Critical analysis on buddhism and all other religions

Buddhist are as any other believer of any other religion are significantly mislead{now you must be angry but keep reading as Buddha as far as surmon in “Kalama suthra”advice you to keep an open mind be analytical (which I admire but this is in contradiction with many of the impractical teachings of Buddhism)} .You people call your religion the truth and guess what, so does the others who believe in other religions.Calling something is true based on faith(do not give me the irrational argument that Buddhism does not require faith “saddha is just another word for bakthiya“) is just an assertion but to make it an argument who should back it with reason and for an argument to be a fact it should be underpinned by evidence.NO religion including Buddhism can do this and only science can and only science will.And if somebody thinks that morality and civilization came about as a result of Buddhism or any other religion it is an false assumption.Morality is an inherited by humans and all animals with sufficient level of reason with the excption of humans having the ability to refine and organize morality in oder to create civilization(for more details see social contract principle) and it must be said with clarity and evidence(of course you will only understand this if you have read about other religions books about philosophy,logic and evidence) that religions are not the source of morality but just documentations of morality.All religions acts as deice of governance,this has been the purpose of religions even with the tribal formats of them where the leader wanted unquestioned authority and power.Religions are based of fictions which introduces super natural characters like God,Buddha or Allah to create that’wow” feeling inside you to get your attention and control your autonomy under those super natural characters whose orders or guidance are if disobeyed would lead to hell or more suffering and if followed would lead to haven or nirvana(what ever might be the concept behind the reward it is still a reward).This is also named by me as the”donkey tied to the cart principle”(mail me if you want to know more).Now you would be thinking why should Ilisten to him,who is he and how dare he criticize the establishment and who is he compared to LORD Buddha who suffered billions into trillions of years in search of truth and more than that who suffered for us,preciselyleading to my point that you have been hypnotized by the mythical stories(as stories are scientifically proven to impair reason to a level where it result in drawing the listeners to state of trance where you feel that “Oh so wow’ a.k.a Holly!.This mechanism is used so often in religious preachers and you will so often notice this if you carefully analyse the formula of Bana deshana.(there are more techniques that are used by religions such as chanting to hypnotize devotees.And another reason average intelligent people adore religion is because they find it difficult to understand the world as it is and they feel very uncomfortable with the realities of the(do not tell me Buddhism represents reality cause so does say the other religions and saying is not enough and just because it sounds rite does not infer it is does not represent the truth you have to prove it or should leave it as a theory) the world which simply characterizes humans as mortal beings with no existene after death where as religions attribute divine,eternal and sansaric lifes to us, whom can develop super natural powesr which can be developed by meditaion or prayer.Religion gives people a divine identity by associating them self to super natural creatures who become the saviors of man kind and yea some time all creature of the universe and by giving them hope about an alternative reality(nirvana, haven)to a level that they get so addicted to it they behave on schizophrenic and retarded manners such an obsessive praying or chanting , sacrificial acts(I know Buddhism is not that extremist,but it does justify suicidal acts if it is done to archive nirvana which you should be very careful when allowing a child to read and also protect children from the stories of hell that can impact the fragile mind of a child and horrify children which in future would have serious consequence on once personality) in other words simply to say it makes us feel like we live in a fairy tale.Imagine so many times you have prayed in front of clay statues and gone round and round trees expecting it will cure you sins(Apala) and chanting till the morning thinking it will bring prosperity to the people(if so Sri Lanka must be the most developed country in the world,which obviously is not)and chase off evil spirits and welcome divine creatures and worshipe people just because they where a particular dress(Chivareta wadinawa) which when collectively appreciated can be classified as schizophrenic behavior which allows me to humorously say that if the writer of harry potter lived in the medival times we would be worshiping Harry potter and all the brooms in the world since he used brooms to save humainty(Which kind of anologise with buddha and the boa tree or jesus and the cross),which can be academically termed as miss use of symbology.

To show you one impractical and controversial principal lets for a moment regard the fist precep of the five precepts which is that under any circumstance buddhist can not kill any animal or living thing.Concern should be given to ‘under any circumstance’ so that this principal’s validity can be tested in respect of the war we had in Sri Lanka to determined whether the war heros are according to above principle of buddhism siners who undoutable killed LTTE carders.I call them my heros and my saviors but in line with buddhism they will be termes as siners with bloond on there hands so as you can see buddhism simply states to us that we should have not destroyed the LTTE.What is the practical solution that buddhism stipulates when some body or some organization acts offencively towards us,ot would simply say that sacrifise you life as “Paramithawa”.If followed these conduct there would not have not been any buddhist left in this country.It is humerous to see how the Sangas bestow there blessings to army men who is in fact going to act in contrary to the principals they believe in I could not stop my laughter when I saw such a thing happenig and I felt ashamed as to the deceving nature of monks and to see the stupidity and unpricipled behavior of it follows who either did not understood the apparent contradiction or while understanding did not have the courage to stand upto this ammusing behavior.When you look at the instance where Buddha was asked to explain why his family and relatiives in Magadha Kingdom were slautered by enemies of that state he preached that thay had to die in such a horific way because once in a past life they had been fishermen and they had enjoyed looking at how the fishe die.See if they had such onsequene for fishing then think what degree of pain would be put upon by us and the army heros by karma for killing humans(LTTE) and celebrating the victory(the true salvation of our country).This is only one twisted peiciple of buddhism whic potrays impractical features of it.To illustrate a contradiction comparison should be made between 1st precep of “pansil” and the “Dhasaraja Dharma Pricipals” which requires the king to safe guard his subjects from foriegn forces and in order to do so to have an army(not to say sadu sadu)to fight for the nation where as the 1st pinciple requires not to kill under any circumstance.

