Antibiotic Misuse

While surfing the net one day, I came across this article highlighting the extent of antibody misuse in China culminating in many unnecessary deaths:

http://www.thearynews.com/english/newsdetail.asp?nid=20097

 It really made me reflect on the perception of antibiotic use in Singapore and Malaysia, and it dawned upon me that ignorance of antibiotic use has no boundaries in the world. Despite countless newspaper articles covering the usage of antibiotics and attempts of physicians to educate the masses, people don’t know what antibiotics are really for!

Well, if you’ve read this, make sure you get this into your thick skull and top using antibiotics like it’s some kind of miracle medication, because it’s not! To make it simpler, these are the points to note:

1. Antibiotics are ONLY useful against bacteria!

     Yeaps! You heard that right! Antibiotics only work against bacteria and maybe to a very small extent, some species of parasites. They do NOT work against viruses which account for more than half of our common illnesses. In fact, 2/3’s of sore throats are caused by viruses and only 1/3 by bacteria. That’s why many doctors are reluctant to prescribe antibiotics for a bad sore throat because it may not actually be useful at all. While it’s true that antibiotics can be used as prophylaxis against a secondary bacterial infection, this is more of a concern for those immunocompromised people like the elderly or very young and is definitely not necessary if you are a fit, healthy human being. So don’t just take antibiotics for a simple sore throat or insist that your doctor prescribe you antibiotics for some simple infection because your body is usually more than capable of resolving normal infections.

2. Every course of Antibiotics given MUST BE finished!

     Remember how your doctor always tells you to finish your course of antibiotics even if you feel better? Do you always finish them? Well, you’d better! The whole course is given to ensure that almost all the targeted bacteria is fully killed and removed from your system. Leaving small amounts of them by not finishing your course of antibiotics allows them to reproduce and possibly mutate into a new strain, which could be antibiotic resistant! I’ll leave out the details on how they mutate but, newer antibiotic resistant strains are highly likely to emerge if you do not finish your course of antibiotics. Don’t be a smart-alec and stop taking your antibiotics once you get better and save the remaining pills for another day when you get sick again, because it doesn’t work that way!

3. Antibiotics are drugs with Side effects!

     Remember that while you think antibiotics might be miracle pills, they are still drugs which may cause side effects and allergic reactions which are dangerous! The allergic reactions in particular can be severe and have been known to cause many deaths or impairments. In fact, many of the side effects have been so severe that sometimes, doctors question whether antibiotics are necessary in the first place.

4. Prominent Antibiotic resistant strains have emerged!

     Thanks to the blatant misuse of antibiotics, mainly by taking them unnecessarily and by not finishing the course of antibiotics given, strongly resistant strains of bacteria have emerged which are very difficult to eradicate. (e.g. Methicillin Resistant Staphylococuss Aureus or Vancomycin Resistant Enterococci)This is particularly a concern for the immunocompromised whose body resistance is weak and unable to deal with these super-bacteria resulting in death at the worst!

I guess these 4 points are education enough about antibiotics? Next time you get sick; think twice before demanding antibiotics from your doctor. Listen to your doctor and don’t slaughter him if he doesn’t give them to you! There’s no reason why we should let small crawly organisms become stronger and kill one of kind!

Avajjati – A Critique On Buddhism & Its Followers (Chapter 8: Meditation & The Sangha)

While I certainly respect those who renounce the life of a layman to be become a monk in order to explore the true meaning of life, lately, I have begun to doubt that this path is the best way to attain enlightenment. No offense to monks around the world but I have yet to see how meditation helps in our thought process.

     Without a doubt, I feel that meditation is very useful in taming the wild mind. It allows one to focus on one thing at a time and calms the mind. It really helps a lot in focus and concentration and this can extend to daily life. Despite all these benefits, I have yet to be fully convinced that meditation will actually help a person find the true meaning of life. When Buddha set out from the palace renouncing his right to ascend the throne, he was indeed searching for the true meaning of life.

