Has Buddhism irked you before?

Don't know that Buddhism has ever irked anyone. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't ever remember a Buddhist fundamentalist carrying out a suicide bombing, or killing children from a helicopter gunship, or molesting children. Never hear anything about it in the press.

Hey, a new thread from one I started. Cool! Buddha may need to go on the Atkin's diet, but other than that....I dunno how Buddhism has irked me. Why tree....perhaps you could start this thread off by mentioning why Buddhism has irked you. Go for it! We shall follow.

Buddhism is IMO the least irksome religion out there. If we all followed some or all buddhist practices this world would be a far, far better place.
Ceili

I don't find much irksome in the teachings of the Buddha. However in the misrepresentation of his teachings among many supposed followers... yes, I do. The hard side of Buddhism leads one away from superstitionist teachings, yet because 'churches' require figureheads you get all this 'reborn Buddha' nonsense... the idea of reincarnated perfect beings who should be placed upon pedestals. Much of this comes from the Japanese versions of the religion, steeped as they are in Shintoism, and from mystical style Taoist interpretors. Also reflexively over the last century many orientals have reacted to Catholicism and the like and recast the argument of living in the moment to respond to the western idea of living in anticipation of the reward/punishment.

But I think this complaint of mine extends to all mystical teachings of value. Rather than turn inward and traverse the hard road to enlightenment, which carries no identifiable trademark, many seek pat answers that fall back on heaven/hell, good/evil, angel/devil devices.

I recall that the dog has the buddha nature, and place no man before any fine canine. I hold hard to the precept: do not go where the red buddha is, do not stay where the red budhha isn't.

Answer: no

Just asking
Nah I'm Buddhist and Buddhism has never irked me before, so I'm just asking around to see if anyone has been pissed off by it before. :wink:

Re: Has Buddhism irked you before?


I have read hat Buddist are more prone to suicide tendancy than any other Religion. I may by wrong...

Re: Has Buddhism irked you before?


I'm sure you are!

Don't know much about Buddhism. No Buddhists have ever attempted to shove their religion down my throat. Therefore, Ruddhism has never irked me.

Too bad that I can't say the same about some other religions!

I was just referring to tendancy :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/31/newsid_2973000/2973209.stm

Suicidal? Nope.
I do not believe that Buddhists that have learned the Buddha's teachings properly will be suicidal because Buddhism clearly DISAPPROVES of suicide.

Just to add to that thought, I wouldn't consider suicide for political reasons a natural 'tendency' amongst an entire people.

Buddhists should have lower suicidal tendancy because Buddhists learn "non-self", and as long as a Buddhist practices that, he should not have any emotional problems that lead him to suicide. Unless say the world depended on a Buddhist's death.. then I do think he will be suicidal However there will still be those not liberated and enlightened, who resorted to suicides for whatever reasons.

(cavfancier) "Buddha may need to go on the Atkin's diet" --> u refering to the "laughing buddha"? There has been only one Buddha in recorded history (although Buddha mentioned that he is neither the first nor the last being to be enlightened and the next buddha will be Maitreya), which is Sakyamuni Buddha. the name "laughing buddha" is a common mistake or wrong description of a supposingly incarnation of the Matireya *bodhisatva*, not yet buddha.

As for Sakyamuni Buddha 2500 years ago, i think he is neither fat nor thin

and nope, buddhism never irked me in any area, i've yet to find any irkable things about it.

suicide, like killing of any sort, is not condoned by Buddhist teaching.

However, suicide and killing ARE sometimes committed by Buddhists. Sometimes the person committing suicide, or homicide, may even be a highly regarded monk, or Master. I know that must seem shocking and even antithetical to many. How can two seemingly opposing concepts coexist? How can we reconcile the apparent contradiction?

First, a core Buddhist concept is that our perceptual reality is illusory. Ultimate Reality is indivisible, complete and Universal outside time and space. The mundane world of multiplicity is made up of "false" notions of "this and that", "good and bad", etc. There can be no good without evil, no now without then. That which happens in the world of multiplicity is ultimately of no more importance than the previous night's nightmare. Does this mean that we should go about the "Floating World" doing whatever we please? Should we wantonly harm or cause pain to another without hesitation just because they, and we, are insubstantial?

Suffering is the central consequence of the Illusory World of multiplicity. We suffer from being torn from a warm and comfy womb and being thrust into a cold world where boundaries are everywhere. We fear what may happen to us from the Other, and sometimes the Other does hurt us and cause pain. We want what we can not have, and suffer when what we do "have" is lost. We become injured, or ill. Time in its passing is marked by our growing old, enfeebled and finally by death. We all want to be free from suffering, to regain the unity, completeness that we last experienced in the womb. Buddhism is the prescription for that terrible disease of "existence".

When we think, speak, or act in ways that increase suffering the Illusory World becomes generally stronger. Grasp and pursue your own desires, and you will suffer more than if you cultivate detachment. Inflict pain on other creatures, and your own attachments to the world of suffering will only increase causing more suffering. For Buddhists, the greatest merit comes from mitigating the amount of suffering that permeates this Floating World. Our greatest "sin" is to contribute to the causes of suffering, or to think/speak/act in ways that increase suffering. This raises several thorny problems.

