Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
We really should make no exceptions for Buddhism. To add to my essay, there’s another dangerous tenet which is similar to Christianity: “Saving face”. To say bad things about people to people is considered a bad thing. Because of this, all people pass their exams in high school and even university. This leads to doctors who are unqualified, and many people in Laos and Cambodia (where there is no regulation or responsibility) who can afford it will go to Thailand (where, though Buddhist, actually they are held responsible because of their closer ties to the western world) to have any sort of medical diagnosis. On top of that, yelling is even frowned upon so that telling someone to watch out for a truck 100 ft away sounds unreasonable to them. In undeveloped worlds, Buddhism is dangerous, and perhaps could be as dangerous with the “necessary suffering” tenet I discuss in my essay.
Hi, wattscape.
A key point that you make is, “Whether these differences are an effect of culture or of religion it is again perhaps hard to say.”
Perhaps many important factors determine the evolution of a culture. Undoubtedly, religion is a significant influence in S.E. Asia; but to what extent is the culture moulded by the religion and, conversely, the religion moulded by other aspects of the culture? Regarding sexism, am I wrong in thinking that it has been prevalent in most non-industrialised, or frankly primitive societies? And let’s not forget that our occidental cultures do not have a perfect track record, even in recent history.
Regarding the passive acceptance of suffering as a virtue, or a duty, I agree that this can be interpreted as nothing short of apathy, and it’s conceivable that in some cases it can amount to criminal negligence. A related philosophical problem is that of reincarnation and karma. This can be interpreted to mean that people deserve whatever misadventure or hardship befalls them, and are therefore unworthy of help. This is an attitude that I have encountered.
Yep. I entirely agree. However, my main goal was to point out that regardless of which influences the other, the cultures’ sexism IS supported by Buddhism. That is easy to see. Just like sexism is supported by the Abrahamic faiths.
I just don’t like it when people give exceptions to Buddhism because it is still unworthy of humanity.
Yes, I agree that while it’s less easy to criticise than other major religions, Buddhism, as commonly practised, is certainly not flawless. An ancient, morally fossilised religion in a modernised society is problem enough, but the problem is exacerbated when that religion is embedded in a society that lives largely by fossilised cultural traditions. What we appear to be witnessing in the west is a new renaissance. Let’s give it a helping hand, and just hope it doesn’t go to our heads.
Wattscape,
An excellent article! I had no idea that Buddhism was as sexist as the abrahamic faiths. I don’t understand why Buddhism is considered more enlightened since it also encourages passivity and suffering as a virtue like you mentioned, and an abhorance to thinking and even being itself. It seems a religion/philosophy based on a fear of life and experience, and a desire for complete annihilation of the self.
There’s a pervasive attitude, especially among liberals, that all things Eastern are somehow wiser and superior to Western thinking.
On the other hand, meditation, universally advocated in Buddhism, can produce positive results. Furthermore, the Buddhist philosophy has some very constructive things to say. One major way in which the Buddhist texts differ from other religious texts is that they stress the importance of questioning all things, including Buddhism itself. Quite a rational, scientific approach to life, the universe and everything, as far as I can see.
I read your blog and while i agree with you on some points, i feel you have got some things wrong
One of the most common traits of all religions is prejudice, and there is no escape for Buddhism. Both Theravada and, up until recently, Mahayana Buddhism have been the propagators of sexism. Women are seen as inferior reincarnations of life forces and it is believed that only male humans (monks to be more precise) are capable of reaching nirvana. Women are taught, or rather told, to pray or hope that in the next life they will be male. The women cannot even be allowed to sit with or touch a male monk. This distinction directly results in not allowing women to become monks. Perhaps, one might say, that this is actually an advantage to the female species if I claim Buddhism is so horrible. But a Buddhist monastery is not the place of eunuchs like we see with Christianity. There are many perks to becoming a monk in the developing world, including: free education, free food, free time, and unquestioned free will to leave the monastery at any time.