     If by simply focusing on what you are doing every single second (Vipasanna Meditation) would allow you to attain enlightenment, then I feel you would be an enlightened robot. This is simply because observing every single thing you are doing does not involve deep thinking of any sort and is pretty much a robotic thing. How would all the things that the Buddha knows and teach all of a sudden come about via being observant of everything you are doing? I simply cannot comprehend this. Are you saying that if I meditate everyday and concentrate on what I am doing the intricacies and mechanics of life will suddenly start appearing in my mind? And I will be able to see the different plains of existence and talk to Devas?

     It seems to me that the Buddha has really thought things through in a very thorough manner which could not have just appeared to him by meditation alone. His teachings clearly reflect deep thought which is very uncommon in society nowadays. It might be a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of Buddhist scriptures on my part, but I think that the Buddha did not achieve any of his thinking’s through meditation alone. Is it possible that when the scriptures said he was meditating he was actually ruminating and formulating opinions on the nature of life and humans? A man that is thinking deeply could have been easily mistaken as someone who has been meditating. Or meditating itself could be thinking as he could be meditating on his thoughts. I really do not see how focusing on his every single move could have resulted in him producing so many of his teachings.

     As for the Sangha, no disrespect to them but is it possible that many monks are trying to emulate the actions of the Buddha without much thought about it? We have to understand that times have clearly changed since the Buddha’s time. The Buddha left and renounced the world at a time where there was lack of understanding and literature to refer regarding philosophy and science. Had the Buddha been born in this day and age, would he have still done the same thing? I feel that he left the palace simply because there were too little resources for him to refer to for him to formulate his theories and thoughts on life. Buddhist literature clearly shows that before he entered into a period of self-thought and recluse, he went to look for many learned teachers in order to learn their teachings.

     Well, times have changed and the works of many great thinkers who had thoughts similar to the Buddha like Lao Tzu have emerged and can be found readily on the internet. Is it really still necessary to renounce the world to ruminate on one’s own thoughts when it can be done so readily as a layman? I confess I may be wrong on this, but I feel Buddhism teaches one to find his/her own way and not just rely on what another person says or simply copy what another person does. While meditation may help to focus our mind, it certainly does not help us understand life any better.

     I myself am unsure of the best way to fully understand life. But I feel every person is unique and should be able to find his own way to understand something. Just because the Buddha did something, it doesn’t mean we should copy his every move, more so if we do not understand the rationale behind it.

Avajjati – A Critique On Buddhism & Its Followers (Chapter 7: Rebirth; Another Perspective)

     Now, rebirth is a subject that has always been a focus of my attention. This is because without rebirth and afterlife, most of the religions in the world would simply crumble and wither away. Whether you want to admit or not, at a subconscious level, most people actually enter religion due to fear of the afterlife. Indeed, death is a scary thing to most people who cannot accept it and religion and spirituality are the sources in which many people look to for answers.

     In the context of Buddhism, I feel that rebirth is one of the cornerstones. I do not know if the Buddha means rebirth in a literal sense, but without rebirth, the religious aspect of Buddhism is pretty much pointless. I mean, if you’re going to die in this very life itself, why take all the effort to achieve enlightenment when it’s all going to be lost after death?

    Buddhist literature speaks quite a bit about the existence of the 31 plains of existence as well as the many lives of the Buddha himself. Correct me if I am wrong but wasn’t the Buddha supposed to be in one of the heavenly realms before he was reborn as a human on earth?

     As I mentioned in previous chapters, the scientific plausibility of literal rebirth does not seem very possible. Yes, there have been a few cases of rebirths reported but at the same time, there have also been many sightings of UFOs, bigfoot as well as the abominable snowman – all of these in which we do not know is true or not.

