Skip to content
buddhavacana

The failure of Buddhism?

· 51 min read

Is awakening no longer possible?

Section titled “Is awakening no longer possible?”

There is a prevalent belief amongst Buddhists that the Buddha’s teachings are no longer effective. Society has been undergoing a decline since he died, and it is now impossible for anyone to achieve the goals of the soteriology.

The best that one can hope for is to either perform good deeds and give generously, and hope to be reborn into a better life, or study the teachings diligently and hope to achieve “stream entry” (a guaranteed awakening in future lives). Even stream entry is considered an impossible achievement according to some.

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 awakening. This view is mainly held amongst Theravādins (who also believe it takes many lifetimes to realise nibbāna), although some Mahāyānans also seem to believe this. The last known arahant (liberated one) - at least amongst Theravādins - lived around that time. The Mahāyānans have been traditionally more relaxed about declaring individuals as arhats, bodhisattvas or even Buddhas but even so living acknowledged awakened ones are few and far between.

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.

Even prominent Buddhists in the past are not regarded as awakened. Buddhaghosa, who wrote the influential Visuddhimagga, was supposed to be reborn after his death in Tuṣita heaven, surrounded by the celestial nymphs (according to Buddhaghosuppatti written by Mahāmaṅgala). The great Ledi Sayadaw was not considered to be an Arahant, because he was supposed to be an anāgāmi (Non-Returner).

Buddhists no longer really believe what the Buddha taught

Section titled “Buddhists no longer really believe what the Buddha taught”

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.

Some may not understand

Section titled “Some may not understand”

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

25. This Dhamma I have realised is indeed profound, hard to see, hard to comprehend, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of reasoning, subtle, to be experienced by the wise. But this generation delights in attachment, is pleased by attachment, rejoices in attachment. For a generation delighting in attachment, pleased by attachment, rejoicing in attachment, this state is hard to see, namely: specific causality, paṭiccasamuppāda (dependent origination). This state, too, is indeed extremely hard to see, namely: the calming of all saṅkhārā (mental constructions), the relinquishing of all acquisitions, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, nibbāna (extinguishment). But if I were to teach the Dhamma and others did not understand me, that would be weariness for me, that would be trouble for me.

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

In 9M/3.2 Alagaddūpamasutta, the Buddha remarks some memorise and debate what he thought, but they don’t really understand it:

786. Here, Bhikkhave, some foolish people learn the Dhamma:

  • suttaṃ (discourses,)
  • geyyaṃ (mixed prose and verse,)
  • veyyākaraṇaṃ (explanations,)
  • gāthaṃ (verses,)
  • udānaṃ (inspired utterances,)
  • itivuttakaṃ (‘as it was said’ speeches,)
  • jātakaṃ (birth stories,)
  • abbhutadhammaṃ (amazing phenomena, and)
  • vedallaṃ (question-and-answer sessions.)

Having learned that Dhamma, they don’t examine the meaning of those teachings with wisdom. For them, those teachings don’t bear scrutiny when their meaning is not examined with wisdom. They learn the Dhamma for the purpose of criticising others and for escaping criticism in debate. They don’t experience the benefit for which they learned the Dhamma. For them, those teachings, being badly grasped, lead to their harm and suffering for a long time. For what reason? Because, Bhikkhave, the teachings were badly grasped.

He further illustrates this through the simile of grasping the cobra:

787. Suppose, Bhikkhave, a man needing a cobra, searching for a cobra, wandering in search of a cobra, saw a large cobra. He might grab it by its coil or its tail. That cobra, turning back, could bite him on the hand, the arm, or some other limb. Because of that, he would come to death or to death-like suffering. For what reason? Because, Bhikkhave, the cobra was badly grasped.

