I have stumbled upon a very well written criticism of Buddhism that I can highly recommend. Of course, I had to add my comments – this is what I posted in response to Vexen’s analysis:
Thank you so much for posting your criticism of Buddhism, Vexen. As I mentioned in another comment, it is so desperately needed here in the West because everybody – from Sam Harris to Richard Dawkins – seems to think that Buddhism is harmless, peaceful, and consistent with science.
I would like to add a few comments, though.
At least in Japan, the social programs you laud were developed as a competition to Christian programs to enable missionary success, i.e., get people to convert to Buddhism rather than Christianity (see Brian Victoria “Zen at War”, p.17)
3. Western Buddhism
I think there is a Sangha at least here in the US. But it is different and rather commercialized. People meditate together and listen to Dharma talks and paying for that with “dana” – donations that enable some teachers to afford luxury cars. I do agree with you that the Buddhism that is known in the West is a rather sterilized version that conveniently ignores any of the questionable beliefs or historical abuses.
5. Nirvana and Self (any reason for having 5 before 4 
)
It is interesting that a lot of the Buddhist apologists seem to miss the ultimate goal of Buddhism: to reach enlightenment or nirvana. Anybody who says that is criticized: Buddhists don’t have goals, you’re misunderstanding things, well, just look through the comments here… But if you read Buddhist text (I have only read them in English), it is clear, though, that this is what the goal is. And that’s why we’re reborn here on Earth because it’s the perfect middle ground. Of course, then your question comes up: why do so few of us reach that state? (changing your question slightly, hopefully, though maintaining the idea).
4. World Buddhist Morality
I am afraid that record is so clean because we Westerners are largely (kept) ignorant of the bloody parts. Read Brian Victoria’s “Zen at War” and your statement will, unfortunately, be shown to be false. Maybe there is less blood but Buddhism is not the peaceful religion that we’ve been led to believe. (Okay, so maybe I’d just reword the last sentence of your first paragraph: “Compared with other powerful religions, Buddhism appears to be saintly.” – rather than “is”).
6. Inhumane Dismissal of Suffering
I think this is really the most central element of Buddhist teaching: suffering. I would add to your arguments that “suffering” in Buddhism is defined solely as an individual problem and thus the solution can only be found at that level. Buddhism ignores completely any systemic creation of suffering, which makes the Four Noble Truths incomplete at best, false at worse. I will shamelessly advertise my own Website now, by asking you to look there for more details on that argument. Btw, the Zen priest Ichikawa Hakugen would agree with your assessment here, at least according to Brian Victoria’s summary of Hakugen’s argument (Victoria is a Soto Zen priest): “The doctrine of karma, with its corollary belief in good and bad karmic retribution, tends to serve as a kind of moral justification for social inequality.” Keep that quote handy the next time someone accuses you of ignorance – a Zen priest ignorant of Buddhism?!?
7. Buddhist Psychology is too idealistic
Wow! That is a point I hadn’t thought about yet.
8. Conclusion
Because of my comment to #4, I don’t agree with your assessment of Buddhism as “a wonderful religion socially, participating as a principle player in all forms of global peace & stability movements.” I think because of #6 and #7, it is inherently dangerous, just like any other religion. I completely agree with your second paragraph, though.
I would add that at least one of the tools developed in Buddhism might have some usefulness for some people: mindfulness meditation. It has been shown to reduce stress, help with pain management, lower blood pressure, and prevent the recurrence of depressive episodes (see the work around Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction and Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy). As you pointed out in #7, this tool is certainly no panacea and it might not be useful for everyone.
Srini
Thank you for your comments and suggested articles. I will get around to reading them (the articles) sometime soon, I hope. I will respond when I have more time than I do now.
Brent
I want to first apologise for jumping in on your forum without having even introduced myself. I am an Australian living in Japan and have been practicing Buddhism and studying it’s history for a little over 20 years now. I began my practice of Buddhism in the Shingon school (vajrayana) and then took up Zen (Soto school). I began my practice in Australia under Japanese teachers – and it was with a “Western” point of view that my teachers passed on their knowledge.
I haven’t had enough time to read all of the above posts thoroughly, so I must apologise if anything I say is already posted above. Also I have only a little time on my hands to bash out this post, so please forgive my brevity.
The first thing I want to state is that Buddhism in Japan is a sham. Buddhism in Japan is a funeral business run by families who have been handing down the funeral business since the early Edo period (1600-1868). Each Buddhist temple here belongs to the monk who resides in a house attached to the temple. There are no student monks or homeless people living in the temples as in other Asian countries. There are no monks in training and there are no meditation classes. In order to learn Buddhism here in Japan you must be born into a Buddhist temple family.
