The Problem With Buddhism

[Korl Plonkington]

Hello, new member here and expert 13-year-old-who-really-wants-to-reach-that-point-on-the-forum-where-I-can-edit-my-account-to-narcissisticly-brag-about-my-intelligence. Today I bring a rather harsh criticism of Buddhism. This criticism relies around one central point, so I am not necessarily sure if this would count as one problem or many, but rather one false premise giving rise to the problems. Those of you who hate lengthy posts just scroll down to the conclusion, as that is the TL;DR

Let's Cut To The Chase: The False Premise

Buddhism, Islam, Atheism, Christianity, Hinduism* - Their first premise is exactly the same. "Ridiculous!" I here you say, "Are you mad?" Well, no. Let me explain. For any of the above to be correct, time must exist in linear fashion, i.e., time will exist as long as space exists or even beyond that, and time must not be repeatable or changeable. In Buddhism, you do your best to remove karma from your existence and reach enlightenment, rather permanently. Of course there is some malleability, you can ascend or descend, but you still are going upward permanently most likely. Undoubtedly there will be people who will claim that Buddhism does not explicitly claim those views on time, but I will provide reason as to why linear time is necessary in Buddhist thought. In Abrahamic religions, you follow the 'correct' path of God to go to heaven and be with him for eternity. In Atheism, you live a little then you die. Hinduism is very similar to Buddhism, just change enlightenment with moksha. *However, Vedic thought in specific on this subject is a bit different - I'll address that later.

Necessity of Linear Time in Buddhist Thought

Since every single person on this forum knows what Buddhism is, I am not going to waste time and energy on explaining what it is. However, Buddhism places emphasis on going on an upward journey from the bottom to the top, as whatever reason an entity may be at the bottom is up to interpretation of different scholars, texts, and teachers. There are many schools of thought when it comes to Buddhism, and it is absolutely impossible to discuss all of them. However, most teachings place emphasis on there only being one journey - that is, screw the possibility that someone could lose enlightenment. And they have to be right for Buddhism to work. What guarantees that they won't just fall back down to level one? If losing enlightenment were certain and without doubt going to happen, many Buddhists would lose a reason to go on this journey. What is the point if time is cyclical and enlightenment is worthless? Many new-agers would have you believe that time is cyclical, but that is purely incompatible with their beliefs. I could go deeper but this post would be far too long if I were to do so.

Evidence for Nonlinear Time

So what is the problem with this? Well, first, time is observably non-linear. It doesn't take much effort to search "quantum theory of time" on google. Two really cool articles pop up first, and they are:

Wow really? I can't link to other websites? veery apreshate much dank

If you particularly care about the scientific inquiry to the nature of time, I would give them a read, but I have a myriad of other points that agree with me here. (Also the above link from collective-evolution expresses a multitude of reasons why I do not enjoy new age philosophy, but that best be fit for another time.) Any one, not unlike me, who has a bare minimum understanding of science knows that particles can go forward and backward in time an a ton more crazy stuff. This leaves a huge dent in the linear time train of thought.

Secondly, an astrologist would quickly point out that history to some extent is cyclical, even though I rather dislike the astrologist craft. Example: 0 AD, Mass persecution of Christians and Jews. 400 AD, Fall of Rome. 800 AD, Islamic expansion. 1200 AD, Plagues and diseases world-wide. 1600 AD, Fall of the Mayans and the Aztecs. 2000 AD, Potential civilizational collapse (See: Behavioral Sink). Styx does a good overview in the video linked below.

Thirdly, a child would immediately point to the four seasons. They clearly act as a cycle.

Provable Unprovability of a Nonlinear System And Vice Versa

This is one of the main points Styx made in his video. He claims that time acts like gears in a machine, each gear influencing one another, the big overarching gear could be at a negative position while smaller ones could be positive and vice versa or in infinite variability. He claims that time acts like one infinite machine with gears going through cycles, and such cycles would be virtually unprovable due to their infinite variability. While I reject the notion that there are infinite cycles, he makes an accurate point. Imagine this, if you will:

Wow really? I can't post images because it links to other websites? veery apreshate much dank

The above represents three waves, one in red, one in green, one in blue. The overarching wave is red, and blue and green are smaller waves. The graph above does not depict the coordinates, but I will explain it clear and simple: The middle x line is zero, and the dots start at y = 1.

Those who are mathematicians would be verklempt to find out that there is no function for the coordinates, sorry, I am not very good in math and this was made in haste as I have little time to write this.

So I decided to find where each dot lay on the x axis, and added them together to create a 'perceived' state. Again, imagine red as the big picture, the main gear, or the largest wavelength. Red 1 would be a very spiritual and positive era, while -1 would be materialistic and bad, and 0 would be neutral.