     As said before, looking at things directly, there really is no reason for there to be rebirth. We are after all, merely molecules and atoms mixed in a complicated way. The very concept of life itself is relative. To someone observing from the outside of earth, we may just simply be chemical reactions occurring spontaneously. Honestly, what makes you think we have a soul or even a consciousness which is our life force within us? All our emotions and thoughts can now be scientifically explained via the firing of neurons in our brain. Certain parts of our brain fire more when we are sad, happy or even excited. Our brain is far more complex than we think, and indeed, it accounts for almost all our actions.

     Thus, the scientific implausibility of rebirth causes me to doubt Buddhism as a religion. Furthermore, assuming rebirth is real, how would kamma affect it since it is merely ‘cause & effect’? Could what we do now somehow cause us to be born in a specific location to a specific family in our next life? It doesn’t sound logical to me. The only way this would be possible is if the definition of kamma is ‘I do good and I get good in return’ and vice versa if I do bad. This is clearly a more spiritual outlook on kamma and it is the wrong outlook.

     Now, if the Buddha meant rebirth in a non-literal sense, it would make much more sense. As written in chapter 3, rebirth could merely mean mimicking another’s actions and in doing so, it is a ‘rebirth’ of whatever is being mimicked from someone else. This would very well fit the ‘cause & effect’ definition of kamma. In fact, this has been described as ‘memes’ by Richard Dawkins.  Memes are simply a  unit or element of cultural ideas, symbols or practices that transmit from one mind to another through speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomenon. It is in a sense, a rebirth of ideas from one person to a another transmitted through generations. (Note: I could be wrong here as the Buddha really might have meant rebirth in a literal sense as his description of samsara does somewhat show that he does believe rebirth in a literal sense to be true; but I am unable to then tie kamma to this)

     If rebirth were to be defined in this sense, then what is the point of living? In this case, dying now or later would actually mean the same thing. A person who achieves enlightenment who dies and a normal person who dies would eventually end up in the same place. Nevertheless, it is up to us to decide what to do with our life and choose our own path. The philosophical outlook on Buddhism does shed some light on how life is like and is a very enlightening outlook on life. Could it be possible that becoming enlightened means that one then fully understands the mechanics and nature of life?

Life is what we make it to be. I think, therefore I am.

Israel vs Palestine: The Conflict That Never Ends

     In an attempt to re-kick start my blog, I’ve decided to write about this decade’s long conflict that has been the source of the loss of so many lives. Recently, Israel has started an aggressive bombing campaign on Gaza which once again, has resulted in the loss of thousands of innocent lives and left many more injured. This is not to say I support the acts of terrorism committed by Hamas. While I offer no solution to the conflict, allow me pen down what I think about it.

     In order to understand why this is happening, let us explore the origins of Israel. Why do so many people, Muslims in particular, hate Israel? In contrast to what many ignoramuses think, it is not because they are jealous or racist; but it is simply because by modern definition, Israel is an illegal state. Also, contrary to what many think, the USA originally opposed the formation of Israel. Israel was actually carved out of Palestinian territory (which was under British rule at that time) without the proper consent of the Arabs whom were originally there. Shortly after WWII, Israel declared independence and used force to silence the surrounding Arab countries and establish itself as an independent country with the support of superpowers like Britain, who played a key role in its establishment.

     By modern definition, occupying a territory by force without the consent of the locals would result in an illegal state not recognized by most countries of the world. In the case of Israel, it was recognized by many major Western countries which effectively makes the whole Western world bloody hypocrites. Compare this to when Iraq invaded Kuwait.

     But wait! The Jews will say, “the land was ours in the first place! Hence, it belongs to us. It is our right!”  Well….. Here’s my take on this. If we were to define the owner of a land/country by who was there in the first place, then USA should be returned to the Native Americans and Japan should be returned to the Caucasian race that originally lived there. Heck, Malaysia and Singapore should return political power to the ‘orang asli’ (natives) that were originally around. Face it Jews. You left your land a long time ago and even had the opportunity to take it back, but did not. Now after a mass genocide in Germany (which perhaps wasn’t as massive compared to Stalin’s, Mao Tze Dong’s and Japan’s WWII atrocities) you suddenly lay claim to your own state?