All thought/speech/action inevitably contributes to some degree the continuation of the Illusory World (Maya, in Sanscrit). We can only escape suffering by "stepping off of the Wheel" by becoming as fully Awake as possible. Theravada doctrine is that each must awaken themselves, but Mahayana sects allow for the gradual awakening and the transference of merit from the Blessed to those not yet ready. Both aim for release from suffering, the extinguishing of duality. Most Buddhists belong to the Mahayana/Tantric tradition, so the though/speech/action of one is an important element in the effect of the Illusory World has on the overall reduction of suffering. We choose, and act in its self of duality, one course of action over another. The degree to which suffering is either mitigated or increased provides a standard for choosing what thought/speech/action is "good", and which is "bad".

But, how can we know the effects of our thoughts, our words, or our actions on those around us? We have imperfect knowledge of what others think and feel. We do not know with any great certainty what will cause pain, and what will mitigate it. Buddhism does give us some guidelines, but ultimately a well-intentioned thought/word/action will have an unintended effect. We punish a child for playing in dangerous ways, and the child will certainly suffer from the punishment. Is the parent's punishment meritorious, or not? By causing a little suffering by a harsh word, or even a little physical pain we may prevent greater suffering later. A child who is never subjected to suffering can develop no understanding or appreciation of how their thoughts/words/action will affect others.

The layman, monk, or Master who decides to commit suicide, or homicide, has convinced themselves that their action is necessary to prevent a larger and more terrible suffering. They should also appreciate the possibility that they are wrong, and that their well-intentioned act will increase suffering more than it mitigates it. assassinating a tyrant may bring to power one who is even worse. Burning oneself to death in a public place may, or may not, bring down a government. Perhaps a regime should be brought down, or perhaps its evil exists mostly in the mind of the activist. In any case, suffering will result as it always does from thought/word and deed.

Ultimately the dream of multiplicity continues, and our efforts may come to nought.

The so-called "Laughing Buddha" is a depiction of Ho-Tai.

Ho-Tai supposedly lived about the time that Bhodidarma came into southern China. Ho-Tai worked in the monastary kitchen, where his appetite for comfort food led to his enormous size. He was a good-natured fellow who did his work with intense concentration, but always could find a way to bring laughter to the sometimes somber monks. He is said to have been especially favored by Bhodidarma.

One of Ho-Tai's favorite pursuits was to go into the surrounding villages to hand out little food treats, and home-made toys to the children. As a consequence, his appearance always drew a crowd of happy people. Ho-Tai did preach a bit of Buddhist doctrine to the folks, but mostly he just spread his kindness and love of happy laughter as far as possible.

After Ho-Tai died, his memory continued and legends began to grow up around him. As so often happens in Chinese folklore, the exploits and fame of a person eventually led to his becoming a minor god to the people. Little statues of the fat monk who taught laughter found their way onto Confucian and Taoist alters. Ho-Tai became a "patron saint" of happiness and good luck. When the Foriegn Devils came to China, they naturally carried home with them statues of the good-luck god, and they called the statues the "Laughing Buddha".

Actually, not a bad concept. Our religion is meant to metigate suffering and to promote a world where laughter and well-being grow ever grreater until the whole of the illusory world disolves back into Ulitimate Reality. It may be a dream, but let's make it as pleasant as possible.

I was just playing ignorant and poking fun at the popular 'laughing buddha' figure. Call it my Zen sense of humour . I am fairly well-versed in Buddhist thought and texts actually (but always learn more when Asherman posts), although I don't consider myself Buddhist. I would also concur that it is probably the least irksome of all religions. Scientology, on the other hand, tops the irksome list for me.

Personally I don't think there's any reason to feel irksome about Buddhism... unless one is too dogmatic in some faith. Buddhism emphasizes tolerance, never had any parts in the doctrines that says "hey you MUST believe this, it MUST always be correct, if you don't listen you're gonna die!" and the peace, compassion, tolerance, all adds up to make Buddhism, as far as i noe, the least irksome religion/teaching. Not only that, its amazingly compatible with science, and its starting to get popular in some western countries.

Could you plz xplain about Budhismz compatibility with science ?

I think I have discussed that in previous posts. Einstein himself (third or fourth time quoting this here) said "Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity".

I'm not saying everything we learn in Science has been written in Buddhist scriptures, because even if its written in buddhist scriptures then, not all will be understood. All I'm saying is that it is compatible. Cosmology and quantum physics are examples that are very accurate. In fact, "scientific claims" in Buddhism are already proven now. In Buddhism there is a way to count the age of the universe... and its 13 Billion years, similar to what scientists claims (10 to 13 billion years). Buddhists believe that this planet Earth has gone through many many changes through ages, according to sutras, mountains can turn to plain land, plain land can turn to mountains, sea can turn to land, land can turn to sea. Buddha also said there are 84000 (defined as Uncountable) unseen living organisms living in a cup of water, while those people in the past did not exactly understand what Buddha said, it is proven now. Buddhists also believe that there are 10 billion (or 1 billion i cant remember) sun systems (solar systems) in the universe. It is also written that after this universe ended in a violent process, a new universe will be formed, and it's a long cycle. Buddha had also describe atoms and things like that. So it's like from the smallest things, to the furthest and largest thing - universe, its all described in Buddhism. There are quite a number of other interesting things, you can search the web if you want to read.

If you're interested to hear more about "Science and Buddhism", there's a good speech you should check out: http://www.bswa.org/audio/mp3/Brahmavamso_2001_10_19.mp3

The famous Buddhist speaker studied some kind of physics that also deal with the universe etc.

As far as I know there isn't much, or anything at all in Buddhism (i've yet to find any), that modern science disapproves on. However again, Buddha puts his emphasize of Buddhism in "removing sufferings from this world" rather than finding out truth in material things, or science.