The failure of Buddhism?

Caution

Please note that the opinions expressed in this article are not mine, I am just summarising what appears to be a popular view amongst Buddhists. I do not believe the Buddha’s teachings are no longer effective, although I do note that they are highly elaborated, therefore it is hard to distinguish between what the Buddha might have taught and what have been added on over the years. Therefore I appreciate that the teachings can perhaps be easily misinterpreted leading to ineffectual observance and practice. On that basis, Buddhism can be considered a “failed religion” in that it is generally not effective for it’s adherents and practitioners, notwithstanding that the teachings may originally have validity.

Some Buddhist practitioners and scholars believe that sometime after the 1st century CE the Buddha’s teachings became no longer effective and practitioners were no longer able to achieve enlightenment. This view is mainly held amongst Theravādins (who also believe it takes many lifetimes to realise nibbāna), although some Mahayanans also seem to believe this. The last known arahant (enlightened being) lived around that time.

According to Gombrich in p. 168n of Theravāda Buddhism:

In Sinhalese public opinion there seem always to have been two conflicting views about the state of the Sāsana. The view that it is in decline goes back, we saw, to the Buddha himself. There is a popular tradition in Sri Lanka that the last Enlightened person in the country died in the first century BCE. On the other hand, the Pali commentaries and chronicles both state and imply that ancient Ceylon was full of Enlightened monks. There are even anecdotes about how people tested or contested claims to sainthood. Curious laymen devised little ruses to see whether an alleged saint took fright easily or salivated at the sight of food. A major component of the popular image of the saint was that he controlled his body and always preserved decorum. Rahula sums up his fascinating chapter on this topic by saying that saints ‘were evidently not expected to be entirely free from … minor blemishes, such as pride and love of display’, but ‘should have a reputation for deep piety and scrupulousness in observing the precepts’ – and miraculous powers were a bonus. I doubt whether expectations are very different today.

According to Jayarava in Why Did Buddhists Abandon Buddhavacana?:

As far as I can see, all Buddhist sects gradually moved away from buddhavacana and adopted novel doctrines over time. Even the venerable Theravāda tradition — whose own mythology includes the claim to have preserved the entire oeuvre of the Buddha in the very language that he spoke — moved substantially away from those texts. Modern Theravāda is actually based on the writings of Buddhaghosa, a fifth century commentator, and on medieval sub-commentaries on Abhidhamma, such as the Abhidhammattha Saṅgaha. The practice of meditation died out in Theravāda sects and had to be reinvented in the eighteenth century. Indeed, some Theravādins have argued that liberation from rebirth is impossible in the absence of a living Buddha.

I disagree with Jayarava’s statement that “modern Theravāda is actually based on the writings of Buddhaghosa” and Abhidhamma commentaries although it seems other scholars such as Gombrich also believe this (he once remarked that Rahula’s book “What the Buddha Taught” should probably be renamed “What Buddhaghosa Taught”). However, I do agree that the various practices of meditation done by Theravādins and modern Buddhists are a late invention.

Regardless, it is popularly believed there are no known living arahants, or even known arahants in recent memory. Some have claimed they are arahants but not generally accepted, others have been suspected or assumed to be arahants, and there may be arahants who have not declared themselves and are therefore unknown.

To be fair, the Buddha has acknowledged that liberation may be difficult to some, perhaps most. According to ３V／1.5 Brahmayācanakathā, he was disinclined to teach others at first:

＞𑀅𑀥𑀺𑀕𑀢𑁄 𑀔𑁄 𑀫𑁆𑀬𑀸𑀬𑀁 𑀥𑀫𑁆𑀫𑁄 𑀕𑀫𑁆𑀪𑀻𑀭𑁄 𑀤𑀼𑀤𑁆𑀤𑀲𑁄 𑀤𑀼𑀭𑀦𑀼𑀩𑁄𑀥𑁄 𑀲𑀦𑁆𑀢𑁄 𑀧𑀡𑀻𑀢𑁄 𑀅𑀢𑀓𑁆𑀓𑀸𑀯𑀘𑀭𑁄 𑀦𑀺𑀧𑀼𑀡𑁄 𑀧𑀡𑁆𑀟𑀺𑀢𑀯𑁂𑀤𑀦𑀻𑀬𑁄𑁇 𑀆𑀮𑀬𑀭𑀸𑀫𑀸 𑀔𑁄 𑀧𑀦𑀸𑀬𑀁 𑀧𑀚𑀸 𑀆𑀮𑀬𑀭𑀢𑀸 𑀆𑀮𑀬𑀲𑀫𑁆𑀫𑀼𑀤𑀺𑀢𑀸𑁇 𑀆𑀮𑀬𑀭𑀸𑀫𑀸𑀬 𑀔𑁄 𑀧𑀦 𑀧𑀚𑀸𑀬 𑀆𑀮𑀬𑀭𑀢𑀸𑀬 𑀆𑀮𑀬𑀲𑀫𑁆𑀫𑀼𑀤𑀺𑀢𑀸𑀬 𑀤𑀼𑀤𑁆𑀤𑀲𑀁 𑀇𑀤𑀁 𑀞𑀸𑀦𑀁 𑀬𑀤𑀺𑀤𑀁 𑀇𑀤𑀧𑁆𑀧𑀘𑁆𑀘𑀬𑀢𑀸𑀧𑀝𑀺𑀘𑁆𑀘𑀲𑀫𑀼𑀧𑁆𑀧𑀸𑀤𑁄; 𑀇𑀤𑀫𑁆𑀧𑀺 𑀔𑁄 𑀞𑀸𑀦𑀁 𑀲𑀼𑀤𑀼𑀤𑁆𑀤𑀲𑀁 𑀬𑀤𑀺𑀤𑀁 𑀲𑀩𑁆𑀩𑀲𑀗𑁆𑀔𑀸𑀭𑀲𑀫𑀣𑁄 𑀲𑀩𑁆𑀩𑀽𑀧𑀥𑀺𑀧𑀝𑀺𑀦𑀺𑀲𑁆𑀲𑀕𑁆𑀕𑁄 𑀢𑀡𑁆𑀳𑀸𑀓𑁆𑀔𑀬𑁄 𑀯𑀺𑀭𑀸𑀕𑁄 𑀦𑀺𑀭𑁄𑀥𑁄 𑀦𑀺𑀩𑁆𑀩𑀸𑀦𑀁𑁇 𑀅𑀳𑀜𑁆𑀘𑁂𑀯 𑀔𑁄 𑀧𑀦 𑀥𑀫𑁆𑀫𑀁 𑀤𑁂𑀲𑁂𑀬𑁆𑀬𑀁, 𑀧𑀭𑁂 𑀘 𑀫𑁂 𑀦 𑀆𑀚𑀸𑀦𑁂𑀬𑁆𑀬𑀼𑀁, 𑀲𑁄 𑀫𑀫𑀲𑁆𑀲 𑀓𑀺𑀮𑀫𑀣𑁄, 𑀲𑀸 𑀫𑀫𑀲𑁆𑀲 𑀯𑀺𑀳𑁂𑀲𑀸 ＞ ＞25 … adhigato kho myāyaṃ dhammo gambhīro duddaso duranubodho santo paṇīto atakkāvacaro nipuṇo paṇḍitavedanīyo. Ālayarāmā kho panāyaṃ pajā ālayaratā ālayasammuditā. Ālayarāmāya kho pana pajāya ālayaratāya ālayasammuditāya duddasaṃ idaṃ ṭhānaṃ yadidaṃ idappaccayatāpaṭiccasamuppādo; idampi kho ṭhānaṃ sududdasaṃ yadidaṃ sabbasaṅkhārasamatho sabbūpadhipaṭinissaggo taṇhākkhayo virāgo nirodho nibbānaṃ. Ahañceva kho pana dhammaṃ deseyyaṃ, pare ca me na ājāneyyuṃ, so mamassa kilamatho, sā mamassa vihesā … ＞ ＞This dhamma (phenomenal nature of experience) has been attained by me, profound, difficult to see, difficult to understand, peaceful, sublime, beyond the sphere of reason, subtle, to be experienced by the wise. This generation, however, delights in craving, is fond of craving, rejoices in craving. For a generation that delights in craving , is fond of craving, rejoices in craving, this state is difficult to see, that is to say, dependent origination; this state too is extremely difficult to see, that is to say, stilling of all formations, relinquishment of all acquisitions, destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, nibbāna (extinguishment). If I were to teach the dhamma (doctrine), and others were not to understand me, that would be weariness for me, that would be vexation for me.