     Hence, why is it surprising that Hamas is constantly launching rockets into Israel? You forced them out and lacking resources and military might, they resort to terrorism as a way of life. If Russia invaded Alaska do you not think USA will retaliate? It is the same thing here. Israel is an illegal state in the first place and killing innocents using high-tech military equipment will not change that. The source of the problem is not addressed. In fact, just to get your own land which you could have gotten from Germany since Hitler was the one who committed genocide against the Jews; it has led to countless conflicts and is perhaps the origin for modern day terrorism.

     To the angry Muslims/Arabs, violence is not the solution. Your land has been stolen and you clearly lack military might to fight back. Your acts of terrorism result in the deaths of innocent victims and this should never be condoned. If you really have pride and want to restore the integrity of the Muslim world, develop your economies to the fullest. With the abundance of natural resources you have, you can make vast steps forward and even reach the state of a developed country respected by many. It is then you can build up sufficient military might to actually challenge for your land back.

Sadly, due to human greed and selfishness I am afraid my opinions will just fall on deaf ears. Anyway, who’d want to listen to some university kid far off in Singapore?

Avajjati – A Critique On Buddhism & Its Followers (Chapter 6: Kamma/Karma; Another Perspective)

     For the final few chapters of my brief take on Buddhism, I would like to fully address the true meaning of kamma and rebirth. As mentioned before in chapter 3, I looked at kamma and rebirth in a way different than what most Buddhists assume.

     As the Venerable Shravasti Dhammika pointed out here:http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/2008/05/kamma-and-natural-disasters-i.html , kamma is merely cause and effect. He has thus acknowledged that kamma should not be viewed as “I do good and I get good in return” but merely a term to explain the cause and effect phenomenon that is all around us. Now, this actually worries me since I have been to Buddhist classes when I was younger and NO effort was ever taken to explain this to me properly.  I learnt most of what I know of Buddhism in Subang Jaya Buddhist Association and clearly, their definition of kamma seems to differ of that of Venerable Shravasti Dhammika's. (Note: the real definition seems to be something that many Buddhists cannot come to an agreement to. But for this article, I will take it as what Venerable Shravasti Dhammika describes it)

 

     Back to the point, after much reading and discussion, I have concluded that the true definition of kamma is a mere ‘cause & effect’. As I said before, it is just a word to explain the phenomenon of the effects of our thoughts and actions in nature. Effectively, I would just simply call this as plain logic that has been thought through thoroughly. Quite frankly, I do not see how this ‘cause & effect’ differs from anything we don’t already know. It just involves a calmer mind and a higher degree of pragmatism in our actions.

 

     Also, it would mean that the definition of ‘good kamma’ and ‘bad kamma’ is effectively obliterated as good and bad are in themselves loose definitions which vary from person to person. Viewed in this way, kamma is largely applicable even to tyrants like Hitler, who want to achieve their goals of killing people and world domination. Hitler failed to conquer Europe and lost the war simply because he did not think through his actions properly and resulted in heavy losses in the war. Had Hitler used the concept of kamma, he might have realize he was up against insurmountable odds and perhaps delay the war till Germany was stronger or enter into a pact with Russia.

 

     Furthermore, the ‘cause & effect’ definition would also not explain how kamma will be able to affect rebirth in a literal sense. Assuming rebirth really does exist, how would our current thoughts and actions affect what we are in our following lives? This contradicts Buddhist literature where it is explicitly stated in some cases that people are how they are in their current life because of what they were in their past life. E.g. If you are generous in this life, you will be rich in the next OR if you make fun people’s looks in this life, you will be born ugly in the next life.