I have made my point and presented it simply as I could and I can not help you if you can not understand the simple logic that I have used in the context,but keep an open mind when reading and criticise my arguments,but with solid counter arguments of intellectual value and of substance not like ” I know it si true cause I saw white lights or Buddhism is only of intelligent people(In my opinion it is for litrature lovers) and not for sinners,as science is not about worshiping an authority but to challenge the authority with on view in mind that is to discover and understand the truth by proper methods(not by closing your eyes and doing silly stuff to experience bliss) which have serverd man accurately.

Finaly,I would like to site an authority,which is somthing I usually do not do as I preffer my oroginal ideas free from authority to most possible extent,which in this case I would site since my idea,which originated independently from Albert Einstien’s(One of the greatesr minds ever) idea, has the same meaning that simply says that do good and to refrain from the bad you do not have to believe in an aftr life and therefore rewards od punishments,just do what you do to fulfil the purpose and that if we humans do good to get merits(PIn/Kusal)

or abstract from bad to avoid punishment(suffering experienced due to Pau/Akusal).

We do not need religion to be moral and loving,it is in us as humans,religion only divides humans.Remember my friends we are one species and we should not depend on these abussive religious authorities whom have divided us and feed on our hard erned money and inhabitates the progress of the human kind.It is time to act!

Advertisements

About lstlee
Simply a person possessing an independent mind that is unafraid to question the authorities and one who advocates morality and rational thinking and evidential acceptance.

30 Responses to Critical analysis on buddhism and all other religions

  1. Sam says:

    Buddhism as a religion is destructive as the next religion. Basic Buddhist religious practices are venerable as any other. Sanga’s are most corrupted without a doubt.

    But if you want to seriously go in to Buddhist principles, I suggest you to spend more time understanding the subject a bit more fittingly. It will make the post more intellectually honest and interesting. For example, concepts such as “not under any circumstances” are not Buddhist. And Buddhism does not depend on faith nor treated as truth nor does it carry caned truth. Buddhism does not document the “morality” either. Regarding authority, Buddha categorically rejected authority (even thought monks now greed for power. ) Buddha did not “suffered” for any one nor tries to save everyone nor did he say he suffered becoming the Buddha. You cannot find solution to problems like LTTE in Buddhist books nor should you, in any form of religious books. (again, monks are a deferent story.)

    Sort of deaths at Magada are not a result of Buddhism. People die like that every day. Only deferent here is connecting that event with another. (I think you are not somehow trying to suggest solders were amusing themselves looking at how enemies die. I like to believe that’s not the way solders conduct the war). Solders or Magadas’ are not sinners, nor there sinners in Buddhism. The argument you made here is not about Karma, but about level or morality. Just because you believe it is morally correct to kill LTTE, it does not make it absolute. It is just another belief among many. But Karma as a concept is deferent argument. You can argue there is no such a mechanism in place if you wish.
    Overall I think you should not have presented as simple as you did. Ambiguity in Buddhism as a religion and a philosophy make it difficult to explain without going in to bit deep.

  2. Sam says:

    Typo as usual : Basic Buddhist religious practices are “not venerable” but should be *vulnerable* as any other.

  3. lstlee says:

    This article was prepared for a Buddhist group on fb(I made it sarcastic as possible and less formalistic since these people will not reply unless they are provoked).I did not want to go to issues such as karma or nivana since it was required to do because it could be simply illustrated that Buddhism is unpractical praima faci.I have studied Buddhism deeply and I find no need to go that deep,actually I do not think it is that deep though they present confusing,illogical and unrealistic doctrines.
    My justification of the attack against the Ltte is not my opinion alone.
    Necessity.
    I justified it along the lines of self defense and necessity.
    In this respect the defense of the state and it’s people.
    1)The act against ltte was necessary to avoid unrepairable and inevitable evil.
    2)No more should have done that is done to achieve such purpose.
    3)The evil caused must not be disproportionate to the evil avoided.
    Defense of the state.
    The government has a moral right and a legal duty to its citizens to protect them and the state(this is in the Dasaraja Dhamma but it contradicts with the first precept)

    • pravnj1408 says:

      Oh its not deep at all. Its only an illusion. An idea perpetuated by the eastern fetishists who find anything eastern “deep” and “spiritual” if you find Buddhism “deep” then you are much more like someone from the west than a so called “eastern: scholar.