unfourtunately there has been a sexist element in Theravada and Mahayana in their “home” countries, this however is nothing to do with the actual teachings of the Buddha since there is no sexism in his teachings at all. He allowed women into the sangha (buddhist monks and lay people), he taught that women have the same capacity to practice the teachings as men and can even instruct other men as well as he could. He even praised some women for their teaching skills. The sexism we find in asian buddhist today is a result of the prejudeces of the cultures that buddhism was introduced into, its the result of the short sightedness of men, not the teachings themselves
The issue is currently being addressed, in the west there are many women buddhist nuns and teachers, and in asia there is an attempt (which is coming along quite well) to reintroduce the women nunhood and put and end to this unbuddhist sexism
The bit about women having to wait until they are men (in the view of reincarnation that some people have in buddhism) is actualy a jain (and i think hindu) concept, nothing in the pali canon like that at all
However, there is a far more dangerous tenet of Buddhism that fails mankind - that is the idea of necessary suffering.
This is a gross misunderstanding of buddhism. Buddhism teaches that suffering is not necessary. The whole practice is to remove suffering, not to hold onto and praise it
Again like the Abrahamic faiths, Buddhism teaches that each cycle of life through reincarnation is played out by karmic principles related to past live and the respective current life
This is a one sided interpretation but sadly its the only one most people know about since its the one protrayed in the media the most and has been absorbed by the new agers
The other side is that there is no rebirth in buddhism, a claim that can be supported by the teachings themselves. Its one that is supported by some highly respected monks as well, for example Ajahn Buddhadasa
To call something a foundation of the Buddhist Teachings is only correct if firstly, it is a principle which aims at the extinction of Dukkha [2] and, secondly, it has a logic that one can see for oneself without having to believe others. These are the important constituents of a foundation.
The Buddha refused to have any dealing with those things which don’t lead to the extinction of Dukkha. Take the question of whether or not there. is rebirth. What is reborn? How is it reborn? What is its kammic inheritance [3] ? These questions are not aimed at the extinction of Dukkha. That being so they are not Buddhist teaching and they are not connected with it. They do not lie in the sphere of Buddhism. Also, the one who asks about such matters has no choice but to indiscriminately believe the answer he’s given, because the one who answers is not going to be able to produce any proofs, he’s just going to speak according to his memory and feeling. The listener can’t see for himself and so has to blindly believe “the other’s words. Little by little the matter strays from Dhamma until it’s something else altogether, unconnected with the extinction of Dukkha.
(Dukkha is the pali word for suffering, stress, dissatisfaction etc and dhamma means the buddhas teachings, natrual truth etc)
and also the supreme patriarch of thailand (sort of the head of the thai buddhist community) has said this
the subject of cosmology appeared in Buddhism is clearly can be seen that it is not ‘Buddhist teaching’ at all but an ancient geography. The concept and belief about it was included in Buddhist Canon merely because of strong influence of popular belief of the time. Later Commentaries further explain about heaven and hell in a greater detail distant itself from the original teaching of the Buddha. If Buddhism teaches such belief on heaven and hell it would not be Buddhism at all but an ancient geography. Buddha wouldn’t be the Buddha who delivered the Noble Truth and ‘timeless’ message for mankind.’ (p. 1) (end of the quote) He then shows in his teaching that the concept of heaven and hell in Buddhism are in fact symbolic, representing the quality of mind and spirituality instead. One can be in heaven and hell in this very earth and life. No need to wait until one dies…*
So you see the teaching that most people associate with buddhism, isnt held by all buddhist and there is a good argument to say that rebirth was never really a buddhist teaching anyway
For them, the Buddhists, if they could repay their past life actions by suffering so then they could be reincarnated as a more privileged human being. What a novel idea indeed!