The Buddha was eventually persuaded to teach by none other than Brahmā Sahampati (supposedly the Vedic Supreme Being).

However, Buddhism today is a religion that includes beliefs, customs and practices that were not taught or endorsed by the Buddha. These are documented by Gombrich in Theravāda Buddhism: A social history from ancient Benares to modern Colombo and Spiro in Buddhism and society : a great tradition and its Burmese vicissitudes.

Buddhism today is divided into various sects, and the beliefs of the sects do not always overlap. There are also modern forms of Buddhism which may or may not incorporate all the “original” teachings of the Buddha. Some have replaced Buddha’s teachings, and sometimes even the Buddha himself, with “newer” and “improved” teachings.

Buddhism is primarily practised by the various sects and groups of monastics (who do not always agree with each other), or by “lay disciples.” The major sects all have their own version of the Buddhist teachings, with some considerable differences between them.

There were issues with quarrels and bad behaviour even during Buddha’s lifetime. Take, for example 12S2/5.1.6 Ovādasutta, where Kassapa complains to the Buddha that lately monks have become hard to admonish, impatient, and don’t take instruction respectfully, requiring an intervention by the Buddha:

“𑀤𑀼𑀩𑁆𑀩𑀘𑀸 𑀔𑁄, 𑀪𑀦𑁆𑀢𑁂, 𑀏𑀢𑀭𑀳𑀺 𑀪𑀺𑀓𑁆𑀔𑀽, 𑀤𑁄𑀯𑀘𑀲𑁆𑀲𑀓𑀭𑀡𑁂𑀳𑀺 𑀥𑀫𑁆𑀫𑁂𑀳𑀺 𑀲𑀫𑀦𑁆𑀦𑀸𑀕𑀢𑀸, 𑀅𑀓𑁆𑀔𑀫𑀸, 𑀅𑀧𑁆𑀧𑀤𑀓𑁆𑀔𑀺𑀡𑀕𑁆𑀕𑀸𑀳𑀺𑀦𑁄 𑀅𑀦𑀼𑀲𑀸𑀲𑀦𑀺𑀁𑁇 𑀇𑀥𑀸𑀳𑀁, 𑀪𑀦𑁆𑀢𑁂, 𑀅𑀤𑁆𑀤𑀲𑀁 𑀪𑀡𑁆𑀟𑀜𑁆𑀘 𑀦𑀸𑀫 𑀪𑀺𑀓𑁆𑀔𑀼𑀁 𑀆𑀦𑀦𑁆𑀤𑀲𑁆𑀲 𑀲𑀤𑁆𑀥𑀺𑀯𑀺𑀳𑀸𑀭𑀺𑀁 𑀅𑀪𑀺𑀚𑀺𑀓𑀜𑁆𑀘 𑀦𑀸𑀫 𑀪𑀺𑀓𑁆𑀔𑀼𑀁 𑀅𑀦𑀼𑀭𑀼𑀤𑁆𑀥𑀲𑁆𑀲 𑀲𑀤𑁆𑀥𑀺𑀯𑀺𑀳𑀸𑀭𑀺𑀁 𑀅𑀜𑁆𑀜𑀫𑀜𑁆𑀜𑀁 𑀲𑀼𑀢𑁂𑀦 𑀅𑀘𑁆𑀘𑀸𑀯𑀤𑀦𑁆𑀢𑁂— ‘𑀏𑀳𑀺, 𑀪𑀺𑀓𑁆𑀔𑀼, 𑀓𑁄 𑀩𑀳𑀼𑀢𑀭𑀁 𑀪𑀸𑀲𑀺𑀲𑁆𑀲𑀢𑀺, 𑀓𑁄 𑀲𑀼𑀦𑁆𑀤𑀭𑀢𑀭𑀁 𑀪𑀸𑀲𑀺𑀲𑁆𑀲𑀢𑀺, 𑀓𑁄 𑀘𑀺𑀭𑀢𑀭𑀁 𑀪𑀸𑀲𑀺𑀲𑁆𑀲𑀢𑀻’”𑀢𑀺𑁇