 

     Thus, while it is true that kamma does play a very important role in our everyday lives and will determine and chart the course of our future through our own actions, I’d like to point out that there is nothing religious or shocking about this theory. It is not a revelation of any sort. Also, kamma is merely just one of the factors that determine the result of something for there are many other factors beyond our control, like natural disasters or economic recessions to name a few, which may skew the course of our planned actions.

 

     Relying on kamma alone is not exactly the best alternative but I must admit that our own kamma is largely within our own control and is probably one of the few factors in which we may actually have control over in order to obtain the desired effects.

 

     It’s high time that the misconception of the definition of kamma is cleared up. Once you phrase it in its true meaning, I think you will agree with me that kamma is pure logic and has nothing to do with spirituality or religion. Put in this way, the best kamma one can obtain it is simply the result of a calm, sharpened and learned mind that has considered its options and seen all the possibilities. If used well, kamma is a lethal weapon for those who want to achieve their goals.

Title Change : Avajjati – A Critique On Buddhism & Its Followers

Just a brief post; I realize many of you have been irked at the title of my postings on Buddhism due to the fact that many of my writings are in general a critique of Buddhist and Buddhism rather than why I left it. Although I believe that my criticisms of it contributed to me leaving it as a religion, I realize some of your points are well and valid. Since words and presentation seem to be more important to some, I’ve decided to change the title of my articles on Buddhism from "Why I Left Buddhism" to "Avajjati  – A Critique On Buddhism & Its Followers". Avajjati in Pali means “to reflect on” something in which I feel the Buddha wants many of us to do. I hope this will clear the air on my writings as it is a more apt title.

Avajjati – A Critique On Buddhism & Its Followers (Chapter 5: Overindulgence In Self-Gratification)

While this point is quite controversial, I feel that it must be addressed because I think that it is a fundamental flaw that more than 90% of Buddhists today possess. Many people think that doing good deeds is an integral part of Buddhism and that by doing more good deeds, it will bring one closer and closer to achieving enlightenment. It is my opinion that this is a far cry from the true teachings of Buddhism. I feel that Buddhism is far more than just following the 5 precepts. While Buddhism has guidelines on laying out certain qualities that we should follow, the depth of the Dhamma holds so much more. If you properly analyze the Dhamma, you would know that Buddhism is more than just “A Way Of Life”. As I said before, it involves intricate thinking of the highest order.

The thing that bugs me about many Buddhists is that they are so keen on doing good deeds and sharing merits that they lose sight of the true meaning of doing a good deed. When you do a good deed, the end result should be such that the person on the receiving end benefits fully from your contribution. The problem is that many Buddhists do a good deed for the sake of doing a good deed, without thinking twice about the impact of the deed on the beneficiary.

Take the offering of food to monks in a temple for example. What is the point of offering food to them? The reason for giving them food is to ensure that they receive enough nutrition to continue living. For some reason, many Buddhists love to offer them food. This creates a situation where two or three monks in a temple are swamped with all sorts of foods from more than 10 different people. Do you think it is possible for two or three monks to finish the piles of food thrown towards them? The answer is a clear; No! So why do so many Buddhists still eagerly brings plates of food to offer the monks? It is because they want to feel good about themselves for doing a good deed. To them, it is all about the process, not the result. Wouldn’t it mean so much more to offer the food to a family with poor starving children? Some people defend this by saying it is the intention that counts. This is an excellent way to plead ignorance to the current situation where the offerings of food to the monks go to complete waste. It is also characteristic of a person that does not think of the consequences of things. Worst of all, it just proves that the person is doing a good deed merely for self-gratification.

While this point is quite controversial, I feel that it must be addressed because I think that it is a fundamental flaw that more than 90% of Buddhists today possess. Many people think that doing good deeds is an integral part of Buddhism and that by doing more good deeds, it will bring one closer and closer to achieving enlightenment. It is my opinion that this is a far cry from the true teachings of Buddhism. I feel that Buddhism is far more than just following the 5 precepts. While Buddhism has guidelines on laying out certain qualities that we should follow, the depth of the Dhamma holds so much more. If you properly analyze the Dhamma, you would know that Buddhism is more than just “A Way Of Life”. As I said before, it involves intricate thinking of the highest order.

