Five Politically Incorrect Basic Doctrines of Buddhism


Just what is this, full of urine and dung? I would not want to touch it even with my foot.  —attributed to the Buddha, with reference to a beautiful young woman, in the Māgandiya Sutta


     Western Buddhism, to some degree, is a liberal fashion trend. Also, to some degree, it is a means of spiritualizing cultural Marxism, alias Social Justice, as most western Buddhist practitioners are evidently politically correct leftists. However, some of the most fundamental teachings of early Buddhism, including Theravada, are practically the opposite of politically correct cultural Marxism, and of ultraliberal sentiment in general. The following five points, as an example, are pretty much abominable heresy (in Buddhist lingo, “pernicious wrong view”) from a western neo-leftist perspective, while at the same time representing basics of Buddhist philosophy.


1. Whenever you are unhappy it’s because you foolishly desire something. This is essentially the second Noble Truth of Buddhism—i.e., desire is the immediate cause of all suffering—and sometimes I tell people that if they know only one thing about Buddhism, that should be it. Even setting aside the karmic notion of physical pain being the fruition of past karma, the fact is that physical pain and mental suffering are not the same; the suffering derived from pain comes from the desire for the pain to stop. Furthermore, desire is volitional, even if people are too unmindful to realize it. Consequently, from the perspective of Buddhist philosophy, all misery is ultimately self-inflicted.

     And so, whenever you are unhappy, it is ultimately not the fault of someone else, but is because of your own attitude and unenlightened lack of wisdom. If you are miserable, or angry, or resentful, or frightened, or whatever, it is certainly not the fault of oppressive patriarchal white men now or in the past, or anything that happened to your ancestors. It’s your own goddamn fault. And again, this is the essential teaching of the second Noble Truth, the bedrock of Buddhist ethical philosophy.


2. Regret, or a guilty conscience, is always more bad than good. Sometimes I tell people that this is the second most important teaching of Buddhism that they should know—if they know only two things about Buddhism, they should know that suffering is caused by one’s own desires, and that regret is always “bad karma.” In Buddhist ethics any sort of worry or anxiety, including a guilty conscience, is called kukkucca, and is an unskillful or “unethical” mental state. If one is to entertain moral scruples, then one should entertain them BEFORE committing the deed in question, not after. If before, then the scruple is called hiri, and is “good karma,” especially if it prevents one from perpetrating an unethical act. If one does defile oneself by committing an unethical act or some other mistake, then the best one can do is to acknowledge the mistake, remind oneself to try to do better in future, rectify any damage if possible, and to continue moving forwards, to get on with one’s life. A sincere apology is fine, so long as it’s sincere; and other means of making amends to an injured second party are also fine; though actually feeling guilt and/or shame for having hurt someone, or oneself, or whatever, is foolish.

     Consequently, it is stupid (from a Buddhist perspective) to feel guilty even over one’s own obvious misdeeds, like that time you blew up a whole auditorium full of nuns and orphans—let alone to feel guilty over one’s skin color, or the alleged misdeeds of one’s ancestors, or of one’s civilization. So if you are the product of a long line of genocidal slave-owning racist misogynist fascists, trouble not. It’s not your fault or your problem, and all the guilt in the world won’t make things any better, and may get you into a lower realm after death besides.


3. Everyone is responsible for their own actions and reactions. In Pali Buddhism there is a little formula representing the exercise of equanimity which goes, kammassaka, or “one’s actions are one’s own.” Acknowledging that one’s actions, one’s karma, are the creation of oneself and no other helps one to maintain some mental balance when bad things happen. Ultimately, blaming anyone else for one’s own misfortune or unhappiness is foolish, though of course we’re pretty much all foolish.

     Thus when Islamist terrorists blow up a busload full of school children, or when some black gang member in Detroit murders five other gang members and is then shot by the police, it is emphatically not ultimately the responsibility of patriarchal colonialist white men or Donald Trump (regardless of what a Grievance Studies professor or a propagandist at CNN might tell you), but is the responsibility of the perpetrators themselves.

     From the point of view of elementary Buddhist ethics, Buddhism 101, if you feel offended, especially if you feel that way for more than one trillionth of a second, then that also is your own doing, your own volitional action, motivated by your own nescience and foolishness. At this point #3 is like a corollary to #1, the second Noble Truth—i.e., that your suffering is self-inflicted. This is of course the practical opposite of the kind of standardized whining that leftist victim culture is based upon.

