The Problem With Buddhist Philosophy

I want to be clear and avoid unnecessary offense to those who might be bothered by a critical discussion of some aspects of a particular religion.  I am not concerned about the religious aspects of Buddhism.  As far as I am personally concerned, all belief systems that are based on supernatural events are equally absurd, but there's nothing to debate about that.  Absurd is absurd.  I am interested in the practical outcomes of living by some specific philosophy in this world.

Philosophies about how one should live are frequently embedded in religious belief systems, and it's hard to consider the ethos of a religion without being influenced by the mythos.  I am here interested only in the applications of the Buddhist philosophy and its impact on individual and community life.  I will say it again:  this is not about religion.

Buddhist philosophy, like Confucianism or Christian philosophy, is about how an individual might live in this world to achieve a better or happier life.  As such, it can be evaluated apart from its religious aspects in terms of how useful, effective, or practical it might be, and how much its practice results in a happier life for the practitioner.

Buddhism prescribes behaviors, attitudes and beliefs that are intended to create a better life (in this world) for the practitioner.  The individual is taught how to adjust their attitudes in such a way as to result in less pain and conflict.  A person practicing Buddhist philosophy learns to adjust himself to his environment and social situation.  He learns to accept what happens, to let go of desires and "false goals", to live at peace with his environment without conflict or struggle.

Such an approach works well.  Much of human unhappiness is related to our tendency to hold on to things, to refuse to let go of bad feelings, of envy and resentment.  Learning to let go of our past is an important and difficult task, but one that promotes freedom and joy in the present.

Buddhist practitioners adjust to their environment.  What they do NOT do is adjust their environment to themselves.  They accept what is, and make no attempt to change it or improve it.  And while this is certainly beneficial to the practitioner, it creates a community which is basically passive, which accepts the status quo and adjusts to it. Buddhist communities and governments are stable and essentially passive.  They are rarely involved in scientific exploration or technological advancement.

Of course individual Buddhists may not fit the above description, but that doesn't change the overall flavor of their communities.  Just look at countries that profess Buddhism in this century.  They are much the same as they have been for thousands of years.

Is learning to be at peace with one's life, even if it is unhealthy, uncomfortable or unsafe, a good thing?  On the other hand, philosophies that lead to constant change, improvement in individual conditions, at the cost of unrest and violence at times may or may not be good.  Sometimes individual comfort/happiness conflicts with community improvement.  Sometimes miserably unhappy individuals have given rise to  amazing and beneficial changes.  Sometimes happy and content individuals have played their fiddles while Rome burns.

Which is better?