What is Buddhism/the Buddha incorrect about?

[Phoenix3]

Personally, as a Daoist, I don't think desire is a problem. It's your unconscious trying to signal that there is an inbalance in the body. Also, I do believe there is such thing as the self, while Buddhism believes it is an illusion. But that's just my opinion. I have nothing that i'm certain Buddhism is incorrect about. Though I hope there is, because the Buddhist concept of Nirvana/Nibbana and enlightenment sounds awful.

 

Daoism and Buddhism have coexisted in China for a very long time, with notable Daoists disagreeing with Buddhism. I would like to know what about Buddhism they disagreed about.

Edited November 20, 2017 by Phoenix3

[doc benway]

1 hour ago, Phoenix3 said:

Personally, as a Daoist, I don't think desire is a problem. It's your unconscious trying to signal that there is an inbalance in the body. Also, I do believe there is such thing as the self, while Buddhism believes it is an illusion. But that's just my opinion. I have nothing that i'm certain Buddhism is incorrect about. Though I hope there is, because the Buddhist concept of Nirvana/Nibbana and enlightenment sounds awful.

 

Daoism and Buddhism have coexisted in China for a very long time, with notable Daoists disagreeing with Buddhism. I would like to know what about Buddhism they disagreed about.

 

Given that two of the three treasures of Laozi are frugality and humility, your comfort with desire may be more a personal bias than a value rooted in Daoism. I'm not saying you are wrong or that desire is necessarily a problem but, in general, the sage is not driven by desire, quite the contrary. Desire in Buddhism is only considered a problem when we over-identify with it. We see most of the preoccupation with getting rid of desire in the sutric practices. This is because people coming to Buddhism usually start there and the primary objective is to get them to see how deeply and thoroughly they identify with emotions and drives like desire, anger, jealousy, etc... So much of our lives are spent being buffeted about by these drives. Buddhism does not aim to eliminate desire, just put it in its proper context. In tantric practice, desire itself is taken as the path of practice and used for personal transformation - in this way it is seen as a blessing. In Dzogchen practice, desire is there, it is allowed to arise, abide, and self-liberate - nothing more than an ornament of our existence. 

 

The first chapter of Zhuangzi states, "Therefore, I say, the Perfect Man has no self; the Holy Man has no merit; the Sage has no fame" (Watson). My first and most powerful experience of the illusory nature of the self came about through Daoist meditation practice. In Daoism this concept is not discussed with very direct language as it is in Buddhism but Daoism is often like that about important concepts. Rather than try to spell them out, it invites us to simply be, to experience, to practice, to deepen our connection with ourselves and nature. The meditative and experiential practices (sitting, standing, qigong, taiji,...) guide us to this type of realization. We are not separate from nature, we are an integral part of it. We are not separate from the Dao, we are a manifestation of it, therefore how can we be separate from each other? The concept of Wu Wei is also deeply connected to the illusory nature of self as I've posted about elsewhere. Much of Daoism points in this direction. It's all a matter of how we study and practice, how we interpret, and who guides us. I'm not saying Buddhism and Daoism have identical concepts about the nature of self, but they are not that far off and, in my personal experience, both lead us to very comparable places. Daoism is not meant to be taken as a rule book, IMO, nor is Buddhism once you get past the preliminaries. 

 

I don't have anything to offer in terms of what Daoists see wrong or incorrect in Buddhism. I'm quite certain others here will, although you're likely to find more interest if you post in the Daoist forum. I studied and practiced Daoism for a long time and currently focus on Bön Buddhism. For me they are far more similar than different. Both point to the same truths, the same reality, simply approaching it in different ways. Neither is right or wrong in an absolute sense and yet they certainly can be right or wrong for the tastes and proclivities of a given individual. 

 

Based on the two threads I've seen you start recently, it seems as if you are interested in emphasizing discrepancies between Buddhism and Daoism. As I mentioned in your other thread, inter-religious criticism and conflict is generally based on lack of sufficient depth of experience or understanding. I would invite you to look more at how both traditions can be used to deepen your understanding, not how you can use your understanding to undermine one and put the other on a pedestal. Neither are correct, neither are perfect, neither are wrong. Both are valuable tools in the right hands. Ultimately both are trying to help you to experience your life in the most direct and authentic way possible. 

