called "experts".
• akomtu 4y ago
  That was a pain to read. It's like an overview of software written by a psychologist who argues that curly braces cause depression. If you want to understand buddhism, learn its history, its relationship with Bon, learn how it advanced from India to Tibet and China, read the debate between Kamalashila and Hashang, and learn about the three branches of buddhism: sutra, tantra and dzogchen. All buddhists have the same goal: understand what the true reality is, but their methods differ. When you hear about ascetic monks - these are mostly caricature western views on the sutra followers, they indeed have many rules that they follow religiously. Tantrics believe that working with energy is a better way, so they have elaborate rituals, they use emotions and other forms of energy, and they aren't shy of sex; quite the opposite: many lose control and slip into black magic. Dzogchen followers take the steepest direct path, and reach the top "within one life within one body"; the famous matrix movie, even though a caricature, captured many dzogchen ideas right: by observing your perception carefully, with utmost attention and presence, you'll notice something, and by completing treg-chod and thod-gal practices, you'll reach direct perception in one life.
• csours 4y ago
  Is there a name for believing in something enough to make it work, but not so much that you really believe it will solve your problems? Like Agile Software Development - you can make it work, but it won't solve your problems. You still have to solve your problems. See also test driven development. I was raised in a strict Christian Fundamentalist religion, then I fell in love with rational skepticism, now I think I'm a humanist (whatever that means) I think humanity has evolved religion uncountable times over the centuries - our minds strongly desire an organizing principle. It is highly inefficient to avoid coming to a conclusion; but many important details hide behind things that are both true and satisfying (see Field Guide to Human Error by Dekker for how this applies to airplane crashes). I would ask that at least once a week, identify a thing that is satisfying and true, and list details that hide behind that conclusion.
  • guerrilla 4y ago
    pragmatism a la William James https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Will_to_Believe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Will_to_Believe
    • csours 4y ago
      Thanks!
  • jackcosgrove 4y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean by "make it work" (Derive psychic benefit? Continue the practices despite doubts?) I have heard the word "observant" used to describe someone who participates in a religion without believing. There can still be psychic benefits from community membership and directly from religious practices. It's also common for people to be observant for decades, so it's not necessarily a temporary state. Not sure if this is what you're looking for.
• nativecoinc 4y ago
  I learned nothing new from this piece. - Buddhist monks being celibate is well-known - Being comically (to a normal person) non-violent (the mutilation example) as an ideal is also known - Either you accept Dukkha as self-evident based on your own life experience because you realize that all good things are temporary, or you have to go deeper and have to consider the implications of eternal “rebirth” (a belief that you cannot use your experience to interrogate) - If merely “the doing of non-evil” is too simple and unpassionate to you you can merely take on the small task of being a Boddhisattva and save all beings from Samsara - “Meditation didn’t solve all my problems” (paraphrase)–you should have read the “chop wood carry water” fine print > If the conclusion you take from this story is that you should be Buddhist, you are absolutely missing the point. The point is that we should experiment with everything and pick what best fits our situation, reverence be damned. The author critiques Western Buddhism[1] and yet gives a firm “should” for individual ecclecticism, the ultimate Western spiritual-but-not-religious lifestyle. Might be nothing wrong with that, but it is for sure not a should. There are benefits to trying to stick to one or a few traditions. Maybe, for example, the tradition fits your personality and you trust the teachers. > There is a giant hole in the middle of Buddhist contemplative teachings. This is the disinclination to engage with mental content. […] > However, as a default meditative stance, it is an overcorrection. First of all, it can lead to, essentially, a scolding relationship with the mind, in which you dismiss all of your desires and fantasies as undesirable “ego mind.” See the slight of hand? “A giant hole” in the teaching becomes “can lead to”. The first part is what is taught, while the latter part is the interpretation of the student. Of course that often does happen, but having a “scolding relationship with the mind” is never recommended by any meditation teacher. It is a common trap that the student is taught to watch out for and avoid. > However. My friend Jake, reading this section, correctly pointed out that I am engaging in Salad Bar Criticism. People who like Buddhism point at some areas of the giant Buddhist meme cloud—the giant mass of traditions, observations, and modern derivations—and nod approvingly. I am pointing at other areas of the giant Buddhist meme cloud and making grunting noises. I can only hope that some of us are learning something along the way. How postmodernist to critique your own essay before we do. [1] But “Asian Buddhism” is also bad so… or maybe he gives it one point for authenticity and deducts one point for backwardsness, evening things out?
  • 4y ago
• davesque 4y ago
  Having grown up in Boulder, Colorado, one of the epicenters of self-regarding, American Buddhism, the author's skepticism is relatable. I imagine that almost every kid from Boulder goes through a Buddhist phase. Some come out the other end with useful introspective skills. Hopefully, they also managed not to acquire the odor of self-righteousness in the process. But the chances of avoiding this actually seem pretty slim. I knew a lot of folks in the scene who came off like caricatures. And of course their practice didn't seem to bring them any recognizable successes in life. That being said, it still feels like Buddhism has more of an empirical quality than any other major belief system I've encountered. But, practically speaking, the difference ends up seeming marginal. At the end of the day, it's still a religion. It takes an unusual kind of personal to distill something useful from becoming involved with it.
  • pdonis 4y ago
    > Hopefully, they also managed not to acquire the odor of self-righteousness in the process. I'm not sure the author of the article has managed that.