Bad Teachers

Section titled “Bad Teachers”

In 6D/12.2 Tayocodanārahā, the Buddha warns against teachers who have not attained the goal of the ascetic life yet teach others, or their disciples may or may not follow their instructions properly, or the teacher has attained the goal but the disciples do not follow properly. In all three cases, such teachers are worthy of criticism:

880. Lohicca, there are these three types of teachers in the world who are worthy of criticism. And whoever criticises such teachers, that criticism is truthful, accurate, righteous, and blameless. What three? Here, Lohicca, some teacher has gone forth from the home life into homelessness for a certain purpose, but that goal of the ascetic life has not been attained by him. Not having attained that goal of the ascetic life, he teaches the Dhamma to his disciples, saying: ‘This is for your welfare, this is for your happiness.’

But his disciples do not listen, do not pay attention, do not apply their minds to understanding, and they act contrary to the teacher’s instruction.

Such a person should be criticised thus: ‘Āyasmā, you went forth from the home life into homelessness for a certain purpose, but that goal of the ascetic life has not been attained by you. Not having attained that goal of the ascetic life, you teach the Dhamma to your disciples, saying: “This is for your welfare, this is for your happiness.” Yet your disciples do not listen, do not pay attention, do not apply their minds to understanding, and they act contrary to your instruction. Just as if one were to try to pull back someone who is retreating, or embrace someone who is turning away, so too do I declare this evil quality of greed: for what can one person do for another?’ This, Lohicca, is the first teacher in the world who is worthy of criticism; and whoever criticises such a teacher, that criticism is truthful, accurate, righteous, and blameless.

881. Again, Lohicca, some teacher has gone forth from the home life into homelessness for a certain purpose, but that goal of the ascetic life has not been attained by him. Not having attained that goal of the ascetic life, he teaches the Dhamma to his disciples, saying: ‘This is for your welfare, this is for your happiness.’ But his disciples listen, pay attention, apply their minds to understanding, and they do not act contrary to the teacher’s instruction. Such a person should be criticised thus: ‘Āyasmā, you went forth from the home life into homelessness for a certain purpose, but that goal of the ascetic life has not been attained by you. Not having attained that goal of the ascetic life, you teach the Dhamma to your disciples, saying: “This is for your welfare, this is for your happiness.” Yet your disciples listen, pay attention, apply their minds to understanding, and they do not act contrary to your instruction. Just as if one were to abandon one’s own field and think to cultivate another’s field, so too do I declare this evil quality of greed: for what can one person do for another?’ This, Lohicca, is the second teacher in the world who is worthy of criticism; and whoever criticises such a teacher, that criticism is truthful, accurate, righteous, and blameless.

882. Again, Lohicca, some teacher has gone forth from the home life into homelessness for a certain purpose, and that goal of the ascetic life has been attained by him. Having attained that goal of the ascetic life, he teaches the Dhamma to his disciples, saying: ‘This is for your welfare, this is for your happiness.’ But his disciples do not listen, do not pay attention, do not apply their minds to understanding, and they act contrary to the teacher’s instruction. Such a person should be criticised thus: ‘Āyasmā, you went forth from the home life into homelessness for a certain purpose, and that goal of the ascetic life has been attained by you. Having attained that goal of the ascetic life, you teach the Dhamma to your disciples, saying: “This is for your welfare, this is for your happiness.” Yet your disciples do not listen, do not pay attention, do not apply their minds to understanding, and they act contrary to your instruction. Just as if one were to cut an old bond and then make another new bond, so too do I declare this evil quality of greed: for what can one person do for another?’ This, Lohicca, is the third teacher in the world who is worthy of criticism; and whoever criticises such a teacher, that criticism is truthful, accurate, righteous, and blameless. These, Lohicca, are the three teachers in the world who are worthy of criticism; and whoever criticises such teachers, that criticism is truthful, accurate, righteous, and blameless.”

Yet this is exactly what Buddhist teachers, past and present, do. They do not claim to be awakened, and yet they don’t see the irony of trying to teach others the path to awakening when they themselves have not attained it, despite the Buddha’s stern warnings that such teachers should be reprimanded. And so after generations of such unawakened teachers, we have layers upon layers of misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and outright fabrications of the Buddha’s original teachings evident in the various canons and commentaries of the different Buddhist sects. See The Devolution of Buddha’s teachings.