 

Peace

 

Edited to add a link to an interesting article - http://www.iaccp.org/sites/default/files/ho_1995_0.pdf

Edited November 21, 2017 by steve

[Phoenix3]

I know there are a lot of nice things about Buddhism, but that still doesn’t change the fact that a lot of Daoists in the past disliked Buddhism, and routinely criticised it. Being frugal and having humility doesn’t go against merely having desire, which is what I said previously. I just had to say something in that textbox, because the forum requests it, but I’d rather I hadn’t now. 

 

I’m sure a long, politically-correct response like yours would receive lots of praise and thanks from other users of this forum, but it still doesn’t even begin to answer my question. 

 

I have my own reasons why I don’t agree with Buddhism, apart from the reasons stated above. I don’t understand why disagreeing with Buddhism or the Buddha is treated like some sort of fundamental mistake.

Edited November 21, 2017 by Phoenix3

[doc benway]

5 minutes ago, Phoenix3 said:

I know there are a lot of nice things about Buddhism, but that still doesn’t change the fact that a lot of Daoists in the past disliked Buddhism, and routinely criticised it. Being frugal and having humility doesn’t go against merely having desire, which is what I said previously. I just had to say something in that textbox, because the forum requests it, but I’d rather I hadn’t now. 

 

How does desire help you to be frugal and humble?

Frugality and humility are the antithesis to desire, at least it seems that way to me. 

Desire is there, it is and will always be a part of the human experience.

Buddhism and Daoism both guide us away from indulging desire. 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Phoenix3 said:

 

I’m sure a long, politically-correct response like yours would receive lots of praise and thanks from other users of this forum, but it still doesn’t even begin to answer my question. 

 

My response has nothing to do with politics.

Sorry about the length, I do tend to be verbose. 

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Phoenix3 said:

 

I have my own reasons why I don’t agree with Buddhism, apart from the reasons stated above. I don’t understand why disagreeing with Buddhism or the Buddha is treated like some sort of fundamental mistake.

 

You are welcome to disagree with Buddhism and the Buddha (I'm not Buddhist, BTW).

 

Spending time criticizing a religion is simply not a very productive use of the very limited time I have on this Earth.

Furthermore all the arguments, debates, and disagreement among followers of different traditions is very tiresome.

It never ends and rarely benefits anyone, in my experience.

Just takes up many pages on forums like this one. 

That is why it seems a mistake for me personally.

It seems to turn a lot of people on and I'll admit I have my moments.

Trying to get away from that.

It's probably related to my age...

I prefer to see what positive things I can derive.

 

If you are interested in the criticism angle, go for it!

I'll respectfully bow out. 

 

[Phoenix3]

By politically correct, it means seeking to appease all sides and everyone for the sake of it. Not having the courage to say wrong is wrong, or point out the emperor has no clothes.

 

8 minutes ago, steve said:

How does desire help you to be frugal and humble?

 

Well, if you’re hungry. That is a desire for food. From there, you can have a carrot and some healthy meat, or you can have 5 cakes. Each satisfy desire and do not repress it. The difference being a Buddhist dislikes this ‘signal’ of the body requesting food, and calls it suffering.

 

Quote

Spending time criticizing a religion is simply not a very productive use of the very limited time I have on this Earth.

Furthermore all the arguments, debates, and disagreement among followers of different traditions is very tiresome.

It never ends and rarely benefits anyone, in my experience.

Just takes up many pages on forums like this one. 

That is why it seems a mistake for me personally.

It seems to turn a lot of people on and I'll admit I have my moments.

Trying to get away from that.

It's probably related to my age...

I prefer to see what positive things I can derive.

 

How are you ever going to find truth if you can’t sort out the chaff from the wheat? Well, it’s up to you. 

 

14 minutes ago, steve said:

I'll respectfully bow out. 

 

Thank you for the conversation

[C T]

your information is not up to date, or maybe you have been misinformed. 

 

Point no. 1 - You said Taoists are critical of Buddhism, yet most if not all Taoist places of worship (temples and monasteries) pay great reverence to the Buddha Shakyamuni by setting aside altars to honour his teachings. (I know cos I am from a culture that's steeped in both Taoist and Buddhist customs). 

 

Point no. 2 - You allude to the false notion that Buddhist practitioners are somehow taught to repress their needs. This is another mistaken notion. 

 

Maybe its you who might consider learning to separate the wheat from the chaff. 

 

Sorry for sounding curt, but I dont have the sort of patience like Steve has. 