• bitforger 4y ago
  It makes me sad that many people will use this as an opportunity to write off Buddhist practices. Please don't! It has personally helped me greatly. Just remember: 1. The goal is to end suffering, so if a practice is making you suffer stop doing it. 2. Do what works for you. The only truth is what you can directly experience in the laboratory of your life. All the other teachings are just suggestions. And if you'd like a concise overview of Theravada Buddhism (which is somewhat easier to grok without the added teachings of Mahayana, Vajrayana, Zen, etc.) I highly recommend [1] and [2], the second of which can be read in a day or two. [1]: https://a.co/d/iiAtDs5 https://a.co/d/iiAtDs5 [2]: https://a.co/d/asUIQUR https://a.co/d/asUIQUR
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • ShamelessC 4y ago
    Anyone who benefits positively from Buddhist practices will be unperturbed by this article (as you seem to be). That's fine; but suggesting that _everyone_ give it a chance; even in the face of (frankly valid) criticism, is toxic in my opinion.
    • bitforger 4y ago
      May you and all readers be well, happy, and healthy. :)
      • ShamelessC 4y ago
        Thanks! Not sure how that's relevant, as toxicity does not cancel out in this fashion. Appreciate it in any case.
  • Narretz 4y ago
    That's not what I got from the article at all. I got that Bhuddism is vastly more complex than I've realized, and that there's good and bad parts about it, and the author himself gives pointers on teachings/directions that he likes.
• johndhi 4y ago
  My background is as a follower of Osho (the guru from Wild Wild Country). I have read some of the Buddhist texts (Dhammapada, Diamond Sutra), and I've spent some but not a ton of time with "Buddhist" teachers. My view of this article: while I appreciate anyone writing about religion today, I don't really love what the article says and it sounds a bit like a general criticism of organized religion from someone hoping it's something it of course isn't. What does it matter that your friends aren't serious or religious enough for your liking? This is ultimately a solo pursuit. What does it matter that you can find a sutra from Gautama that sounds sexist? This isn't about Gautama. What does it matter that an interpretation of what Gautama said is 'modern' or 'original'? This isn't about that. This (religion) is about your personal religiousness. Your spirituality. There's a lot of beauty in the world of Buddhism to experience. It isn't for me, either, but I'm not angry or resentful about that.
  • nineplay 4y ago
    > My background is as a follower of Osho (the guru from Wild Wild Country). That is so interesting to me and I wonder if you could answer just a couple of questions, with as much or little detail as you feel comfortable with. Do you still consider yourself a follower of Osho? What did you think of Wild Wild Country?
    • johndhi 4y ago
      Sorry for the delay, got caught up with the kid and cooking. Of course! What's interesting to you about it, out of curiosity? I do still consider myself a follower of Osho. I technically haven't taken sannyas (this is the name of the process of formally joining Osho as a disciple and receiving a new name -- eg 'Sheela' or 'Devaraj' -- and mala), but these days, in my opinion at least, that isn't a critical aspect of being part of the community. (FYI, sannyas is also a term in hinduism for renouncing your life and becoming a monk, basically, but 'neo-sannyas,' created by Osho, is renunciation-free; you're basically just saying, I'm serious about this meditation thing). I thought Wild Wild Country was an excellent documentary about a really, really juicy and evocative topic. I'm bummed that they didn't spend at least a LITTLE more time on the question of "why do these people like Osho so much" (and what does Osho have to say), but I understand that that wasn't really the point of the documentary, which was to focus on a wild, explosive story. To me, an equally interesting story is why the heck were a bunch of highly-educated, independent doctors and lawyers moving out into the middle of nowhere to be self-sustaining and celebratory? Why did they seem so much happier than everyone else in our society, at least at certain points? But the story that sells better is 'why did this lady try to kill this other guy.' I'm hoping there will be a sequel that goes in greater depth. Have a blessed day!
• Viability1936 4y ago
  It's very weird seeing people online have debates about Buddhism that actually have nothing to do with what the historical Buddha taught. Everything mentioned in the article and most comments here are akin to making arguments against Christianity based on why Joseph Smith was a fraud. To point out that vajrayana is mostly in direct contradiction to what is in the pali Canon and the Chinese agamas is a historical fact, not a no true Scotsman. The op was hard to finish after the immediate misunderstanding of the sutta on metta and bandits cutting you limb from limb. If you're interested in these topics, there are people who practice and understand them. As a general rule, it's probably not a good idea to form your opinions on meditation practice from self help blogs.
  • prisonality 4y ago
    It feels the entire article is one big strawman: I tried to find for words like: "four noble truth" or "eightfold path" and couldn't find them -- I'm not surprised.
  • int_19h 4y ago
    It's also a historical fact that most forms of modern Christianity are far removed from the original teachings; but if one tried to rebuke criticism of modern Christians by saying that they are not the real thing, that would still be a "no true Scotsman". There's no contradiction here, because the religion is not defined by what it originally was or should be, but by how it's actually practiced by people who self-identify as its followers and who are conventionally identified as such by everybody else.
    • Viability1936 4y ago
      That might be true if there were millions of people practicing a school of Christianity based on only what Jesus taught. As far as I know, there isn't, and isn't even a school based on that. Aside from that, what's described in the article is purely a western phenomenon that has emerged mostly in the last 20 years. It's arrogant (op) to pretend that that is Buddhism. They were in simultaneously critiquing it and participating in it. Edit: countries to people
• throwawaaarrgh 4y ago
  I'll never understand how some people have enough free time to write this many words just to say "actually religion is flawed". It's like the guy thought Buddhism was gonna solve all his problems, but it didn't, so now he's grasping at all these things that pissed him off and passing it off as something others should read.