While this is also applicable to many other religions and people in the world, I find it appalling that many Buddhists act without thinking of the consequences. After all, Buddhists are supposed to be mindful people that carefully think through their actions. I know of many Buddhists who think that they are helping people by doing something big and drastic which make their deeds seem all the more significant; but in reality, there are actually causing more harm than good. Ideally, I feel that doing a good deed should not simply be initiated out of the blue just because a person wants to accumulate good kamma or obtain merits. Consequences and results should be of primary importance of an action; while feeling good about yourself should be secondary.

This pre-occupation with self-indulgence has made me disgusted with many self-proclaimed Buddhists who act all high and mighty. I find that the main culprit here is the gross misinterpretation of the meaning of kamma and rebirth. For this very reason, Buddhism as a religion does not appeal to me.

Avajjati – A Critique On Buddhism & Its Followers (Chapter 4: Buddhism Is Not A Religion, It Is A Philosophy)

As I have said previously, it is my opinion that Buddhism has been thoroughly misinterpreted throughout the years of its existence. The Buddha was alive even before Jesus Christ, and if the teachings of Christianity can be widely misinterpreted (as seen by the numerous sects that have arisen who all claim they are the right branch of Christianity), it is logical to think that Buddhism could also have been grossly misinterpreted.

I have always said that Buddhism is more of a philosophy than a religion simply because the substance of Buddhism is extremely deep and complex, a view that can be gotten through careful thinking and observation of the world. If you isolate the Buddha, Sangha and traditions from Buddhism and concentrate on the Dhamma itself, Buddhism would be nothing more than a complex philosophy with a few unsubstantiated theories to explain the nature of life.

What defines a Religion? A religion is a set of beliefs and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.

On the other hand, what is philosophy? Philosophy is the discipline concerned with questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist (metaphysics); the nature of knowledge (epistemology); and the principles of reasoning (logic).

Now, despite the Dhamma having a few unsubstantiated theories (which may have been actually been misinterpreted through the millennia), do you not think that the definition of philosophy fits the Dhamma more accurately than religion? Well, many people have also said that Buddhism is a way of life. If that is the case, then I believe philosophy also fits the definition since it is a discipline concerned with questions of how one should live.

The Buddha has obviously put a lot of thought, energy and effort into developing his teachings and reducing his sweat and tears to a simple religion filled with mysticism, joss sticks and praying would be a thorough insult to his memory. From many of the scriptures, I felt that the Buddha saw himself as nothing more than a medium or vessel in which to transmit the Dhamma to others. By no means did he intend for Buddhism to become a full blown religion where people take what he says too literally and immerse themselves in prayers, sutras and rituals just to make themselves feel better.

True Buddhism involves constantly questioning the nature of life and why things should be such. It involves the ability to look at the impermanence surrounding our lives and how all things in this world must eventually come to an end. It encompasses the basic nature of things, the insignificance of humans and it involves looking at things in the most simplistic and basic manner. Last but not least, it also requires a very strong and dedicated mind, capable of thinking deep and thoroughly; As proven through the Buddha’s method to obtain enlightenment (meditation), it’s all in the mind. As he once said “All that we are is the result of what we have thought. The mind is everything. What we think we become.” This very beautiful quote just goes to prove that all external things about mysticism and craving do not matter at all. It simply suggests that the answer to life and its meaning can be found in our very own heads. There is no need for the speculation of the existence of heaven and hell, or the 32 plains of existence Buddhists believe in. In truth, I believe the Buddha himself did not acknowledge the existence of these plains but through two and a half millennia of misinterpretation and mixing with Hindu culture, these mystical plains of existence came into the scriptures.

