no love in buddhism? (part 1)

This blog entry by eliron caught my attention. I’ve reproduced it below and with a couple of the comments and eliron’s responses. I have then tried to draw out what appear to me to be the main themes of his argument.

I’ve had to break up my response to eliron’s post into several sections as in the process of writing this I realized it was getting very long quite quickly. Having said that if you do read everything I’ve written, please do so in the order of the numbered posts, as I think that way they will make most sense.

A couple of other things from me before I get into this.

Eliron offers some Christian counter-views to the negativities he sees in Buddhism. I know comparative religion is an area of academic study but it’s something I’m not really familiar with. I’ve always found religion as a phenomenon fascinating and I know there are people out there who enjoy drawing parallels between belief systems. I would still very much like to read Thich Nhat Hanh’s ‘Living Buddha, Living Christ’, as a matter of fact.

My personal opinion on this though, is that Buddhism and the mono-theistic faiths are just cut from different cloth. Fundamentally. Some people may choose to compare and contrast etc; I’m happy to as well, to an extent. But let’s face it, Buddhism is non-theistic and as a bare statement of fact that means that on a fundamental level it’s not going to match up nicely with mono-theism, in any form. There’s always going to be a base level of disagreement that has to be acknowledged.

On that basis, I’m not going to get in to trying to offer arguments (Buddhist or not) as to why mono-theistic faiths might be wrong. Call me a fence-sitter on this occasion if you wish, but my main interest (in this instance) is looking at a criticism of Buddhism. I’m genuinely interested in criticisms of Buddhism as they help me to understand it more, and certainly from other people’s points of view.

Furthermore, regardless of whether I convince eliron that he has misunderstood Buddhism or not, he raises interesting points that Buddhists should not shy away from. And if we feel we cannot think of a wholly satisfactory answer right away, that’s fine. We should take our time and read some dhamma texts. The Buddha himself taught that we should try and point out misunderstandings where we can, and be simply truthful about whether something is the case or not (see the Brahmajala Sutta and its commentaries, as published by the Buddhist Publication Society, by Bhikkhu Bodhi).

Anyway, here is eliron’s initial blog post:

There is no love in Buddhism.

Buddhism is non-love. To love is to rebel against the teachings of Buddha, to adopt perhaps the most serious affront to the core of Buddhism – to thumb one’s nose at his insistence of denying and extinguishing desire. For love is a font of all kinds of desires, raging or responsible.

In other words, to adopt not merely a Westernized or Christianized or humanized Buddhism, but Something entirely opposed to its main tenets.

There is a deep truth here. It tells us that, deep down, we know that Buddhism demands that we lose sight of what it means to be human, what is important, and what we know to be true. All the kindly, wise-looking monks writing books and telling us to be good and kind and loving are in fact rebels – rebels against Buddha. Monks telling us not to be Buddhists, but to be humans, even Christians.

Either that or they didn’t study very well.

Anyone is free, of course, to practice Buddhism. But Let us not be deluded about the core – or, rather, the missing core – of Buddhism.

Another thing that follows is that there is no community in Buddhism, since people are nothing more than obstacles to extinguishing desire.

Here is the first comment to the blog post:

I have a few questions if you don’t mind.

What is love? To say Buddhism lacks love requires a definition of love from which to work.

And how can you say there is no community in Buddhism when the historical Buddha created a monastic community and intended for his students to learn with and from each other?

Here is eliron’s response:

Brant, thanks for your patience. Your first question was about the definition of love. There are many aspects to love, such as The Four Loves as examined by C.S. Lewis (affection, friendship, erotic love, and the love of God (agape)), but I think we can agree on the highest form of love – agape, the selfless giving of oneself to others.

We can see, though, that all love involves personhood and desire of some sort. So if we value any sort of love, we must value personhood and desire as intrinsically good.

Now, when I say Buddhism lacks love, I’m not saying that Buddhists are not loving, or that Buddhism does not advocate love. What I am saying is that these commendable qualities and exhortations to love are rendered meaningless by the core of Buddhism itself, since its goal is to eliminate personhood and desire. (Should we desire that? That’s another discussion.)

Buddha’s forming of a monastic community contradicts his own teachings. It evinces at least one desire, albeit noble: for others to also be enlightened. This, in turn, becomes a cause of suffering in itself, both for himself and his disciples, as they strive to attain enlightenment, although one might excuse this because the (desired) goal is to eventually eliminate desire and suffering.

The desire of Buddhists to rebel against this core teaching (in thought and action, if not in word) and to instead teach and uphold love (at least in an approximation of its highest form, agape) is commendable to those who believe love is an important (even the most important) part of being human. But to do so is to uphold desire and personhood as well.

There is another way in which they rebel against Buddhism. Buddhism has ethical teachings of a high order, similar to other religions. However, there is no ground of ethics, no Lawgiver. Who decides what is right and what is wrong? This system relies on our internal conscience to confirm it. Our conscience, and this ethical system, both rely on respecting persons, and thereby imputing high value on personhood.

This, in turn, should lead to questions such as “Do persons really have high value? Who says? Is it just me? My society? What about societies that don’t belive this, or believe it only for themselves but not others, such as the Nazis? Who is right? That is, who is absolutely right, not relatively right?”

