Criticism of Buddhism

Criticism of Buddhism has taken numerous different forms, including that its practitioners act in ways contrary to Buddhist principles or that those principles systemically marginalize women. There are many sources of criticism, both ancient and modern, stemming from other religions, the non-religious, and other Buddhists.

Criticism of Buddhist practices

Women in Buddhism

Most schools of Buddhism have more rules for bhikkunis (nuns) than bhikkus (monk) lineages. Theravada Buddhists explain that in the time of the Buddha, nuns had such problems like safety if they were to be ordained the same way as monks who traveled around in the forest and between cities. Thus, more rules have to be created for nuns; for instance: nuns are forbidden to travel alone.^[1]

Alexander Berzin referred to the Dalai Lama's statement at the 2007 Hamburg congress:^[2]

Sometimes in religion there has been an emphasis on male importance. In Buddhism, however, the highest vows, namely the bhikshu and bhikshuni ones, are equal and entail the same rights. This is the case despite the fact that in some ritual areas, due to social custom, bhikshus go first. But Buddha gave the basic rights equally to both sangha groups. There is no point in discussing whether or not to revive the bhikshuni ordination; the question is merely how to do so properly within the context of the Vinaya.

The most criticised doctrine is found in Amida Buddha's vow 35: "The Buddha established the Vow of transformation [women] into men, Thereby vowing to enable women to attain Buddhahood".^{[3][better source needed]} Earlier limitations on attainment of Buddhahood by women were abolished in the Lotus Sutra which opened the direct path to enlightenment for women equally to men.^[4] According to Nichiren "Only in the Lotus Sutra do we read that a woman who embraces this sutra not only excels all other women but surpasses all men".^[5]

Criticism of Buddhist doctrine

Accusations of nihilism

Friedrich Nietzsche, through Schopenhauer whose pessimism was highly influenced by Buddhist philosophy, interpreted Buddhism as a life-negating philosophy that seeks to escape an existence dominated by suffering. According to Omar Moad, Nietzsche misunderstood the meaning of Buddhist doctrine.^[6] The term Dukkha has several different meanings.^[7][8] Dukkha may mean disappointment, desires, cravings, bereavement, unfulfillment, or dissatisfaction.^[9] Nevertheless dukkha always has a negative connotation, with different proposed English translations merely varying in degree of negativity.

Lama Surya Das emphasizes the matter-of-fact nature of Dukkha:^[10]

Buddha Dharma does not teach that everything is suffering. What Buddhism does say is that life, by its nature, is difficult, flawed, and imperfect. [...] That's the nature of life, and that's the First Noble Truth. From the Buddhist point of view, this is not a judgement of life's joys and sorrows; this is a simple, down-to-earth, matter-of-fact description.

While the Buddha describes the flawed and imperfect nature of life in the first noble truth, he also points to the causes that underlie this imperfection and how to bring these causes to an end.^{[11][example needed]} Therefore Buddhism can be said to be optimistic with regard to the ability to overcome suffering even if it is pessimistic with regard to many aspects of everyday life.

Confucian criticism

Buddhism is sometimes seen as antithetical to much of Confucian philosophy. Due to the focus on social roles as the source of ethical obligation in Confucianism compared to the seemingly inherent nonconformity of Buddhism, there was a sustained ethical critique of Buddhism in early Confucianism. While Buddhism entails the belief there is nothing rightfully considered the self, Confucianism emphasized the self a great deal in their doctrines of self-development and societal roles. As a consequence Buddhism was considered by many to be nihilistic.^[12]

Arguments of secular origin

Sam Harris, a prominent proponent of New Atheism^[13] and practitioner of Buddhist meditation, claims that many practitioners of Buddhism improperly treat it as a religion, criticizes their beliefs as "naïve, petitionary, and superstitious," and claims that such beliefs impede the spread of Buddhist principles.^[14] However, he has also underlined that these beliefs stem from the tendency of some Buddhists to not follow a fundamental teaching of Buddhism; namely, to believe a teaching only with sufficient evidence.^[15]

Stephen Batchelor, author of "Buddhism without Beliefs" has written about karma and rebirth, asserting that the Buddha “did not claim to have had experience that granted him privileged, esoteric knowledge of how the universe ticks”. However, his critics point out that his assertion is contrary to the earliest written records of the Buddha's teaching as well as hundreds of years of academic study on the topic. They also point to a lack of scholarly research on Batchelor's part to give credibility to his claims; and suggest that Batchelor may be attempting to reshape Buddhism due to his own discomfort with concepts such as karma and rebirth.^[16]

Criticism from Hinduism

There has been a long tradition of philosophical debate between Buddhism and Hinduism. Many ancient, mediæval and modern Hindu philosophers have criticised various docrtines of Buddhism.

Criticism from Gaudapada

Gaudapada, a mediæval philosopher of the Advaita Vedanta tradition, has criticised the Buddha in his Karikas on the Mandukya Upanishad. The 99th Karika of 4th chapter says -

The knowledge of the wise one, who is all-light, is ever untouched by objects. All the entities as well as knowledge (which are non-different) are also ever-untouched by any object. This is not the view of the Buddha.^[17]

Criticism from Adi Shankara

Adi Shankara, a very influential expounder of the Advaita Vedanta philosophy, has criticised many doctrines of Buddhism in many of his commentaries. However, his most direct criticism of Buddhism is found in his commentary on the Sutra 2.2.32 of the Brahma Sutras. In the commentary of this sutra, Shankara says -

किं बहुना सर्वप्रकारेण यथा यथायं वैनाशिकसमय उपपत्तिमत्त्वाय परीक्ष्यते तथा तथा सिकताकूपवद्विदीर्यत एव न कांचिदप्यत्रोपपत्तिं पश्यामः अतश्चानुपपन्नो वैनाशिकतन्त्रव्यवहारः। अपि च बाह्यार्थविज्ञानशून्यवादत्रयमितरेतरविरुद्धमुपदिशता सुगतेन स्पष्टीकृतमात्मनोऽसंबद्धप्रलापित्वम् प्रद्वेषो वा प्रजासु विरुद्धार्थप्रतिपत्त्या विमुह्येयुरिमाः प्रजा इति। सर्वथाप्यनादरणीयोऽयं सुगतसमयः श्रेयस्कामैरित्यभिप्रायः।।^[18]

In brief, whenever we examine the doctrine of the Vainashikas (Buddhists) for its tenability, it falls apart like a pit of sand, therefore it is untenable. The Buddha taught the three mutually contradictory doctrines of impermanence, momentary-knowledge and emptiness. He was uttering confused speech, because he either hated the people, or he intended to delude the people by teaching them contradictory doctrines. The doctrine of Buddha is not worthy of respect by those who are desirous of Moksha.

See also

• Bulssi Japbyeon
• Index of Buddhism-related articles
• Secular Buddhism
• Sinhalese Buddhist nationalism
• Nichirenism
• Buddhism and violence

References

Further reading

• Baskind, James; Bowring, Richard (2015). The Myōtei Dialogues: A Japanese Christian Critique of Native Traditions. Brill Publishers. ISBN 978-90-04-30729-2. https://books.google.com/books?id=arC8CgAAQBAJ. 

0.00 (0 votes) Original source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism of Buddhism. Read more