This is another misunderstanding of the teachings of the buddha, he never taught that people should just give up and say it was meant to be, this is called fatalism and is something he heavily critized in his teachings
However I do agree with you that the sexism that is sadly prevelant in asia is something that needs tackling
Wattscape,
An excellent article! I had no idea that Buddhism was as sexist as the abrahamic faiths. I don’t understand why Buddhism is considered more enlightened since it also encourages passivity and suffering as a virtue like you mentioned, and an abhorance to thinking and even being itself. It seems a religion/philosophy based on a fear of life and experience, and a desire for complete annihilation of the self.
There’s a pervasive attitude, especially among liberals, that all things Eastern are somehow wiser and superior to Western thinking.
Buddhism does not encourage the view that suffering is a virtue, the whole teaching is about how to rid oneself of all suffering and stress and lead a happier more peaceful life
How can you treat a problem if you dont acknowledge that its there? (not you personaly)
The Buddha was also excused of being an annihlationist himself when he taught, something that he denied
He said he doesnt teach annhiliation, just the fact that suffering/stress/dissatisfaction exsists in our lives and the way to remove it
I read your blog and while i agree with you on some points, i feel you have got some things wrong
One of the most common traits of all religions is prejudice, and there is no escape for Buddhism. Both Theravada and, up until recently, Mahayana Buddhism have been the propagators of sexism. Women are seen as inferior reincarnations of life forces and it is believed that only male humans (monks to be more precise) are capable of reaching nirvana. Women are taught, or rather told, to pray or hope that in the next life they will be male. The women cannot even be allowed to sit with or touch a male monk. This distinction directly results in not allowing women to become monks. Perhaps, one might say, that this is actually an advantage to the female species if I claim Buddhism is so horrible. But a Buddhist monastery is not the place of eunuchs like we see with Christianity. There are many perks to becoming a monk in the developing world, including: free education, free food, free time, and unquestioned free will to leave the monastery at any time.
unfourtunately there has been a sexist element in Theravada and Mahayana in their “home” countries, this however is nothing to do with the actual teachings of the Buddha since there is no sexism in his teachings at all. He allowed women into the sangha (buddhist monks and lay people), he taught that women have the same capacity to practice the teachings as men and can even instruct other men as well as he could. He even praised some women for their teaching skills. The sexism we find in asian buddhist today is a result of the prejudeces of the cultures that buddhism was introduced into, its the result of the short sightedness of men, not the teachings themselves
True, Buddhism is ill defined in terms of what it teaches (it’s open in that respect) but it is taught by many of the head monks that women are inferior. That is a fact. Regardless of whether the Buddha thought that (which he very well may not have) Buddhism as it exists today does teach that.
The issue is currently being addressed, in the west there are many women buddhist nuns and teachers, and in asia there is an attempt (which is coming along quite well) to reintroduce the women nunhood and put and end to this unbuddhist sexism
The bit about women having to wait until they are men (in the view of reincarnation that some people have in buddhism) is actualy a jain (and i think hindu) concept, nothing in the pali canon like that at all
Mahayana Buddhism is/has changed quite a bit, especially since the Dalai Lama, after pressure from a woman who wanted to become a monk, has stated that there should be no restriction of women in monkhood. Theraveda has not made such progressions. I don’t doubt that eventually this may change, in general, just as woman equality has come a long way in Christianity.
However, there is a far more dangerous tenet of Buddhism that fails mankind - that is the idea of necessary suffering.
This is a gross misunderstanding of buddhism. Buddhism teaches that suffering is not necessary. The whole practice is to remove suffering, not to hold onto and praise it
It’s not my misunderstanding. Its what they, the Buddhists, believe. I’ve asked them. I’ve read interviews that say the same thing. Because of the karmic principles, they believe that if something bad happens to them it is because they did something bad. In order to balance the karma they have to suffer in some way to eradicate the bad karma they’ve created. Because of reincarnation, they have no problem attributing suffering to what they did to past lives - easy displacement.