 

Btw, if you are genuinely interested in a debate, you are welcome to list all the points of contention here, and we can discuss or debate them individually. But if you are here simply to air your grievances, I think you will quickly run out of sensible things to say simply because it appears, from reading your posts, that even your basic understanding about what Buddhism represents is not clear to you yet. 

[Phoenix3]

Point no.1: I said some daoists were critical of Buddhism or disliked it. This is fundamentally a fact and not up for debate. It seems as though you’re arguing for the sake of it. 

 

Point no.2: you say it’s mistaken, but don’t address it. From my point of view, they’re repressing it, even when they say they aren’t.

 

14 minutes ago, C T said:

Btw, if you are genuinely interested in a debate, you are welcome to list all the points of contention here, and we can discuss or debate them individually.

 

 

Please read the original post

 

2 hours ago, Phoenix3 said:

I would like to know what about Buddhism they disagreed about.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Quote

What is Buddhism/the Buddha incorrect about?

 

Pretty much everything.

 

Buddha fully embraced the philosophical idea of "rebirth", which is -in nature- not different from believing that we're going to ride rainbow-unicorns in the sky. It's a matter of faith.

 

From a theoretical explanation of the afterlife (rebirth) which has no empirical evidence, he derived a philosophical problem, the problem of never-ending suffering in samsara.

To solve a philosophical problem (never-ending suffering) which is based on an unverified dogma (rebirth), he devised a monastic way of life based on ... abandon and suppress all of human's nature: don't have children, don't have a wife, don't work, etc.

 

 

[allinone]

37 minutes ago, Cheshire Cat said:

Buddha fully embraced the philosophical idea of "rebirth", which is -in nature- not different from believing that we're going to ride rainbow-unicorns in the sky. It's a matter of faith.

 

what about pile ups, your body is just a pile up of dust elements making up layers of being, streams, winds etc.

 

there is no soul, no self....but there actually is bc they are formed by piling up. And you not have to have much imagination to realize that there is no death or life just the pile up what formed later than your physical body and at some point will not be able to be suited to body anymore. While there is no death or life, it won't take away the existence or possibility of rebirth and karma.

 

same way you can have immortality, but what isn't immortality like its finite or final, its a option what lasts very long.

[doc benway]

11 hours ago, Phoenix3 said:

By politically correct, it means seeking to appease all sides and everyone for the sake of it. Not having the courage to say wrong is wrong, or point out the emperor has no clothes.

 

 

Sure didn't appease you, did I?

I'm not trying to appease anyone, simply sharing my feelings and experience.

 

PS    You are wrong and you're naked....

 

 

 

11 hours ago, Phoenix3 said:

Well, if you’re hungry. That is a desire for food. From there, you can have a carrot and some healthy meat, or you can have 5 cakes. Each satisfy desire and do not repress it. The difference being a Buddhist dislikes this ‘signal’ of the body requesting food, and calls it suffering.

 

You're wrong again

 

 

 

 

 

11 hours ago, Phoenix3 said:

How are you ever going to find truth if you can’t sort out the chaff from the wheat? Well, it’s up to you. 

 

By practicing and focusing on what works for me. 

 

 

11 hours ago, Phoenix3 said:

Thank you for the conversation

 

You're most welcome.

[Stosh]

17 hours ago, Phoenix3 said:

Personally, as a Daoist, I don't think desire is a problem. It's your unconscious trying to signal that there is an inbalance in the body. Also, I do believe there is such thing as the self, while Buddhism believes it is an illusion. But that's just my opinion. I have nothing that i'm certain Buddhism is incorrect about. Though I hope there is, because the Buddhist concept of Nirvana/Nibbana and enlightenment sounds awful.

 

Daoism and Buddhism have coexisted in China for a very long time, with notable Daoists disagreeing with Buddhism. I would like to know what about Buddhism they disagreed about.

The answer you would get is going to depend on a variety of factors ,

Buddhism is big , and Daoism has branches which are not always harmonious.

There is a desire not to offend or invalidate.

And negative arguments , tend to draw negative reactions. 

 

Obviously,  Buddhists don't think their end game sounds horrible , so one would have to come to understand the reasons why it is described , as it is. 

that being said. The two families of belief ,can coexist pretty easily.

[C T]

20 minutes ago, Stosh said:

The two families of belief ,can coexist pretty easily.