     So let’s say that two people are conversing: both of them have moral responsibilities over their own actions, physical, verbal, and mental. The speaker has the responsibility, or ethical duty, to refrain from using wrong speech, which includes lying of course, and also deliberate harshness for the purpose of offending or causing harm to the other. Cultural Marxists appear to have a firm grasp on this first point, at least with regard to not offending those who agree with them. But what they fail to appreciate is that the listener also has a moral responsibility not to take offense even if the speaker is deliberately speaking hurtfully, let alone when he says something offensive without even knowing or trying. Christian morality also encourages the idea of forgiveness, of feeling caritas, so-called Christian charity, for an offender even if the other is downright evil. Love your enemies, and bless those that curse you, and all that. But to acknowledge that one’s own actions, including one’s own harbored feelings, as well as one’s own suffering, are one’s own responsibility, is anathema and vile heresy to the “progressive” left, though it is, I repeat, elementary Buddhist philosophy.


4. Ultimately, you do not exist. Neither does anyone else. There are many students of Buddhism who don’t like this one, namely the doctrine of anattā or No Self, including quite a few who otherwise consider themselves to be believing Buddhists. They may engage in considerable philosophical eel-wriggling to avoid the Buddhist claim that they don’t ultimately exist; yet the standard orthodox formula of sabbe dhammā anattā is fairly clear: absolutely everything, including anything that is “unconditioned,” absolute, and eternal, is Not Self. Two extremes which a wise Buddhist should avoid are annihilationism and eternalism—the one essentially endorsing a self that dies, and the other endorsing a self that doesn’t die, which pretty much rules out self altogether. To believe that we actually exist in anything more than a virtual sense is wrong view, and is bad karma besides. To believe that you exist as an intrinsically real individual is delusional and, in a way, unethical.

     Thus at the level of ultimate reality the dignity of the individual is a delusion, as is compassion or consideration for other individuals, because of course there really is no individual. No Self does, however, seemingly do away with the possibility of free will, thereby adding some plausibility, perhaps, to the politically correct cultural Marxist idea that marginalized minority groups are not responsible for their own misdeeds, let alone their own predicaments in life; nevertheless, by the same token, blaming Whitey is equally delusional. Our actions are our own, as per politically incorrect Buddhist point #3, even if we don’t really exist as individuals. Volitional actions produce karmic effects even if they are ultimately impersonal. Also, social classes or categories, describing assemblages of individuals, obviously an approach to understanding society much favored by Marxists and the PC left, is equally delusional to individualism because one can’t have a class of people if people don’t ultimately exist. Compassion, human rights, and sociology too, are fine, so long as one doesn’t take them so seriously as to assume that they refer to actual real people. We’re in Plato’s cave; we’re in a dream world; and we ourselves are among the flickering ephemeral images.


5. Renunciation—real renunciation and self-denial—is fundamental to spiritual practice and the cultivation of higher wisdom. Wallowing in sensuality, which almost everyone does, including almost all Buddhists, is basically unethical and conducive to suffering, much more so than, say, hearing a politically incorrect statement or being at the receiving end of a microaggression. Dharma-oriented Elitists may play games trying to persuade themselves and others not only that they occupy some moral high ground, but that they are practicing Buddhist renunciation without actually renouncing very much, if anything. It doesn’t work that way, and such elitists are kidding themselves, at least from the perspective of orthodox Buddhist philosophy. Remember, the Middle Path between luxurious self-indulgence and self-torture involved wandering homeless and penniless, sleeping on the ground under trees, and silently begging for one’s food in the streets, and no sex.

     Even so, as I’ve observed elsewhere, "progressive" ethics in general has given a pass to practically unlimited indulgence in sensuality. Buggery, for example, is now something to be proud of, as is promiscuous sluttiness; not to endorse these behaviors amounts to intolerant homophobia or slut-shaming among the politically correct. And of course even conservative Christians have little use for gathering not up their treasures upon the earth.


     Anyway, I could add more points than this, for example that abortion is murder, or that homosexuality is immoral and transsexuality an aberration resulting in an increased tendency towards immorality; but I’ve addressed those issues separately, and five is enough.






Comments

  1. The fad seems to be on a downward trend. At B&N the section that used to be stocked full of books on "buddhism" has a lot less and the koran section has grown to where the old "buddhism" section now has a lot of korans interspersed in there.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well put, I fully agree. Of course, one can not grasp this is one doesn't practise as taught by the Buddha.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Two extremes which a wise Buddhist should avoid are annihilationism and eternalism—the one essentially endorsing a self that dies, and the other endorsing a self that doesn’t die, which pretty much rules out self altogether."

