Interest and Skepticism toward Buddhism

I have been reading The Teaching of Buddha, which condenses the teachings of the Buddha into a 600 or so page book, and I have found myself very impressed with what I have read so far. What I like about Buddhism is the lack of dogmatism in the religion. The Buddha never claimed to be a God nor wanted people to follow him blindly, threatening them with an eternity of hell if they lacked faith in his ideas. This religion is very intellectual, as opposed to Christianity and other religions, which rely on faith rather than a scientific mindset (e.g., Buddhism's stressing of causation).

I just started with the book, and feel very excited and intrigued about the religion. My interest in the hippies certainly was a stimulus for me to pick up the book to read. At this point in my life I wish to expand my mind, and one way to do that is to be acquainted with ideas that originate from non-Western parts of the world, which in some cases have much to offer.

As a person who has just started studying Buddhism earnestly, I cannot claim any expertise about Buddhism, and thus I cannot really offer any refutation so far. But I do feel a bit of skepticism.

The Buddha proposes that by following his lead and reaching Enlightenment, by which desire becomes extinguished, one can end the cycle of suffering. He is correct that the world is full of suffering. But if he can truly relieve suffering, or erase it from the minds of men, why aren't there more Buddhists in the world, or more people influenced by Buddhism? Could it be that the rest of the world is just ignorant, stupid and arrogant for not incorporating his ideas to have a superior life?

Buddha's ideas get very repetitive and intricate, and appear as a "system" of thought, like a spider's web with its numerous segments intersecting and forming a whole. Insights, for me, seem to come one at a time and distinct, and often have no relation to one another. How are we to know that the totality of what the Buddha preaches, in my case the 600 pages of condensed material, is absolutely correct? Could he have laid a mere framework which can be modified somewhat to achieve the same results? A proposition can be said to be correct. But an additional proposition is likely to be more questionable, and so on and so forth, especially as the subsequent propositions have less and less direct relation to what preceeds.

Since the Buddha is not a supernatural entity, why must we take his word for things, and treat him as if he is a deity (though he never claimed to be one)? If he is a mere mortal, why his word over anyone else's? What proof is there that he did not have certain monomaniacal tendencies and projected them onto others, or that the details of his life have not been embellished or distorted?

Mainly, though, I am interested in the first question: why, if he brings so much inner peace to his followers, aren't there more Buddhists in the world?

Maybe the answer lies in that other religions bring the peace of mind to non-Buddhists that the Buddha claims to give. But since I cannot accept the fundamental ideas of Christianity (nor any other theistic religion, mono- or otherwise) perhaps the intellectual basis of Buddhism, with its lack of dogmatism, can do something for me and those inclined to question the supernatural beliefs of others. It may very well be the more intelligent person's religion.

 

Like you, I claim no expertise in Buddhism, but perhaps I can answer some of your questions ...

Freeing oneself from the cycle of suffering is not an easy task. It requires studious discipline of the mind, and such moral fortitude that few people have the willpower or patience to follow.

And there are many who are influenced by Buddhism -- with 376 million followers, Buddhism is about the 5th largest religion in the world, trailing Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Confuscianism/Taoism.

The Buddha once said that his path is not the only path to the removal of suffering. He stated once that Buddhism is a doctrine that follows and relies on the laws of science, and that if science should ever change to reflect something different than Buddhism, Buddhism must also change.

The Buddha also said something to the effect of, do not merely take my words to be true or put untested faith into what I say -- rather, only listen to what I am saying, and decide for yourself if you find it to be correct. =)

There are two "types" so to speak, of Buddhism. The religion, and the philosophy. Plainly put, the philosophy is what the Buddha taught. It includes all of the difficult concepts and thoughts regarding morality, the nature of suffering, etc. Being a difficult philosophy to understand and follow, there are many people who cannot mentally handle the philosophy. From this, the religion was born, where people needlessly deify and pray to the Buddha, as if he were a god of sorts. The religion is for those who don't have the mental background to take up the philosophy, but still wish to live a moral life.