People in Japan attend Buddhist temples for only two reasons – to pray to Buddha for something they may want (amulets and magical talismans blessed by the monks are sold for many prayers) and to attend funerals.
Monks are paid enormous amounts of money to recite the Buddhist funeral rites and to ensure that the souls of the dead pass over into heaven (monks have cars and big houses and huge families). ALL the various sects here believe that when a person dies, their soul goes to heaven or waits to be reborn. Dosen’t sound like what is written in English books on Japanese Buddhism does it? You’re right, what is written in English books is Westernised and modernised Buddhism. That is a secular Buddhism devoid of all the intense ritual and magical stuff that goes on here.
Buddhism here requires that one believe in souls and ghosts (that pay a visit on a specific time of the year) and that the Buddha watches over all that you do.
Just quickly, in regards to karma, the Japanese believe in the Hindu version of Karma (many Buddhists the world over do, as Brahmin teachings entered Buddhism during the great Mahayana schism). They believe that your suffering now is caused by something you have done wrong in a previous life and also that your relatives may affect your karma. A point in case, I look after disabled children: it is the belief of most Japanese (yes, Buddhist monks too) that these disabled people are paying for misdeeds in a previous life.
These beliefs, this form of Buddhism, has been this way since Buddhism was introduced here in the 8th century – so the Japanese don’t understand any other way. Buddhism is a big business that rakes in hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. The biggest land owners are the monks who own the temples with enough land for the graves.
Paul, Srini,Riglin, Rachel and everybody
I’ve been reading over the recent posts both on this page and the End of Buddhist Spirituality page. Lots to digest. Thanks, Srini, for the articles. That’s a lot of reading and I’ve only been able to quickly peruse a few of them. I see Rachel is busy with school, and I haven’t had time either to get to the readings I was planning on doing, including Srini’s list. Paul, I’m sorry, but I’m going to postpone a reply to your posts for a while longer. I feel like I’ve plateaued, and while I have a few points to make, I think it would be more prudent to wait til I’ve digested the readings more.
When is this fall break Srini spoke of? It would be helpful if I had a deadline.
I will make one point about Trungpa and his followers. The people in Shambala in Halifax do not think they are in a personality cult. Quite the contrary: they are certain theirs is the most uncorrupted lineage of Tibetan Buddhism. So, the majority of them followed their guru and rationalized his behaviour. Once when I was discussing Buddhism with my therapist, who was a Buddhist and follower of Trungpa, I suggested to him that maybe his devotion to Trungpa was as deluded a belief as any Christian notion of eternal life. How does one know? How does any Buddhist know that their particular sect or school isn’t off the rails? Buddha rejected all the schools, didn’t he? I don’t think, maybe, it’s so much about wanting to reinvent the wheel, as realizing that the wheel seems to continually fall into corrupt hands. So, some of choose to just sit, and learn with an open mind, and look at institutionalized Buddhism with a wary and skeptical eye.
Hi Brent, how’s it going? I thought i’d start rambling again. Hope everyone is groovy..
“I will make one point about Trungpa and his followers. The people in Shambala in Halifax do not think they are in a personality cult. Quite the contrary: they are certain theirs is the most uncorrupted lineage of Tibetan Buddhism. ”
Yeah, I do find that quite a lot. ‘Oh.. We’re the SPECIAL Dharma. Yes, we have the QUICK path to enlightenment. Don’t mix traditions, as you’ll get confused. etc etc.’ I think, trying not to mix and match can be wise, as each tradition has their own style. But, with regards to a lot of traditions claiming that they are the most un-corrupted path.. Well.. I just take it all with a pinch of salt. Whatever. I know, after 6 years of doing this, that, if my mind feels low, and irritated, or confused, or fearful, then there is something to work on and release. So, I feed all my shitness into renunciation.
So, the majority of them followed their guru and rationalized his behaviour. Once when I was discussing Buddhism with my therapist, who was a Buddhist and follower of Trungpa, I suggested to him that maybe his devotion to Trungpa was as deluded a belief as any Christian notion of eternal life.
Tsongkhapa, the founder of the Gelug lineage lineage, wrote a text, advising on what qualitites to look for, when looking for a suitable teacher, or outer Guru. What I’ve found, is that if people have a connection with a teacher, and they can easily uncover this light, joyful mind, that has a faith in the teacher, then it all just works beautifully. The negative imprints within our minds get dissolved. I feel it when watching Lama Yeshe’s videos on Youtube. When you think of a teacher somebody that you naturally admire, without having to convince yourself, then it’s easy to receive blessings from Buddhas (they are everywhere).
