Buddhism is Bullshit – Part II

12/03/2011

To anyone reading this, I strongly suggest reading Part I of this article first.

Buddhism, unlike most other religions (and yes, it is a religion), doesn’t make the mistake of trying to explain how it all began. Bible starts saying “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth [Genesis 1:1].” Anyone with an iota of brain can see this is just stupid. It is so stupid that I’m not going to explain why it’s stupid. Not just Abrahamic religions, but many religions have a god who created everything. Buddhism doesn’t make that mistake. Buddha tells us not to ponder upon how it all began since it’d yield no answer. But by not having a god, Buddhism creates a whole lot of questions that it has to answer.

In Buddhism, there’s the concept of Karma. It is by no means an original creation of Buddhism. Religions that sprung up in India before Buddhism talked about Karma. But somehow, if Karma is a brand name, now it belongs to Buddhism.

According to this concept of Karma, if you do something good, good will happen to you. If you do something bad, bad things will happen to you. A cursory look at peoples’ lives would make you see it’s bull. Hence the need for reincarnation: the birth-rebirth cycle.

There’s absolutely no logical nor empirical reason to believe that there’s life after death. There’s absolutely no reason to believe that there’s a cycle of birth and rebirth. But Buddhist believe there is one. Why? Because Buddha said so.

But that’s the case with all religions. It’s not about reason. It’s about faith. The more ridiculous the thing you believe, the closer you are to salvation. You’re a really good Christian if you believe snakes talked. You’re a really good Buddhist if you believe an elephan, a tiger, and a “vatu kurulla” were good friends, a long time ago (I can’t really remember this story).

So I will talk about something that I think Buddhism needs to answer and yet hasn’t answered. If there’s a god, whatever you do that he doesn’t like will send you to hell and whatever you do that he likes will send you to heaven. But when there’s no god, as in Buddhism, who or what decides what’s wrong and what’s right? How can you say that killing a person or an animal is bad Karma? If it IS wrong, is killing a person is equally wrong for you and me, or is it more wrong for me and less wrong for you? There’s no god to decide this. Then there must be a mechanism for this. If minus values are bad Karma and plus values are good Karma, and if there’s an act called X which has a Karma value of Z, there must be a mechanism to decide what Z is; to decide whether Z is greater or lesser than 0 or Z=0. No such mechanism is presented in Buddhism.

Now I think is the perfect time to return to evolution.

To be continued…

Advertisements

67 Responses to “Buddhism is Bullshit – Part II”

  1. billy Says:

    in buddhisam, karma doesnt relate to action rather thoughts that lead to the action.What it does is lead to a state which is a reaction of the previous state of mind ( and mind u the current state of mind will depends on other factors such that karma will not be the only course) and the mechanism of how all this work is explained in paticha-samuppadha or the dependent arising. therefore before u critize things u have no clue or rather things u dont understand, better try to understand them first!

  2. The way of the Dodo Says:

    Oh dear!

    Anyways i think there is pretty well defined way to decide what is good & bad in Buddhism. It’s basically about your motivations. If your actions are well meaning you get good karma if they stem from a malicious intent you get bad karma.

  3. lefroy Says:

    @billy & dodo
    Both of you are not getting my point.

    Pattichcha smuppadda is definitely not the mechanism I talk about.

    My question is this. What are well meaning actions and what are actions with malicious intent? Who decides what is malicious and what is not?

    Billy. If this is only about states of mind, then there’s no such thing as good and bad. I, since I’m a non-believer, don’t think anything is absolutely good or bad. But a religion needs things to be either absolutely good or bad (you need a god for this). Killing a person (or thinking about killing a person) should absolutely be a sin. It cannot be relative. If it’s relative.

    Not only that, if this is only about states of mind, you should explain how cosmic laws or whatever are affected by the states of your mind. For example, Mugalan thero got beaten to death by a bunch of thieves because he had beaten his parents pretty bad in a previous life. Now you need to explain what made those thieves do that horrible thing. How did the payback for his bad karma happen? Certainly no god made those thieves do what they did.

    • The way of the Dodo Says:

      Malice & compassion are emotional states. I think we all recognize them pretty well. As for what exactly connects our states of mind to physical ramifications, i have no clue.

      But the bigger issue i have with buddhist morality is that it’s very self contradictory. On one hand they say that the self doesn’t exist and that it’s our dualistic perception causes all the pain and suffering. On the other hand they say be nice to people, otherwise you’ll get a cosmic kick in the butt. But the catch is that any attempt to be naughty or nice actively enforces a dualistic perception of reality which should cause suffering or at the very least hinder nirvana. 😕

      • The way of the Dodo Says:

        I say it hinders nirvana here because being cognizantly compassionate requires you to distinguish yourself from the rest of universe, as it is you, yourself, who is being compassionate to others, and commit to the dualistic fallacy that is the primary ‘avidyava’ in buddhism.

        • megatesla Says:

          You’re supposed to be compassionate to yourself as well – in which case, there’s no need to distinguish between self and other. Just be compassionate towards everything.

        • anu Says:

          The whole purpose of buddhism is to end this samsara. To do that one has to attain nibbana. So let’s take an example of someone giving money to build a temple. When he does that if he sees the meaningless nature of money, and sees the meaningless nature of life, how it could change in an instant even if we try to think of it as that something we can maintain as we like, then he gives that money hoping that it’ll help him to attain nirvana. He has seen the useless nature of objective things and his body to some extent so his intention governs his action of karma. Now the result is that he has understood to some extent the changing nature in everything, and it’ll help him to to understand it more in future. But if one gives, hoping “I would like to be wealthy in future” now that’s a different intention as he’s not seen the true nature, and he’ll be rewarded surely with wealth, but that doesn’t help a lot in attaining nibbanna as it’s motivated by greed of some sort. So the same apply to compassion. Compassion governed by emotions has it’s rewards, but it’s indeed a hindrance. Compassion in the sense of realisation that all the beings are suffering caught up in this endless cycle of life and death, and they are not trying to get out of them, and you hoping that they would be able to get out of that will make you realise the suffering that you yourself is going through those same things as you are still in this sangsaara. That’ll help you to realise about yourself. And it’ll help you attain nibbana. As you think may all beings be free of grief or sadness you have to realise that sadness is not in this material world, it’s a perception created by your mind. When you have seen something and you think of it as good and you like to keep it as you want it to be but when it changes and decays with time, or when you lose it, liking it in the first place is the reason which made you sad. So when you think about it your understanding of it becomes better. The more you understand the less you hold on to.