Again like the Abrahamic faiths, Buddhism teaches that each cycle of life through reincarnation is played out by karmic principles related to past live and the respective current life
This is a one sided interpretation but sadly its the only one most people know about since its the one protrayed in the media the most and has been absorbed by the new agers
The other side is that there is no rebirth in buddhism, a claim that can be supported by the teachings themselves. Its one that is supported by some highly respected monks as well, for example Ajahn Buddhadasa
I’m beginning to see a theme here. I’m not discrediting all Buddhism. I’m discrediting the majority of Buddhism - more emphasis on the spiritual type of Buddhism.
To call something a foundation of the Buddhist Teachings is only correct if firstly, it is a principle which aims at the extinction of Dukkha [2] and, secondly, it has a logic that one can see for oneself without having to believe others. These are the important constituents of a foundation.
The Buddha refused to have any dealing with those things which don’t lead to the extinction of Dukkha. Take the question of whether or not there. is rebirth. What is reborn? How is it reborn? What is its kammic inheritance [3] ? These questions are not aimed at the extinction of Dukkha. That being so they are not Buddhist teaching and they are not connected with it. They do not lie in the sphere of Buddhism. Also, the one who asks about such matters has no choice but to indiscriminately believe the answer he’s given, because the one who answers is not going to be able to produce any proofs, he’s just going to speak according to his memory and feeling. The listener can’t see for himself and so has to blindly believe “the other’s words. Little by little the matter strays from Dhamma until it’s something else altogether, unconnected with the extinction of Dukkha.
(Dukkha is the pali word for suffering, stress, dissatisfaction etc and dhamma means the buddhas teachings, natrual truth etc)
and also the supreme patriarch of thailand (sort of the head of the thai buddhist community) has said this
One main tenet of Buddhism is that you can believe whatever you want to believe. Even Buddha’s teachings are susceptible to fallacy under no contradiction of Buddhism. You can be a Christian Buddhist, an atheist Buddhist, etc. But the commonly practices Buddhism is what I am targeting and in the common practice what I describe does happen.
I want to point out, in case it was missed, that Buddhism in terms of a pure philosophical standpoint I have probably NO qualms with. It’s when people follow the dogmatic spiritual side of Buddhism that I begin to have a problem with because, even though it wouldn’t have to be this way since Buddhism is loosely defined, the Buddhism that is practices and taught in the majority of Buddhist followers does teach prejudice and suffering.
Are there not many Christian sects that have radically different views, and are not all supported by some aspect of Christianity?
True, Buddhism is ill defined in terms of what it teaches (it’s open in that respect) but it is taught by many of the head monks that women are inferior. That is a fact. Regardless of whether the Buddha thought that (which he very well may not have) Buddhism as it exists today does teach that.
I wasnt denying that there is a problem of monks teaching these things, as i said its because of their own cultural prejudeces and not the teachings themselves (even though they sadly peddle them as buddhist teachings). There is however an active effort to combat this from other monks, east and west
Mahayana Buddhism is/has changed quite a bit, especially since the Dalai Lama, after pressure from a woman who wanted to become a monk, has stated that there should be no restriction of women in monkhood. Theraveda has not made such progressions. I don’t doubt that eventually this may change, in general, just as woman equality has come a long way in Christianity
I dont know all that much about Mahayana since i follow Theravada teachings, Theravada is also starting to make progress ( i think the order of nuns has been reestablished in sri lanka now) although i will admit it does seem a bit to slow for liking
It’s not my misunderstanding. Its what they, the Buddhists, believe. I’ve asked them. I’ve read interviews that say the same thing. Because of the karmic principles, they believe that if something bad happens to them it is because they did something bad. In order to balance the karma they have to suffer in some way to eradicate the bad karma they’ve created. Because of reincarnation, they have no problem attributing suffering to what they did to past lives - easy displacement.