    I think that this is the misinterpretation that prevents conservative adoption of Buddhism and makes it a Leftist idiot only system in the West. Eternalism is not merely believing in an eternally existing self, as Buddhism clearly affirms the existence of such a self with its reincarnation system. Rather eteranalism is the vedanta-type interpretation of those who say everyone is one entity, we're all God, and therefore we're "already enlightened"; eternalism is the belief in an eternally UNCCHANGING self, i.e. that enlightenment doesn't represent any actual progression but is merely a realization of what you already are: "You're already Brahman, already the Absolute, already God, already perfect--you just haven't realized it yet." This makes "realization" merely intellectual, and also provided a motive to laziness. Whereas the preaching of an eternally CHANGING self that you must alter to arrive at the goal of theosis provides motive for actually pursuing the path. So "eternalism" is a bad translation for what is something more like "unchangingism" or "We're-all-already-enlightened-but-just-don't-mentally-acknowledge-it-yet-ism." And you see that mistake not only in Hinduism in certain versions of Vedanta, but also a lot of Zen and Mahayana. Like Huangpo "All Buddha's and sentient beings are merely the One Mind." Or in other words, "We're already all enlightened, all God or Brahman, we're all in Nibbana already, so there is no path to pursue." This is Zen's "Gateless-Gate" and "Practice of No-Practice." Its a denial that the goal has to be worked towards, because of the moronic assumption that are God rather than that we are seeking to merge into the deity (which proves we are not yet there and must still progress). As for "annihilationism" or "nihilism" the belief that there is no self at all is just as much that as the belief that a self is destroyed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, Buddhism does not "clearly affirm the existence of such a self with its reincarnation system." All that passes from one existence to the next is a kind of energetic momentum, i.e. kamma, which is in a state of continuous change. A human life is somewhat like a candle flame, which is completely different from one moment to the next. Also, there are suttas in which the Buddha shoots down the Upanishadic interpretation of Atman. If I remember correctly it's one of the wrong views shot down in the very first sutta of the Digha Nikaya.

      One complication of Buddhism is that its Absolute is indeterminate, and can't really be talked about in any valid way. Nibbana transcends duality, including the duality of "is" and "isn't." So this eternal self you want to acknowledge can't be said to exist, or not to exist, or both, or neither. It's totally off the scale, and as soon as you perceive it even to the extent of calling it "it," you have gone astray.

      Delete
    2. When I say Buddhism I mean the Pali Suttas, and when you say "Buddhism" you mean the Questions of King Melinda, Buddhaghosa, and Theravada commentaries edited and corrupted by him. Buddhaghosa said "there is karma but no one who owns the karma" which accords with your interpretation that karma is all that continues, but Buddha in the suttas said "you own your karma" which shows that there is a you that is distinct from karma which is merely a possession of that you, hence Buddha taught a self and no-self is the corruption that Buddha predicted when he told Ananda that had he not allowed the ordination of nuns the dhamma would have lasted pure 1,000 years but because he allowed it it would only last 500, which brings us to about the time of the composition of the Questions of King Melinda if we go by the 500 or to Buddhaghosa if we go by the 1,000, which shows either or both are the perpetrators who corrupted Buddhism.

      Delete
    3. also the first sutta in the digha is clearly the fakest of the collection. its completely absurd. its like a politically correct screed saying "you're not allowed to discuss this topic, this topic, this topic, etc." Its the creation of a degenerate age long after Buddha's time.

      Delete
    4. No, when I say Buddhism I'm mainly referring to the Pali texts, like D1 which you don't like and want to dismiss out of hand. Obviously D1 is not the fakest of the collection, considering the weird suttas towards the end, for example the one about the origins of the earth. The first sutta of a Nikaya is generally considered to be one of the most important, and the Brahmajala Sutta is considered to be a cardinal sutta, common to probably most of the early sects of Buddhism if not all of them. It was essentially a prototype of Madhyamaka, shooting down all intellectual theories because intellectual attempts at understanding ultimate reality are doomed to failure. No Self is basic to Buddhism, and you don't like that.

      Delete
    5. May as well add that the Buddha necessarily used worldly language or" vohara desana," so he referred to himself and to other people as though they really existed as individuals. But it is necessary to use such conventions when speaking to other people. It's not the same as actual reality.

