Religion or Self-Discipline? Problems with Bhuddism

It seems that all religions face two key problems: the rejection of reason and persecution. Usually, one is more present than the other and danger is apparent when both are actively emphasized. Fortunately, Buddhism only falters in one aspect, and that is reason.

I not being a Buddhist, find it exceptionally hard to understand the life and teachings of the Buddha in a manner which would make it consistent as a whole. The consistency in the story of the life of Buddha becomes a complex thing and some parts of his teachings become much more so.

Without a doubt, it wouldn’t be an overstatement to say that in all the founders of religion in this world, the description of the life and teachings of the founder of Buddhism invites the most dilemmas that are quite confusing if not baffling. Isn’t it essential that these problems should be resolved so that a rational person who wishes to take upon the path Buddhism has a clear understanding?

I think these are problems that Buddhists should take up for debate or at least for general discussion either to reach a consensus or at least shed some light on these issues. In many of the conundrums of Buddhism, I would like to reflect on two: The Four Noble Truths and the contradiction of soul and karma.

The Four Noble Truths teaches us that life was disappointing because of desire, but that this condition was somehow remediable. This formula destroys the basis of Buddhism. It mentions that life is unhappiness; death is unhappiness and re birth is unhappiness. If that is so, neither religion nor philosophy can help a man to achieve happiness in our lifetime. If there is no escape from sadness, then what can this religion do to change that?

What can Buddha do to alleviate man from such unhappiness? What would be the point of this religion? The four noble truths are a great eye opener in the sense that how non-Buddhists are to apprehend the doctrine of Buddhism. They pretty much deny hope to humanity. They make Buddhism appear like a doctrine for pessimism.

The second problem relates to Buddha’s dogma of soul, of karma and rebirth. Buddha rejected the existence of the soul. Yet he also believed to have acknowledged the principle of karma and rebirth. Anyone want to guess what is wrong with this picture? If souls do not exist, how can there be karma? If there is no soul, how is rebirth possible?

These are inexplicable questions. In what context did Buddha used the concept of karma and rebirth? Did he mean them in a different sense than the sense in which they were used by the Brahmins of his day? If so, in what sense was it then? Are the concepts of soul, karma and rebirth to be taken in the same sense in which the Brahmins used them? If so, isn’t there a terrible contradiction between the denial of the soul and the affirmation of karma and rebirth?

Such contradiction needs to be resolved if Buddhism is to be accepted and taken seriously as popular religion and just a method of self-discipline like other emerging cults. However, it may be too late, actually 2500 years late as the only person who could have answered this question would be the founder of this religion, Buddha himself.

If anyone is knowledgeable and have answers to my questions, please leave them in the comment section. Thank you.