• dav_Oz 4y ago
  Long lasting (religious) traditions inevitably will weave universalities of the human condition into the fabric of cultural practices. If one traces back Christianity historically, it grows more like a sponge taking in concepts and practices from its cultural rich surroundings. Before becoming the official "religion" of the Roman Empire it was wildly heterodox. Early Christianity is a wild ride. Even after being domesticated, latinized, canonized, homogenised and ultimately politicized looking back on the time line it unfolds like a fractal of cultural manifolds (e.g. "negative theology" [0] or more recent "existentialism" [1]). "Buddhism" was spread - locally more limited - similarly through conquest and enforcing social order but never gained the momentum of "Christianity" or "Islam" and thus in its smaller and more fractions contains more "diversity" and is harder to point to as a monolithic block. The exercise of bringing something to the table by being even mildly anti-Buddhist, anti-Christian, anti-#insert_religion_here# strikes me as fruitless in these globalised times and kind of weirdly pre-anthropological echoing theological reasoning. The observations obviously stem from personal experience with different facets of modern/westernized Buddhism and is more descriptive of the author's resistances than the subject which is put sneakingly forward. [0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_existentialism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_existentialism
• gizajob 4y ago
  If a philosophy doesn't work for you, then don't follow it...
• mattbaker 4y ago
  I’ve also found myself drifting away from Buddhism but I’ve been really excited to discover Taoism and the Taoist roots of Zen, which I think are often overlooked. As I’ve explored Taoism more I’ve found it contains many of the things I found wonderful about Zen Buddhism and far fewer of things that didn’t work for me. If you’re curious I suggest exploring it! Some resources I liked: Alan Watt’s book on Zen Buddhism talks a bit about Taoism in the beginning since it’s an important foundational aspect of zen. The Tao Te Ching translation by red pine, which pairs each verse with a sampling of interpretations for various scholars. It’s been a fantastic way to learn, by far my favorite translation.
  • kar5pt 4y ago
    The Taoist influence on Zen is overstated in my opinion. Most of the non-dual stuff Westerns would consider "Taoism" is right there in the Diamond Sutra (straight out of India). Westerners also typically underestimate how much Taoism has borrowed from Chan Buddhism. A lot of the similarities are because Taoism copied Zen, not the other way around.
• Khelavaster 4y ago
  Buddhism is a pit of spirituality compared to Hindu or Abrahamic traditions.
  • dang 4y ago
    Religious flamewar is not ok on HN, so please don't post like this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
• mjfl 4y ago
  I once heard Slavoj Zizek talk about Buddhism and he emphasized how it can kind of be psychopathic in a way - "I am emotionally detached from stabbing you in the throat, it is not anything more than atoms in my body carrying out their natural laws and stabbing you in the throat."
  • izzygonzalez 4y ago
    This aspect of loss of ego, extinction before subsumption of the remaining space by the superego, is precisely what has made certain types of Buddhism palatable to Western capitalism. It is not inimical to the Protestant work ethic, it is not inimical to the transient demands of leaders, it is not broken by the suffering of every day life. The perfect soldier, citizen, human, is a faceless, egoless pupil.
    • nativecoinc 4y ago
      Of course a superficial read of a philosophy/attitude/religion which might say something like “turn the other cheek” (basically), and “do the best with what you’ve got”, and “pain is certain but suffering is optional” will be “compatible” (not incompatible) with being a worker bee/soldier. But really: what does one thing have to do with the other? I think meditation retreats have enough on their plate with the human mind, so doing an introduction to Marxism might be too distracting. With enough propagandistic scholars I’m sure any religion could become pro-capitalist, pro-Japanese, pro-socialist, or what have you. Because we’ve certainly seen some insane religious justifications throughout history. But “corporate mindfulness” seems to mostly be about mind training. It’s not about submitting to the boss per se (other things are used to instill that attitude). And if Buddhism then is reduced to just that (better resilience through mindfulness meditation), then I don’t really get the complaint? Because it seems like complaining that a workplace offering free gym membership is corrupting the human activities of cardio and weight training in order to make more efficient worker bees/soldiers. And while that’s what the workplace wants, for sure, it’s not like the employee won’t also get some benefits from doing regular weight training and cardio.
  • nativecoinc 4y ago
    Z^iz^ek is the kind of person who is an anti-communist while living under Communism, an anti-capitalist while living under capitalism, an anti-Buddhist while living in Boulder, CO, and an anti-catholic while living in Poland.
• lawrenceyan 4y ago
  If you're skeptical of woo as many technically minded people on HN are likely to be, I think Nick Cammarata's (works at OpenAI) tweets are a great intro to gaining insight into the deconstructed universal values/truths that can be gleamed from Buddhist teachings: https://twitter.com/nickcammarata/status/1586760116468170753 https://twitter.com/nickcammarata/status/1586760116468170753
  • nativecoinc 4y ago
    On the contrary: I get 80% of my woo-fix from AI True Believers.
• dmingod666 4y ago
  I bet he doesn't have the same enthusiasm to write about the top 2 religions this way.
