Critiques of the Buddhadhamma

[davidbrainerd]

Confucianism is much more complex than simple ritualism, there is a lot in that tradition about self cultivation, learning and the importance of social relationships. If you are going to go after another tradition, do not employ strawmen.

I didn't employ a strawman. Maybe I didn't make it clear, but I put "rites" in quotes because although this is the translation we get in English, it obviously doesn't encompass the full meaning, which is apparently all-inclusive of all social conventions of society. So every time I said "rites" just replace that with "all the social conventions of society."

[Luca123]

If possible, I would add this

As a skeptic, I would say that the main critique that can be moved to the Buddhadhamma is that it isnt much evidence based.
I hope to hurt no one` s feelings if I say that the theory of rebirth and even the existence of the Buddha are not supported by hard evidence

With metta

[Caodemarte]

davidbrainerd wrote, "So every time I said "rites" just replace that with "all the social conventions of society.""

"Rites" in Confucian thought do not refer to all social conventions, but to actual Confucian rites, rituals, and religious ceremonial acts.

Luca123 wrote, "If possible, I would add this
As a skeptic, I would say that the main critique that can be moved to the Buddhadhamma is that it isnt much evidence based.
I hope to hurt no one` s feelings if I say that the theory of rebirth and even the existence of the Buddha are not supported by hard evidence"

I would disagree. Buddhism strongly recommends the use of reason and testing (evidence gathering) and discourages blind faith. Petty skepticism, without evidence gathering and good use of reason, is a downfall, but not serious examination and effort, which is considered wholesome. As shown in the discussions here, few Buddhists accept rebirth as it is commonally understood in the West (the survival of a soul) and many Buddhists are unconcerned with it.

What essential difference would it make to the philosophy and practices of Buddhism if the historical Buddha did not exist? If Einstein's bio was a myth, but Einstein's theories were still supported by reason and experiential evidence,would the theories be less valid?

[Luca123]

I would disagree. Buddhism strongly recommends the use of reason and testing (evidence gathering) and discourages blind faith. Petty skepticism, without evidence gathering and good use of reason, is a downfall, but not serious examination and effort, which is considered wholesome. As shown in the discussions here, few Buddhists accept rebirth as it is commonally understood in the West (the survival of a soul) and many Buddhists are unconcerned with it.

I think this has already been discussed at length
If there could be evidence of rebirth, there would be someone knowing details of his past life that could be independently verified

What essential difference would it make to the philosophy and practices of Buddhism if the historical Buddha did not exist? If Einstein's bio was a myth, but Einstein's theories were still supported by reason and experiential evidence,would the theories be less valid?

Then why quote the words of the Buddha as uttered factually by the Buddha?



With metta

[binocular]

What I was trying to show with my examples is that Buddhism has social utility, not that it is a unique provider of said utility. One critique of the Confucians was that Buddhism is useless, so I was countering that.

Since Budhism didn't seem to be able to give Confucians anything the Confucians valued, for the Confucians, Buddhism per se was useless, and whatever good Buddhist institutions provided, could be provided by others, making Buddhism replaceable.

(And yes, governments seem to prefer to be despotic, even when they call themselves democratic etc.)

That does not mean that Buddhism is not a unique provider (indeed, the Dhamma is unique), it's just much more difficult to prove to someone who does not already accept the Dhamma that Buddhism's main "product" is valuable.

And it's the same with so many other religions, philosophies, worldviews, etc. They tend to place the whole burden on the other person: "It's up to you to see that my religion is worthwhile, it's your duty to see that my religion is better than yours."

This is where the problem is, and critics are justified to reject such religions, philosophies, worldviews, etc.

So I settled for defeating the Confucian critique, which is an easier task than launching an apology (in the classical sense) of the entire Dhamma.

But you didn't defeat the Confucian critique. From the Confucian perspective, the critique still stands.

Unless you think that a critique can be defeated in some neutral, objective way, regardless of the needs, interests, and concerns of the critic?

Binocular, a good overview of the back and forth between Buddhism and Confucianism (including how they influenced each other) is given in EARLY NEO-CONFUCIAN CRITICISM OF CHINESE BUDDHISM by Jacques Langlais, which I linked in the OP.

Okay.

[Javi]

Since Budhism didn't seem to be able to give Confucians anything the Confucians valued, for the Confucians, Buddhism per se was useless, and whatever good Buddhist institutions provided, could be provided by others, making Buddhism replaceable.