So, even though Chogyam Trungpa’s behaviour rised a lot of doubts, to some people, who naturally connected with his personality and energy, it didn’t matter. They made progress. I thnik that my point is that, even if one were to meet Buddha Shakyamuni himself, 2500 or so years ago, then, if one didn’t have that connection, and thought of him as just an ordinary bloke, then that person would not receive much benefit.
Trungpa’s style was the ‘meeting of two minds’, where the student completely opens to a teacher. I’ve experienced this, as one of my friends is psychic, and can see in to people’s minds. When I did some work with her, in the form of ‘Emotional release therapy’, the more open i was and the more honest I was about my faults, – about the things that dragged me down, the easier it was to release these emotions. My friend could actually see, with her awareness, if I was spacing out, or covering it over, or actually going straight into the emotion. It’s changed my view too, about spirituality, especially regarding purification techniques.
So, basically, the idea in Buddhism, is to find a teacher that you connect with, and just work on dropping all the ego shields, that we all carry around all the time. The more the shields drop, the easier things become, as we don’t have to hide from situations that make us uncomfortable anymore.
“How does one know? How does any Buddhist know that their particular sect or school isn’t off the rails? ”
I don’t think anyone can know the complete goings on behind the scenes. There’s bound to be negative goings on, as the organisations contain people, who aren’t enlightened. As long as the teachings are in accordance with the Dharma, why worry? As I said before, some people loved Trungpa, and, for them, his behaviour didn’t matter to them, as their faith in him was so strong.
Remember, the core tenet of Mahayana Buddhism, is the lack of inherent existence of all things. What we see, and how we react to things, and how we connect to teachers, is totally down to us. If we find that a teacher doens’t do it for us, then change.
“So, some of choose to just sit, and learn with an open mind, and look at institutionalized Buddhism with a wary and skeptical eye.”
This is fair enough, but, too much skepticism just ends up getting ridgid and dull. It doesn’t move our minds to transend our ordinary appearances, and our delusions. Sometimes, I’ve found that, I have to just drop my skepticism, and rejoice in the teachers. That’s when I’ve had some lovely experiences, and my problems have just melted away.
“The doctrine of karma, with its corollary belief in good and bad karmic retribution, tends to serve as a kind of moral justification for social inequality.” Keep that quote handy the next time someone accuses you of ignorance – a Zen priest ignorant of Buddhism?!?”
Except karma has nothing to do with good or bad, it is about cause and effect. Good and bad is attributed by the observer.
Also, Buddhism is idealistic? Doing what does no harm or the smallest harm does have effect on the world, even if in a tiny way. Any positive effect on the world is a success. So no, Buddhism is not too idealistic.
Hi Rachel,
For any of your doubts on Karma, there is going to be talk by Thanissaro Bhikku in Redwood City, CA on April 30th 2011. He is a well known authority on the Theravada Scriptures. I think it would be great to listen to his interpretation of Karma and Causality. You can go to http://www.sati.org to look up the schedule.
Thanks,
Srini.
ok… it’s time to make some clarifications…
1Buddhism meditations lead to psicosis state (read integral journals of ken wilber)
2Buddhism is a nihilist doctrine (read aurobindo’s texts)
3Buddhism is against reality (non-ego culture)
4Buddhism is not atheist
5sam Harris philosophy is Buddhism based
6Buddhism may stay out of atheism
7Buddhism http://www.humanreligions.info/buddhism_criticism.html
8Buddhism rivisitations like thanissaru bikku or sam harris or anyone else are only point of view..
9the same dalai lama in an interview with “”pirgiorgio odifreddi” says that buddhism is not compatible with occidental ways…
10 Is easy to harris (harris meditated so many years under the dzochen instructions) to take on buddhist points of view on reality
11 sam harris books are full of incongruence on history of buddhism too
12 please….please… take harris out of four horsemen…
see persinger’s study on meditation too…
Pingback: buddha (face)palm « Shut up and meditate
reincarnation has nothing to do with buddha’s teachings..it is hinduism..
who is this that is going to be reinacrnated ?inhinduism is tha atman (ultinmate self) in buddhism no such thing (anatman).
buddhism has nothing to do with nihilism….and it is not the middle path eithert.
it is about distinguishing “phenomenal” existence and” inherent ” existence..the latter as per quantum mechanics is impossible.(no absolute reality..only phenomenal rality !!)..which agrees perfectly with buddhism.
to understand buddhism..take a course in quantum mechanics..all top notch physicists..A einstein,heisenberg,frijtof,dr.vuilleminet etc etc.. have praised buddhism…
before spewing poison against buddhism…examine your understanding of buddhism..which is pathetic.
buddhism is neither psychology nor philosophy…you can weave those around buddhism at your discretion. and peril…
buddhism has no dogma unlike all other religions…it is waking up to one’s own reality..indeed not an easy task…
..albert einstein..probably smarter than you and I..had this to say
“….
Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: It transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural and the spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity.
and:
The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism
albert einstein…not your averga joe
Zenner
“reincarnation has nothing to do with buddha’s teachings..it is hinduism..
who is this that is going to be reinacrnated ?inhinduism is tha atman (ultinmate self) in buddhism no such thing (anatman).”
I would agree that reincarnation has nothing to do with buddha’s teachings. However, it has a lot to do with the teachings of many sects of buddhism, particularly tibetan buddhism.
“buddhism has nothing to do with nihilism….and it is not the middle path eithert.
it is about distinguishing “phenomenal” existence and” inherent ” existence..the latter as per quantum mechanics is impossible.(no absolute reality..only phenomenal rality !!)..which agrees perfectly with buddhism”
As an atheist, I have no problem with accepting the priority of a phenomal reality over an inherent one.
“to understand buddhism..take a course in quantum mechanics..all top notch physicists..A einstein,heisenberg,frijtof,dr.vuilleminet etc etc.. have praised buddhism…
before spewing poison against buddhism…examine your understanding of buddhism..which is pathetic.”
I would not “spew” “poison” against buddhism if it were not for the many buddhists who are “spewing” exactly what I/we critics are criticizing. Guru worship, institutional misogyny, magical beliefs, gods, animism, empty ritual, abduction of children believed to be reincarnated llamas, reincarnation of the self, theocratic authoritarianism, messianism, sexual abuse in the monasteries, etc. If my understanding of buddhism is pathetic, so is that of many of it’s practioners.
“buddhism is neither psychology nor philosophy…you can weave those around buddhism at your discretion. and peril…”
Funny, because many buddhists, in denying that buddhism is a religion, often defend it as a philosophy…but, what is this peril you speak of?
“buddhism has no dogma unlike all other religions…it is waking up to one’s own reality..indeed not an easy task”
Ideally, I suppose it wouldn’t have any dogma. The reality is far from that ideal however, and it is the business of those who would spew poison to point out buddhism failings on this mattter, rather than accept the dogma of defenders of the faith like yourself that buddhism, in the manner in which it is practiced by its various sects, has no dogma.
“..albert einstein”
Was right about many things, and wrong about others. What is “spiritual” supposed to mean. “Meaningful unity”? “Religious sense”?.
“If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism”
Who says we need any religion at all? But then, buddhism isn’t a religion…so I guess Albert was wrong about that…
then direct your criticism towards those..(tibetan and all the other sects) not to buddha’s teachings…)
the cruades were done by christians..but nowhere has christ preached aggression..(I am not christian)
buddhism is not a philosphy…it is “experiential” ….philosophy is the menu and not the food
is it a religion ? depends where you are coming from..buddhism is buddhism.how you define it is your problem and is conceptual..
buddhism has NO beliefs…none,buddhism neither asserts nor denies god…unlike theists and atheist
(which really are 2 sides of the same coin..based on beliefs..oneBELIEVES there is god the other BELIEVES there is no god…of cousre neither one KNOWS..hence an excercise in total futility.
no we don’t need a relgion…but we do need some spiritual maturity..
buddhism,is not for everyone…it is for those,who wish to inquire into the “who/what” am I…
guru ??? hinduism again.!!!
here is what buddha said on this subject..
“…Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher(he included himself as well). But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings –……”
NO followership !!!!~
I think it was zen master Bassui who said “if you meet the buddha..kill him !!”
I don’t adhere to any religion or sect…I am a scientist by profession…”To BE a buddhist” is a meaningless statement….I have yet to find something in buddhism that is worthy of criticism..but if I do..
you can be rest assured,I’ll reap it apart and throw it in the garbage can ..no attachments!!!
…Philosophy is always about and about and about,never hitting the target…one can talk about buddhism ,philosophise about it.for forever…but one will surely miss the target….