    • anu Says:

      Would you like it if someone cut your hand off? No, right? You’ll feel pain a lot so you wouldn’t like it. So if a thief cuts your hand with the intention of causing pain to you governed by hatred, fear for his life, or to save himself then he’s doing a bad thing, because what he’s doing to himself is contradictory to what he wants for himself. So that’s bad and there’ll be severe consequneces for the thief. And if a doctor cuts off your hand to save your life bacuse there’s gangrene in your hand, his actions are goverend by the intention to save the life of the person. So eventhough it causes pain to you, the doctor’s intentions are doing good to you therefore there will be no bad karma for the doctor.
      Killing a person is a sin if the motivation is governed by either “loba”, “dwesha” or “moha”. But there is a story a monk who climed a tree to save himself from a veddah and his wild animals. and the monk removed his robe and threw it on the ground but the robe accidentally fell upon the veddahs and the animal mistaking the veddah for the monk, tore the veddah apart. So when other monks heard of it they took the monk to lord Buddha saying that the monk killed a man. But Lord Buddha replied that as the monk’s intentions were not to kill or even at least harm the veddah that it’s not a sin so therefore it’ll hav no karma vipaka whatsoever.
      So to be a sin the sinner’s intention has to governed by the three “akusala moola” ; “loba”, “dwesha”, “moha” and there are other requirements such as causing pain to someone physically or mentally but it’s not just simple as that.
      Mugalan thero tried escaping twice by using his powers, he saw that it’ll not stop. And he looked in to his past and saw the reason. He could have tried more and more to avoid it, but he knew he couldn’t. And as he is an arahant and has no love for his life or no need to live more, he stopped trying.

    • XD Says:

      I believe its the state of the mind. When you do bad thing or think of it the brain changes. Maybe the brain waves have an impact. Buddhism defines what is good and bad. When you do something that help a person to do better for a healthy cause example is good karma. If you buy u r friend some weed which not for a good cause (no such thing as us not even our own body. Hence destroying ones own body is similar to destroying someone elses body) it is bad karma. And i believe the happiness you get, that positive feeling when u do a good thing will definitely means u have done a good karma. If the mindset is negative, with guilt ect. That means it could be bad karma

    • XD Says:

      I believe its the state of the mind. When you do bad thing or think of it the brain changes. Maybe the brain waves have an impact. Buddhism defines what is good and bad. When you do something that help a person to do better for a healthy cause example is good karma. If you buy u r friend some weed which not for a good cause (no such thing as us not even our own body. Hence destroying ones own body is similar to destroying someone elses body) it is bad karma. And i believe the happiness you get, that positive feeling when u do a good thing will definitely means u have done a good karma. If the mindset is negative, with guilt ect. That means it could be bad karma. In buddhism there are certain things that define good or bad i just gave an example ‘for the goodwill of a person’ i dont remember the rest though

    • xsunshinex Says:

      Sir,

      1: As for your question about right and wrong, I personally believe that defining what’s wrong and what’s right completely depends upon one’s own self. What hurts me, hurts others. View everyone else in the world just as you’d like to view your own self. They are no different than you. So any action that would hurt you physically and mentally are wrong. And any action that would bring yourself happiness mentally and physically are right. But these actions should be justifiable and out of guilt, ofc. Just as simple as that. I think in Buddhism there’s a specific term to describe this. (View/treat any other being in the universe just as you’d like to view/treat your own self) Sorry the term is not coming to my mind at the moment.

      2: As for your question on how karma works, I can’t say for sure but I read in an article recently that every thought we think contains a certain vibrational frequency just as our mind contains brain waves. (Source: http://www.one-mind-one-energy.com/cosmic-law-of-attraction.html) So if a person thinks of something bad, if in fact his intentions are bad, his thoughts are gonna release a certain vibrational frequency out to the universe so the universe is gonna pick that up & radiate that very frequency to some other end which has the similar frequency and blend in. (which has been created by a thought from some other being) I assume that could be just like how a radio station works. We tune in to a certain radio station with a certain frequency so that it’ll provide us only with that specific radio station that we are tuning into.
      A person who’s killed many beings may get his own karma back but that doesn’t mean he should get killed the *exact same way*/that he should be killed in this life itself but maybe by any other means because his thoughts contained a certain frequency and eventually his mind’s gonna attract thoughts with the similar frequency meaning that he will eventually have to pay for what he did.

      Anyway, I posted this comment merely as some food for thought and in accordance to my current state of understanding and knowledge. Hope this added something into your argument. Thank you.

  4. lefroy Says:

    Btw, whether karma relates to action or intent is not important to this. Anyway, the word karma literally means action (“kriyava” in sinhala). However I know buddha has said once or twice the intent is the karma or something to that effect. It’s interesting. Angulimala was seriously considering killing his mother.


  5. Please note that the Buddha did not invent or create anything. The Buddha discovered natural laws and processes relating, especially, to human mind. Karma is also one such mental process that the Buddha fully comprehended and expounded to his followers. With regard to killing of an animal, before you agonize the animal being killed, you agonize your mind in the act of killing. This state of mind generates billions of Formations(Sankara) in the mind and your blood stream. In other words, in the whole process of killing billions of atoms (Rupa Kalapas) are generated in the blood stream, incorporating a high degree of heat, pain, agony which would come into operation on a future point of time, with painful, agonizing results and experience.

    Also, I would like to draw your attention to remarks made by the greatest scientist, Albert Einstein who mentioned that if he were to embrace a religion he would choose Buddhism as it meets all the requirements of a religion. Please note that mental processes can not be comprehended through science and logic. If you take a simple example of “hunger” , no one can explain, point out what the hunger really looks like or feel like. That is purely a personal experience of an individual. Similarly, Buddhist concepts whch were discovered by the Buddha and expounded for the welfare and emancipation of intelligent beings have to be comprehended by self-realization only


  6. If something can be explain with two words instead one, I rather like to use three. So I beg your pardon for a long comment, if this turns out to be one.

    You ask the ultimate question. What’s right and wrong. To answer that we need to know the purpose of life and universe and beyond. But according to Douglas Adams if someone found the purpose of the universe, it disrepairs intently and something new, more complex appears at the same instant. We don’t know the purpose of universe and we will never know what’s right or wrong.
    Law of the country appears to be it defines right and wrong but laws are often paradoxical. For example, law declares 15 years and 364 day old human as a victim and 16 years and 1 day old person as the predator. But we all know there is nothing special happened at midnight of 16th birthday. Law is an old subject and a dedicated subject, but even law do not define what’s right or wrong, but it rather look at what’s useful or not.
    What is a good action? I have personally asked that question from number of people. If you want, you can stop reading further, take a minute and answer to the question yourself. Almost all the time the answer is something similar to “An action that creates good results”. But it is not true. One can gamble all his wealth and daughters virginity, and actually win. A good results, but not a right action. A doctor may do the surgery, but patient may die. Right action, but bad results. What I am getting at is, I agree with you, we can’t define right vs wrong. We don’t have the capacity. There are status other than right and wrong. It is a landscape. Not a cliff.

    I can’t clearly figure out you are honestly ignorant, maliciously unaware or trying to be funny. But if you genuinely use Bird and Elephant story as a fact, I rather like to read Peramune-Rala’s blog about Islam.

    In Buddhism you don’t have to and believe in anything because it’s there and matter of fact, told not to believe without testing vigorously. Where you get that idea about believe?

    So far ‘given knowledge’ (you can use the world religion if you insist) tries to provide humanly understandable guidelines for right and wrong. Only alternative to this is Sam Harris suggestion. If we can measure suffering in human brain, and then we can label action cause that suffering as bad. And action reduces that as good. I don’t think even that will clearly explain right and wrong. But that’s good enough for practical social appliances such as law or politics.