• allisdust 4y ago
  >> Intensity and difference need to be encouraged—genuine striving and passion. The courage to love fragile transient things, to form deep attachments and let them sculpt and wound you. Desire for stasis and placation is the default. Desire for something more meaningful is the relatively unsung alternative. This last part doesn't make much sense because this attachment is the default state of most beings. There is no effort needed to form 'deep attachments' nor is it any special when you why get wounded by these attachments because that's the expected outcome.
• 5cott0 4y ago
  You’ve climbed ten thousand steps in search of the Dharma. So many long days in the archives, copying, copying. The gravity of the Tang and the profundity of the Song make heavy baggage. Here! I’ve picked you a bunch of wildflowers. Their meaning is the same but they’re much easier to carry. -xu yun
• WhitneyLand 4y ago
  I think it’s great to have critical thinking as well as criticism around spirituality in general. Unfortunately this article is hard to really agree or disagree with because many of the foundational claims just don’t make sense. Just one example, it mentions indifference as a problem with Buddhism. Yet indifference is often called out by Buddhist’s explicitly as what not to do. I’d definitely recommend searching up Buddhism indifference and reading (any of?) the results. It’s not too hard to find a good amount of misinterpretations like this in the piece.
  • ajkjk 4y ago
    Well the piece is mostly about the Western opinions on what Buddhism is, and although plenty of Buddhist's probably call Indifference out as something not to do, there are also lots of "American Buddhists" who seem to espouse indifference. Perhaps because they are confused, exactly as the article and you say.
    • WhitneyLand 4y ago
      I’m not aware of any western Buddhism sources that espouse indifference. Indeed, I usually see indifference being referred to as the enemy. The “near enemy” of equanimity. Here is one Western leader specifically addressing the point: https://jackkornfield.com/equanimity-vs-indifference https://jackkornfield.com/equanimity-vs-indifference
• mirchiseth 4y ago
  This in the article is so important in almost all domains of learning "The point is that we should experiment with everything and pick what best fits our situation, reverence be damned" It is the same conclusion that Hermann Hesse makes thru Siddhartha talking to his friend Govinda in one of my favorite books https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddhartha_(novel) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddhartha_(novel)
• rmdes 4y ago
  Not "anti-Buddhist" but severe criticism of abuses in Tibetan Buddhism and inertia of Tibetan Buddhism schools, centers and Lineage Holders https://youtu.be/Sg-5CDOcsTM https://youtu.be/Sg-5CDOcsTM
• slibhb 4y ago
  I thought this was a pretty good essay. Schopenhauer thought his pessimistic philosophy was similar to Buddhism. Negation of desire or denial of self is a tricky thing. You can see the issue here with this table (from the article): https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fa3b61cc7-d8ba-4a02-a157-3c876c7344f6_1534x1316.png https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_... It's not clear that someone who doesn't "grasp" would want to have sex...or to eat. That's the conclusion that Schopenhauer comes to: someone who is enlightened would just chill without being attached to anything (think Meursault not crying at his mother's funeral). Though it may avoid suffering, that state doesn't seem worth pursuing. Maybe temporarily. Buddhists respond to that critique by making some distinction between "bad desire" and "good desire" (implicit in the table). But the line is unclear and the insightful kernel of Buddhist teaching is that desire, full stop, is what leads to suffering. Besides, Buddhist monks are ascetics, not programmers who dabble in meditation. Buddhism makes a lot more sense as a cultural practice where you have the monks who are practicitions and the lay-people who give them alms. The idea, then, isn't that everyone pursue enlightenment. It's enough that some people are pursuing it and the general population supports them.
  • jenkstom 4y ago
    Might as well make the same criticisms of dentistry... I'm not sure what you're talking about, but it isn't Buddhism.
• labrador 4y ago
  Sasha has a lot to say about the finger pointing to the moon but nothing about the moon. When I get in a similar mode I complain that California Buddhists shave their heads and walk around in brown bathrobes, but then I remember that is not what Buddhism is about.
• makk 4y ago
  > We go to meditation for relief, consolation, and wonder. We do? That’s not my experience. And this isn’t the only sweeping generalization in this essay that doesn’t jibe with my experience… though I’ve not spent time jamming on Zen Buddhism, so maybe I’m missing the point.
  • karpierz 4y ago
    To quote the article: > whenever i harsh Buddhism's vibe, some fucker brings me a "well actually Buddhists believe the opposite of that", which is way too easy given what i have now decided is the Third Law of Buddhism: > for every Buddhism there is an equal and opposite Buddhism somewhere in Asia
    • makk 4y ago
      Yeah, there’s another one of those sweeping generalizations I was taking about.
• AlexCoventry 4y ago
  I'm with him on Rob Burbea being a great teacher.
  • jackbravo 4y ago
    But seems to regret that he "ended up advocating a practice of living through self-generated mythology, as much Jungian as Buddhist"
    • NotSuspicious 4y ago
      I'm having trouble understanding what this means.
      • AlexCoventry 4y ago
        He outlines it here: https://dharmaseed.org/retreats/2678/ https://dharmaseed.org/retreats/2678/
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• brigandish 4y ago
  > Does that not sound Buddhist to you? Did you think Buddhism was the religion of flourishing and positivity? Well, here is the Buddha, excoriating a monk who broke his vow of celibacy: “Worthless man, it would be better that your penis be stuck into the mouth of a poisonous snake than into a woman’s vagina.” I'm not sure what the problem is here? Someone took a vow of celibacy and broke it. Should he be praised? Are we looking for something more middle class and passive aggressive from the Buddha? He makes his point. > And here is the Buddha on whether you should be resentful if you’re being dismembered: “Monks, even if bandits were to savagely sever you, limb by limb, with a double-handled saw, even then, whoever of you harbors ill will at heart would not be upholding my Teaching.” Rhetoric is not helpful now? It's certainly possible to criticise Buddha, Buddhism, any of the Buddhist religions etc but I would start with my most important or best criticisms, and I don't see these hitting the mark at all.