They are also rebelling against the contradictory teaching that Nirvana is beyond good and evil, as most find it hard to believe that evil acts and good acts are ultimately undifferentiated. To be ethical is to disbelieve this.

I look forward to further discussion.

Here is another comment:

I think an enormous kind of compassion arises when the ego dissolves and clarity arises. That’s what I went seeking in my new book THE POWER OF COMPASSION: Stories that Open the Heart, Heal the Soul and Change the World. I had studied tibetan buddhism in particular for many many years and wanted to know how the teachings were really being realized n every day life. So I asked a lot of masters and meditators from all buddhist traditions about transformative moments inspired by the teachings that opened their heart. The result is this book, now available in bookstores and at Amazon. I also put a few stories into video form on my YouTube channeL;www.youtube.com/thepowerofcompassion
There’s even a story int he book how the romantic love between a couple was transformed into a higher compassion through a vision of egolessness. Infact, this kind of love is so essential to all of us. Many of the problems we create for ourselves is that we don’t know how to leave a relationship in love, only anger…
visit my blog (thepwoerofcomapssion.wordpress.com) or my YouTube channel to see more. Many compassion bloom in your heart…Pamela Bloom

And eliron’s response:

Pamela, I appreciate your search and hunger for truth and meaning. However, the point of my post is that what you treasure, love and compassion, do not exist in Buddhism except through ignoring the teachings and ultimate goal of Buddhism – extinction of the personal, loss of personhood and identity. Also, in Buddhism, there is no real compassion, as whatever you get is deserved because of karma and no-one should try to remedy it.

The compassion and love you feel are in fact telling you that there’s something very wrong with Buddhism, since these virtues generate all kinds of desire, noble though they may be, which in turn causes suffering. Buddha himself did not care about the sufferings of others, leaving his young son without a father to embark on his journey of enlightenment. This should be the model for true Buddhists. What you have described instead is a Westernized, even Christianized Buddhism.

There is some truth in what you’ve said – love, compassion, and even egoless love are, contrary to Buddha’s teachings, are very important to who we are. It is so important that God reveals himself with the words, “God is love.” This also says that God is a person. This is great news, since if God were not personal, love would be nothing more than chemical reactions in our brains. If love is something real, then God values us and loves us as persons, and calls us to love as persons. This directly contradicts Buddha’s goal of self-extinction. However, God also calls us to selflessness – not to deny our personhood, but to use that personhood in a way that expresses his divine love, even if it means sacrificing ourselves. The ego is there but is subject to God’s divine love. This can only come about by receiving Him into ourselves, in the person of Christ and his own sacrifice. The love you describe is not Buddhist, but Christian.

Bottom line: if love is to be valued, then persons are to be valued, and Buddha is wrong. You can try to meld the two, but it’s ultimately impossible. I wish you the best in your journey of discovery. This is one discovery that may be unpalatable, but such is the nature of truth.

So I think the key themes eliron makes here are the following (I appreciate there is significant overlap between these and that eliron himself may well enumerate them or class them differently):

1. Buddha’s goal is ‘self-extinction’.

2. ‘Love and compassion, do not exist in Buddhism’ as the ‘ultimate goal of Buddhism [is] – extinction of the personal, loss of personhood and identity.’ Buddhism teaches the elimination of desire. Desire springs from love, therefore Buddhism teaches non-love. ‘Love, compassion, and even egoless love are contrary to Buddha’s teachings.’ ‘All love involves personhood and desire of some sort. So if we value any sort of love, we must value personhood and desire as intrinsically good’ and Buddhism does not value these ‘since its goal is to eliminate personhood and desire’. Any love and compassion in Buddhism ‘is a Westernized, even Christianized Buddhism.’ If you feel love and compassion this must tell you that something is wrong with Buddhism as ‘these virtues generate all kinds of desire, noble though they may be, which in turn causes suffering.’

3. ‘In Buddhism, there is no real compassion, as whatever you get is deserved because of karma and no-one should try to remedy it.’

4, ‘Buddhism demands that we lose sight of what it means to be human, what is important, and what we know to be true’.

5, Buddhist monks, and in fact any Buddhist who gives teachings on love, are actually rebelling against the Buddha’s original core teaching. ‘Either that or they didn’t study very well’, meaning that Buddhist monks, and possibly Buddhists in general, do not really understand what the Buddha actually taught. Buddhists who advocate love are rebelling against the core teaching of Buddhism because they ‘uphold desire and personhood.’

6. ‘There is no community in Buddhism, since people are nothing more than obstacles to extinguishing desire.’ In fact, ‘Buddha’s forming of a monastic community contradicts his own teachings.’

7. ‘Buddha himself did not care about the sufferings of others, leaving his young son without a father to embark on his journey of enlightenment. This should be the model for true Buddhists.’

8. Buddhist ethics are subjective and self-contradictory: a) because there is no ultimate law-giver to decide between right and wrong, and b) because the ethical system Buddhism espouses relies on our conscience, and both our conscience and the system of ethics ‘rely on respecting persons, and thereby imputing high value on personhood.’

9. By being ethical Buddhists ‘are also rebelling against the contradictory teaching that Nirvana is beyond good and evil, as most find it hard to believe that evil acts and good acts are ultimately undifferentiated. To be ethical is to disbelieve this.’

Continued in part 2

Tagged: eliron, misunderstandings

Posted in: Uncategorized