_____Red______1, 0, -1, 0, 1, 0, -1, 0, 1
_____Green____-1, -1, 0, 1, 1, 0, -1, -1, 0
_____Blue______0, 1, -1, 1, 0, 1, -1, 1, 0
Perceived State:_0, 0, -2, 0, 2, 1, -3, 0, 1

Notice how the perceived state is usually always different from the actual era. And most importantly, it appears completely random even though it is not. Now, imagine doing this with bigger numbers on a larger time frame, and there you have the universe.

The Mayans And Vedic Philosophy

For a short summary of Mayan and Vedic concepts of time, they both work in cycles. The Mayans depict theirs as more like gears, similar to Styx's own analogy, while the Vedas realize theirs as what they call Yugas.

I love the Mayan calendar, mainly because it illustrates that given enough time humans can point out cycles, sequences, and patterns - whether accurate or not. I have yet to see any study into the accuracy of the calendar, but nonetheless it is interesting. Also, I would like to stray away from discussions about the 2012 new era thing, there is a separate forum for that.

Conclusion/ TL;DR
It seems apparent that the universe may and probably does exist in some cycle, and even if it doesn't Buddhism is still flawed in thinking that one could achieve enlightenment and not fall back down.

[Korl Plonkington]

And for anyone wanting to find the video, search:

How I View Time: The Mayans Meet the Vedic, And Why I Must Shun Hindu and Buddhist Teachings

It should be the first video

[sky]

Originally Posted by Korl Plonkington

And for anyone wanting to find the video, search:

How I View Time: The Mayans Meet the Vedic, And Why I Must Shun Hindu and Buddhist Teachings

It should be the first video

Your idea of Buddhism is a little confused, jump over to the Buddhist Section, it might help you

[Korl Plonkington]

Originally Posted by sky123

Your idea of Buddhism is a little confused, jump over to the Buddhist Section, it might help you

And Quote:
"Buddhism accepts that ... living beings are trapped in a continual cycle of birth-and-death, with the momentum to rebirth provided by one's previous physical and mental actions (see karma). The release from this cycle of rebirth and suffering is the total transcendence called nirvana."
I would link it but the forum won't let me, this is from infoplease

And Quote:
" In early Buddhist texts, it [Nirvana] is the state of awakening that leads to ... the ending of the cycles of sufferings associated with rebirths and redeaths"
From Wikipdia
How is my understanding confused?

[Sarian]

The problem with Buddhism is that it is a religion.

[Within Silence]

Korl Plonkington; What exactly is time? Is the word "time" what the word time is pointing to? In other words, what is the word "time" pointing at? And I don't want the dictionary definition of it, as that is just using more words to describe words, which will require even more words to describe those words. But that which you're pointing at with the word "time", what is it?

To help you with an example; the word flower is not actually a flower, the word flower is used to point to "that thing" which grows out of the earth and perhaps has a fragrance, so the word time is not actually time, so what is the word time pointing at?

I think if we can both understand what exactly time is as you conceive it, what absolutely time is, and I can then understand where you're coming from, then we can discuss your theory on the problem with Buddhism. If we try to have a conversation and both have different understandings of certain concepts, then all we end up with is arguing about our own concepts.

[Shivani Devi]

I'm finding it rather incredible how a 13 year old has so much insight at such a young, tender age...but maybe that's just moi.

The problem with Buddhism is that it lacks a 'god concept' but again...that's just moi. lol

[sky]

The Buddha did not deny God's existence. He did deny the limited perceptions about what that existence is.*

[Within Silence]

Originally Posted by sky123

The Buddha did not deny God's existence. He did deny the limited perceptions about what that existence is.*

Exactly. Basically Buddha was wise enough to NOT get into a metaphysical discussion about God, or anything else that generates more confusion/suffering. He was a master of self mastery, hence he controlled desire it didn't control him. Thus, the teaching; A wise man has nothing to prove. Its unknown for a reason, thus live the mystery.

[Within Silence]

Originally Posted by The Necromancer

I'm finding it rather incredible how a 13 year old has so much insight at such a young, tender age...but maybe that's just moi.

The problem with Buddhism is that it lacks a 'god concept' but again...that's just moi. lol

I do not think it lacked a God concept because that was a mistake, but rather because it was teaching a way of living without attachment to concepts, it was teaching a non-conceptual knowledge of ultimate reality, "what is" suchness, is-ness, wordless, emptiness, silent, being-ness, reality as it actually is not how one conceives it to be, etc.

The words concept and conceive are pointing to the same process of the mind.