I apologise, you just sounded like that was your understanding because of the way you wrote it. The sad fact is that most Buddhists in asia now dont actualy know that much about the teachings. They mostly just go on basic tenents and stick heavily to traditions that are nothing to do with Buddhism. For example many Thais believe that nibbana is a city you go to after you die, so they believe its a special heaven. This is obviously a complete misunderstanding of the buddhas teachings since nibbana is not a heaven or place you go to after death but a state of mind, but because of just going on tradition and not learning the actual teaching, people develop these ideas
I’m beginning to see a theme here. I’m not discrediting all Buddhism. I’m discrediting the majority of Buddhism - more emphasis on the spiritual type of Buddhism.
Spiritual doesnt have to mean supernatural does it?
One main tenet of Buddhism is that you can believe whatever you want to believe
i disagree with this interpretation of buddhism but i feel this is probably another topic
But the commonly practices Buddhism is what I am targeting and in the common practice what I describe does happen.
I agree it needs changing
It’s when people follow the dogmatic spiritual side of Buddhism that I begin to have a problem with because, even though it wouldn’t have to be this way since Buddhism is loosely defined, the Buddhism that is practices and taught in the majority of Buddhist followers does teach prejudice and suffering.
I take it when you use the word spiritual you mean superstitious? if that is so then i agree with you again, the problem as i said earlier is a strict following of traditions and beliefs that arent buddhist in origin and a lack of learning in reguards to what buddhism actualy teaches
Are there not many Christian sects that have radically different views, and are not all supported by some aspect of Christianity?
There will always be a spliting of opinion on certain points when there are enough people discussing it, this is true of religion, philosophy, politics etc but the point is that the problems in buddhist societies in asia today are not a result of the buddhist teachings themselvels, but the culture and tradititons it got absorbed into
Good article.. It’s really sad to see the buddhist teachings getting molested the way it does in the “buddhist” countries..
Luckily it hasn’t caught on in the buddhist communities in the west.. Getting adopted by free, intelligent and critical westerners was probably best thing that could ever happen to buddhism..
Good article.. It’s really sad to see the buddhist teachings getting molested the way it does in the “buddhist” countries..
Luckily it hasn’t caught on in the buddhist communities in the west.. Getting adopted by free, intelligent and critical westerners was probably best thing that could ever happen to buddhism.. :)
A lot of western buddhism is just as delusional. I attended a Buddhist retreat out of curiosity and found out they devote a lot of time to praying for dead things and praying to heal people across the world using the Blue Buddha. It’s ridiculous.
They also will prevent animals from eating other animals because it is their belief that any animal that kills will pay in karmic retribution. They would rather the animal starve than to have it kill, not only for the animal but for themselves since saving the life of an animal is good karma. I asked the monk how starving a spider isn’t killing in itself. She responded that the spider could eat some bread crumbs if it wanted to. It was such a retarded response and she moved on before I could say that a spiders stomach couldn’t digest non-animal products. Bah.
The other thing about western buddhism is that a lot of the sects have incorporated a sort of “Cosmic Buddha” to appeal to monotheistic religions for conversions. The fact that they make these assimilations begs the question of whether western Buddhism will head towards the same direction of Christianity since Christianity relied heavily on assimilation with other religions in its beginnings (Mithras et al).
Keep in mind, there are o lot of different kinds of buddhism, each with a different approach.. This is not (only) because there are disagreements, but because each person is different and thus needs different methods..
Some people just seem to prefer the superstitious approach, buddhist or not..
Keep in mind, there are o lot of different kinds of buddhism, each with a different approach.. This is not (only) because there are disagreements, but because each person is different and thus needs different methods..
Some people just seem to prefer the superstitious approach, buddhist or not..
Yes, no two people are identical, but I would say the differences in question are distinctly regional rather than individual, cultural rather than philosophical. Thailand, for example, is recognised as a Buddhist nation, yet the culture is steeped in Hinduism and the earlier native animism. Seems that few Thais give a thought to the why and wherefore of belief, and philosophy is for those who “think too much”.
