Avajjati – A Critique On Buddhism & Its Followers (Introduction)
I was born a Buddhist. Indeed, I didn’t have much choice in the matter. Nevertheless, don’t misunderstand. I would rather have been born as a Buddhist than any other religion because Buddhism is a beautiful complex philosophy that explores the intricate weavings of life. Ironically, what inspired me to leave Buddhism was Buddhism itself. I was very into Buddhism during the adolescent stage of my life as it constantly gave me an outlet to get away from the crazy workings of life, but the more I looked into it, the more questions I asked. To add to that, the concept of science and reasoning all the more reinforced my desire to leave this religion. Despite me having left the religion, up to this day, the Buddha is one of the people I respect the most in my life. His thoughts on life are deep and complicated. I feel I can relate very much to his style of thinking.
So, what religion am I in now? The answer is none. Some people call me an Atheist. This is not completely true as I do think that there is a remote possibility that god truly exists. Thus, I would be more agnostic, by definition. Then again, I believe that the probability that god exists is so small that it would be negligible, assuming god is not some alien race or energy force from the deep reaches of space. Anyway, that’s beside the point. The point is, I do not believe in religion. In this modern day and age, there is no good reason for religion to exist. While religion is started for good reasons, the long standing beliefs from centuries ago have been degraded and corrupted to the extent where religion is causing deterioration of morality, conduct and resulted in the loss of countless lives. Do not perceive this as an attack on Islam. I am also talking about the Crusades of the past millennium, the conflict in Northern Ireland, and so on and so forth. Indeed, Buddhism cannot be excluded from this although I have yet to know of a significant event of violence. Religion has also resulted in deterrence of scientific progress and much more. Refer to here for details:
http://changingmindsetschanginglives.blogspot.com/2007/06/religion.html
It is my personal opinion that Buddhism is most benign of all the major religions in the world. Nevertheless, that does not excuse it from the standard negative effects that religion has brought on society. The main problem with Buddhism today is that 90% (or more) of self-proclaimed Buddhists are not Buddhists. Praying to the Buddha statue does not make you a Buddhist. Nor does learning about the life of the Buddha or doing good deeds. It is the essence of the Dhamma that makes you a Buddhist. Therefore, to simplify my argument, I will only talk about Theravada Buddhism: The purest form of Buddhism that passed from India to Sri Lanka. The other sects of Buddhism are heavily influenced by external beliefs of the cultures they have passed through and are not much different from theistic religions like Christianity, Judaism or Islam (which I will write about in the future).
Thus, I will begin my analysis on Theravada Buddhism and I sincerely hope no one will be offended. Avajjati is Pali for "to reflect on" something which I believe the Buddha wants many of his followers to do. Sadly, many just follow the Buddha's teachings without questioning any of it.
As Buddhists, I am sure you are able to engage in rationale and logical thinking. You can reject my opinion but I urge you to think through it deeply and carefully before doing so. Keep your mind open to new and different opinions and you will be amazed to see how much you can learn from this article.
1 comments:
While there is the common perception that religion hindered scientific progress, few realise the importance of religious orders in preserving Roman and Greek writings that spurred the Renaissance. They were, in fact, the centre of learning for much of the period between 600-1500 A.D. in Europe.
Of course you might say, weren't they monopolising knowledge or the cause of their monopoly in the first place? That has been the view held by Malaysian history text writers indeed, but the fall of the Roman Empire that led to the Dark Ages had far more complex economic and demographic factors. It could be said that the Church was the final bastion of civilisation against the onslaught of the newcomers (the ones the Romans dubbed "barbarians").
Finally, "good and bad" is itself inherently subjective. While you may propose all forms of scientific progress is necessarily good, that is your subjective moral standards at work.
cheers
PS: There are all brands of zealots. Those who oppose stem cell research are trying to impose their definition of life (that life begins at conception) on others, but then again ardent supporters of the research are also trying to impose their definition of life (that it does not begin on conception) on others.
Before you throw in a scientific definition of "life", bear in mind that those are equally arbitrarty and equally subjective
Post a Comment