But insofaras what the Buddha actually taught, he instructed us to not simply take his word for things, and to rather test those words and see if they hold true or not.

Inner peace is perhaps one of the most difficult things to achieve. Supposedly at any one time, there are only a handful of people in the world who could be considered on the road to enlightenment (or the cessation of suffering), and not all of them are Buddhists -- as many paths lead to the same conclusion. But considering how few in number these bodhisattvas (sp?) are, it's no wonder that many people confuse the Buddha for a god and worship him rather than practicing his message.

 

Hi their the_anarchist,

I also dont claim to be any expert on buddhism (far from it) but if I were one to label myself something you could probably call me a buddhist in so far that I meditate everyday, go on retreats and generally try to live my life based on the teachings...I believe in karma and reincarnation...I have been practicing since I was in India and Nepal last year.

Anyway, i'll give my view on your questions;

Q But if he can truly relieve suffering, or erase it from the minds of men, why aren't there more Buddhists in the world, or more people influenced by Buddhism? Could it be that the rest of the world is just ignorant, stupid and arrogant for not incorporating his ideas to have a superior life?

A Yes people are generally ignorant and yes this ineviatbly means they will never become interested in the dharma. This is paticulary true to the west who are generally less than receptive to any ideas philosophies from the east.
On the other hand a large proportion of people just don't have access to the teachings...For example the millions (billions?) who live in terrible poverty. This is why me and you are very lucky to have this opportunity in our lives where the dharma is available to us.

Q How are we to know that the totality of what the Buddha preaches, in my case the 600 pages of condensed material, is absolutely correct?

This is a good question.
The Buddha taught that you shouldn't by any means just blindly accept the teachings without testing the validity of them out yourself in your own life...An absolutely vital thing to remember at all times is that the truth about reality and suffering cannot be found in any book, or any teaching. Ultimately it can only ever be found and realised in yourself, namely through meditation. All doctrine, including buddhist doctrine, is just a conceptual guideing means, not absolute truth.
This is something that i've realised more and more as I progress with my practice of meditation.

Q Could he have laid a mere framework which can be modified somewhat to achieve the same results?

A The 4 noble truths, 8 fold path IS the framework. The precepts are NOT like commandments. They are literately a guide and a framework. I mean it says you should abstain from intoxicating substances yet this doesn't mean if you have a couple of pints or a glass of wine with your meal and generally stick to strict moderation you arent going to generate negative karma as long as you are still making decisions as you would totally stone cold sober...
Also as stated above the Buddha stated that if science should change then so would Buddhism...I remember my teacher explaining this to me (this thread bought back the memory); Before Tibet (a Buddhist society) had much contact with the west everyone there was totally convinced the world was flat. Then of course China invaded and many Tibetans came to the west. They eventually just had to accept the notion the world was round.

Q Since the Buddha is not a supernatural entity, why must we take his word for things, and treat him as if he is a deity (though he never claimed to be one)?

A Who says you have to take his word? Test it all out for yourself!
Who says you have to treat him as a deity? This is a big misconception. Sure you have Buddha statues in all the wats and temples in asia and many cultures do seem to in a sense worship them, granted this is misleading, but really the only reason they have Buddha statues is because it's basically a celebration of what he taught and gave all sentient beings...Having a Buddha statue in the room helps greatly with meditation because it reminds Buddhists that it is possible to end our suffering. It offers great hope...It's a personification if you will. The statues represent everything buddhsit strives for and what potential lies underneath us all. It's not intended to be an object of worship.

The final question I wont bother answering because the above poster answered it well. The only thing i'll add is that enlightenment is extremely hard to achieve and can take many many millions, billions etc more lifetimes to achieve it all depends on your karma. ..Indeed many buddhists in the Therevada tradition believe that enlightenment is an unrealistic goal in this lifetime and just aim for a birth in the higher realms.
But generally if you meditate and live as a 'good' buddhist your number of future rebirths will be reduced with your negative karma.

Take Care

Pete