      Its actually a very simple philosophy. Very primitive. Just to highlight one fact. Lord Buddhas take on biology is that the human body is composed of 5 elements (hmmm another magic number just like the Greeks!!) patavi, vayu blah blah blah..primitive.

      I rest my case.

  4. lstlee says:

    Sorry I pressed the submit button accidentally.
    The government has a moral right and a legal duty to its citizens to protect them and the state(this is in the Dasaraja Dhamma but it contradicts with the first precept of pancil)from economic, environmental and internal and foreign threats by strategic(policy/political) or military means.

    These are not only expounded by me though I have contemplated these practical doctrines independently.

    If you need me too debunk the notion of karma request me or you initiate a forum,this is an ope offer.

  5. NaughtyButNice says:

    When I saw the heading, I thought, finally a post which criticised Buddhism ! ( Which this blog has lacked). But lstlee you seem to ramble on muttering your thoughts with brackets inside brackets, run on sentences and atrocious spelling ! Your post comes just after a brilliant piece by Mr.Mapatuna. Take a read at his and may be you could learn a thing or two; Install a spell checker, gather your thoughts, segment it and write slowly.

    Now regarding the contents, once again I was looking forward after seeing the topic,but the first para itself you state so many theories of your own and statements without any proof or facts. *yawn*.
    Buddhist texts in no way approves suicidal acts, even to achieve Nirvana ! If you know a text, or a source, please share it with us ?!

    And the Dasa-raja-Dharma is the follow : charity,virtue,self sacrifice,rectitude,gentleness,simplicity,absence of rage/enmity, kindness/justice ,patience,absence of obstruction.

    Your interpretation of Dasa-raja-Dharma is Wrong ! As simple as you may think your point is, I sure don’t see it. Your tough love approach (or rather arrogant approach) will put off readers, and would have yielded more readers if you showed more respect and compassion. And some might say that’s why we do need religion ! (although you claim humans don’t need religion to be loving and moral.

    I agree on two things, Sangha is corrupt ! Science is about challenging limits !

    Look forward to reading more !

    • pravnj1408 says:

      Excuse me but I believe that we have devoted a number of posts on Buddhism and I have consistently criticized the sangha..

  6. Lahiru. says:

    There is no doubt that my essay writing skill is weal and it is needs improvement,thanks for the advice I humbly accept it and will attempt to provide better post.I’m quite young and needs a lot of work.But the general point I’m suggesting is apparent;that buddhism as any other religion exploits people and the most teachings are impractical.U should have presented it in a more academic manner.
    Yea I’m not sure about the name of the story but this is not sited that much because of its potential harm,the story goes as this a monk has cut his neck using the pain generated out of it to achieve nirvana through “vedananusuthi”.The monks reported this to Buddha only yo here that the monk’s act is not wrong and also pointed to the sky and told “there goes Maraya as the black smoke” and stated that he is free for sansara.And there are more common stories such as “sirisagabo” and the story where he jumped into the pit to save the life of a starving tigress by becoming food for her.(These may encourage people to do such acts irrespective of the motive).A better point is that the concept of “paramitha” that requires from one in order to attain nirvana one should sacrifice his life,give a part of his body and anything on may posses.I assume that you have good knowledge of Buddhism so go and check.
    Thanks for pointing out my mistakes that is what exactly I want.

    • NaughtyButNice says:

      fantastic, glad you appreciate constructive criticism, as do I. If you do some research, You will find a recent on the net, you might find a academic paper on the simple arguments or the moral message, hidden within the Pansiya panas Jathaka. The author, whom I cannot recall at the moment, argues how well the moral message is embedded by the story teller and argues it is one the most outstanding religious stories recorded. Now, this statement by me is absolutely worthless as I cannot back it up with a reference. However, if you do find that article, you will also know that the Pansiya Panas Jathaka were recorded long time after the death of Lord Buddha.

      I hope you noted the Dasa-raja-Dharma as well as my comparison to your “sarcastic” stance and your concluding para, where humans don’t need religion. I will gladly try to find out about the story of the monk who cuts his neck. Theres no such thing as sacrificing your life to achieve nirvana. Only to be free of worldly attachments and benefits. Reading is the best way to gather your knowledge. If you have based these opinions on stories you’ve heard, Its not a very academic approach is it ?

      I often find humility, humbleness and compassion would be a good way to get a point across. I don’t claim to possess a wealth of knowledge on Buddhism as you do, just what I have read and learned by questioning.

