Some Buddhism criticism(from a former Buddhist), My practice and withdrawl story + criticism. Options

[Joesus]

The "can't express" in words is another way of saying "i don't know" and getting away with it.

The statement in itself is relating to the idea that the absolute and enlightenment cannot be contained in an expression of words, but it is not impossible to relate the experience of it or point in a direction.
If one does not have an experience then the direction will not fill one with any experience nor draw the experience out of the absolute to be handed over to the one asking to be shown.
Generally speaking the ego will stand fast with the excuse that it does not have to give up any judgment against something until it is proven wrong.

This does not mean something does not exist, it only means someone has drawn a line in the sand and refuses to cross it without a reason.

If you use the parent child relationship to relate the idea of adulthood, the parent will be able to express their experience of being an adult with all the positive and negative aspects but if the child then grows up expecting their adulthood to be what they imagined from their parents description then will it really manifest that way?
Most adults are filled with the disappointment of not having experienced the magical ideas that are fed to them as children and then facing a reality where they are also taught that life is a certain way, people will accept you if you are a certain way, etc. etc.

The first stage of enlightenment is realizing your life is not laid out for you by your parents, your friends and the media.
Then if you progress far enough beyond that you might discover that no one has God and enlightenment in a box and that no one can tell you what it is for you and how you will experience it.

They just don't know and frankly i think no1 knows because it doesn't exist. From a viewpoint of epistemology the beyond words arguments is far from sufficient for me to believe it.

If you don't believe it then any argument is speculation based on your own disbelief and your current experience of reality.

I'll bet there is something in all religions that intrigues you, but there is a stubborn personal grudge against the essence of all of it for not making itself clear to your liking.

[Rick]

There actually are many things that, even in principle, can not be expressed in words. A simple example is trying to explain a color to a person blind from birth.

Imagine being an intelligent bat trying to explain seeing in sonar to a human.

[Rinzai Dharma]

Your comments are very nourishing to my Ego : )
Thanks.

You're welcome

Hmm, i am not sure i am familiar with term Enlightenment outside of Buddhism/Hinduism.
But there is no Unified theory among Buddhism because in my opinion it just doesn't exist and people make up whatever they want it to be.
Among the theories there are such:
Non Dual state of mind(no preference or dislike towards anything)
Magically understanding how the universe works fully and completely(direct insight into reality)
Complete self control.
Unconditional Happiness.
Loss of identification with Ego.
State of complete non attachment and non desire.

All of them sound like a tall order to me!

This is how you crudely define enlightenment in terms of words. In the real teachings of the Buddha, enlightenment is one of those things that you can't express, especially in words. That's why the Zen masters resort to actions, shouts, slaps, and other uncoventional techniques to convey their teachings. As Master Teshan said, "All these sutras and written teachings are nothing but a strand of hair in the ocean of wisdom". All those definitions of enlightenment are off the mark and just crude estimates.

The "can't express" in words is another way of saying "i don't know" and getting away with it. They just don't know and frankly i think no1 knows because it doesn't exist. From a viewpoint of epistemology the beyond words arguments is far from sufficient for me to believe it.

You are implying that the only way to convey knowledge and the only way to see and explain reality is through words and verbal expressions. But we all know the limit of words and verbal expressions. They are only estimates and definitions of reality that are fundamentally inexpressible. Like when we say "the universe", we are only speaking about our concept of the universe, considering our limited vision. No one have really seen the whole universe, but we use the word for conventional expressions and conversations. Or "the perfect circle". No one has really seen or drawn a perfect circle, it's only a mathematical abstraction that can only be mentally constructed. Or "the Truth". No one has seen "the Truth". You perhaps? :-)

[zhenka11230]

I am well aware that not everything can be described in words. Saying i implied something that stupid is offensive to me. What i said is that enlightenment doesn't exist and the "beyond words" concept is abused by the gurus to lure people into believing it does.

[Joesus]

What i said is that enlightenment doesn't exist and the "beyond words" concept is abused by the gurus to lure people into believing it does.

Actually it does exist and people believe it does regardless of anyone saying it does or not.

[Rinzai Dharma]

What i said is that enlightenment doesn't exist and the "beyond words" concept is abused by the gurus to lure people into believing it does.

Actually it does exist and people believe it does regardless of anyone saying it does or not.

Saying something exists, arbitrarily and without proof is dogmatic, just like Christianity, Islam, and other religions. The Buddha's notion of enlightenment is experiential, and it's something that is directly seen, as directly as you see your own hands.

The Buddha was reluctant to teach because he had no dogma to start with. Just his own experience and some ideas on how to achieve it. And besides, only highly advanced yoga practitioners can grasp it. He only decided to preach when he was able to enlighten his first 5 disciples. He did not force his teachings to anyone, in fact, in the Kalama Sutra, he taught the Kalamas to doubt everything and anything. He taught to only believe something if you actually experience it yourself and if it is beneficial and good.

And not all teachers, even if they experienced it can pass it. Only a handful of Zen masters were able to convey their realizations. At present, there are only 2 Zen lines-Rinzai and Soto. Even Joshu, a highly accomplished master and is quoted in a alot of Zen koans , did not have a successor.

What more can you say about present gurus? They are nothing compared to the past masters. If you find them disappointing, don't blame the Buddha and his Dharma.

[atha]

When Bodhidharma became enlightened, for seven days he could not stop laughing... Do you understand why he was laughing ?

[zhenka11230]

Buddha is a F**KING myth, stop using a myth to prove something. It is like using the story of Santa to prove Santa exists. There is NO AT ALL NONE evidence over ages and ages after Buddhas death. No one was enlightened. There were only attempts to get enlightened. What does it tell you? Use your critical faculties.

[trojan_libido]

Please zhenka, theres no need to get that aggressive. Whether or not Buddha existed is not for us to decide, but given the amount of texts speaking of a 'Buddha' we should really assume its at least partially based on the original creator of Buddhism. Show me some ancient texts that deal with Santa in the same way and I'll apologise for my ignorance.

Buddhism was passed down orally wasn't it, which would explain why there is such a gap between the events and written literature. A comparitive religous history/myth is Jesus, I'm sitting on the fence on that one, but I think its generally accepted by archeologists that he did exist.

[Joesus]

Saying something exists, arbitrarily and without proof is dogmatic, just like Christianity, Islam, and other religions.

No its saying it exists without the need to back it up with proof for someone who doesn't either believe or have an experience. It wasn't an arbitrary statement it was a counter to the idea that someone said it doesn't exist without proof which is irrational.

The Buddha's notion of enlightenment is experiential, and it's something that is directly seen, as directly as you see your own hands.

Some get glimpses of something but it passes like gas. Others live it. How about you?

He taught to only believe something if you actually experience it yourself and if it is beneficial and good.

Well, people believe in a lot of things that aren't beneficial and good that is their experience and they aren't always real, and besides beliefs change even if they are beneficial and good.

And not all teachers, even if they experienced it can pass it.

But God still loves stupid people

What more can you say about present gurus?

Some are deluded and others aren't.

If you find them disappointing, don't blame the Buddha and his Dharma.

That would be silly, Buddhism is not a following. Scripture is only a description of enlightened experience, and reality as seen from ones refined inner and outer senses. It was never meant to be a standard.
Most seek to make a comparison and match experience for experience and that is not enlightenment.

[zhenka11230]

Given the amount of text actually does the opposite(especially if you consider how much it varies and often contradicts each other). It hints to us that Buddha was not a single man but more like a collection of philosophers that were gathered into one pseudonym - Buddha.

Perhaps original Buddha existed but it can be compared to something like if in 1000 years people will think that there was a guy named Existentialism. Yes someone did create Existentialism - no doubt; but right now it is much more then one person or one philosophy. When we say existentialism - we mean a collection of philosophers dealing with the same topic but if you are careful you will notice that their opinions are far from reaching a common consensus.

It is btw generally accepted that Jesus did not exist. There is a number of authors on the topic that talk about that. Jesus was also not one person. Jesus was just one of many gurus who happened to become the most famous and become a religion.

[code buttons]

Given the amount of text actually does the opposite(especially if you consider how much it varies and often contradicts each other). It hints to us that Buddha was not a single man but more like a collection of philosophers that were gathered into one pseudonym - Buddha.

Perhaps original Buddha existed but it can be compared to something like if in 1000 years people will think that there was a guy named Existentialism. Yes someone did create Existentialism - no doubt; but right now it is much more then one person or one philosophy. When we say existentialism - we mean a collection of philosophers dealing with the same topic but if you are careful you will notice that their opinions are far from reaching a common consensus.

It is btw generally accepted that Jesus did not exist. There is a number of authors on the topic that talk about that. Jesus was also not one person. Jesus was just one of many gurus who happened to become the most famous and become a religion.

The sun of god is the Son of God. I thought that was common knowledge around here. If he did exist two thousand years ago, it was just a self-declared mesiah, and an impostor. A charlattan like so many we see around even nowadays.

[Rick]

When Bodhidharma became enlightened, for seven days he could not stop laughing... Do you understand why he was laughing ?

The Cosmic Joke?

[Orbz]

When Bodhidharma became enlightened, for seven days he could not stop laughing... Do you understand why he was laughing ?

The Cosmic Joke?

Mania?

[Joesus]

Given the amount of text actually does the opposite(especially if you consider how much it varies and often contradicts each other).

It would appear that way from an unenlightened state of mind.

It hints to us that Buddha was not a single man but more like a collection of philosophers that were gathered into one pseudonym - Buddha.

More likely that what Buddha experienced and spoke of was not new nor restricted to a single experience, but that all experience from an enlightened perspective becomes Unified in the stability of One presence objectified multi-dimensionally.

Perhaps original Buddha existed but it can be compared to something like if in 1000 years people will think that there was a guy named Existentialism.

I suppose if you were really reaching and weren't that intelligent.

Yes someone did create Existentialism - no doubt; but right now it is much more then one person or one philosophy.

No, someone may have given a name to a condition of experience and perception, and that may have connotations amenable to many different beliefs in the condition, but no one created it, someone discovered a name for their experience.

When we say existentialism - we mean a collection of philosophers dealing with the same topic but if you are careful you will notice that their opinions are far from reaching a common consensus.

Then when you say we you stretch your imagination to believe others would assume what you do and that others will accept reality as you experience it without much conscious thought.

It is btw generally accepted that Jesus did not exist.

First I've heard of it. I guess I don't prescribe to generally accepted ideas without first checking into what's available to the awareness.

There is a number of authors on the topic that talk about that. Jesus was also not one person. Jesus was just one of many gurus who happened to become the most famous and become a religion.

There are a number of spiritual authors who would say that God is not one person, and that Jesus having said, "I and my Father are One" didn't mean that Jesus was the One God.

I haven't run into the multiple Jesus theory, but I fully accept and experience the Christ as multiple manifestations within humanity.

When Bodhidharma became enlightened, for seven days he could not stop laughing... Do you understand why he was laughing ?

Absolutely

[atha]

Relax deeply inside yourself -- into the eye of the cyclone -- and you`ll know...

"For narrow is the gate that leadeth unto Life..."

[atha]

For Rick...

"Chess is the game of the Gods. It has infinite possibilities." Vladimir Nabokov

"At the highest level, chess is a talent to control unrelated things. It is like controlling chaos." Garry Kasparov

"The Expert Mind", Scientific American, August 2006, vol.295, no.2

[zhenka11230]

Quotes quotes quotes... Where are the arguments from your mind.

[Joesus]

I believe the quotes refer to a greater truth in reality than argument.
Vision often comes in the wake of stillness and open mindedness.

[atha]

Zhenka,
When you will understand the meaning of Ka, you will stop complaining...

Zhen-KA = Zen-KA

Quote = KA - Wot ( Wot = to know ) -- Knowledge of Ka

Know = KA+Now

[zhenka11230]

I am not complaining i am just criticizing you.

[atha]

"The divine souls come forth upon the earth to do the Will of their KAs..."

From the Egyptian Book of the Dead

[Deshan]

Siddharta Gautama is a historical figure. The codification and compilation of his teachings is also a historical fact. This result of this council is the Tripitaka.
To quote a religious history site:
"
After the Buddha's death, his disciple Mahakasyapa took over leadership of the Sangha. One of Mahakasyapa's first acts as the new Buddhist leader was to convene a council of 500 arhats to collect and preserve the Buddha's teachings.

The First Council, as it is known to Buddhist history, took place at Rajgir, the capital of the Magadha kingdom. The Buddha's most important disciples were asked to recite his teachings from memory.
"

Then there was the 2nd Buddhist Council. This council was convened to settle some disputes on the interpretations of Siddharta's teachings. This council led to the formation of the precursors of the Mahayana.
The Mahayana Sutras were generally accepted to be written by Buddhist monks that were against the conservatism of the early monks.

[Rick]

For Rick...

Thank you, atha. I read the Scientific American article. Ten years of study to become an expert in something.

[atha]

Rick, are You familiar with The Urusov Gambit ? By the way, there`s the latest book by Garry Kasparov, "How Life Imitates Chess"

[Rick]

Rick, are You familiar with The Urusov Gambit ? By the way, there`s the latest book by Garry Kasparov, "How Life Imitates Chess"

I have seen the Urusov Gambit in study of openings but I don't think I've ever played it. It's very aggressive. I have been known to play the Bishop's Opening occasionally. Lately, I've been experimenting with the Nimzovitch Defense (1.e4 Nc6). If you can find a copy of Nimzovitch's My System, you should read it. It's quite interesting. Aaron Nimzovitch invented hypermodernism in chess.

Kasparov is a very interesting person. I haven't read his new book. I did follow his games against Deep Blue, both matches.

[Cassox]

So you studied under what type of Buddhism? SGI right? You realize that that most all of Japanese Buddhism is based more off of Nichiren that Shakamuni. Most forms of Buddhism don't rely on "faith", master-disciple relationships, or dogmatism.

[project-2501]

Is it just me, or didn't Siddhartha Gautama suggest that each much find his/her own path, and that there is no one path to enlightenment? Not to mention the eightfold path is just a guidline which is custom fit to the individuals, no different than the Golden Mean. It seems that anyone who claims to be a Buddhist to me, is not a true Buddhist, as they are not forging their own path but rather becoming indoctrinated.

Well at first it may seem to but again this type of thing is exactly what i mean. People make Buddhism into what they want to see but not what it actually is.

Maybe the problem is sometimes people use Buddhism as a cure, and sometimes it doesn't work, and this leads them to conclude that Buddhism is a farce. Stripped of all cultural trappings , verbal and linguistic complexity, in the final analysis , the ultimate goal of Buddhism is freedom-total and complete psychological freedom. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, especially if it gives you road maps and techniques to achieve it. Even the western philosophers with all their realizations and conclusions , theories and hypotheses , lumped together wouldn't match the accomplishments of the Buddha- for himself and for other people who used his teachings. The realizations of the westerns existentialists are second-hand, they did not experience freedom themselves. They don't know how. I don't think Nietzche, Kierkegaard and the rest of the gang attained this freedom during their lifetime. Their realizations reached their brains but not their hearts , their minds but not their souls. Maybe this is comparable to your experience. The Buddha as much as possible avoided speculations precisely to stop people from turning his teachings to an organized philosopy or religion. The Buddha's teaching is all about freedom and how to achieve it. All the rest are useless chatters and unnecessary additions that hardly do justice to the true psychological genius of all time - the Buddha.

I assume your knowledge of Buddhism is limited to the Myth of Buddha(his life) but you never actualy read the suttas because again you are making shit up on the go....

If you want to simplify what he taught to one sentence it would be "suffering and how to put a stop to it"
in all my years of studying Buddhism i never heard word "freedom" used even once. Except maybe for "freedom from reaction". His focus of thought was human suffering. Freedom is a existential concept that he does not deal with at all. Nietzsche and the rest were perfectly aware of Buddhism while writing their works btw... It puzzles me how people like you keep coming up with these I KNOW THE ESSENCE OF BUDDHISM AND THE REST GOT IT WRONG type of responses. In my time i read like billion of them. Some will say Buddhism is about detachment, some love, some activism, some rebellion, some freedom...

Your response equals to a statement such as Christianity is about loving your neighbor! Isnt it like .000001 percent of it? It is like picking one sentence out of the whole bible and completely ignore the rest 99.9%. You did the same with Buddhism and your essentialist approach.

Can I just say that I have had virtually the same path as you so I completely understand. First was xtianity, which is garbage, then I got seduced by Buddhism. Luckily I never got into it as deep as you, however. I have been to china and Thailand where the complete dogma of Buddhism in all its superstitious glory can be found and seen.

However I think that this is true of all religions, eventually the dogma becomes a trap. That is not to say that some of what Buddhism says is not true. It is these sayings that make Buddhism so alluring in the first place, there is definitely some logic in there. I think the key is always to take from it what makes sense to you and leave the rest.

My main query to you is this, why do you say that the enlightenment experience is a myth? What leads you to believe such things? Surely even the experiences referenced in this website http://brainmeta.com/index.php?p=expandconsciousness the experience of enhanced consciousness etc should be enough to at least perturb your mind direction in this way?brainmeta

[zhenka11230]

Well i am specifically fighting the Buddhist notion of Enlightenment. There are probably a lot more definitions of enlightenment as there are of God. I just do not believe we can know everything about universe in a glimpse of realization but then again i admit i do not know but i saw no evidence of it being true - ever.

[Cassox]

Well i am specifically fighting the Buddhist notion of Enlightenment. There are probably a lot more definitions of enlightenment as there are of God. I just do not believe we can know everything about universe in a glimpse of realization but then again i admit i do not know but i saw no evidence of it being true - ever.

Ah. So then do you acknowledge that Buddhism can bring about personal growth? Ok, I knew a man who was initially quite racist. He used his ignorant rage as a focal point to workout, train etc. When he was older and had grown past his racism, he rescued a black man who was being beaten by a few young whites.

Now was his initial thought process ignorant? yes. But one can achieve growth THROUGH ignorance. It gave him the strength to stop a number of people trying to hurt someone. Afterwards, he actually spoke to these guys and tried to make them be more compassionate. He got through (somewhat) because he came from a similar background. You've probably grown through these experiances regardless of the fact that they are "superstition."