For the wrong reasons

It has passed my mind— in fact, several times—that some people who, a few years ago, decided to become Buddhists, did so for the wrong reasons.  Some of the reasons  they might have been attracted to Buddhism are as follows:

1.  I like Buddhism because it doesn’t believe in the transcendent or anything other-worldly.

2.  I like Buddhism because it doesn’t believe in any kind of a soul like the Hindu Atman.

3.  I like Buddhism because it is not like ‘Hinduism’.

4.  I like Buddhism because it doesn’t believe in gods or spooks.

5.  I like Buddhism because it is agnostic, meaning that we can’t really know anything.

6.  I like Buddhism because it supports physical science.

7.  I like Buddhism because it teaches you how to live one moment at a time.

All of these reasons have nothing whatsoever to do with Buddhism.  Such reasons come from pop culture’s superficial reading of Buddhism.  None of this is found in the canon of Buddhism, especially agnosticism which insists that we can't know anything this position being little else than a state of avidya, i.e., nescience which the Buddha rejected.  

Anyone who claims, for example, that Buddhism categorically denies the self or is about living in the moment or the here and now, is marketing a Buddhism the Buddha never taught.  Nor has this person evidently read much of the Pali or Mahayana canon.  

Take reason #1, the Buddha, in fact, taught nirvana which was transcendent.  He said in the Sutta-Nipata (trans. H. Saddhatissa):

“There is an island, an island which you cannot go beyond.  It is a place of nothingness, a place of non-possession and of non-attachment.  It is the total end of death and decay, and this is why I call it Nibbana [the extinguished, the cool]” (1094).

In the Mahâbherîhâraka Sutra the Buddha said:

“Kâshyapa, accordingly at the time one becomes a Tathagata, a Buddha, he is in nirvana, and is referred to as “permanent” “steadfast”, “calm”, “eternal” and “atman.” 

We also notice in the above that Self or atman is mentioned by the Buddha as well as eternal.  All these terms point to the transcendent, the transcendent being above and beyond the plane of material existence.

As for the other questions, for example, #2, yes, the Buddha speaks of the Self or atman (in Pali it is “attâ”).

“The self (in thee), man, knows what is true or false.  Surely the noble Witness, sir, the Self, you do misjudge, in that when sin is there you do conceal the Self within the self” (A. i. 149).

And this from the Mahaparinirvana Sutra:

“The atman is the Tathagatagarbha.  All beings possess a Buddha Nature: this is what the atman is.  This atman, from the start, is always covered by innumerable passions (klesha): this is why beings are unable to see it.”

Again we sense the transcendent in this passage from the Mahayana canon.  Nothing could be clearer than the atman or self is the Tathagata womb or matrix (garbha), Tathagata being attained or realized Suchness.

Buddhism says nothing against Hinduism a term, incidentally, that was coined during the 19th century by European scholars by which to categorize Indian religions—including Buddhism.  This term was later adopted by the Indians.

The Buddha speaks to many gods and even confronts a devil named Mara the Evil One.  To be clear about this, the Buddha does deny the notion of a supreme creator god but admits many kinds of gods including ghosts and beings in different kinds of hells.

As for science, Buddhism has nothing whatsoever to do with the physical sciences.  It has, however, a developed science of meditation of its own which falls within the definition of science, science meaning: “The state or fact of knowing; knowledge or cognizance of something specified or implied” according to the Oxford English Dictionary.

As for Buddhism being concerned with the moment, this is nonsense.  A moment is only a short indefinite period of time—nothing more.  It also takes place in samsara.

My advice for anyone who decided to become a Buddhist for any of the 7 reasons listed in the beginning, rethink your decision.  But above all, don’t try to change Buddhism to fit with your reasons.

Comments

[Vaccha]

Just wanted to bring it to the attention of the author that his link to the Nirvana Sutra at right is outdated. That site moved to: www.nirvanasutra.net

[Ian]

The argument that people can join Buddhism for the "wrong" reasons is itself misguided. That's like saying you can only like classical music if you understand its origins, history, scales, etc.

People follow what they like, and they should be free to explore and experiment without judgement from others.

[Artie]

While I don't disagree with your views about "self" in Buddhism, you must acknowledge that this is not "self" as commonly understood in English: "a person's essential being that distinguishes him from others." The essential being component is there, but not the individualistic part. Buddha Nature seems to be the same for everyone.