  7. Sam says:

    Alright. Let’s talk about LTTE issue. According to the Buddhism, killing LTTE or let LTTE kills you, both paths are equally not the correct paths. Yes. It is illogical and confusing. We are creatures depending on readymade doctrines such as religions to give us black and white guidelines and refusal to make our own morality or take responsibility for our actions makes this sort of concepts further confusing. But it is not the case, in the real life nor in Buddhism. That makes Buddhism a difficult topic to argue against without bending the facts to fit the “truth”.
    Bottom line is Buddhism (not what we have in Sri Lanka now) refuse to involve in social engineering or politics or kings duty. Best example is Angulimala story. According to the story Buddha stopped the serial-killer therefore he had capacity to stop him any time earlier and saved thousands of lives. But he did not meddle in social policing. Eventually he stopped the fellow not to save victims but to save the killer because killer’s mother asked his help.

    Dasaraja darma or any precepts are not laws. If one contradictory to other you suppose to compare that with the rest and ignore one does not match.
    Sure why not! Lets talk about Karma too.

    Hey! Einstien said don’t waste your time on face book groups! not worth it!

  8. Punchi Baba says:

    “Finaly,I would like to site an authority,which is somthing I usually do not do as I preffer my oroginal ideas free from authority to most possible extent,which in this case I would site since my idea,which originated independently from Albert Einstien’s(One of the greatesr minds ever) idea, has the same meaning that simply says that do good and to refrain from the bad you do not have to believe in an aftr life and therefore rewards od punishments,just do what you do to fulfil the purpose and that if we humans do good to get merits(PIn/Kusal)”

    You site Albert Einstein as your authority. But his is what your authority said about Buddhism:

    “The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description .. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.” — Albert Einstein

    http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Theology-Albert-Einstein.htm

    That’s a pretty huge endorsement of Buddhism by the authority you use to back up your writing, don’t you think?

    The second bit of your quote, it seems the Kalama Sutta which you mention, as also covered it…

    “‘Suppose there is no hereafter and there is no fruit, no result, of deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself.’ This is the second solace found by him.”
    — The Buddha

    http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/kalama.html

  9. Raj says:

    First of all, nice write up.I enjoyed reading your critique, although I thought you haven’t done your research well enough.

    “Finaly,I would like to site an authority,which is somthing I usually do not do as I preffer my oroginal ideas free from authority to most possible extent,which in this case I would site since my idea,which originated independently from Albert Einstien’s(One of the greatesr minds ever) idea, has the same meaning that simply says that do good and to refrain from the bad you do not have to believe in an aftr life and therefore rewards od punishments,just do what you do to fulfil the purpose and that if we humans do good to get merits(PIn/Kusal)”

    You site Albert Einstein as your authority. But his is what he said about Buddhism:

    “The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description .. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.” — Albert Einstein

    http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Theology-Albert-Einstein.htm

    That’s a pretty huge endorsement of Buddhism by the authority you use to back up your writing, don’t you think?

    The second bit of your quote, it seems the Kalama Sutta which you mention, as also covered it…

    “‘Suppose there is no hereafter and there is no fruit, no result, of deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself.’ This is the second solace found by him.”
    — The Buddha

    http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/kalama.html

    • pravnj1408 says:

      Exactly. Of all the religions one could think of Buddhism would probably be one of the only religions whose teachings would be so fundamentally opposed to what today’s sangha stand for. Peculiar isn’t it?

  10. Prasad Mapatuna says:

    Sam, I like your comment that you sugest Buddhism or any other religion cannot give solutions to complex moral issues. I cannot agree with you more!

    Religion cannot be the sole authority on morality, and moreover there are no cut-and-dried solutions to the moral dilemmas. The world around us changes and only permanent thing is the change (Did I not pick that one up from the Buddhist texts?). New moral issues need new thinking and only a scientific approach can give us solutions. Falling back to scripture and re-hashing scripture and claiming that solutions can be found in scripture is only a self indulging exercise for religious scholars. They are motivated more to defend the scripture, than to solve the actual issue.

    One of the most important things Richard Dawkins brought to the table is a scientific explanation of morality. Lack of which has been big hole in naturalistic worldview. (It is possible that Dawkins may not the first to propose this, but de definitely popularized the notion.). According to Dawkins; if we are to accept Darwinian evolutionary history of ours; modern humans have been around for at least 200,000 years and modern religions came in the picture at most 5000 years ago. The human traits such as honestly, love, compassion, altruism, and non-violence provided an evolutionary advantage for the collective survival of humankind. These traits can then be argued as innate values coded in to our genes. In that sense, religion comes from morality rather than morality comes from religion.

    So why should we be moral? If we want a long term survival of human race, the innate moral values that we ‘feel’ are the ones that give us long term survival advantage. Deviation from morality may help an individual or a group to succeed in the short run. However the ripple effects of which causes that group to get extinct in the long run (survival of the fittest.) The important thing to underscore here is that the fittest is the most moral. (Contrary perhaps to the popular belief)

    Now let’s try applying that to LTTE issue. If we felt that annihilating the LTTE is the most appropriate thing to do, may be that is actually the most moral thing as well(Given the dilemma of “kill or be killed”). Now I have to put a big DISCLAIMER here that I am just giving an example. I am not suggesting LTTE was immoral and rest of Sri Lanka was more moral than LTTE. I don’t know if 30 years is enough of a “long run” for us to understand the moral implications of this issue.