    There are no such a thing call Bad Karma or Good Karama. It’s just Karma. Karma starts with intention (not with action) and it may or may not end up with a reaction. Also Karma may have almost infinite shell life. You attached Good and Bad to Karma and say it’s wrong. Indeed it’s wrong! Don’t attach good and bad to Karma!
    // But a religion needs things to be either absolutely good or bad//
    You can’t say since Kitty is a cat, therefore all cats are black.

    // Killing a person (or thinking about killing a person) should absolutely be a sin. It cannot be relative//
    No. & No.

    //But when there’s no god, as in Buddhism, who or what decides what’s wrong and what’s right?// You.
    Buddhism is not so big about right and wrong business, Buddhism rolls on something else call “Samadi” – it means ‘putting yourself to right’. So you have to decide is abortion the correct thing to do under the circumstances or not. There are three conditions in Buddhism that you can use making the decision, but that’s a deferent topic.

    You are correct when you say no banker keep Karma account, but I can’t understand why you think it’s impossible? The world managing CO2 without Morgan Stanley accounting carbon credit, isn’t it?

    I don’t say Karma is true or not. I don’t know. I think sometimes it’s not – and sometimes it is. Randomness may player a bigger role. And Randomness is accepted in Buddhism. I’m just answering to your argument here. That’s all.
    // Then there must be a mechanism for this. //
    (Be careful with the word ‘must’) You are talking about is Karma in Hinduism here. Buddha rejected all those X and Y business. And he even introduced something call “Endeavor” which can totally overrule Karma and as I said Randomness come to play too. So Karma sort of become like weather. Even all the conditions are correct, it may not rain.

    When I was a kid, I lock the cat in the chicken house and my elder cousin said, doing that I may reincarnate as a cat and cat as a human and he may lock me inside the chicken house. Naturally I asked what would happened to the that human and he said it will repeat. I thought about it lately. Now I forgot what my conclusion was.

    • The way of the Dodo Says:

      The conclusion to the cat-chicken story should have have been, why do you give a damn?

      This reincarnation business makes very little sense to me. So let’s say i die and get reincarnated as earthworm, let’s call him jim. this is supposed to be a bad thing. however, i share no memories or any psychological connection with jim. Jim & I are completely different entities that are as distinct as myself & any other earthworm that is squirming about the earth right now. i am connected to my future self because there is a psychological continuum that ties us together, whoever or whatever that doesn’t share this continuum is a separate entity. And should be treated as a separate entity.

      Now if you go back to the cat story, you shouldn’t be dissuaded from locking up the cat because of karma. All karma does to the universe in that instance is locking up another cat, or a succession of cats. all of which you should be perfectly fine with considering you already get kick out of locking up the cat, and you shouldn’t deny other people that same kick.


  7. OK, Last time I’m here. You don’t understand Buddhism period. You haven’t read enough of the Tipitika to know what’s there and how the Buddha explains karma. But I will say this to your statement about karma and rebirth being based totally on faith.

    Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but only changes form.

    Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but only changes form.

    Karma is not based on faith. There is no decider. It is simply cause and effect.

    Goodbye.

  8. lefroy Says:

    My main question is, is there such things as absolutel good actions/intentions, and absolutely bad actions/intentions. It seems that all of us agree that according to Buddhism, nothing’s absolutely good or bad (obviously for that to be true, there must be a god).

    For a non-religious person like me, this is not a problem. But for religious people, it is.

    Take an example – Euthenasia. Your mother is suffering from a cancer. She’s in terrible pain. She’s going to die. You can end her pain if you sign a document that would make the doctors pull the plug off of the machine that’s connected to her heart? Would you do that? Certainly, if you sign the document, it’s an act of compassion. Your intentions aren’t murderous. Would you do that? I don’t know what I’d do. But I could certainly reason and argue before I take a decision. Can you do that? According to the buddhism I know, you can’t sign that document. Why? Killing a person is wrong. Just wrong. Absolutely wrong. Take advice from a buddhist monk if you’re confused. He’d tell you not to sign the document. And yet, when you ask what’s good and what’s bad, he’d say it’s only about mental states. As Dodo put it, this leads to the question how mental states connect to physical ramification. The question of what made those poor bunch of thieves beat Mugalan Thero to death? Buddhism provides no answer for this.

    Killing a person (or thinking about it) should absolutely be a sin. Yes & Yes. If you’re saying it’s No & No, you’re certainly not believing the buddhism I know and think SL soldiers aren’t going to hell because they killed for their country, and not because they wanted to kill. That’s bull. It’s a sin. If you say no, please explain why it isn’t a sin, instead of simply saying No & No. (killing is not an “Ahosi Karma” that has an expiration date)

    Elephant, Bird story is not a joke. In buddhism, these stories aren’t symbolical. They are literal. Buddha was a monkey, a vatu kurulla, a swan and so many other animals in his previous lives.

    You would do well to remember that Einstein was actually not a believer in any religion. Even if he was, what’s your point? Do you think he knew more about life after death than we know?

    “told not to believe without testing vigorously”
    Exactly how are you going about “testing” these things. Buddhism isn’t science to conduct tests and confirm or reject a theory. If Buddhism can be vigorously tested, and confirmed, I’d be a devout Buddhist by now.
    That’s why Buddha say towards the end of the “Kaalaama Sutra” to believe what elders/erudites believe.
    Are you a Buddhist because you tested things vigorously? I don’t think so. Most people simply believe their parents’ religion

    @RICHARD
    You may have read the whole of Tripitaka, but certainly you haven’t properly read my article.

    Where have I said Karma is based on faith?

    Since we both know you’ve returned to this blog multiple times since you said you won’t come back, it’d be nice of you to answer.


  9. I agree with Richard
    You seems to be ignorant about the subject. Most of us are. Even some of the Buddhist scholars. Buddha said they are like shepherds looking after other’s sheep. They may know everything about sheep but won’t get to have any use from them. (That’s where “Buddhism is a philosophy” notion comes from) But in your case, you seems even don’t have many sheep and top of that, you counts grasshoppers in the field as sheep too. If you really want to make a rich and productive argument about Buddhism or String-theory or anything else, you have to spend some time properly UNDERSTANDing it, not just learning bit and pieces of it and “understanding” it fit to your theory. I think you may find Christopher Hitchens advice about this somewhere on youtube.

    //Elephant, Bird story is not a joke. In Buddhism, these stories aren’t symbolical. They are literal.//
    Those stories and even Graham Brothers are old Indian Folklore. They have used, reused all over the world, in deferent purposes. If Buddha said that story to anyone in his time, the listener must have immediately understood the story value, because his/her grandma told that story when he/she was 2. If you or anyone believes they have any news value, then you have to do lot of explanation.

    // (killing is not an “Ahosi Karma” that has an expiration date)//
    Is this something new happened while I was in vacation? I thought only “Anthanthariya Papa Karma” are such? (I have issues with those but that’s a deferent topic) .

    // Killing a person is wrong. Just wrong. Absolutely wrong. Take advice from a Buddhist monk if you’re confused//
    I have. And I thought about it a lot too. Do you care to do the same? http://diydharma.org/buddhist-response-euthanasia-abortion-ajahn-brahm

    // Einstein was actually not a believer in any religion//
    I didn’t say he was. Maybe you are replying to someone else.