It is interesting to see how, in today’s rationalistic discourse, everybody tries to depict it as if everyone else were coming from belief, while the speaker doesn’t hold any beliefs at all. Regardless of whom you ask – it will always be THE OTHERS who are religious. Even radical fundamentalist christians will often chant the mantra “Christianity is not a religion – it is a personal relationship with christ”.
Question, what does the fact that buddhists in japan are immoral have to do with me believing in the buddha’s teaching. I could care less what others that call themselves buddhists do. Buddhism is not about following a given set of rules, or anything like that, and anybody taking advantage of others is not a true buddhist. To Anybody that likes this article and agrees with it i have news for you: you are not criticizing buddhism in any way, you are criticizing organized religion. none of this has to do with the actual teaching of any buddhas.
excellent !!!
Define “true Buddhist”. And explain how, if there is such a thing as a “true Buddhist” there needs to be over 400 sects of Buddhism. If there is a “true Buddhist(m)”, shouldn’t one be enough? Please give me one thing upon which all Buddhists are in agreement. If Buddhism is not about following any set of rules (or anything like that), why do Buddhist monasteries have so many? Why do they take vows? Define what a “buddha” is? Would you care to tell the “Buddhists” who believe in reincarnation that they are not true “Buddhists” because true “Buddhists” do not believe in reincarnation? Would you like to tell one of the sects who believe THEIR sect is uncorrupted, and that the other sects are not so pure theat thye in fact have got it all wrong and YOU represent TRUE Buddhism? How are the teachings of the “Buddhas” any different from those of any wise person who doesn’t need (or hasn’t had thrust upon them) the title of Buddha? If THE Buddha supposedly taught 80,000 (!) lessons, how does a Buddhist remember them all. What would be the point in giving out 80,000 instructions to people who have trouble remembering seven digit phone numbers? Was their only one Buddha? One Enlightened Being in all of humanity? Doesn’t that sound a little Christ-like to you? Rather suspicious? Are claims of the supernatural part of Buddhism or not (including the belief in a Undying Conciousness taht goes beyond the death of the physical body)? Is Buddhism anything more than a claim to follow the Four Fold whatever and the Eightfold this and that, which ANYONE can claim to be doing (and, y’know, since we’re all imperfect, failing at most of the time) without bothering to call themselves a Buddhist? These claims that we are only critizing “Buddhists” and not “Buddhism” is tiresome. Buddhism is what Buddhists make it…Buddha lived and died thousands of years ago, and no one has any more idea of who he was than we do Christ. Zen monks slap their students around if they aren’t paying enough attention…think Buddha would have approved? Careful now…a REAL Buddhist might be lurking out there who will disagree with your answer.
If “Buddhism is not about following a given set of rules, or anything like that” then how can you say for sure that “anybody taking advantage of others is not a true buddhist”? It seems to me rather suspiciously like “not taking advantage of others” is a rule you have set up in the name of “true buddhism”.
Well, and obviously, the distinction of a “true” X versus a “non-true” X smells suspiciously like a No True Scotsman argument.
As per my understanding,
Buddhism – the teachings of Buddha.
Sects of Buddhism – vehicles for Buddhists to board on to travel the path.
Buddhists – people who believed in Buddha.
True Buddhists – people who practice the teachings of Buddha.
All Buddhists agree that the Tipitaka as a collection of suttas from the Buddha’s time.
Buddhist monastery rules were set by Buddha so that the Sangha community is in order and live in harmony.
Buddhists take vows as an expression of dedication to practice Buddhism.
Buddha is defined as ‘the awaken one’.
Buddhists who believe in rebirth/reincarnation or not, does not help in attaining enlightenment (nirvana) and it does not defines a true Buddhist or not.
Kalama sutta points the way to identify and reject corrupted teachings.
Recitation of Buddha’s teachings were verified and organized into the Tipitaka. Like the Vedas, the suttas are clearly designed to be chanted. They are full of mnemonic devices – rhyming verses, repetitions, numbered lists, stereotyped phrases, etc. Even before the Buddha’s passing, monks and nuns would regularly chant the suttas in congregation. This made it difficult to add, delete or change anything once a sutta had been settled and committed to the memory of the monastic community.
There are three types of Buddha:
Sama-sam-buddha = One who rediscovers the teachings and teaches the masses as the historical Buddha did (Siddhattha Gotama). This is always misinterpret as only one Buddha in all of humanity.
Paccekabuddha = A silent buddha. One who attains full enlightenment, but does not teach others.
Arahant = Fully enlightened person, who might teach others, but not as the one who rediscovered the teachings, just as one who learned it from a current dispensation. Therefore, there are many Buddhas in humanity.