    • pravnj1408 says:

      Agrees with Prasad on this one. If we can somehow tie empirical evidence based on scientific research as the basis for our morality I’m sure we will see that society becomes much more in sync with its values. Take the question of gay sex. The bible says sodomy is immoral but modern research shows that this practice is not physiologically harmful..why do we ostracize these people then? on the other hand it has been proven by research that molesting little children is in fact harmful to that child and therefore should be punished

      • Raj says:

        I agree with this, but where do you draw the line though. For example, why is incest illegal if it is between two consenting adults? Why is beastiality illegal? If you say the animal has no choice, well we are happy to kill and eat them without asking their consent, so why not make it legal to have sex with them as well?

      • Prasad Mapatuna says:

        Hey Raj, correct me if I am wrong but your questions sound bit rhetorical? We have to draw the line using scientific approach, right? (as said above). You seem to have concluded that if gay sex is ok then so is incest and bestiality. How did you come to that conclusion? Such conclusions should follow scientific reasoning and empirical evidence and not “emotion”. You may have had gay, incest, and bestiality is the same bucket. But that is definitely an opinion and not a scientific fact.

        If we have an innate aversion of incest, may be that is coded in our genes and may be it is bad in an Darwinian evolutionary advantage sense.

        In fact wiki article below is a good read which gives some insight as to why inbreeding is bad for the gene pool and our innate aversion of inbreeding.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest

      • Prasad Mapatuna says:

        While we are at it … how does a Buddhist “know” that having sex with a family member is bad? What is the sutta (Suthra) that they refer to?

        OK, that definitely is a rhetorical question from my part. I don’t think there is such detail moral advices found in Buddhist scripture. So just like Richard Dawkins, a Buddhist will either go by the law or social ethics (which totally not related to religion)

  11. Raj says:

    I like how you brought up the issue of the war. If you read the Buddhist suttas, they are pretty explicit about it. Let me place the entire relevant sutta here (if I am permitted) to illustrate this point. Do read through all of it

    =====================================

    Yodhajiva Sutta: To Yodhajiva (The Warrior)

    Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

    © 1998–2010

    Then Yodhajiva1 the headman went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One:

    “Lord, I have heard that it has been passed down by the ancient teaching lineage of warriors that ‘When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down & slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of devas slain in battle.’ What does the Blessed One have to say about that?”

    “Enough, headman, put that aside. Don’t ask me that.”

    A second time… A third time Yodhajiva the headman said: “Lord, I have heard that it has been passed down by the ancient teaching lineage of warriors that ‘When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down & slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of devas slain in battle.’ What does the Blessed One have to say about that?”

    “Apparently, headman, I haven’t been able to get past you by saying, ‘Enough, headman, put that aside. Don’t ask me that.’ So I will simply answer you. When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, his mind is already seized, debased, & misdirected by the thought: ‘May these beings be struck down or slaughtered or annihilated or destroyed. May they not exist.’ If others then strike him down & slay him while he is thus striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the hell called the realm of those slain in battle. But if he holds such a view as this: ‘When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down & slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of devas slain in battle,’ that is his wrong view. Now, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or the animal womb.”

    When this was said, Yodhajiva the headman sobbed & burst into tears. [The Blessed One said:] “That is what I couldn’t get past you by saying, ‘Enough, headman, put that aside. Don’t ask me that.'”

    “I’m not crying, lord, because of what the Blessed One said to me, but simply because I have been deceived, cheated, & fooled for a long time by that ancient teaching lineage of warriors who said: ‘When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down & slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of devas slain in battle.’

    “Magnificent, lord! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to show the way to one who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes could see forms, in the same way has the Blessed One — through many lines of reasoning — made the Dhamma clear. I go to the Blessed One for refuge, to the Dhamma, and to the Community of monks. May the Blessed One remember me as a lay follower who has gone to him for refuge, from this day forward, for life.”

    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn42/sn42.003.than.html

    =====================================

    This is the Buddhist stance on the issue. There is no “just war” as in Christian theology. Some may see this as failing of Buddhism, others may see it as a strength. But Buddhism as in the teaching HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STATE. In this respect it is completely different to Islam which has Sharia Law and advocates a theocratic state under Islamic law.

    As I understand it, Buddhism is meant to be an indivual path. Of course in this day and age, and in Sri Lanka the story is different but there are historical reasons why Buddhism has been tied to the state in Sri Lanka; it is not a modern phenomenon but actually spans thousands of years.

    The point I am trying to make is that Buddhism teaches that there are consequences for one’s actions whether wholesome or unwholesome. It advocates AGAINST killing but it does NOT forbid it. It advocates AGAINST stealing but it does NOT forbid it. There is no “thou shalt/thou shalt not.” It is left up to the individual to make his/her choice about what he/she wants to do while being mindful of the consequences. In otherwords, you are free to be be a soldier if you want, but you have to deal with the consequences of being one. For example your motive (cetana) to join and save people from slaughter is noble (kusala) but in doing so you might kill a member of the enemy (akusala). You may help an old woman across a river (kusala) but starve a member of the enemy (akusala) etc etc. You can wage war but you have to deal with the consequences of your choice.