Today

Section titled “Today”

Buddhism currently is a religion that includes beliefs, customs and practices that were not originally 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.

The Buddha himself warned that eventually his teachings would be replaced by false teachings. In 12S2/5.1.13 Saddhammappatirūpakasutta:

1010. … “It is in this way, Kassapa, that when beings decline and the true dhamma disappears, there are more training rules, and fewer bhikkhū are established in understanding. The true dhamma, Kassapa, does not disappear until a counterfeit of the true dhamma appears in the world. But when a counterfeit of the true dhamma appears in the world, then the true dhamma disappears.”

Today, 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. For example, the Mahāyānans have replaced Buddha’s teachings, and even the Buddha himself, with “newer” and “improved” teachings and an eternal, omniscient, conceptual Buddha.

Why are there so few arahants?

Section titled “Why are there so few arahants?”

It is popularly believed there are no known living arahants, or even known arahants in recent memory. Are there any examples of people who are claiming to be arahants? Are there liberated beings amongst us who have successfully ceased suffering? If someone claims such, can we independently verify those claims?

In my research, there seems to be no generally accepted living arahants. There are various rumours, whispers, speculations, and assumptions, but no widely accepted and verified examples. Claims of awakening are often made by specific religious leaders or their followers. These claims are frequently matters of personal belief within those groups and are not universally recognised by the wider Buddhist world.

Some recent examples (some taken from Wikipedia):

  • Ajahn Maha Bua: A respected Thai forest monk who declared he was an Arahant near the end of his life, a claim that was generally respected within his tradition.
  • Lu Sheng-yen: The founder of the True Buddha School, who claims to be an incarnation of a deity and is referred to by his followers as the “Living Buddha Lian Sheng”.
  • Ram Bahadur Bomjon (Maitreya Guru): A controversial Nepalese ascetic whom followers claim is the awaited Maitreya Buddha.
  • B. R. Ambedkar: regarded as a Bodhisattva, the Maitreya, among the Navayana followers.
  • Daniel M. Ingram: an American author and researcher on Buddhism and meditation, who described becoming an arahant on a retreat in April 2003.

Can we independently verify these claims? Can we test whether these individuals have truly achieved liberation, as defined by the Buddha’s teachings? Sadly, it appears this is not possible, for several reasons:

  • Humility: In many Buddhist cultures, boasting of spiritual attainments is frowned upon and seen as a sign of conceit, which is a defilement that a truly awakened person would have abandoned.
  • Vinaya Rules: Monastic discipline generally prohibits monks from declaring their attainments to the public to prevent deceit and the formation of cults.
  • Subjectivity: There is no objective, empirical test for awakening, and “who thinks this” person is awakened often depends on individual perspective and faith in a particular teacher or tradition.

Modern day Buddhists are prohibited from declaring themselves to be liberated, at risk of being ostracised from their communities. One can certainly believe oneself to be liberated, but one cannot publicly announce it. I imagine the proper behaviour is to quietly ride away into the sunset, never to be heard of again, and spend the rest of the time enjoying the peace and serenity.

Or perhaps one can teach others, like the Buddha. But how to do so, given that one is not supposed to declare that one has achieved the goal of the teaching?

Clearly, there are many Buddhist teachers today. Some acknowledge that they are unawakened, others are quiet, hoping the learner gives them the benefit of the doubt.

Can we actually trust the teachings?

Section titled “Can we actually trust the teachings?”

If Buddhist teachers cannot claim that they have personally experienced the goal of what they teach, this clearly diminishes the verifiability of the soteriology. How can these teachers be trusted, because there are no confirmed achievers! Indeed, some Buddhists believe the teachings have been corrupted, and therefore no longer effective. The true teachings will need to be revealed and reconfirmed by a future Buddha, who is not due for thousands of years.

And yet Buddhists are supposed to declare the three refuges, to take refuge in the Buddha (who is dead and no longer exists), the dhamma (which is believed to be corrupted), and the saṅgha (practising rules that the Buddha hoped would be abolished, and different sects cannot even agree on a common set of rules).