  • traes 4y ago
    I know nothing about this topic and am likely making a complete fool of myself, but I think the point they were making is that the first statement seems to be ill will for a far less egregious offense than you are told to ignore in the second.
    • 2-718-281-828 4y ago
      I give you that - a more deadpan reaction would have been better. So you broke your vows - well, that's your life and you're no longer welcome among my disciples - good bye and best of luck. No need to get angry. But that's why nobody should take scriptures literally. They go through so many ears and mouths and pens that it's effectively a telephone game.
      • ewzimm 4y ago
        This isn't about being punished for not following rules or vows. According to tradition, there weren't even any rules in the beginning, but they developed in response to the growth of new recruits. This is a statement about the gravity of the situation for a monk specifically. To live a celibate monastic life is to be extremely sensitive and also to have an abusable power over others. Sexual misconduct is particularly dangerous for someone in a position of spiritual authority. The example is extreme because it is meant to put the problem into context. Everyone can immediately think of someone harmed by religious sexual abuse, but the idea that it's the context of the sex and not the sex itself is still difficult for us to understand because of our preconceptions. Buddhist morality always focuses on intention and context. The rules for monks and lay people are completely different for a reason.
• Kab1r 4y ago
  I really enjoyed reading Buddha's first sermon, but my observations have led to me the understanding that Buddhism practiced today just does not reflect the teachings of Buddha.
• photochemsyn 4y ago
  This essay lacks any attempt at historical development, i.e. examining how different varieties of Buddhism originated beginning with its birthplace in India, onto Tibet and China, Vietnam and Japan, before jumping the Pacific Ocean in the 20th century. Instead of that rather interesting discussion, this simple straw man is set up: > "Buddhism is often treated with special regard, as if it is a superior philosophy that correctly identifies the source of all human misery, and correctly lays out the path to its elimination." Isn't that basically the premise of any religious tradition one could care to name, from the Abrahamic offshoots (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) to every other system of belief one can think of (Hinduism, European paganism, animism, etc.)? If people find comfort or psychological support by adopting this or that philosophical-religous tradition, (aka the utilitarian argument), there's not really any point in trying to poke holes in their beliefs. The only thing that's unacceptable is when members of one tradition use their belief system as an excuse for persecuting or waging wars on other groups.
  • rippercushions 4y ago
    It's not meant to be a critique of historical Buddhism as a whole, it's meant to be a critique of how Buddhism is often viewed in the West. And yes, the "superior philosophy" assumption is pretty widespread in the West, especially compared to eg. Islam. I've gotten some very surprised looks when mentioning things like how Kyoto's sohei warrior monks had violent battles between competing temples and regularly extorted both nobility and populace, the role of Buddhism in ultranationalist mob violence in eg. Myanmar [2] and Sri Lanka [3], etc. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C5%8Dhei https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C5%8Dhei [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotic_Association_of_Myanmar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotic_Association_of_Myanm... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodu_Bala_Sena https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodu_Bala_Sena
    • garbagecoder 4y ago
      Mass culture in the "west" (whatever that is, so let's just say US for the sake of the argument) absolutely gives Buddhism a pass, but it more or less gives anything that's not Christianity a pass. This is understandable since this culture is largely a post-Christian one. I think on the left there is a tendency to explain away a lot of Islam's problems too, whereas on the right there is a tendency to exaggerate them. I'm not sure what else to make of This event at Hamline College.[1] The whole Myanmar thing is quickly turned into a No True Scotsman conversation any time you bring it up. [1]https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/08/us/hamline-university-islam-prophet-muhammad.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/08/us/hamline-university-isl...
• eternalban 4y ago
  Hypocrisy is universally held to be the greatest pitfall in a spiritual path. This is a difficult ailment to self-diagnose. In the story of the monk (a hypocrite) we note Buddha's admonishment (which again is universal afaik): better to embrace disbelief ("snake's mouth") than to be a hypocrite (a lustful "monk"). It is sound advice: if you detect any symptom of hypocrisy, run to the shelter of disbelief. You will fare better in the end. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ananias_and_Sapphira https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ananias_and_Sapphira
• justicz 4y ago
  Really enjoyed this essay.
• me551ah 4y ago
  As someone who was born a a buddhist and comes from a family of buddhists, I have to say that the western view of buddhism is very wrong. It is marketed as a way to relive your stress, calm your mind and a lot of emphasis is spent on meditation and 'feel good' teachings. Buddhism is a lot more than that. If you are not getting the answers that you are seeking with meditation, then go deeper. Street relief, take deep breath meditation is not what true meditation is supposed to achieve. Deep layers of meditation, which can achieve ego-death are not calming but rather unsettling. You should also try to read up some texts like Mulamadhyamakakarika(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C5%ABlamadhyamakak%C4%81rik%C4%81 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C5%ABlamadhyamakak%C4%81rik%...) by Nagarjuna(who lived around the time of the buddha). There are many english translations of this book ( the path of the middle way) and it takes a logical approach to subjects like time, space, entities etc.
