Your depiction of Buddhism reflects a profound misunderstanding that undermines its depth and richness. The selfless state you alluded to bears no meaningful connection to the Buddhist doctrine of anatman, a cornerstone of liberation. Furthermore, your portrayal of the sangha is strikingly narrow; it encompasses not only bhikshus and bhikshunis but also lay practitioners, who are integral to the community. One need not don robes or embrace monastic vows to walk the path to enlightenment—Buddhism is not an exclusive club for ascetics. Indeed, the notion that a society’s majority would become monks or nuns is absurd, given the rigorous discipline required, a fact that highlights the tradition’s practical inclusivity rather than an elitist retreat.
More critically, your interpretation of the no-harm principle (ahimsa) is a gross caricature, painting Buddhists as passive doormats awaiting exploitation. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Buddhism does not equate nonviolence with weakness; it is a dynamic ethic rooted in wisdom and strength. Consider the Vajrayana tradition, where practices like annihilation rites exist to confront and eliminate malevolent forces when necessary, as seen in the Upāyakauśalya Sūtra’s account of a bodhisattva compassionately killing to save others. Buddhists are not idle in the face of aggression; they act with discernment, not cowardice. A universal Buddhism as you’ve misconstrued it—stripped of its nuance, resilience, and transformative power—would scarcely merit the effort to preserve.
My understanding of buddhism is mostly based on the Pali Canon, so I am clueless regarding many nuances of more recent branches of buddhism. Thank you for enlightening me on that regard.
My argument was based on a full pursuit of the buddha's teachings, meaning an attempt at truly letting go of all attachments and an extinction of grasping, choices and desires. Such a pursuit, where one attempts to reduce suffering to 0, would require one to have a dedication that is not compatible with lay life. I'm not arguing that buddhism has no place for lay people: a reduction in conscious suffering is always very much welcome, even if one doesn't achieve a total extinction of it.
I still believe, although I can be wrong, that directly following Buddha's original teaching to their full extent, a practitioner could not fight back. The Buddha goes so far as to share examples where he was killed in past lives, explaining how he didn't fight back and held no ill will towards those who dismembered him. A society of Buddhas would therefore not fight back against evil doers.
I do agree that the percentage of buddhists that do try and emulate the teachings to this level is minuscule. My argument only holds true for a buddha like following of the teachings, not a partial commitment.
I agree with all your points. My argument does not point to any cowardice. I for one believe it takes more courage to be unafraid and refuse to fight back on the face of someone trying to kill you than it takes to fight back. It is a question of principle, not a lack of courage.
Your depiction of Buddhism reflects a profound misunderstanding that undermines its depth and richness. The selfless state you alluded to bears no meaningful connection to the Buddhist doctrine of anatman, a cornerstone of liberation. Furthermore, your portrayal of the sangha is strikingly narrow; it encompasses not only bhikshus and bhikshunis but also lay practitioners, who are integral to the community. One need not don robes or embrace monastic vows to walk the path to enlightenment—Buddhism is not an exclusive club for ascetics. Indeed, the notion that a society’s majority would become monks or nuns is absurd, given the rigorous discipline required, a fact that highlights the tradition’s practical inclusivity rather than an elitist retreat.
More critically, your interpretation of the no-harm principle (ahimsa) is a gross caricature, painting Buddhists as passive doormats awaiting exploitation. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Buddhism does not equate nonviolence with weakness; it is a dynamic ethic rooted in wisdom and strength. Consider the Vajrayana tradition, where practices like annihilation rites exist to confront and eliminate malevolent forces when necessary, as seen in the Upāyakauśalya Sūtra’s account of a bodhisattva compassionately killing to save others. Buddhists are not idle in the face of aggression; they act with discernment, not cowardice. A universal Buddhism as you’ve misconstrued it—stripped of its nuance, resilience, and transformative power—would scarcely merit the effort to preserve.
Neo,
Thank you for the thoughtful reply!
My understanding of buddhism is mostly based on the Pali Canon, so I am clueless regarding many nuances of more recent branches of buddhism. Thank you for enlightening me on that regard.
My argument was based on a full pursuit of the buddha's teachings, meaning an attempt at truly letting go of all attachments and an extinction of grasping, choices and desires. Such a pursuit, where one attempts to reduce suffering to 0, would require one to have a dedication that is not compatible with lay life. I'm not arguing that buddhism has no place for lay people: a reduction in conscious suffering is always very much welcome, even if one doesn't achieve a total extinction of it.
I still believe, although I can be wrong, that directly following Buddha's original teaching to their full extent, a practitioner could not fight back. The Buddha goes so far as to share examples where he was killed in past lives, explaining how he didn't fight back and held no ill will towards those who dismembered him. A society of Buddhas would therefore not fight back against evil doers.
I do agree that the percentage of buddhists that do try and emulate the teachings to this level is minuscule. My argument only holds true for a buddha like following of the teachings, not a partial commitment.
Buddhism is imbued with resilience, adaptability, and transformative power.
I agree with all your points. My argument does not point to any cowardice. I for one believe it takes more courage to be unafraid and refuse to fight back on the face of someone trying to kill you than it takes to fight back. It is a question of principle, not a lack of courage.