If you take a look at many more of the Buddha’s quotes, he is by far more of a philosopher than he is a God or a Prophet of a religion. For example:

“We are shaped by our thoughts; we become what we think. When the mind is pure, joy follows like a shadow that never leaves.”

“A wise man, recognizing that the world is but an illusion, does not act as if it is real, so he escapes the suffering.”

You should respect each other and refrain from disputes; you should not, like water and oil, repel each other, but should, like milk and water, mingle together.

“It is better to conquer yourself than to win a thousand battles. Then the victory is yours. It cannot be taken from you, not by angels or by demons, heaven or hell.”

All wrong-doing arises because of mind. If mind is transformed can wrong-doing remain?

These few examples of his quotes is concerned with questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist (metaphysics); the nature of knowledge (epistemology); and the principles of reasoning (logic). All are basic tenets of philosophy. As such, I am curious myself as to how all the mysticism and praying shrouding Buddhism today arose. I suppose it is not surprising given that people of the past were more mystical and religious in nature and tended to mix philosophy with rituals and long-held beliefs. The questions that intrigue me are: Why are the people in this era of modernity and science still taking things at face value? Why do they not look into things further and properly question the rationale and nature for doing things?

To sum it up, I believe that the Buddha intended for us to realize the true nature of life and thus eliminate our mental suffering simply by looking inside our very own minds. By cutting off craving for a particular thing, many of our mental qualms can be alleviated. Sadly, this is easier said than done and is far more complex than what many of us think. This very complexity itself by far qualifies Buddhism to be more of a philosophy than a religion. Religion involves faith. Buddhism does not. It involves intricate thinking of the highest order.

Avajjati – A Critique On Buddhism & Its Followers (Chapter 3: The Dogmatic Nature of Buddhists)

While some Buddhists constantly criticize the world’s major religions for their inflexibility and dogmatic nature, many fail to realize that many Buddhists themselves cling on to beliefs in which they do not explore themselves. They take many things as absolute and are unwilling to change it because it is what they have been guided to believe in by others. Two examples of this are rebirth and kamma. Other examples would include miracles performed by the Buddha and his disciples like flying or walking across water or even chanting the sutras and paying respects, like I have also mentioned before this. Many of them just like to think of themselves as flexible and able to accept opinions from outside easily. Sadly, this is not the case for many of them.

This nature of unwillingness to question well established beliefs is a violation of the Buddha’s teaching itself. The Buddha has said “Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”

Hence, Buddhists have all the more reason to continue questioning something than any other religion in the world. To all Buddhists who are reading this, tell me honestly; have you ever truly and seriously questioned the notion of kamma? Or have you just questioned it out of formality and without much thought, you just quickly came to the conclusion that it must be correct without any proper logical thinking and just accepted it and thereafter never wanting to question it again? It is the same thing with all the symbolic practices of Buddhism. Have you ever properly questioned the rationale behind them?

If you have, then good for you. I have done so and I cannot possibly convince myself to believe all these theories laid out by god-knows who. Sometimes, I feel that the Buddha may have been misquoted or misunderstood. Buddhism arose approximately 2500 years ago when there was no such thing as paper or pens. Since the Buddha’s teachings could not be recorded, it was passed down from mouth to mouth, through pure memory, until it could be written down in Sri Lanka after Buddhism was almost decimated in India by wars.

Have you ever played that game where someone whispers a long, complicated phrase into your ear and you are supposed to pass the message to the person beside you, who will in turn pass it to the person next to him such that the message gets passed down a long line of people? What is the end result? It is nothing other than a distorted, inaccurate version of the original phrase. Note that this is just merely a phrase. How distorted do you think the whole of the Buddha’s teaching would turn out to be?