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:

934. “Indeed, Bhante, nowadays the bhikkhū are difficult to admonish, they are endowed with qualities that make them difficult to admonish, they are impatient, and they do not take instruction in the right way. Here, Bhante, I saw a bhikkhu named Bhaṇḍa, a pupil of Ānanda, and a bhikkhu named Abhijika, a pupil of Anuruddha, out-talking each other about what they had heard, saying: ‘Come, bhikkhu, who will speak more, who will speak more eloquently, who will speak 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 awakened beings, but more disciplinary rules. The Buddha replied that the overall quality of members of the community has declined and some don’t respect the teachings or the teacher (12S2/5.1.13 Saddhammappatirūpakasutta):

1013. Kassapa, these five detrimental things lead to the confusion and disappearance of the true Dhamma (teachings). What five? Here, Kassapa, bhikkhū, bhikkhuniyo, upāsakā, and upāsikāyo (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 focus. These, Kassapa, are the five detrimental 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.

Conclusion

Section titled “Conclusion”

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.

Postscript

Section titled “Postscript”

I do believe the soteriology is understandable, and awakening is still possible, provided one truly understood the Buddha’s teachings and followed the eightfold path. My opinion is articulated in TL;DR - What the Buddha Taught.

Awakening requires willpower, a change in mindset, a break from lifetime habits and attitudes, and ultimately a rewiring of how we think. It does require time, and patience.

But, it is like trying to lose weight. We all know how to lose weight - we just need to moderate our eating, and balance it with our energy requirements and expenditure.

However, not everyone finds it easy to lose weight. Despite understanding the theory, we find it difficult to put into practice. We find it difficult to change our appetites, our habits, and our mindset.

And therefore we start looking for excuses. The theory was wrong, there are genetic factors at play, our metabolism is too slow, etc. We are unwilling to admit we cannot change our eating patterns. We develop elaborate theories of dieting, what to eat and what to avoid, when to eat, how to exercise etc. Some of us rely on artificial assistance - medicine to curb our appetite, some of us even rely on drastic interventions such as surgery. Lastly, we deny it is a problem, we resign ourselves to being fat, or we believe the goal is simply unachievable.

I believe the same has happened in Buddhism. We find it difficult to modify established patterns of behaviour and thinking, so the suffering continues. We are unwilling to give up on doing precisely the acts that cause or generate dukkha. So, we believe the soteriology was incomplete, or we did not understand it. We develop complex theories of interpretation, what to do and what not to do, and practise elaborate rituals and ceremonies and observances. Some of us rely on artificial assistance - meditation to curb our desires and bad thoughts (even though these desires and bad thoughts return when we stop meditating), some of us even rely on drastic interventions such as suicide. Lastly, we deny it is a problem, the best outcome is to be reborn in a better life, or we believe the goal is simply unachievable.

Part of the problem may be that Buddhism became a religion, and over time the Buddha’s teachings increasingly became interpreted as religious or sacred teachings. The goal that the Buddha described became associated with a divine, spiritual, mystical goal. Therefore it became unachievable by definition. Even if a devout Buddhist manages to achieve liberation through the cessation of suffering, that person may not recognise that the goal has in fact been achieved, because no spiritual transformation has taken place.

Buddhists, perhaps rightly, frown on declarations of liberation. Because, if liberation is construed as a spiritual attainment, then declaring liberation is akin to deification, and not surprisingly the declarer is more often than not seen as being deluded. Prohibiting declarations of liberation maintains an illusion that perhaps there are liberated ones amongst us, but they have achieved deification and therefore inaccessible to us. Therefore non-achievability becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, by the very (re-)definition of the goal to a (possibly) unattainable ideal.

Finally

Section titled “Finally”
Awakening, just like losing weight, may ultimately require a change in lifestyle and a lifetime of vigilance and maintenance. There may be occasional lapses. But the benefits are hopefully obvious. And when one has achieved the goal, one will know that it is achieved and that it was possible.

Backlinks