Is it fair to say that Buddhism employ misology?

Question

The question is straightforward as it read, but to elaborate I will give some examples.

I think most people will agree that reason is what is special about human beings, and most religions and philosophies are directed to human reason to persuade or redirect human reason to what is deemed correct/true, but human reason have a set of premises that it works from, in other word discernment in human requires approval by reason itself, it cannot be otherwise.

So, to convince what is reasonable philosophy employ dialectic thus it cannot be blamed for misology. Most religions, however, use faith in addition to dialectic and when faith contradict with reason misology is visible and human reason succumb to confusion.

Now, Buddhism is no different from these religions, although it claims that no faith is need beside direct knowledge, it avoid explaining the basic building block of the idea it propounds. For example, it seeks to eliminate ignorance to end suffering but it avoids to give an explanation how in the first place ignorance arise? Some sect of Buddhism also teach a Buddha nature in every being but fail to explain how a perfect Buddha nature get deluded, to begin with. Buddhism also fail/avoid to explain how it’s possible that an endless liberation is possible.

The above is not uncommon to other religions even in India the Jain’s teach a True Soul that get liberated from karmic element but they fail to explain how this ever going ebb of liberation can be true, how is that even possible to have a never filling bucket? Why are all souls not liberated if the Jani’s cosmos progress or the Buddhist idea is to be believed?

---

This question is marked as a duplicate, but I don't think it is directly related to my question. What I'm asking is not a bias towards conceptualization, but avoidance to explain idea's within Buddhism, not of individual conceptualization Mr.Ethan would want to keep, but a reasoned explanation for Buddism itself.

Answer 1

Now, Buddhism is no different from these religions, although it claims that no faith is need beside direct knowledge, it avoid explaining the basic building block of the idea it propounds. For example, it seeks to eliminate ignorance to end suffering but it avoids to give an explanation how in the first place ignorance arise?

The above statement is itself 'misology' because an explanation how in the first place ignorance arose is unknowable. It is not possible to apply reason & logic to that which is unknowable.

In AN 10.61, the Buddha taught the origin of ignorance cannot be known however what sustains or feeds ignorance (namely, the five hindrances) can be both known & eradicated. Therefore, although the origin of ignorance cannot be known, ignorance can be eradicated.

This is similar to the origin of life. The origin of life cannot be known but life is easily eradicated, such as by starvation, disease, suffocation or weapons.

Some sect of Buddhism also teach a Buddha nature in every being but fail to explain how a perfect Buddha nature get deluded, to begin with.

The Buddha did not teach about 'Buddha-Nature' because it does not exist. Again, the above statement is itself 'misology' because the explanation about a superstition called 'Buddha-Nature' is not possible.

Buddhism also fail/avoid to explain how it’s possible that an endless liberation is possible.

The Buddha did not teach about an "endless liberation". However, the Buddha did teach a permanent liberation of mind during the finite lifetime of a mind is possible.

What I'm asking is not a bias towards conceptualization, but avoidance to explain idea's within Buddhism, not of individual conceptualization Mr.Ethan would want to keep, but a reasoned explanation for Buddism itself.

I think to critique anything first requires knowledge of the matter to be critiqued.

Answer 2

1) it seeks to eliminate ignorance to end suffering but it avoids to give an explanation how in the first place ignorance arise?

you are wrong. Buddhism gives very clear explanation arise of ignorance. which is lack of wisdom. lack of wisdom arises due to imperfection or unsatisfactory. These are fundamental characteristics of nature.

2) Some sect of Buddhism also teach a Buddha nature in every being but fail to explain how a perfect Buddha nature get deluded

Buddha nature is a state of our mind. Which is deluded by defilement of mind.Buddha nature signify capacity(develop and having wisdom) to eliminate all sort of defilement in mind, clear and realize the path to final liberation,absolute emptiness or Nirvana and show the path to others. In other words it can be describe as having perfection of wisdom.

3) Buddhism also fail/avoid to explain how it’s possible that an endless liberation is possible. Buddhism has clearly explained the path. Only thing is how ordinary people understand and realize it. Hold and cling so hard to unwholesome views and lack of wisdom. e.g view of self,I,me,mine,ours, almighty god,force,destiny,continuous soul etc... Buddhism clearly expel all those deluded concepts and explained very well. all you need is give up all deluded views and study the basics step by step (come and see) and measure it with your enhanced wisdom and take the decision.

Please analyze into depth of Three characteristics of nature Anicca,Dukkha,Anatta, four noble truths,noble eight fold paths, concept of metta, five precepts etc... step by step. without studying basics you will not realize the profound teaching of Buddha. Then gradually read and analyze essential sutta such as heart sutta, cula-sunaata sutta,karaniya metta sutta,maha parinibbana sutta etc...

hope this will help you. Thanks and metta. you may gain more and more wisdom to realize the path and have courage to serve the universe.

Answer 3

Your question is basically asking: "Why can't we measure the cosmos with a ruler?" The answer is, you can't !

Answer 4

Is it fair to say that Buddhism employ misology?

Yes and no.

• No: Buddhist terms are well defined or can be explained. Doctrines like the four noble truths seem to me logical. The suttas obviously can't be described as "anti-wordy". The dhamma is meant to be evident, common sense. Basic tennets (e.g. virtue is good, but craving correlates with suffering) are meant to be practical and (unlike some religions) don't depend on "faith".
• Yes: some of the suttas (e.g. MN 18) warn against "perceptions" and "categories of objectification", and "obsessions of views" and so on. Some of the practices (forms of meditation, especially) are non-verbal (or even anti-verbal). The teachings are called "the finger pointing at the moon".

it avoids to give an explanation how in the first place ignorance arise

I like the parable of the arrow, I see it as an example of Buddhism's being practical and admirable.

If the Buddha said,

From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on.

... then why would you want Buddhism to try to explain a beginning? Isn't an explanation likely to be "wrong" (not right) if it isn't evident? And so isn't it right to focus on what is evident?

Do you want to call that "misology", I don't know.