    Finally let me quote from the the article “Are Buddhists Vegetarian?”

    “We are all guilty of complicity, in one way or another and to varying degrees, in the harming and death of other creatures. Whether we are carnivore, vegan, or something in between, no matter how carefully we choose our food, somewhere back along the long chain of food production and preparation, killing took place. No matter how carefully we trod, with every step countless insects, mites, and other creatures inadvertently perish under our feet. This is just the nature of our world. It is only when we escape altogether from the round of birth and death, when we enter into the final liberation of nibbana — the Deathless — can we wash our hearts clean, once and for all, of killing and death. To steer us towards that lofty goal, the Buddha gave us very realistic advice: he didn’t ask us to become vegetarian; he asked us to observe the precepts. For many of us, this is challenge enough. This is where we begin.”

    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bullitt/bfaq.html#neither-and-both

  12. Prasad Mapatuna says:

    Another BIG Disclaimer. I am arguing within the naturalistic scientific worldview, and my argument are not absolute but relative. For example, if you have read and understood Prof. Nalin De Silva, you may know that he will bash you from head to toe and make you ashamed for subscribing to “alien” Judeo-Christian scientific view without knowing that it is a very relative knowledge system. I hereby claim that I understand the relative nature of all my arguments. If any enlightened ‘Chintana’ fans out there, please do not hit me with “Mage Lokaya” again. Good old prof did that around 10 years ago (and I am eternally glad he did). Those wounds have left a few scars, but they are healed now.

    • pravnj1408 says:

      Loved the mage lokaya comment! agrees with you on this one too…its the turn he took on Vidusara that was annoying.

      Nalin De Silva may have made some ground in Sri Lanka whose modern academia was in its infancy but most of what he said had been said by other people and to me was fairly obvious. I just don’t see what the big deal is? maybe it was the 70s and most people had little knowledge on the philosophy of science. I mean people could have just opened their eyes a little bit more you know..Bertrand Russell even titled his famous work “A History Of WESTERN PHILOSOPHY” come on chinthana fans!! cut these guys some slack..enough intellectual hegemony ok?

  13. Lahiru. says:

    Thanks for the advice sam and naughty.The survival of the fittest is a very real and it can be observed.But a reasonable question arises;what makes the fittest the fittest?.As Prasad pointed out the less moral the more cunning and the ones with power will rule the day for sometime(organized religion is a good example).Dawkins uses computer programs to illustrate this in the 1980’s.But he sites a better natural
    example in which he makes reference to baboons,who are social creatures,and examines one of their social behavior; grooming.The baboons clean each others backs of from ticks(while enjoying a snack made out of the ticks) and in the process of doing so ensures the hygiene of the species which would result in the survival of the species.They do this as collaborative effort;you scratch my back I will scratch yours.Suppose there is this one baboon who tricks the others to scratch his back in return for scratch back to them but fails to execute the promise.Assume he will carry this act of fraud for a long time and the consequences are multi folded folded.
    1)If the non removal of ticks is deadly to the baboon community the once with the tucks will die and the one or the group who trick the others to lean there backs would survive but ultimately that group would also become extinct provided that they trick one another with in the group.
    2)The other possibility is if the the non cleansing of the backs are not deadly the the group which exploits the others’ trust will be disqualified by the the community provided the cheaters are the minority.This mostly happens in the human society through administration of proper justice, franchise held in a proper democracy or by way of revolution of the masses.
    3)If the cheaters are not a united majority they will selfs destruct within and the minority comprised of united and trustful ones will survive if there numbers are enough to sustain them selfs.
    4)If the minority is comprised of organized cheaters frauds the unorganized majority and unless a opposing cheater group is present they will survive over the others and continue to survive if they behave united with in the group.This usually results in some families,social groups,organizations supreme status over the others.
    What I finally want to suggest if that the mechanisms of morality is not naturally put in place for the benefit of an single individual but for the survival of the species.And this survival will be threated if individualistic notions prevail over notions of morality.

  14. pravnj1408 says:

    The conflict between doctrine (im addressing all forms of traditional religion which have doctrines, scripture immutable laws etc etc) and modern life manifests itself well when we talk about things like right and wrong and morality.

    If a religion or doctrine explicitly tells you doing A is wrong while doing B is correct what happens when you come across X which has not been codified in your holy text?? you might even risk doing the “wrong” thing in the modern context. Morality and what is good or bad is continuously in a state of flux and if we just stick to doctrine we will do a lot of stupid things.