• csomar 4y ago
  I've been travelling through South East Asia and Korea/Japan recently. Cambodia, for instance, is a very Buddhist country and much like Thailand, they practice Buddhism as a religion. Cambodia has a very rich history, and Siem Reap is an amazing sight of the Angkor and Khmer civilizations. The temples on these civilizations shared both Hindus and Buddhists origins. It seems that there were some conflicts/similarities between both of these religions. But something caught my eye, and I think this is how I became biased toward Buddhism. Monks, supposedly the most innocent creatures in the universe?, were begging commercial shops in the street. In Thailand metro, monks have their own priority seats. In Phnom Penh, the religious ministry has a massive establishment with security/guard escorting the "minister?" everyday. I think, and might be wrong, that the "Buddha" was not really much different from any other prophet. A highly deranged individual. His writings were made up with time, and given the size of Asia, it had multiple bifurcations. The religion itself got used by the establishment to establish and exercise power. Not really much different from the world today. And not really different from a militaristic order. Religions benefited from a less structured and modern world, because being loose (vs. a military rule for example) made them evolve with generations and mutate into the powerful institutions that exist today. The spiritual meaning deriving from a religion might be an artifact (a side-effect?) rather than the reason of existence of religion itself.
  • esperent 4y ago
    > I think, and might be wrong, that the "Buddha" was not really much different from any other prophet. A highly deranged individual That's a pretty wild leap to make from your observations. So wild, in fact, that I'd say you really wanted to make it rather than caring about the facts. Why would the imperfect nature of modern Buddism as practiced in Cambodia be proof that the Buddha was "deranged"? Why would the behavior of any living person be proof of the mental state of someone who died thousands of years ago, for that matter?
  • frontman1988 4y ago
    Agreed. Most prophets seem to be deranged. The prophet of Islam was probably a schizophrenic, Jesus was also delusional and Buddha did some pretty extreme things like abandoning his wife and newborn son to starve himself in the forests which is not what any mentally sane person would do. And yes Cambodia, Thailand, Myanmar are all majority Buddhist countries but don't even follow the basics of buddha's teaching like non-violence given their rather violent eating practices involve killing all sort of animals.
• moth-fuzz 4y ago
  > a major element of the original Buddhist scriptures is life-denying, anti-emotional asceticism Maybe OP and I have been reading different Buddhist texts, but for me the whole point of anattā is that you affirm your life and emotions as part of a greater interconnected whole. You lose the transcendent conception of yourself, get rid of the whole 'soul' thing, you relax fully into the immanent, you realize that you're dirt - but you're dirt that breathes and thinks and feels. You don't ignore your anger and sadness and hurt, as much of Western meditation teaches for some reason, you let it pass through you, appreciated and unharmed, as you realize that our species and many others ultimately developed those emotions because they were beneficial in some way. You don't ignore suffering, as that behaviour is itself an attachment - an attachment to happiness! You have to 'challenge the question' per se. Get rid of the root problem by realizing that life is suffering. We along with many species developed the ability to realize and to feel suffering because we evolved to deal with life, not to cast ourselves away from it, physically or spiritually. This process of development ties you into the larger part of nature, and the earth in general, as a system of indefinite change in which you are a small part, like a drop in a coursing river. You're a living example of nature in action, and every time you're angry or sad or hungry or hurting or even happy or excited, that's nature working. That's not life-denying, that's affirming what it truly means to be alive. To provide a more pragmatic and less flowery note, my friends and colleagues often sow an incredible amount of dismay and frustration into their lives trying to avoid anger or avoid pain, when they could just allow themselves to feel the feelings that are already in their bodies in the first place. Oftentimes sadness is less sadness-in-itself and more like a frustration at an unmet desire to not feel sad. This desire, this attachment, is ultimately misguided. It's like seeing your check engine light flashing and thinking "I really need to stop that light" instead of "I need to check my engine". Do away with all that attachment and then feeling one's feelings simply becomes being mindful of those emotional 'indicators' and realizing that they're impermanent. The feelings are still there, there's just no attachment.
  • SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
    As he mentions later, you've been reading the narrow subset of Buddhist texts that make it into Western-facing pop Buddhism. The Amitabha Sutra, one of the most well-known and well-recited texts in the East Asian canon, explains that the solution to suffering is being reborn in a Pure Land and suggests a method for getting into Amitabha's particularly pleasant one.