    //Believe//
    Belief come first and test afterword. First you have to believe Piyal is the murder, and then you have to test it. (If the test suggest otherwise, you have to change your Belief.) Kalama Sutra is a pocket book instruction for what you should choose before your test. You (and religious people) seem to think Belief is the end, but Buddhism encourage, if not required, testing believes, and then you have go toward understanding. There are talk about Nirvana and all other things after that, but I don’t know about them.

    // Buddhism isn’t science… //
    You are correct. There is no standard definition for science, but let me try to define what Science is, you can correct me if I’m wrong. Science is Organize and standardized acquired public knowledge we used to pass up to next step. Buddhism or any other spirituality is not public knowledge; they are personal knowledge for personal purposes created because of personal questions. (note, used the word spirituality not religion)

    // Exactly how are you going about “testing” these things…//
    I’m afraid, you have to do it yourself since they are your own knowledge. You can use public testing (which used in science), but there are extremely practical limits to that (speed, amount, technology, etc..). Buddhism suggests meditation. Now if you think meditation is closing your eyes & sitting still then talking is moving your mouth & make sounds. A philosophers mind consider as laboratory in an arm chair. Philosopher is nothing but a full time mediator on public knowledge, in Buddhism a mediator work on personal knowledge instead.

    The Question you should have asked is, can our mind be a laboratory, can our mind obtain/build reasonable knowledge? There are philosophers and poets who have talk about atom and other things quite accurately before they were publically proven. So I believe it’s possible. You can believe otherwise.

    (There is a notion, Meditation itself is an exercise to improve your mind (like boxer lifting weight) so you can use your mind to learn others later on, but I think it’s both.)

    //Are you a Buddhist because you tested things vigorously? I don’t think so.//
    I don’t think even there is such a thing call Buddhist, since Buddha has not used such a word, ever. But I guess anyone is free to use any noun or adjective as they wish on themselves.

    I do test thing vigorously in my mind, I find it extremely enjoyable. I have no idea what my personal character or habits have to do with the discussion.

    //Most people simply believe their parents’ religion//
    Truth or acquisition of it is not democratic. Absolutely nobody believed Ignaz Semmelweis, but that do not mean he was wrong.


  10. The way of the Dodo

    //The conclusion to the cat-chicken story should have have been, why do you give a damn?//
    We have to give a damn about questions popup in our minds, since we develop theory of mind around year 3 or so, we can’t stop ourselves thinking about others and interconnections (unless you have Asperger syndrome). Its sort of like sex or love.

    // This reincarnation business makes very little sense to me//
    Same here. I have read few times in scholarly Buddhist literature why reincarnation does not matters, but I still didn’t got a chance to understand that.

    I don’t know whether Karma go on its way creating events just for punishing or rewarding. But since we are familiar with mortal “law and order”, we often think Karma behave the same as a policeman. But things can happen just because they happen and you may end up at the wrong place at wrong time because of Karma. I have to refer you to the final scene of great philosopher Forest Gump regarding that.

  11. lefroy Says:

    @baluraala

    Your knowledge about Buddhism, or rathdr the lack of it is at public display when you say “is this something new happened while I was in vacation? I thought only Ananthariya Papa Karma are such.”

    This dumb beyond anything I’ve read before.

    Ananthariya Papa Karma is a sin that will damn you to hell for eternity. There are only 5 such sins. If you commit one of them, you’re damned for eternity and no one could ever help you.

    Killing your neighbour isn’t an Ananthariya Papa Karma. You want be burning in hell for eternity. Still you will go to hell and burn there. After spending some time there, you could come back.

    Ahosi Karma is a very small karma that sometimes won’t yield a reaction.

    You can ask Richard to lecture you on this.

    The rest of what you said is just nonsese. The key thing about science, what defines science, is it’s use of scientific method. Basically you need to have a hypothesis that can be falsified after conducting few tests. Scientists try repeatedly to falsify the hypothesis and if it couldn’t be falsified, it’s thought to be true.

    There’s no such method in Buddhism. Technically you cannot be 100% sure that it’s false, as is the case with all religions. You can be 99.999% sure it’s false though. That’s why I’m writing this series of articles.

    The theory of evolution on the otherhand is a scientific theory and would break apart if you found rabbit fossils in the precambrian. The fact that it hasn’t happen gives us a reason to believe evolution. Buddhism and pseudo-scientific bullshit like psycoanalysis aren’t falsifiable like that. They can’t be tested.

    FYI, buddhism, as it is understood and practised by it’s followers (buddhists), condemn Euthenasia.

    • anuradha Says:

      Ananthariya papa karma does not mean that you would burn in hell for eternity. Ananthariya means “atharak naara pala dena” in english it means as long as you are in sansara, until you attain anupadhisesa nirvana the consequences will come to you no matter what. It doesn’t mean that one will burn in hell for eternity, many thousand years or many hundred thousand years maybe, but not eternity.


  12. Thank you for the information. I think High school text books need some changes, I checked them yesterday and they seems to completely wrong, about those minor Karama and other things . Please talk to the education department and explain them their mistakes. I’m sure they will happy to take your advice and correct their disgraceful mistakes in text books. well done.

    • lefroy Says:

      You have no idea what Ananthariya papa karma means right.

      This is what every kid went to daham pasala knows.

      There are five big sins called Ananthariya papa karma. if you commit one of them, you’re fucked for eternity.

      1. mave mereema
      2. piyaa mereema
      3. rahathun mereema
      4. budun ge le selaveema (a buddha cannot be murdered)
      5. sanga bhedaya

      Just accept you’re an ignorant idiot and stop blaming the education department and potentially the buddhist ministry (or whatever that is called).


      • Story goes Mugalan killed his mother, therefore he received Bad Karma, not because he killed his neighbor. Mugalan didn’t went to hell immediately as you suggest.

        • lefroy Says:

          Bullshit. Mugalan beat up his mother. He didn’t kill her. He’d be burning in hell even now if he killed her. He’d been suffering life after life for this and even after attaining enlightenment, he still had to pay for his sins

        • lefroy Says:

          Oh, by the way, Ajasatthu, the prince who tortured and killed his father king Bimbisara still burns in hell.


  13. By the way I am an ignorant idiot, more I learn things more I realize I am one. Only young and fools know everything, said the wise man.


  14. Yes. You are correct about Mugalan & ananthariya Karma. My Mistake.

  15. Get some study mate Says:

    From what i had read so far i could see that u actually KNOW NOTHING ABOUT Buddhism AT ALL! All you know is just some simple and widly known part of it such as Karma and u already made a judgement about it! Plus, u even mention dogmas but HEY! Do u know that there is a buddhist teaching call KaLaMa Suttra (not Kama Suttra alright? they are totally dfferent)? And what you have written so far, they are all based on Tibetians or Mahayana School (I think) which both of them have changed a lot since the time of Buddha. Why don’t u actually study the original texts then? Teravada School is the closest one to the original and there are 84000 different suttras, have you studied all of them? You said that there is no the creation story in Buddhism right? I’m really sure that there is but i confirm that there is no such thing as the Creator in actual Buddhism.