      Delete
  4. Then Buddhism is false and evil and of the devil if no-self is inherent to it. But this is false. DN1 is from Mara. DN23 shows that the early Buddhists believed in a soul because there a monk who is called arhant on other suttas defends the existence of a soul against Payasi.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sheesh. Well, this is certainly getting weird. You appear to be a more or less serious student of Buddhism, who nevertheless considers one of the most fundamental teachings of Buddhism to be "false and evil and of the devil." But I suggest you deal with it.

      As I touched upon in the article, the three marks of existence, a fundamental doctrine of Buddhist philosophy, asserts that all sankhara are impermanent, all sankhara are unease or conducive to suffering, but that all DHAMMA are not self, and without self. Sankhara is anything phenomenal, anything conditioned, anything that is the result of causes. But the third one, no self, uses the term dhamma, indicating that this is not restricted only to conditioned phenomena but applies to absolutely EVERYTHING, including the absolute world soul of the Upanishads. Even the Absolute is not self.

      Also as I've pointed out before, the Absolute in Buddhism is indeterminate. It's completely off the scale. So to say it exists is invalid, and to say that it doesn't exist is also invalid. The Atthakavagga of the Sutta Nipata is extremely old, even pre-Theravadin, and it teaches that a monk should adhere neither to self or no self. (It's a play on words though, atta literally means here "anything acquired" and niratta means "anything rejected," but it's obviously a pun with a double meaning.) Also, by the way, the same Atthakavagga asserts that the notion "I am" is the root of all delusion and suffering.

      But humans must use language that cannot accurately represent ultimate reality, so we must choose between "is" and "isn't," even when ultimately neither is valid. Most religions and philosophies go with the invalid "is," usually calling their Absolute "God." But Buddhism is unusual in that it chose the other invalid alternative, "isn't," emphasizing the Absolute as Emptiness and Voidness. Probably the lesser of two evils, since after all, "I am" is the root of all delusion and suffering.

      Delete
    2. I will "deal with it" by opposing your fake demonic "buddhism" that is nothing but atheist nihilism. You are worshippers of Mara.

      Delete
    3. The point that I've emphasized at least twice, namely that in Buddhism ultimate reality and the Absolute are indeterminate and completely Off the Scale, appears to have gone right over your head. But I will observe at this point that if you can't do better than make ridiculous accusations of devil worship, your comments won't be published in future.

      Delete
  5. Those marks are the marks of sankharas not existence. And sankhara is created existence, i.e. existence in the world or physical existence, so they are properly the marks of physical existence but the atheist asshat leaders of modern Buddhism have twisted everything using the fact that it needs translation to English as an opportunity to deceive. The commentary says clearly that dhamma in this case means the same as sankhara, one place the commentary actually sides with truth. In fact, there are manuscript variants here and I've seen some texts say sankhara in that place actually as with the other two marks. But that is hidden by our atheist liar "buddhist" overlords. Atheism is Leftism; you're controlled opposition. This is clear anyone from your constant appeals to your days as a "biologist" and your claim that humans are nothing but animals, and your second-guessing of everything metaphysical in Buddhism. Like other Western monks, you're just another leftist bum looking for a welfare handout.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you want to represent "real" Buddhism, I suggest you tone it down on the anger and hostility, let alone the self view. And beware of your atheist liar "buddhist" overlords, whoever they are.

      Delete
    2. You do lots of interviews with a guy who could probably identify who those overlords are.

      Delete
  6. whoever eats the alms-food of the country without believing in a soul and afterlifes is a thief of alms-food, a pretend monk who is stealing the honor due to a monk

    ReplyDelete
  7. Great article.

    I found my way to buddhism a couple of years ago via an interest in stoic philosophy. The attitude and sentiments of many Western buddhists (especially laypersons) I've encountered over the past couple of years have often struck me as being overly sensitive, idealistic, impractical and weak, and not in keeping with my own (rudimentary) grasp of the teachings I've studied thus far.

    I seem to have found more of a home in Zen. However, there doesn't seem to be a great deal of talking and discussion. Most of the time is spent staring at the wall.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Five is enough"
    Heh, indeed it is more than most can handle. Spot on points, even for those of us who have considered themselves politically incorrect.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Hello, I am now moderating comments, so there will probably be a short delay after a comment is submitted before it is published, if it is published. This does have the advantage, though, that I will notice any new comments to old posts. Comments are welcome, but no spam, please. (Spam may include ANY anonymous comment which has nothing specifically to do with the content of the post.)

Translate

Most Clicked On