    Let me recount a story from the bible 😀 the pharisees explicitly believed in the jewish torah and followed it to the letter and thought “hey if i do everything in this list im definitely going to heaven” so they followed all the rules without actually considering if what they were doing was right or wrong or downright silly in the present context. jesus questioned this and this is the main reason they tried to kill him..im not making jesus look good here but he had a point. what is the use of following rules and laws set down in history in stone (literally) if following them does not do any good to your fellow man? giving 1/10th of ones earning to the jewish temple – does it ultimately say feed the poor? if it doesn’t out with it!

    This is what the Muslims do today. For example blood is considered unclean while spit/mucus is not. But say the person has an STD? blood and spit are essentially “unclean” these are the kind of crackpot beliefs that people come up with when they have no knowledge of pathogens and the transmission of disease.

    Laws and rules have to change. A doctrine by definition is a stagnant pool of knowledge which might be silly sounding at best or highly dangerous (which it is most of the time). This is why science is far superior, there is a process whereby the existing worldview and knowledge become updated.

  15. Sam says:

    Weed is a wonderful thing. Without weed there won’t be penny lane or Allis in the wonderland. I sometimes wonder humans are a large organism may be evaluating toward creating another giant animal. Assuming earlier lives are single cell, at one point they decided its their benefit interest to stick together like jewelry sellers or Corals. At this point we have humans made with large number of individual cells with most of those individual cells still having physical capacity to live outside the human body at least for a limited time. And even with the capacity to switch between deferent humans. Therefore those individual cells still have individual lives and human body is rather a collection organized individual cells. Humans may not connecting together to create another large physical animal, but a knowledge/emotional (I’m lacking a correct word here) animal. And this is the place Morality comes in. According to Archbishop Tutu Humans need other humans around him to be a human, and I agree with him. Now we even need facebook, blogging and gossips too. Children survived in wild turn out to be less human like. No mortar skills, no emotional intelligence and lack of important characteristics that make humans a human such as a smile. So even at this point just like individual cells become hopeless once removed from rest of the cells, we individuals become hopeless once taken out form the rest too. Morality is the respect for this connection. Ambiguity of humans as individuals and an organism at the same time is what create and destroyed the soviet republic. Religions including socialism are trying to speed up this process in rather destructive way like a cancer by trying to create every single cell similar. If you think humans are not an organism looks at the reason economic crises. Sickness originated in America but suffering spread all over the world much like a kidney failure or a cold.

    Therefore I think morality is naturally originated, in early age as a protective mechanism in the absent of venom or sharp teeth, now for the benefit of the individual and the human race both. And I like to imagine, cells in my hands also have some sort of a “morality” in their own way to respect other cells and stick together without declaring independency.

  16. lstlee says:

    I agree with your article Sam not just it is in line with my view but because it is the only natural and scientific proposition of morality.

    But Raj,I will rebut you argument with a small question.
    Tell me,what would you do if a gang of thief come to your place and try to kill you
    mother rape and rape you sister and there is no possibility to call for help or even if there is a chance that any one you ca assist you in time,the only way to protect your family is from this serial killers is to kill them,What would you do?

    Hmm,I think according to your precepts you would just hand wait or sit down and start a miethree bawana or may be you might think it is there karma and my karma and wait.

    Your five precepts may be difficult to follow because it is practically impossible to follow specially the first one.I’m not a blood thirsty person who advocates war
    but I’m a practical person who believes that a person should have the right of self defense and a right to protect society from harm even by use of harm as our soldiers did and let me remind you my friend we are here talking,debating as high and mighty because those who died for us and you do not have a moral right to name them as sinners.And I do not do good and refrain from bad because they encapsulates rewards in the after world.By the way I’m a advocate of vegetarianism and an active campaigner of PETA but I do realize the practical need of depriving life of someone in the following situations. will put them in the context of the war.

    My justification of the attack against the Ltte is not my opinion alone.
    Necessity
    I justified it along the lines of self defense and necessity.
    In this respect the defense of the state and it’s people.
    1)The act against ltte was necessary to avoid unrepairable and inevitable evil.
    2)No more should have done that is done to achieve such purpose.
    3)The evil caused must not be disproportionate to the evil avoided.
    Defense of the state.
    The government has a moral right and a legal duty to its citizens to protect them and the state.

    • Sam says:

      //think according to your precepts you would just hand wait or sit down and start a miethree bawana//
      This is fundamentally wrong! Loving kindness expand to you as same as to the killer. Letting you killed is equally “wrong” as killing the killer.

      // maybe you might think it is there karma and my karma and wait.//
      The argument of Karma here is wrong too! You do not surrender to Karma in Buddhism.

      // What would you do?//
      First of all don’t ask that question from Buddhism nor from Einstein.
      Imagine you are in exact situation like that. What would you do? Most probably you won’t kill the killer either. You may give a fight. And luckily if you won, you like those people in the airplane in the Christmas day, will disable the killer. Most intelligent people are capable of expanding the empathy toward the enemy too. But intelligent life quite rare in this universe and some do not and could not expand empathy outside their immediate tribe.