    • lefroy Says:

      Please get some study mate.

      I mentioned about the kalama sutra in one of the above comments.

      FYI, there is no creation story in buddhism (in theravada buddhism).

  16. Fuck you Says:

    You’re not dawkins, you’re terrible at reasoning, and you’d do better in just shutting the fuck up.

  17. The way of the Dodo Says:

    actually there is a buddhist creation story. it can be found in some sutra. Basically it talk about a cyclical universe where the one before this one gets squished leaving only the incorporeal lifeforms and then the universe expanded. earth got created. then the incorporeal people came to earth and eat the type of jelly. this made them into corporeal blobs which eventually ‘evolved’ into humans.

    It’s a nice story, like most creation stories.

    Get some study mate, this little story that theravada school is the closest to ‘pure’ buddhism. is something our monks feed us from an early age. like buddha ‘supposedly’ says in the kalama sutra don’t believe things just because people say so.

  18. lefroy Says:

    @Fuck you
    What a wonderful display of pure reasoning. Next time your mother tries to suck your dick, please tell her to shut the fuck up.

    @dodo
    That’s not a creation story at all. A new universe is created after every “Kalpa Vinashaya” or something. It is actually a re-creation story.

  19. lefroy Says:

    @dodo
    I think Theravada buddhism is the closest to original buddhism. It never had a great logician like Nagarjuna to transform it into something entirely different.

  20. M.L.B Says:

    Tsk Tsk. The reason I decided to post this is not because the topic is Buddhism in Bullshit. But because you said Buddhism is a religion. Buddhism is a religion in todays context because of all the flower offering boddhi puja attending retrads in white in this country. In reality Buddhism is just a way of life. and nothing more. just a way to be happy.

    The idea of Karma is implemented to keep us fucking humans in check for all we know Buddha might have never said anything regarding this because he isnt the “son of god” or “god” himself. He is a just a human after all.

    If he never used the idea of Karma in his teachings how could he have justified being happy without actually killing for food. For all I know rebirth isnt possible nor is karma a real thing but at least Buddha never tried to hard code it into our brains like every other religion does.

    Bottom line I dont go to temple or worship flowers and all that bullshit. I try to live by the basic 5 precepts even though it’s hard and also I keep an open mind which many religions including Buddhism in Sri Lanka preached by our so called ipod using, million rupee car owning monks doesnt approve of.
    Theravada Buddhism might be the closest to the real thing but never think the Buddhism we are learning now is Theravada or anything close to what Lord Buddha said.

    PS – AFAIK Mervyn silva and so many of his thugs including the ones who went on massacring innocent ppl 30 years ago would have gone to Dhamma school and Dhane geval.

    PPS – I like the way you think Lefroy but I dont like the way you bash the original teaching of Budda instead of the present teaching.

  21. Lothar Says:

    Focussing on these issues is not how one becomes free of greed, hatred, and delusion. It leads in precisely the opposite direction.

  22. SpiritHealer Says:

    Religion thoughtfulness exercises for health and self alterative secrets revealed. Pedagogy qigong exercises for deal, body and ambience.
    Ego healing rituals, meditations and exercises discussed and revealed. Sacred wellbeing surreptitious topics from ancient Religion and Faith musing poet.
    Fast consciousness alterative practices for extremum healing. Qigong exercises from Buddhistic poet. Qi push globe secrets and qi energy sanative. Faith musing for longevity. Secret healing

  23. Nameless, Faceless Says:

    Im Buddhist and while I agree that by virtue of what it is, it is in fact bullshit…the fact remains is that your points are too. You have this “there must be some being to decide shit” philosophy which is so monotheistic. Yer skewed to think that whole God=boss thing. Buddhism (it’s philosophy, not religion btw) is bullshit because it answers questions with questions. The real statement to be made here is that ALL religion is bullshit. you just have to find the bullshit you agree with, or none at all. Overall it doesn’t matter as none of us live to make it to the sequel. Oh and all the people yelling at this guy stop. yea he under read before writing this. Yea it’s not strongly supported. Who the fuck cares? Do his words make you any less a Buddhist? Read the Dharma again if yer panties are in a bunch, cause yer doing it wrong. There is no right way. Fuck off and go live life for fucks sake.

  24. joe Says:

    Can you please stop with the cursing and actually put some good reasoning into your so what “article”! This is just a tip so you can actually sound reasonable and not like a 4 year old.

  25. someone in your room Says:

    you are so right doode youre so awsome…. hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I didnt get what u sayen

  26. piyadasun Says:

    your view is very shallow. Buddhism is not a system of beliefs. It is a path. You misinterpret the whole lot. There is noway one can explain this on comment form. I think you have preconceived notions about Buddhism. Buddhism is consistent but for you to see that you have to go the full circle.
    If you stop at every questionable nook and corner and shout “hey eureka this is what’s wrong” then you ‘d get nowhere. Buddhism does not force you to believe in rebirth that is a Hinduism concept as well. If you don’t feel like it to believe rebirth you can still go on the Buddhist path.,
    It is the path that is important with no special attachment to this birth or a rebirth. This is hard at your level judging by your other articles you seem to be one of those guys who doesn’t know another word for spade. But in real life things are not that straight forward
    I think it is better for you to dwell on topics that suit your intellectual capabilities like “what dilshan should do to upul tharanga’s balls “. You are quite successful in that kind of analysis
    cheers

  27. Nirvana for dumb people Says:

    Vedic religions (that includes Hinduism, Jainism and buddhism) was invented by Indo-Aryan cultures that split over religious disagreement somewhere around 4000 BCE, they spilt into two branches, one is called zoroastrianisma i.e.zend-avesta and the other one is called the rig-veda, originally they were indo-European people that migrated from around the Ukraine area in Europe. In fact that is where archeologists found some paleo ‘swarstika’ symbols carved out of mammoth Ivory dating somewhere around 10.000 years ago inside a cave.
    Karma is just another human invented concept used to control and manipulate their followers i.e.e faithful customers with fear and ignorance. Religions are all alike, the Vedas as nothing different than all other human created sects, cults or religions. Freedom from religions is paradoxically Freedom from all bondage. There is no such thing as spiritual liberation. They are just man made ideology borrowed from Hinduism and superstition. These people also believed the Earth was flat. Flat-Earthers. Psychological ‘shackles’ or chains made of words that are only found written inside religious books. Burn all the religious books and look for your chains. What binds you? Nothing. You are ever Free, why worry? That is how anyone attains real Freedom. Not by striving or making so-called spiritual effort, practice or devotion to a dead diety, but by removing the illusion of bondage itself. So simple. Who said enlightenment was hard of difficult? Look for your chains and they will not be found. They never existed. Duuuhhh!

  28. the illusion of bondage Says:

    The end of Seeking is to realize that you already are, at the destination you have never left. Being or existing presently is the only undeniable Reality. Enlightenment is a cosmic joke. There is no such thing. An ordinary person is a Buddha, and of course a Buddha is simply an ordinary person. That realization is the end of all paths. The Search is itself the Trap.
    Sought-after Truth is found by not seeking it. It is all a funny paradox.