But as I have shown, Buddhism has certainly provided things which are valued for the Confucian, like literacy, medical services, a practice which improves mental health, etc. To that lot I would add all of the art and poetry that was created by the Chinese Buddhists (which might just be a good candidate for the "unique provider" qualification, albeit a bit subjective to convince everyone).

But you didn't defeat the Confucian critique. From the Confucian perspective, the critique still stands.
Unless you think that a critique can be defeated in some neutral, objective way, regardless of the needs, interests, and concerns of the critic?

Certainly not, which is why I have focused on the utilitarian concerns of the Confucians, not on spirituality.

The problem with your argument about being a "unique provider" is that [1] the Confucians never leveled that argument against Buddhism and [2] it is obvious why they didn't, that argument is too nihilistic about values for the Confucian. If that argument were true (ie, something must be a unique provider for it to have real value), then an individual Confucian minister is also without value, as he can be replaced by any other minister who can do his job. A father is without value, because after his death, the mother can remarry and someone else can do his job of providing for the household. Even an emperor is not immune to this. As you can see, this argument quickly de-value a lot of social roles which the Confucian clearly believes have intrinsic value.

[binocular]

But as I have shown, Buddhism has certainly provided things which are valued for the Confucian, like literacy, medical services, a practice which improves mental health, etc.

But there was nothing specifically Buddhist about those things. They might as well have been provided by, say, Muslims or Christians, or the Confucians themselves.

But you didn't defeat the Confucian critique. From the Confucian perspective, the critique still stands.
Unless you think that a critique can be defeated in some neutral, objective way, regardless of the needs, interests, and concerns of the critic?

Certainly not, which is why I have focused on the utilitarian concerns of the Confucians, not on spirituality.

You do seem to be ignoring the needs, interests, and concerns of the critic.

The problem with your argument about being a "unique provider" is that [1] the Confucians never leveled that argument against Buddhism

It's implied.

and [2] it is obvious why they didn't, that argument is too nihilistic about values for the Confucian. If that argument were true (ie, something must be a unique provider for it to have real value), then an individual Confucian minister is also without value, as he can be replaced by any other minister who can do his job. A father is without value, because after his death, the mother can remarry and someone else can do his job of providing for the household. Even an emperor is not immune to this. As you can see, this argument quickly de-value a lot of social roles which the Confucian clearly believes have intrinsic value.

No. Why should Confucians (in this case) accept Buddhist institutions, when they, the Confucians, already have or can make their own Confucian institutions that provide the same things?

Take for example spice trade. For example, Europeans started trading for spices with Asians. The Asians had something that the Europeans wanted and which the Europeans could not provide for themselves as those spice plants didn't grow in Europe. As such, those Asians were unique, irreplaceable providers, and the Europeans accepted them (at least in part), even though they also had some misgivings about them.

But what could Buddhism offer to the Confucians that the Confucians couldn't get themselves or elsewhere, more conveniently?

[Caodemarte]

Providing schools, hospitals, etc. can be regarded as a counter-argument to the critique that Buddhists do nothing for the general good. However, I do not believe this was a common practice in China at the time the critique was made. At least, I cannot find any source that it was. I am well aware that in other countries Buddhist priests, as the most educated people around, brought in new techniques for building, were administrators, etc. Confucian critics did not accept the argument that Buddhism brought spiritual benefits.

[Coëmgenu]

The problem with your argument about being a "unique provider" is that [1] the Confucians never leveled that argument against Buddhism

It's implied.

Statements like this, and other statements you have provided require some sort of proof or validation. How do the Confucians 'imply' that Buddhism must be a "unique provider"? Citations from actual Confucians who are criticizing Buddhism would carry the most weight.

[Javi]

You do seem to be ignoring the needs, interests, and concerns of the critic.
...
It's implied.
...
But what could Buddhism offer to the Confucians that the Confucians couldn't get themselves or elsewhere, more conveniently?

It's not "implied" because the "unique provider" argument is a completely different argument. You shifted the goalposts and now in your last post, you're just restating what you already said.

Providing schools, hospitals, etc. can be regarded as a counter-argument to the critique that Buddhists do nothing for the general good. However, I do not believe this was a common practice in China at the time the critique was made. At least, I cannot find any source that it was. I am well aware that in other countries Buddhist priests, as the most educated people around, brought in new techniques for building, were administrators, etc. Confucian critics did not accept the argument that Buddhism brought spiritual benefits.

From doing a quick google search, I have already found two sources. The first one states that Chinese Buddhist monasteries played a big role in building bridges, the second, talks about Buddhist monasteries educating the laity in literacy - as well as Buddhist organizations which promoted charity and good works, actually, the second source is a great argument against the Confucian, and it also mentions how Buddhist monasteries often ran orphanages.