      But we all kill. We kill mosquitoes, pests and millions of microbes and germs. As I see in this discussion only person make Buddhism a religion with caned morality in wholesale format, is you. Isn’t that something? 🙂

  17. lstlee says:

    To punchi baba.
    I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

    This shows his personal stance on religion and he also identified Buddhism as religion.

    “The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description .. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.” — Albert Einstein
    I agree with you, the unenforced form of Buddhism is the the most flexible religion at present and it does allow freedom of thought and the right to question.

    But as we have seen and see the modern version of Buddhism has been turned into a dogma enforced by the sanga.And any deviation from these authorities would lead to social repercussion and those person will be isolated for society branding them as “dussilaya”.Buddhism evolved into this to protect it self from more appealing and more enforceable religions and this transformation as I believe began and was initiated by King Ashoka who converted the religion into a more normative and politically applicable religion(we see Buddhism being used by leaders of the state to control the people and get their consent for various acts.
    This had mixed the pure philosophy of Buddhism with the current authoritative and unquestionable form of religion which is now hard to separate from one another.

  18. Lahiru. says:

    //think according to your precepts you would just hand wait or sit down and start a miethree bawana
    This is fundamentally wrong! Loving kindness expand to you as same as to the killer. Letting you killed is equally “wrong” as killing the killer//

    I really think you should study more about Buddhism and see how it requires you to in instances of such sought give up your life as a paramihawa.(this concept is not only found in jathaka katha this is mainline Buddhism,read the “paramithaprakaraya”)
    Be informed before you comment on your own bubble version of Buddhism.
    My attempt is evident,it is to illustrate unpractical teachings of Buddhism,not to conduct an argument on it theology with reference to it theological sources.
    My study is not about ontological systems of Buddhism but whether systems are adoptable in reality.

    // maybe you might think it is there karma and my karma and wait.//
    The argument of Karma here is wrong too! You do not surrender to Karma in Buddhism//.
    Yea,it does not allow you to give up on karma but conflictingly the story of Mugalan should be read by you.I have no obligation to explain.

    // What would you do?//
    First of all don’t ask that question from Buddhism nor from Einstein//

    First of all I did not ask it from you and I did not ask this to assert my self a stance on this matter or reaffirm my stance.Cause I all ready have a stance which is to exercise my right of self defense if attempt of negotiating fails.

    I know everybody kill.You kill millions of bacteria by using medicines alone.
    And I”m against unnecessary killing of animals,humans or even destruction of resources.I have given you the grounds upon which I will use force in anything.
    And yes,any apprehension of any such necessity or self defense to justify such use of force is subjective and the courts also apply a subjective test to determine the justification is genuine or not since it is necessary,in order to convict,that the defended committed the actus reus of the crime with the appropriate mens rea.
    This system is not absolute and needs gradual improvement as any other human knowledge or discipline.And I’m here to advocate the scientific method that provide the most trust worthy mechanisms to discover facts,which will pile up as human civilization continues,and through these facts we can build better systems.

    Hope you understand what you say.I’m not all knowing ,and I really even do not understand what that means, therefore I might make mistakes.Remember you are no exception.

  19. Sam says:

    Jathaka stories as much as Buddhist as Chimps to humans.
    I have not read “paramithaprakaraya” – I will have a look. Do you know where I can find that? Google does not produce any results. And even if I found something in that sort, I have to reject that anyway since it does not fit with rest of the basic principles.

    That is what Mugalan choose to do. Somehow you still have a notion all Buddhists should do exactly the same thing according to “a system”. Where you get that idea? It is a dangerous notion. Even with science. Remind me of 1984.

    //your own bubble version of Buddhism//
    Yes. It is a bubble. Just like yours. Understanding is often personal. I don’t have a book that says everything.

    Impracticality is irrelevant. Things not practical to you can be practical to someone else or may be in a deferent day. Having a goal set “trying not to kill living things” is practical, not absolute just like “trying not get get wet when rain”.

    There is already a system that keeps on piling up knowledge like corals and building up. I don’t know where Buddhism conflict with that? (I’m not talking about Taliban Buddhism in Sri Lanka – that is a deferent disaster)

  20. Lahiru. says:

    I admire the Buddhist philosophy in it purest form specially in relation to the concept of knowledge and the freedom it provides to inquire and question the the establishment.I grew up in a Buddhist background and it gave a greater probability to be the inquisitive person I am today since it is not oppressive like other religions.
    There would be a small possibility that a Muslim would become like me.I give Buddhism
    that credit.But I do not agree with your argument about practicality cause the basis of or the purpose of all my arguments pivot around my deep desire to see human survival and unity.If a some one attack me unnecessary or without any fault of mine I have a right to protect me and it is a right given to me by nature and I’m against any killing of anything unless the reasons I provides above are present.I do not accept the notions of pin and pau but I do recognize the need of morality of otherwise two fold classification of good and bad on the basis that it is important to human survival and its excellence as a species.
    Hope you get my point.And it is impossible to abstract the non statue worshiping form of Buddhism and I would love to do so.And both Lahiru and lstlee is me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: