Here's my take on some issues, I welcome others to discuss and
add their own points.
All elements of Buddhism were borrowed and taken from already
existing ideas in India.
Not true. All other religions talk about God, and an Atman
(Self/Soul).
This is what sets Buddhism different from them.
We don't talk about an Ultimate Source, we talk about
Interdependent Origination.
We don't talk about a Soul, we talk about Anatta, No Soul.
This is why Buddhism is unique.
As Archaya Mahayogi Shridhar Rinpoche says:
To Buddhism, any system or paradigm which propagates such an
unproven and improvable dream as an eternal substance or ultimate
reality, be it Hinduism or any other ‘ism’, is propagating
spiritual materialism and not true spirituality. To Hinduism such a
Brahma is the summum bonum of its search goal, the peak of the
Hindu thesis. The Hindu paradigm would collapse without it. Since
Buddhism denies thus, it cannot be said honestly that the Buddha
merely meant to reform Hinduism. As I have said, it is a totally
different paradigm. Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Jainism are all
variations of the same paradigm. So truly speaking, you could speak
of them as reformations of each other. But Buddhism has a totally
different paradigm from any of these, not merely from Vedic-
Hinduism.
"What doctrines, it must
now be asked, were special to Buddhism? Not Karma, that was common
property which Buddhism shared.
Of course, Hinduism teach some form of karma. It can be argued
that even Christianity teach some form of karma: you reap what you
sow.
Whether the details of it are the same, is another question.
Not in asserting that a right mind was superior to sacrifice,
that was a primary doctrine of the Jains, and pre-Buddhistic, both
within and without the pale of Brahmanism.
He wasn't clear what he meant by 'sacrifice'.
Not in seeking a way to salvation independently of the Vedas,
that had been done by many teachers in various sects.
Agreed - but only a minority such as Jainism.
Not in the doctrine that defilement comes not from unclean meats
but from evil deeds and words and thoughts;
No. Human affliction and defilements are not caused by evil
deeds and words and thoughts: rather, evil deeds and words and
thoughts are the results of latent human afflictions and
defilements caused by ignorance and grasping and craving.
Btw Buddhism talks about 'clean' and 'unclean' meat too, see
Five Clean Sources of
Meat
Buddhist writers themselves say that is derived from previous
Buddhas.
Not that it is 'derived', but that the previous Buddhas taught
in this way as well.
Buddhas that are long forgotten through the passage of time and
not found in those days. In fact nobody would have even knew that
there were past Buddhas had Buddha not mentioned it, since it was
so long ago that it was entirely forgotten in history.
Not in the search for peace through self-control and
renunciation; that was the quest of a myriad recluses and all
previous Buddhas.
Agreed. Buddha belonged to the tradition of Shramanas, which
consists of recluses.
Not in the view that there is a higher wisdom than that attained
by austerities; that, too, is pre-Buddhistic.
Wrong. After six long years of practicing austerities and
ascetism and also practiced with yogis and entered altered states
of consciousness (particularly seventh and eight jhana), later he
found them to be useless in attaining enlightenment.
He rejected that path, left that path, before he became
awakened.
Not in the doctrine that non-Brahmans could join an Order and
attain religious blessedness; other orders were open to men of low
social status and even to slaves. Indeed, the rigid separation of
caste was not yet established in the early days of Buddhism.
Contrary, the rigid separation of caste was already existing
well in those days.
"The historicity of
Buddha is accepted by all. But there is no unanimity of the date.
In Sri Lanka, 483 BC is accepted as the date of his nirvana while
in Burma 544 BC is accepted. In Tibet it is believed to be 835 BC,
while in China, 11th century BC is the accepted date. Buddha was an
Indian and the Indian Puranic tradition believes that the nirvana
took place in 1793 or 1807 BC"
Based on evidence, I will follow the 'accepted' date. Anyone can
come up with a date on their own, but I look at evidence.
Stories of "The Buddha" are compiled stories from multiple
people and multiple events, canonized and amalgamated, there was no
singular "Buddha" as is traditionally taught in Buddhism, and no
aspect of Buddhism is other than that you'd expect to find in early
India.
The suttas are recited and 'compiled' in a single Buddhist
council of 500 enlightened monks two weeks after Buddha's
passing, with Ananda presiding and reciting everything he
remembered and being checked and confirmed by the other monks.
Those compiled stories have been checked and agreed by all those
monks before they were accepted.
There IS a singular Buddha.
In short, it is entirely possible that there was no Buddha and
that the stories of the Buddha's life were merely the same stories
of similar lives of other sages, given a new catchy name.
Obviously the author is very ignorant of the process of how the
Buddhist scriptures were compiled and recorded.
Some modern Buddhist apologists have acknowledged this and said
that Buddhism is the revival of the stories of the last
Buddha, thousands of years beforehand, therefore claiming that
Buddhism pre-emptively informed Indian beliefs. This is similar to
the Christians saying that Satan planted on the Earth many
religious beliefs similar to Christianity in the first century, so
as to discredit Christianity when it emerged. Such explanations
seem to be rather paranoid and rash! The truth is, Buddhism and
Christianity were copies of earlier beliefs developed in the same
way as other religions developed from culture and history.
If that author has any inkling of understanding of the doctrine
of Anatta and Dependent Origination which are radically different
from all other religions, he would not have made such ignorant
comments.
According to the 2001 National Census, in England there are 152
000 Buddhists, 0.3% of the population.
What we think of as "Buddhism" is too limited by the Pali
scriptures and too influenced by self-help mysticism, whereas
Buddhism contains much more in the way of superstition, ritual and
dogma than we'd like to see.
Superstitions, rituals and dogmas are added elements
long after Buddha's passing. They are not the
original teaching. These elements are also conditioned by the
locals' cultural conditioning wherever Buddhism went.
Western Buddhism is simplified, compartmentalized and has its
real heart removed. The community (sangha) of Buddhism in the West
is completely missing[Jones, p275-6], Buddhism is a social
religion, not a solitary one, yet in the West Buddhism is practiced
completely solitarily. What most Westerners think of as Buddhism is
hardly any more than New Age mysticism with a more respectable
name.
Contrary, I actually see many enlightened Western Buddhists who
have a profound understanding of the Dharma. Such people are able
to clearly differentiate 'New Age mysticism' and 'True
Buddhism'.
Buddhism is not suited to specialized cultures where life, work,
pleasure, relationships, entertainment, spirituality, are all in
different boxes.
Cultures have always been specialized since ancient times.
And Buddhism has survived in such cultures since ancient
times.
Just because you live, work, have relationships, doesn't mean
you can't have a spiritual life. To think otherwise is utter
nonsense and goes against evidence of enlightened Buddhists who
have a very balanced life.
Buddhism is too dogmatically holistic, whereas New Age is the
opposite: Dogmatically individualistic. What many Westerners
consider Buddhism is merely the more respectable elements of
Westernized Indian New Age.
The author did not explain what he means by 'dogmatically
holistic'.
I have not encountered anything like this in Buddhism.
In Buddhism, ultimate transcendental reality is nirvana,
complete abolition of the self. The same dilemma faces Buddhists as
faces theists: Why is it that there are any beings at all that are
not in this perfect state?
There is no first cause, only beginningless conditions and
ignorance.
In other words, there is no point in time in which ignorance
started in which prior to that was a state of 'purity without
ignorance'.
There has been ignorance all along, a fundamental ignorance that
has no beginning. Why is it there? Due to causes and conditions,
which spring beginningless-ly.
The common defence is that it is somehow better if little bits
of consciousness are deluded for a while before returning to
Nirvana... but how can anything be "better" at all, when compared
to Nirvana? How can Nirvana be bettered? If it can be "bettered",
how is it different from the real world? The questions have
remained unanswered by Christians and Buddhists for two thousand
years. The answer is that there is no God to put people
into Heaven, and also there is no Heaven or Nirvana for the forces
that be to usher us in to.
I shall not answer to this argument, because this is the
argument of Hindus, not Buddhists. Buddhists do not think of
'little bits of consciousness are deluded for a wihle before
returning to Nirvana'. We do not think that consciousness come from
a Nirvanic state, then return to that Nirvanic state.
Consciousness has been samsaric from the beginningless time,
until it realizes its true nature and experiences Nirvana.
Thusness addressed the question of first cause years ago to me,
and I wrote this then based on what he said:
Actually we don't have an original nature, we have an empty
nature, that has no beginning nor ending. To visualise a purest
state from the start is a dualistic view. Emptiness is not a void,
not absence of suffering, emptiness is the nature of suffering and
all phenomena. Getting 'lost' and becoming dualistic is natural
when we develop those conditions that make us 'lost', for example
being attached to our luminosity is one of the factor. When
condition is there, samsara (dualistic vision) simply
manifests...
The assumption that there is a purest state and we will not
becoming dualistic is itself a dualistic view. There is no purest
state, when condition is there, delusion manifests, every states
are dependently originated and are empty, and being empty all
states are equally pure. Suffering too is empty and pure. Even the
state of delusion is empty and pure but we just don't recognize it
due to our karmic obscurations (or deep conditionings, karmic
propensities of falsely projecting 'self' and 'inherency') that
blinds us from seeing.
And no, realising the luminosity aspect alone can't lead to
liberation. As I said... other religions talk about that aspect as
well and not just Buddhism, but when its empty nature is not known,
it becomes a metaphysical essence, and all phenomena becomes like
dust on the mirror. And then there is a mirror reflecting external
conditions. That becomes dualistic and 'inherent'. The cause of
samsara is still not uprooted, and one of the fundamental causes as
Thrangu Rinpoche* stated is the attachment to luminosity due to not
perceiving its empty nature. If you read
my friend's experience you see that there must be further
insights into the anatta and sunyata nature of awareness.
But emptiness is also not just empty, so you must realise the union
and inseparability of luminosity and emptiness. Having conviction
in our luminous nature as everpresent, never lost, is important,
but having glimpses of that pure luminosity is just the beginning
and we are still far from perceiving its nature.
*
Thrangu Rinpoche answers: If the nature of mind is this
all-pervading, brilliant union of luminosity and emptiness,
ungraspable, how is it that it could be obscured, even for a
moment, let alone lifetime after lifetime?
To be continued...