  29. පෝලිම් වල ඉඳල එපා වෙච්ච එකෙක් Says:

    අනේ අපේ බෞද්ධ්යයෝ සිරා ටොපික් එකක් ගැන කතා කරනවා.
    තුන් වැනි ලෝකයේ දුප්පත් හිඟන අපිරිසිදු රටක ඉන්න උන් ටිකක්, මේ ඕගොල්ලන්ට තේරෙන්නේ නැති දේවල් ගැන කතා කරන්නේ නැතුව, හොඳ නැද්ද පෝලිමක හිටෙගෙන ඉන්න විදිය ගැන හිතල බැලුවොත්??? මොකද අපේ උන්ට පෝලිමක වත් හිටගෙන ඉන්ඩ දන්නේ නැහැ. හැබැයි කතා කරන්නේ ලොකු ලොකු දේවල්.


  30. […] is Bullshit – Part I Buddhism is Bullshit – Part II Buddhism is Bullshit – Part III Buddhism is Bullshit – Part IV A response to the responses to […]

  31. getthisass Says:

    buddhism leaves no fantasy or fairy tales for example Adam and Eve eating a bloody rotten apple and all this god created this and that fairy-tale. .but buddhism defines that the world is made with cause and results. Newtonian for u ..anyhow..buddhism teaches evolution and how..u just have to go deep within..for ur dumb question. .karma is what u do and nobody can explain its depth in single line..

  32. Neutral Says:

    The person who wrote this article does not have any brains….not even a size of a peanut…no point trying to explain things to a person who does not believe..you discover it yourself.

  33. romesh Says:

    According to you, your god created everything right?
    If so;

    1/ God created universe, earth etc.. So who created the God?
    2/ God created Adam & Eve, then they both are not having a belly button right? (Science)
    3/ Is there a reason why god loves “Apple” so much?
    4/ So if he created the “Apple” what about the other fruits and Vegetables?
    5/ Im sure your God loves humans so much.. If so why there are bad people and bad things happens in this world?
    6/ Why not every humans are equal or similar to each other?
    7/ How come some people rich and some are not? Some healthy and some are disabled? Some die young and some when old?
    8/ If you don`t have a rebirth how come you are having this birth?
    9/ Think about your self… is god responsible for all the things has happened to you in this life?
    10/ Why scientists only follow Buddhism rather other religions?

    ——————————————————————————

    FYI: We dont care whether you believe in rebirth or not, but keep in mind still there are secret ways hidden in Sri Lanka , where we can communicate with dead people`s souls.

    I`m telling you`ll with my own experience.

    • pradhee Says:

      dnt wry dude al thz happen cuz sm ppl arousd frm diffrnt countries brngn difrnt sayns jsh 2 mk the society around hm and hs nativez or frndz to do wt they wantd prtndn legally ,best xample muhammad and hz crazy mnd allah =P so ppl believd hm cz f da fr to thz uncn god and people r adoptd fo thz nw bt one day whn thy gt fd (piriheema) up thy l cm n srch fo truth jsh lyk author c .clrk sd so we ve to wait !we r unable to chnge mst f da mindz f freakz lyk thz buggar ! =(

  34. Rahul Ingle Says:

    How do you know if a certain action is good or bad? You will have to go back a little before coming to this question. The very fundamentals of Buddhism are kindness, compassion and equality. And Buddhism is d only religion which has got no rules to follow, but it asks you to hear your conscience. Conscience is very difficult to follow. Your story a mother with Euthenesia, before even pulling that plug, what did your conscience tell you? Let me define conscience for you – It is the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one’s conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action. Before even writing this post, what were your conscience telling you, is it a right post or a wrong post? But you just wrote it. The reason achieving enlightenment takes so many years is coz the most difficult thing for humans to do is to try to listen and act as their conscience tells them. Buddhism will not tell you whats right or whats wrong, your conscience will. Buddhism is probably the only religion on earth which asks for no faith. If it asks for some, its for faith in urself. Try to listen to ur heart and your conscience. I think it should give you better reasons to live a meaningful life ahead unlike this post. and plz stop being in denial!

  35. Thish Says:

    What is a good action and a bad action to you? ask yourself and answer it yourself but remember, before you commit any-action Buddhism tells you to worry about the result of your actions, will do good to you and all surrounding beings or will simply create chaos. The nature of an action according to Buddhism is defined the result it will bear. Let me put in simple words for all those who are ignorant, before you commit any action, question yourself about its impact on you, for example, before you kill an animal, put your self in that animals shoes, would you want to experience the fear of death that being is about to experience, the pain the agony etc..yes this is what will help you decide the nature of your action. its simple, treat other (everything in this world) like you would want to be treated. What if some one steals from you your most valued gift (could be anything, the last gift you ever got from your mother before she passed away)? Would you be pleased? no, then don’t make others go through what you wouldn’t want falling upon yourself. This is very basic Buddhism and i hope you are intelligent enough to comprehend this.

  36. Thish Says:

    And to all those ignorant arguers, buddhism is only a way of life, its your loss for being in the dark and continuing to be in it despite knowing the way out.

  37. Desmond Peck Says:

    All religions’ foundation are rooted in faith, as each offer their own respective answers to questions science has yet to provide. If you do not have faith, then all the doctrines, dogmas and teachings are nothing but trash.
    Karma is something discovered by the Buddha to be real. He did not create the concept of karma.
    There are plenty of accounts by people who have witness the afterlife, check it out. I don’t think reincarnation and rebirth is just some idea created to explain away illogical events.

  38. andres Says:

    All of our opinions about each other’s religion is like our assholes: We all have one and they all stink. Nobody knows what’s right or wrong about religion. If they do, don’t believe them; they’re trying to sell you something.

  39. LionSL Says:

    hey Lefroy… you have no idea. hehehee.
    Buddhism is not a religion. It is a philosophy. Angulimala did not get consequences for his karmas, because of the effect called Ahosi Karma. There are many ways of receiving karma. Don’t you know Atthupanayika Theory to consider karmas as good or bad & their relativity? There are many methods in Buddhism to decide karmas as good or bad.Don’t try to show your foolishness by giving such, Z equals thingamajic bullshit. First of all study Buddhism well.
    I am a lion-blooded pure Buddhist from Sri Lanka.

  40. Desmond Peck Says:

    Try killing someone and see what happens to you.

  41. Desmond Peck Says:

    From the way you talk, you are just one of many atheists who are so full of themselves that they find it impossible to respect other peoples’ beliefs other than their own.

    • lefroy Says:

      Fuck yeah. But at least us atheists don’t go around fighting religious wars and kill everybody who disagrees with us.

      • Chris Says:

        Yeah sorry but all the war in the name of any religions cant stand for 1/10 of the WW1 or WW2. I dont think those wars are religious, you atheist. And yes, wars start by people disagreeing each other.

  42. dr .ambedkar and buddha Says:

    book name_buddha and his dhamma by dr.b.r.ambedkar page no.256
    1. There is no doctrine in the Buddha’s Dhamma which has created so much confusion as this
    doctrine of Karma.
    2. What is its place in the Buddha’s Dhamma and what is its significance which has already been
    told.
    3. Ignorant Hindus out of sheer want of understanding say by comparing merely the similarity of
    words that Buddhism is the same as Brahmanism or Hind
    4. The educated and orthodox section of the Brahmins also do the same. They do so deliberately to
    mislead the ignorant masses.
    5. The educated Brahmins know full well that the Buddhist Law of Karma is quite different from
    the Brahminic Law of Karma. Yet they keep on saying that Buddhism is the same as
    Brahmanism and Hinduism.
    6. The similarity in terminology gives them an easy handle for their false and malicious
    propaganda.
    7. It is, therefore, necessary to examine the position closely.
    8. The Buddha’s Law of Karma, however much may be similarity of words cannot be the same in
    its connotation as the Brahminic Law of Karma.
    9. The premises of the two are so widely different, indeed so widely opposed that the result of the
    two cannot be the same. They must be different.
    10. The principles of the Hindu Law of Karma may be stated seriatim for convenience.
    11. The Hindu Law of Karma is based on the soul. The Buddhist is not. In fact there is no soul in
    Buddhism.
    12. The Brahminic Law of Karma is hereditary.
    13. It goes on from life to life. This is so because of the transmigration of the soul.
    14. This cannot be true of the Buddhist Law of Karma. This is also because there is no soul.
    15. The Hindu Law of Karma is based on the existence of a soul which is distinct from the body.
    When the body dies the soul does not die. The soul flies away.
    16. This is not true of the Buddhist Law of Karma.
    17. According to the Hindu Law of Karma what happens when a man does a karma is this. His act
    produces two-fold results. It affects the doer and secondly it produces an impress upon his soul.
    18. Each act he does produces an impress upon his soul.
    19. When a man dies and when his soul escapes, the soul is full of such impressions.
    20. It is these impressions which determine his birth and status in his future life.
    21. This Hindu theory is inconsistent with the Buddhist theory of no-soul.
    22. For these reasons the Buddhist doctrine of Karma cannot be and is not the same as the Hindu
    doctrine of Karma.
    23. It is therefore simply foolish to talk about the Buddhist doctrine of Karma being the same as the
    Brahminic doctrine of Karma.
    24. All that one can say is beware of this jugglery.
    § 2. Did the Buddha believe in Past Karma having effect on Future Life?
    1. The Law of Karma was enunciated by the Buddha. He was the first to say: ” Reap as you sow.”
    2. He was so emphatic about the Law of Karma that he maintained that there could be no moral
    order unless there was a stern observance of the Law of Karma.
    3. The Buddha’s Law of Karma applied only to Karma and its effect on present life.
    4. There is, however,’ an extended doctrine of Karma. According to it Karma includes Karma done
    in past life or lives.
    5. If a man is born in a poor family it is because of his past bad karma. If a man is born in a rich
    family it is because of his past good karma.
    6. If a man is born with a congenital defect it is because of his past bad karma.
    7. This is a very pernicious doctrine. For in this interpretation of karma there is no room left for
    human effort. Everything is predetermined for him by his past karma.
    8. This extended doctrine is often found to be attributed to the Buddha.
    9. Did the Buddha believe in such a doctrine?
    10. To examine this extended doctrine properly it is better to change the language in which it is
    usually expressed.
    11. Instead of saying that past karma is transmitted it should be better if it was said that past karma
    is inherited.
    12. This change of language enables us to test it by the law of heredity. At the same time it does no
    harm to the doctrine either to its de jure or de facto connotation.
    13. This restatement makes it possible to pose the two questions which could not otherwise be
    posed and without answering which the matter could not be made clear.
    14. The first question is how is past karma inherited ? What is the process ?
    15. The second question is what is the nature of past karma in terms of heredity ? Is it an inherent
    characteristic or acquired characteristic ?
    16. What do we inherit from our parents ?
    17. Starting with science the new individual begins when a sperm enters the egg. Fertilisation
    consists in fusion of the head of the sperm with the nucleus of the egg.
    18. Each human being takes its origin from the union of two bits of living matter, an egg from the
    mother which has been fertilised by a single sperm from the father.
    19. That human birth is genetic is told by the Buddha to a Yakkha who came to discuss the matter
    with him.
    20. The Exalted One was then staying near Rafagraha, on the hill called lndra’s Peak.
    21. Now that Yakkha drew near to the Exalted One and addressed him as follows: ‘ Material form is
    not the living soul ‘ So says th’ Enlightened One. Then how doth soul possess this body ?
    Whence to soul doth come Our bunch of bones and bowels ? How doth soul within the mothercave
    suspended bide?
    22. To this the Exalted One replied:
    At first the Kalala takes birth, and thence the abudde. Therefrom the pesi grows, Developing
    as ghana in its turn. Now in the ghana doth appear the hair, The down, the nails.
    And whatsoever food and drink the mother of him takes, thereby the man in mother’s womb
    doth live and grow.
    23. But the Hindu doctrine differs.
    24. It says that the body is genetic. But the soul is not. It is implanted into the body from outside—
    the doctrine is unable to specify the source.
    25. Turning to the second question as to what is the nature of past karma, it must be determined
    whether it is an inherent characteristic or an acquired characteristic.
    26. Unless an answer to this question is forthcoming it cannot be tested by the scientific theory of
    heredity.
    27. But assuming there is an answer one way or the other to this question how is it possible to get
    any help from science whether it is a sensible theory or senseless theory.
    28. According to science a child inherits the characteristics of his parents.
    29. In the Hindu doctrine of karma a child inherits nothing from its parents except the body. The
    past karma in the Hindu doctrine is the inheritance of the child by the child and for the child.
    30. The parents contributes nothing. The child brings everything.
    31. Such a doctrine is nothing short of an absurdity.
    32. As shown above the Buddha did not believe in such an absurdity.
    33. ” Yes, if it were not reborn; but if it were, no.” no.
    34. ” Give me an illustration. ”
    35. ” Suppose, 0 king, a man were to steal another man’s mangoes, would the thief deserve
    punishment ? ”
    36. “Yes”
    37. ” But he would not have stolen the mangoes the other set in the ground. Why would he deserve
    punishment ? ”
    38. ” Because those he stole were the result of those that were planted.”
    39. “Just so, great king, this name-and-form commits deeds, either pure or impure, and by that
    karma another name-and-form is reborn. And therefore is it not set free from its evil deeds ? ”
    40. ” Very good, Nagasena ! ”
    41. The king said : ” When deeds are committed, Nagasena by one name-and-form, what becomes
    of those deeds ? ”
    42. ” The deeds would follow it, O king, like a shadow that never leaves it.”
    43. ” Can any one point out those deeds, saying: ‘ Here are those deeds or there ? ‘
    44. ” No. ”
    45. ” Give me an illustration.”
    46. ” Now what do you think, 0 king ? Can any one point out the fruits which a tree has not yet
    produced, saying:
    47. ‘ Here they are, or there ? ‘ ”
    48. ” Certainly not, sir,”
    49. ” Just so, great king, so long as the continuity of life is not cut off, it is impossible to point out
    the deeds that are done.”
    50. ” Very good, Nagasena.”
    § 3. Did the Buddha believe in Past Karma having effect on Future Life? —concluded
    1. The Buddha’s doctrine of Past Karma is thus in keeping with science.
    2. He did not believe in the inheritance of Past Karma.
    3. How can he, having held to the view that birth is genetic and whatever inheritance comes to the
    child it comes through its parents ?
    4. Apart from logic there is more direct evidence on the point contained in a sutta called the Cula—
    Dukkha—Khanda—Sutta which contains a dialogue between the Buddha and the Jains.
    5. In this dialogue this is what the Buddha says :—” Niganthas, you have done evil in the past ;
    extirpate it by these severe austerities. Every present restraint on body, ‘speech and mind will
    hereafter undo the evil doings of the past. Hence, by expelling through penance all past
    misdeeds, and by not committing fresh misdeeds, the future becomes cleared; with the future
    cleared, the past is wiped out ; with the past wiped out,is no more ; withno more (Painful) –
    feelings are no more; and, with painful feelings now no more, all will be outworn.—This
    teaching commends and approves itself to us, and we rejoice in it.”
    6. Thereupon, I said to those Niganthas :— ” Do you know, reverend sirs, whether you had an
    existence before this or you were not non-existent ?”
    7. ” No, Sir. ”
    8. ” Do you know that, in a former existence, you were guilty, and not guiltless, of misdeeds ? ”
    9. ” No. ”
    10. 10. ” Do you know that (in that former existence) you were guilty, and not guiltless, of this or
    that specific misdeed ? ”
    11. “No
    12. Secondly the Buddha asserts that the status of a man may be governed not so much by heredity
    as by his environment.
    13. In the Devadaha—Sutta this is what the Buddha says : Some recluses and Brahmins there are
    who affirm and hold the view that, whatsoever the individual experiences—be it pleasant or
    unpleasant or neither—all comes from former actions. Hence, by expiation and purge of former
    misdeeds and by not committing fresh misdeeds, nothing accrues for the future, the misdeeds
    die away ; as misdeeds die away,dies away ;’as dies away, feelings die away ; and as feelings
    die away, all will wear out and pass. This is what the Niganthas affirm.
    14. If it is because of their birth’s environment that creatures experience pleasure and pain, the
    Niganthas are blameworthy, and they are also blameworthy, if environment is not the cause.
    15. Now these statements of the Buddha are very relevant. How could the Buddha throw doubt on
    past karma if he believed in it ? How could the Buddha maintain pain and pleasure in present
    life being due to environment if he believed that it was due to past karma ?
    16. The doctrine of past karma is a purely Brahminic doctrine. Past karma taking effect in present
    life is quite consistent with the Brahminic doctrine of soul, the effect of karma on soul. But it is
    quite inconsistent with the Buddhist doctrine of non-soul.
    17. It has been bodily introduced into Buddhism by some one who wanted to make Buddhism akin
    to Hinduism or who did not know what the Buddhist doctrine was.
    18. This is one reason why it must be held that the Buddha could not have preached such a doctrine.
    19. There is another and a more general reason why it must be held that the Buddha could not have
    preached such a doctrine. 20. The basis of the Hindu doctrine of past karma as the regulator of
    future life is an iniquitous doctrine. What could have been the purpose of inventing such adoctrine
    doctrine ?
    21. The only purpose one can think of is to enable the state or the society to escape responsibility
    for the condition of the poor and the lowly.
    22. Otherwise such an inhuman and absurd doctrine could never have been invented.
    23. It is impossible to imagine that the Buddha who was known as the Maha Karunika could have
    supported such a