• 2-718-281-828 4y ago
  > Like, if you’ve become highly invested in the idea that you’re not supposed to experience mental turbulence anymore, this will naturally cause you to avoid stress and conflict, which could, in turn, cause you to avoid growth, accountability, and humility. This. Very important insight. > Athletic Buddhism I love this term! (Competitive Buddhism) > My friend Jake, reading this section, correctly pointed out that I am engaging in Salad Bar Criticism. Jake's a good friend and the author very reflected. > First of all, it can lead to, essentially, a scolding relationship with the mind, in which you dismiss all of your desires and fantasies as undesirable “ego mind.” Interesting point - didn't think of that, yet. > Then, a few years ago, I started using introspective techniques and engaged with my self-hatred directly. This lead to an incredible increase in my mental clarity and overall well-being, which, funnily enough, made gainful meditation practice possible for me for the first time. It seems to me that the author is mostly digesting his own rather naive and dogmatic approach to Buddhism. He makes several good points, though. But generally his essays appear to me more as criticism of how the West tries to shoehorn Buddhist teachings into a culture which causes the problems we try to solve by means of Buddhism and meditation in the first place. That can't work, of course. > But the standard frontline meditation advice is still to ignore your thoughts and leave it at that. I think it’s tragically incomplete advice. But with an emphasis on "frontline". I never got the impression from modern introductory texts that thinking in general is bad or should be discarded. Quite the opposite. I enjoy thinking more during phases where I am able to successfully quiet my monkey mind interfering with sound thinking. > The aesthetic of modern Buddhism gives you the impression that being nice, quiet, and simple is the way to be, that this is Buddhist-ish living. This definitely seems to be a preconceived notion by beginners or outsiders. But as far as I am concerned I quickly realized how quiet meditation practice (without compassion, empathy exercises - which I still neglect) make me rather confident, loud, entertaining and sometimes even mean (though, 99% in justified situations - those situations where you think afterwards that a more aggressive reaction to some a*hole would have been totally warranted)
• hbarka 4y ago
  I mean, on the opening paragraph, you can pretty much replace the word Buddhism with your choice of religion. “Buddhism is often treated with special regard, as if it is a superior philosophy that correctly identifies the source of all human misery, and correctly lays out the path to its elimination.”
  • tsimionescu 4y ago
    If discussing European and American discourse, that is certainly not the case. In particular, if you replace it with Islam, you will find virtually no agreement. If you replace it with Christianity, it will only be true for how (devout) Christians view it - secular philosophy mostly sees Christianity as a major source of suffering. Not to mention, neither Islam, Christianity nor Judaism even purport to address human suffering (in this world). The first two do at least promise that suffering will stop after death if you follow their tenets - Judaism doesn't even do that (this is not a criticism of Judaism, just an observation of how it doesn't fit with the quote). Also, I don't think that Hinduism receives any significant respect from European or American scholars, especially in the many-gods forms. Zoroastrianism, Jainism, Sikhism, and Shinto are too obscure for most to even have an opinion. So no, I think Buddhism is the only one that really fits in that sentence, if we're talking from a mainstream secular European and American discourse point of view.
    • hbarka 4y ago
      Monotheistic religions most certainly do address human suffering. The very basis of religion is how to overcome our suffering (due to sin or purity test) in order to be closer to God.
      • tsimionescu 4y ago
        Suffering in this life is seen as temporary and ultimately unimportant, at least in Christianity. You are supposed to endure it while keeping your faith in God, with the knowledge that you will be rewarded in the next life, or whenever God deems it (like in the book of Job). But suffering is not something that is in your power to control: suffering happens to you for reasons you may not understand, and you can only pray that God will take mercy and end your suffering. That is essentially all that Christianity at least has to say on ending (physical) suffering.
• seahorserocker 4y ago
  I've been getting into buddhism for some time and did a 10-day retreat last fall which was eye opening. One of the benefits that western buddhists have is that the can pick any sect or version they want. It was interesting to hear some scholars talk about how the pure Pali Cannon has been turned slowly over thousands of years into more of a common ritualized religions with heaven, hell, demons, saints, etc. of other religions. My own take is that of the Thai Forest tradition, Vipassana, and others, which is to go with the original Pali Cannon and treat everything after that as suspect. Somehow this gets used against the western practitioners as cherry picking and insincere since Buddhism is completely different to people living in many parts of Asia, where they will have to light incense to get good luck at X life event, for example. So, no, I have absolutely no interest in those sects even if they are the most widely practiced in southeast Asia. However, I feel that Westerners sticking with the sects that place all emphasis on original Buddhist texts and ignoring the changes and resulting sects over the years is actually more true to the buddha even though that idea may fly in the face of someone practicing a more ritualized diety-based buddhism. I feel some of the arguments made in the article are a bit straw-man-y, cherry picking some ideas and texts from sects that aren't really practiced in the west. For instance, "First of all, it can lead to, essentially, a scolding relationship with the mind, in which you dismiss all of your desires and fantasies as undesirable “ego mind.” (I have been there. It is horrible.)" Find me a buddhist school that says you should be scolding yourself?! This would be engendering the hindrances that are in opposition to the path. This is a core teaching you would get anywhere, even a 10 minute mindfulness guided meditation - "go back to the breath and don't be upset with yourself about having lost it." There is a very real critique of buddhism which is when meditation is successful but things go wrong. I feel this is due to the Western way of stripping TOO much away, and I agree with the author here. For instance, S.K. Goenka in his Vipassana teaches to watch the body sensations but stresses over and over again about equanimity to all sensations. Some people can get carried away with the awareness of their body to a point they can't function. It seems that they missed the equanimity part of it. Staying in the tradition and having someone to help guide you would keep that pretty small percentage of people from experiencing negative effects like the one the author faced. Perhaps the answer here is better training, more monasteries, better teachers, etc. I wholeheartedly agree with the bad way western buddhism is taught as "ignore your problems and they'll go away," kind of garbage. It's subtler than that. The dumbing down and commercialization of the dhamma/"mindfulness" I blame for that. Personally, I find that I couldn't go deep in meditation unless I got through some personal issues, the more the better. Most of meditation is about bringing these issues up (for instance, negative self talk) and dealing with them in reflection. Sounds like the author didn't engage in that practice. The last point the author makes I believe is misguided. Buddhism can be a bummer, but it's based on some deep truths. I say "truths" because you can experience them. The issue is 99% of buddhists won't experience them for themselves because they can only be accessed through very advanced states of meditation and are rarely talked about. The Thai Forest tradition talks about these Jhana states quite openly. They also like to reference how the buddha talked about them all the time in the Pali Cannon but are somehow overlooked by many today. After coming down from these advanced meditation states you have an unmatched clarity of mind and can experience all the truths of buddhism - immaterialism, nonself, etc. I do understand the feeling of the lay person getting less-than-excited about buddhism due to these truths being told to them in the face of an interesting world out there. However, if you experience these states and these truths there is a very high likelihood of you losing your hair and wearing robes. I don't know if Buddhism is the best way to go about things, for instance, I think of very happy people I know who are very engaged in the world and clinging to loved ones and food, and other sensual pleasures. I'm just having a hard time doing that at the moment and Buddhism is giving me some answers - enough to have me continue the path for now.