Yes, this is precisely why we cannot accept any religion at face value. We have to look into it and think whether the practices mentioned by the religion is still applicable in this day and time or a thing of the past, suited for the culture and norms of the period it came from. Also, we must question the rationale of things and the logic behind them. Why are there only five precepts and not more? What’s the harm in drinking minute amounts of alcohol (which is good for the cardiovascular system actually)? Why can’t we tell white lies?

On a deeper scale, what did the Buddha mean by rebirth? Could it be rebirth literally? How about this hypothesis? : “The kind of rebirth meant by the Buddha was not the transference of a consciousness to another body but the rebirth of one part of a character/personality into another. For example, Sam likes to wave his hands while talking. Gena notices that by doing so, Sam gains more attention and respect. Hence, she also proceeds to copy his style by waving her hands while talking. This allows her to command more attention and respect from others. Hence, she continues using this style when talking to others. Henceforth, a part of Sam is reborn in Gena.”

Could this version of rebirth possibly be what the Buddha meant when he talked about it? He might not even have mentioned rebirth but it was subsequently interpreted and thus written as such. It’s the same for kamma. The Buddha could have just meant for kamma to symbolise cause and effect; not doing good allows you to reap equal benefits in the future. By thinking of cause and effect, one would be able to reflect more thoroughly on his/her course of action. This would make perfect sense.

As said by the Buddha, Buddhists should not just accept whatever they are told. While Buddhists tend to question the more superficial subjects like whether killing ants is alright or whether it is appropriate for monks to beg for money, most Buddhists still follow the fundamental principles dogmatically. The way Buddhism is taught and they way Buddhists think are really not much different from that of Christians and Muslims. Many of them think what they believe is 100% correct and if you believe in anything else, you are wrong and misguided, and need to be brought back into the light. While, attempting to convert people is not actively done in Buddhism, the notion of the infallibility of Buddhism is highly common among many Buddhists. I feel that this is unhealthy and it only breeds intolerance and narrow-minded characteristics among Buddhists.

Avajjati – A Critique On Buddhism & Its Followers (A Brief Side Note)

I have already posted 2 chapters about Buddhism on my blog and I am happy to say that I have finally received productive comments from the Venerable Shravasti Dhammika. I was a bit disappointed at first, as before Venerable Shravasti Dhammika commented on my blog, the comments I had received thus far were either those that supported me (most of them are Chrsitians), or blatantly pointed out that I was wrong without much discussion; slamming me without proper dissection of what I wrote. This dogmatic nature of Buddhists will be the main theme of my next post, so watch out for it.

I have to admit, engaging a monk in a debate on Buddhism will be an uphill task which gives me the shivers, but it will be exciting because it will be able to expose me to new ideas and opinions. A particularly intriguing statement is “You have thrown away the gift because you didn’t like the wrapper.” While this is a very insightful statement, I would like to clarify this. I do not regard Buddhism as a religion, but as a philosophy. This will be addressed in chapter 4. The ideas of the Buddha were amazing, and I still hold true to many of them. It is just that I cannot accept certain things like kamma and rebirth which I believe are the cornerstones of Buddhist teaching as a religion. In fact, Chapter 3 (which has been already written for about 2 months now) has another perspective on how I view kamma.

Nevetheless, I believe that the Buddha is comparable to the likes of Aristotle, Plato, Lao-Tse etc. etc. who were all great people. I might have thrown Buddhism away as a religion, but the philosophical ideals of Buddhism still very much apply to how I look at life.

As to why I left it, I have to admit that kamma and rebirth are the 2 main points of why I did so. I have not read Venerable Shravasti Dhammika’s blog post on kamma as of yet, but I am looking forward to reading it after I write this. The other points are mainly concerned about the way majority of Buddhists act and also their emphasis on things. I disagree with their emphasis and prefer to explore Buddhism personally, not as a religion. This will play out as I posted the remaining few chapters.

Until then, I will be looking forward to more constructive comments. Who knows? At the end of all this, I might be able to call myself a Buddhist once again.