  43. jah Says:

    Leave a comment and get ‘lephroid’

  44. Shri Shri Says:

    Basically Buddhism is religion because Buddhist people obeys each and every order of Buddha whether it may be unscientific. And I saw lot of monks having very much devotion in Buddha and they unnecessarily sacrifice their life.

    There is a simple thing by which entire philosophy of budhhism fails:

    1) If there is no God then how is karma takes place.

    ( you may say several philosophical thing which is unscientific)
    2) If budhha was the enlighten man then who had given him enlightenment.

    3) If their is no God then enlightenment is nothing but we can say the knowledge. And we know that Being the human nobody can be 100% correct.(even we cannot says most of engineering things which brilliant engineers have made are 100% defect free) .Hence Buddha cannot be 100% accurate.

    Then why these Buddhist people follows each and every word of Buddha …

    4) Buddhist people says budhhism is a way of life but it is the way of Buddha which is confused and unrealistic…

    5) Buddhist says their religion is religion of peace but there are lots of violent incidence are related to Buddhist like in Myanmar, Srilanka, Thailand (search for Buddhist violence and terrorism). Budhha says lots of things but budhhism is what Buddhist follows

    • Boon Says:

      (I’m not good in English, please forgive me)

      I’ve read some of above information and then I will try to use those information to answer your 5 questions. I’ve learnt much about Buddhism so I apologize for something wrong might be happened.

      Your question: 1) If there is no God then how is karma takes place.

      My answer: As they said, Karma is action so can we just think about something very simple, for example, if we hit a fragile glass of water with a hammer strong enough to break the glass. Do we need god to allow the glass to be broken? Scientifically, no we don’t want, because it will be what it have to be. This is how Karma takes place.

      Your question: 2) If Buddha was the enlighten man then who had given him enlightenment.

      My answer: Physicists may understand this well, Karma is action and then reaction is the thing will be happened when the action is being taken. It’s just natural, a fact or situation that is exist or happen. It’s obvious that Buddha’s Karma give him the enlightenment. It’s funny when I was thinking Buddha is receiving enlightenment certificate (an official document) from somebody (needed to be a real person who can give him the document by hand).

      Reaching here, a very simple law like Karma (law) (action-reaction) is strongly reasonable, able to be applied to everything in the universe and beyond.

      Your question: 3) If there is no God then enlightenment is nothing but we can say the knowledge. And we know that Being the human nobody can be 100% correct.(even we cannot says most of engineering things which brilliant engineers have made are 100% defect free) .Hence Buddha cannot be 100% accurate.

      Then why these Buddhist people follows each and every word of Buddha …

      My answer: “Being the human nobody can be 100% correct.” this may answer your first part of the question. For the second part, Buddha does not invent what Buddhists believe, he just tells what he’s discovered, what nature is (law of Karma and the Four Noble Truths). It’s not strange that they are following a book telling true story about nature.

      Your question: 4) Buddhist people says budhhism is a way of life but it is the way of Buddha which is confused and unrealistic…

      My answer: For me, I will suggest you that “Don’t believe in Buddhist, believe in nature”.

      Your question: 5) Buddhist says their religion is religion of peace but there are lots of violent incidence are related to Buddhist like in Myanmar, Srilanka, Thailand (search for Buddhist violence and terrorism). Budhha says lots of things but budhhism is what Buddhist follows

      My answer: Obviously, Buddha discovers law of Karma and the For Noble Truth. Again, you don’t believe in Buddhists, but you are better to believe in law of nature. Those people will be what they are deserve to be following their Karma.

  45. Marc Says:

    Buddhism is PURE HATRED OF LIFE and of all types of pleasures. It is just evil religious, guilt-inducing clap-trap, masquerading as a “philosophy!…

Leave a reply and get lefroyed

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