934 “Dubbacā kho, bhante, etarahi bhikkhū, dovacassakaraṇehi dhammehi samannāgatā, akkhamā, appadakkhiṇaggāhino anusāsaniṃ. Idhāhaṃ, bhante, addasaṃ bhaṇḍañca nāma bhikkhuṃ ānandassa saddhivihāriṃ abhijikañca nāma bhikkhuṃ anuruddhassa saddhivihāriṃ aññamaññaṃ sutena accāvadante— ‘ehi, bhikkhu, ko bahutaraṃ bhāsissati, ko sundarataraṃ bhāsissati, ko cirataraṃ bhāsissatī’”ti.

Bhante, the bhikkhus these days are hard to admonish, having qualities that make them hard to admonish. They’re impatient, and don’t take instruction respectfully. Bhante, I saw here a bhikkhu named Bhaṇḍa, a companion of Ānanda, and a bhikkhu named Abhijika, a companion of Anuruddha, arguing with each other about recitation: ‘Come on, bhikkhu, who can recite more? Who can recite better? Who can recite longer?’”

Even the Buddha noticed that his teachings became less effective over time, due to internal corruption within the Saṅgha. Kassapa asked the Buddha why there are now fewer enlightened beings, but more disciplinary rules. The Buddha replied that the overall quality of members of the community have declined and some don’t respect the teachings or the teacher (12S2/5.1.13 Saddhammappatirūpakasutta):

1013 Pañca khome, kassapa, okkamaniyā dhammā saddhammassa sammosāya antaradhānāya saṃvattanti. Katame pañca? Idha, kassapa, bhikkhū bhikkhuniyo upāsakā upāsikāyo satthari agāravā viharanti appatissā, dhamme agāravā viharanti appatissā, saṃghe agāravā viharanti appatissā, sikkhāya agāravā viharanti appatissā, samādhismiṃ agāravā viharanti appatissā— ime kho, kassapa, pañca okkamaniyā dhammā saddhammassa sammosāya antaradhānāya saṃvattanti.

Kassapa, these five things lead to the confusion and disappearance of the true Dhamma (teachings). Which five? Here, Kassapa, bhikkhus, bhikkhunis, upāsakās, and upāsikās (the fourfold assembly or greater community of Buddhists) dwell without respect and reverence for the Teacher, without respect and reverence for the Dhamma, without respect and reverence for the Saṅgha, without respect and reverence for the training, and without respect and reverence for mental composure. These, Kassapa, are the five things that lead to the confusion and disappearance of the true Dhamma.

The arch-nemesis during Buddha’s lifetime was no doubt Devadatta, who tried to take over the community, caused a formal schism in the Saṅgha, and even tried unsuccessfully to kill the Buddha in 4V/7 Saṃghabhedakakkhandhaka

Given the “schism” of Buddhism into various sects, the potential “corruption” in the Buddha’s teachings, and the fact that there are no known living arahants, I reluctantly conclude Buddhism is a failed religion, since it is no longer effective by the very standards it sets.