Except that there will always be jesters who seem to take delight and comfort in causing rifts. 

 

[Stosh]

Just now, C T said:

Except that there will always be jesters who seem to take delight and comfort in causing rifts. 

 

Well, yeah   

[Jeff]

18 hours ago, Phoenix3 said:

Personally, as a Daoist, I don't think desire is a problem. It's your unconscious trying to signal that there is an inbalance in the body. Also, I do believe there is such thing as the self, while Buddhism believes it is an illusion. But that's just my opinion. I have nothing that i'm certain Buddhism is incorrect about. Though I hope there is, because the Buddhist concept of Nirvana/Nibbana and enlightenment sounds awful.

 

Daoism and Buddhism have coexisted in China for a very long time, with notable Daoists disagreeing with Buddhism. I would like to know what about Buddhism they disagreed about.

 

I think the Tao Te Ching is very clear on the problem with get caught up in desires and pretty much completely agrees with Buddhism on the point...

 

Chapter One

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.

The name that can be named is not the eternal name.

The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.

The named is the mother of ten thousand things.

Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.

Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.

These two spring from the same source but differ in name;

This appears as darkness. Darkness within darkness.

The gate to all mystery.

 

I guess the question if one wants to see the mystery, or instead be caught up with the manifestations of those desires...

[Phoenix3]

Oh ffs, can someone just answer the question

[Jeff]

4 minutes ago, Phoenix3 said:

Oh ffs, can someone just answer the question

 

Ok. Classical Buddhism is wrong about mind streams all being separate with no overlap. 

[C T]

Science and religion have been at odds for a long time, with some notable scientists disagreeing with religion, and some religious scholars disagreeing with scientific theories. I would like to know what they are in disagreement about. 

 

Ans: wtf kind of question is that??? 

 

 

Quote

 

Phoenix3 said:

Daoism and Buddhism have coexisted in China for a very long time, with notable Daoists disagreeing with Buddhism. I would like to know what about Buddhism they disagreed about.

 

 

[Phoenix3]

Requesting mod action to stop the dodging and derailing of this thread 

[Stosh]

Mods wont take action on a good dodge of a bad question. 

[Wu Ming Jen]

After investing decades studying eastern philosophy and being  part of the complete reality school. I have discovered a major difference between Buddhism and the Taoist .

 

The word Buddhism begins with the letter B and the word Taoist begins with the letter T. 

 

If one does not apply the teachings into daily life both systems are just a bunch of words and ultimately meaningless.  

 

If one finds meaning and truth in one or the other then what is the difference.

 

 

 

[Mudfoot]

19 hours ago, Phoenix3 said:

 

Daoism and Buddhism have coexisted in China for a very long time, with notable Daoists disagreeing with Buddhism. I would like to know what about Buddhism they disagreed about.

If you know this, it would be easy for you to find out for yourself. 

1) which notable Daoists? 

Track their names down, probably not hard. 

2) I am certain that in texts, really close to their names and the term "buddhism",  you will find their line of reasoning. 

 

Answer found,  problem solved, and you mastered the method of finding out for your self in the process. 

 

Or if you are here to test if the resident Buddhists have practiced enough, just write "buddha smells like butt" and see what happens.

[cold]

1 hour ago, Phoenix3 said:

Requesting mod action to stop the dodging and derailing of this thread 

 

1 hour ago, Stosh said:

Mods wont take action on a good dodge of a bad question. 

 

Or bad dodges of good queries.

There be some artful dodgers and some awful dodgers here.....

 

Edit to add:

But no shortage of experts on everything...

and spelling badge to bad

Edited November 21, 2017 by cold

[Wu Ming Jen]

1 hour ago, Mudfoot said:

Or if you are here to test if the resident Buddhists have practiced enough, just write "buddha smells like butt" and see what happens.

That is what that smell is and I thought it was me. I feel way better now maybe that what the teaching is about, feeling better if so its working

[doc benway]

5 hours ago, Phoenix3 said:

Oh ffs, can someone just answer the question

 

Here - this looks like an excellent resource for you:

http://www.uhpress.hawaii.edu/p-5307-9780824834111.aspx

[thelerner]

I like Buddhism and think it has some very clear descriptions of mankind, its problems and possible solutions.  Imo some branches have evolved into making the Buddha godlike, a mistake imo.   Likewise some branches are more theistic then others and I prefer my Buddhism like I like my coffee, deist free.