• simple-thoughts 4y ago
  My Buddhist family relatives are constantly going to church to pray so they will go to some Buddhist heaven when they die. But the cool thing they have the Christian’s don’t have is the door stickers. They always put these really intricate stickers over all their doors. The Christian cross is really quite boring in comparison. But I would say for the family lifestyle Confucianism is much better and if you are Confucian you can go to both Buddhist and Christian church based on your mood. Of course Confucius is mysognist so the western post modernist system is superior, but if you had to pick from a religion I would pick Confucian. Though the family rituals can get boring if you do for all ancestors instead of just parents.
  • npteljes 4y ago
    > The Christian cross is really quite boring in comparison. Not just boring, it's rather menacing, as it's a device to torture-kill a person. Why the hell would I plaster that everywhere? What's wrong with people???
• KwisatzHaderack 4y ago
  > There is a dirty secret that basically everyone who spends time with meditation communities finds out. Which is this: people who let go of grasping as completely as you can—like, famous meditation teachers, or practitioners who have been at it for decades—still have problems. They are still neurotic and prideful. They still stress out about their social media accounts. They still engage in immoral behavior. While they might not report as much subjective suffering, they still act out in ways that objectively belie insecurity and dissatisfaction. There was this documentary I saw (forgot the name) that had a zen master who was making fried dough and he was extremely neurotic. Made me wonder if the neurotic types are the ones who seek out Buddhism. The real laid-back types are already ‘Buddhas’, which ironically is why they don’t seek it out.
• specialist 4y ago
  Great essay. Will reread again for some more pondering. I'm hopeful that learning some Buddhism will have some benefit. I also appreciate all the other thoughtful comments here. Plenty of food for thought. Thanks all. -- My interest in Buddhism has recently been renewed. Was very interested as kid. Taoism, Zen, reading a lot, learning how to meditate. Then I got diagnosed as terminal. Being a baby monk was very useful for coping. I wasn't freaked out about dying and everything was cool. (My stoicism was misinterpreted as suicidal or defeatist, which amped other people's freak out.) I was ready to die. Then I survived a bone marrow transplant (and all the complications). Oops. Now what? Buddhism, as I was able to understand it, was just such a bummer. When all life is suffering and nothing matters... How was I supposed to recover, rejoin the world of the living, pay rent, and strive? For me to keep going required a suspension of disbelief, some nugget of hope, to reacquire the fear of death. (YMMV.) Recently started reading again. To compliment some new skills I learned thru Swedish Pain Services, what I call "Pain College". Mostly because I'm curious about the "theory" behind my mindfulness "practice". The most beneficial so far as been Jon Kabat-Zinn. Even so, wow, these Buddhists are a real group Eeyores. I'm not interested in '90s New Age styled pabulum. I don't need anything sugar coated. I just want a better (layperson's) guide for self-improvement. For example... We've all heard of phantom pain syndrome, right? At Pain College I learned about Graded Motor Imagery. During the lectures, I was like "ya ya ya, bullshit. No way I can just think my way to a cure." But I followed along and did what I was told. Holy shit! It worked on one of my chronic conditions. It still feels like magic. The weirdest part is that it worked despite me not believing it could. So now I'm wondering what other awesome sauce techniques am I missing out on? Because I don't have the awareness or mental models? -- Swedish "Pain College" https://www.swedish.org/services/pain-services https://www.swedish.org/services/pain-services
• fairity 4y ago
  The key tenants of Buddhist are on point. That is: - Life is filled with suffering - The root cause of mental suffering is attachment or aversion However, the Buddhist solutions to these tenants is completely misguided. Buddhists suggest that the solution to mental suffering is to get rid of all attachments and aversions. If you actually practice this, life is extremely boring and lacking of motivation. The true middle path is to focus your attachments on things that are both authentic and within your control. I call these attachments 'intrinsic values'. Examples include: integrity, hard work, perseverance, pursuit of excellence. Intrinsic values are the opposite of extrinsic values such as wealth, power, fame. If you chase after extrinsic values, you are setting yourself up for failure because they're, by definition, outside your control. However, focusing on intrinsic values is resilient to external circumstances and results in higher levels of satisfaction.
• amriksohata 4y ago
  The biggest anti-Buddhist scripture has to be most Hindu scriptures and leaders around the same time or after Buddha who warns against impersonal worship of meditating on "nothingness" but instead to build a relationship with God. We are outward looking creatures given 5 senses, we aren't supposed to "blunt" them instead engage them but for a higher purpose.