The Impact of Buddhism on Chinese Material Culture
By John Kieschnick, page 199

Buddhism and education in Tang Times, by Eric Zurcher

[Caodemarte]

Thanks! Good stuff. So the argument that Buddhists did not contribute to society in China can be falsified

[binocular]

Statements like this, and other statements you have provided require some sort of proof or validation. How do the Confucians 'imply' that Buddhism must be a "unique provider"? Citations from actual Confucians who are criticizing Buddhism would carry the most weight.

I'm taking a much more general approach that doesn't require many sources. I'm trying to show why pointing out that Buddhists also built schools, roads, etc. is not a sufficient argument against the charge that Buddhism is useless.

What nobody here seems to be able to relate to is the idea that for some entity to be valuable to the critic, it needs to be a unique provider of something that is valued by the critic; otherwise, that entity is replaceable (and as such, not worthy per se).

Like the difference between the President of the United States and Barack Obama. Obama currently is the POTUS, but while Obama is replaceable and not unique, the POTUS (ie. the presidential function, along with all its powers and responsibilites) is not.
In this analogy, for the Confucians (and many others), the Buddhists were like Obama, not like the POTUS.

So the argument that Buddhists did not contribute to society in China can be falsified

The fact that Buddhists also built schools, roads, etc. is accidental, secondary to them being Buddhist, not central. There is nothing particularly Buddhist to building schools, roads, etc. They did what every decent person would do anyway, regardless of their religious affiliation.

I've been trying to show a possible reason why the Confucians could witness mundane good things done by Buddhists and nevertheless think that Buddhism is useless. Ie. it's not necessary that the Confucians were lying or being distractive about Buddhist accomplishments.

In a similar manner, one could say that Christianity is useless. While it's true that people who claim to be Christians build schools, hospitals, charity organizations etc., there is nothing specifically Christian about building schools, hospitals etc., because people of other religious affiliations also build schools, hospitals etc. If Christians could provide something that nobody else does and that something would also be valuable to the critic, then only could the critic say that the Christians are good or useful.

[binocular]

Some posters here have argued that some (or all?) the critiques of Buddhism (or the Buddhadharma?) are unfounded.
However, I don't think they are all unfounded, and I've been trying to show possible reasons why they aren't.

[chownah]

I'm taking a much more general approach that doesn't require many sources. I'm trying to show why pointing out that Buddhists also built schools, roads, etc. is not a sufficient argument against the charge that Buddhism is useless.

What nobody here seems to be able to relate to is the idea that for some entity to be valuable to the critic, it needs to be a unique provider of something that is valued by the critic; otherwise, that entity is replaceable (and as such, not worthy per se).

I think that all you have pointed out so far is that you can fabricate a theory about what the confuscious writers wrote and what it means. Without bringing some text here to at least show what the confuscious writers wrote we really have no way of grounding any of our theories of what they meant. What text did you see where the confuscian writers said anything about the "utilitarian" value or lack thereof? Unless you bring some text for us to look at then you are just howling at the moon without even knowing if the moon even exists.
chownah

[Javi]

What nobody here seems to be able to relate to is the idea that for some entity to be valuable to the critic, it needs to be a unique provider of something that is valued by the critic; otherwise, that entity is replaceable (and as such, not worthy per se).

Like the difference between the President of the United States and Barack Obama. Obama currently is the POTUS, but while Obama is replaceable and not unique, the POTUS (ie. the presidential function, along with all its powers and responsibilites) is not.
In this analogy, for the Confucians (and many others), the Buddhists were like Obama, not like the POTUS

That something can be replaced does not mean that it has no value or utility. Gold has fungibility (any piece of gold can be replaced with another particular piece) , yet it has value. I do not think there is any thinker or philosopher who has ever made that radical claim that only unique things have value.
You keep stating this like it is a fact, but you have not shown this, it is now up to you to prove this quite radical philosophical idea you keep repeating as if it is a truism.

Some posters here have argued that some (or all?) the critiques of Buddhism (or the Buddhadharma?) are unfounded.
However, I don't think they are all unfounded, and I've been trying to show possible reasons why they aren't.

I don't think they are all unfounded as I've stated, there were probably corrupt Buddhist monasteries in China who hoarded large donations from rich patrons. Buddhists (even monastics, in Japan) have waged aggressive wars.

However that is a clear case of Buddhists abandoning the precepts, and not practicing true to the Dhammavinaya as any cursory reading of the Vinaya will show.