Critiques of the Buddhadhamma

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Post Reply
Javi
Posts: 479
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 5:40 pm

Critiques of the Buddhadhamma

Post by Javi »

I think that it is an important exercise to always question your beliefs. I have always been someone who was heavily skeptical, even now that I consider myself a Buddhist and openly call myself one, I still continue to hold my skeptical way of thinking and my willingness to listen to critiques of what I hold to be true. If one truly believes that what one holds to be true is the case, then one should not be afraid of holding it up to the scrutiny of others with opposing arguments. I also think that the Buddha would agree of that type of investigation (upaparikkhati) and scrutiny (tuleti) of Buddhist views (in the Vīmaṃsaka Sutta for example, he welcomes that kind of scrutiny).

With that being said, this is why I wanted to start this thread. It will be a thread which will contain critiques and criticisms of Buddhism from non-Buddhists, and I hope will become a place where one can make sense of these critiques, understand where they might be erring or what kind of response the Buddha or an intelligent dhamma follower could make to them.

I welcome all to post here any quotes or links to texts which critique the dhamma along with any response. My goal is to better understand the common and historical criticisms of Buddhism from different perspectives, which will lead to a better understanding for everyone (I hope).

The first critics of the Buddha Dhamma were, naturally, the Orthodox Hindus, represented by key thinkers such as Shankara (who was at the same time heavily influenced by the Dhamma through Gaudapada), Madva and Ramanuja. Some of the earliest critique is found in the Brahma sutras and is expounded on by these thinkers. A key text for this critique is 'An Evaluation of the Vedāntic Critique of Buddhism' By Gregory Joseph Darling, though the actual primary sources (Vedanta sutras with commentaries) can be found online. Needless to say these arguments are quite technical, often making use of the Upanishads and critiquing specific philosphical views of Sarvastivadins, Sautantrikas and Yogacarins. Here is an article which summarizes these attempted refutations from a study guide on the Vedanta sutras, it is quite dense:

http://veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/buddhism.htm

When looking at other historical critics, the arguments become more humanistic and less technical. Han Yu was a Confucian scholar who wrote against Buddhism, he wrote against the Chinese emperor's veneration of a finger bone of the Buddha (to be honest I don't see relic veneration as being that important). Here is one link to a classic anti-Buddhist text, from 14th century Korea, called ''Bulssi Japbyeon''. It contains a Neo-Confucian criticism of various Buddhist doctrines and beliefs. The Confucians were one of the most consistent historical critics of the Buddhists - along with Orthodox Hindus.

http://www.acmuller.net/jeong-gihwa/bulssijapbyeon.html

The Confucian of this text also criticizes Buddhist actions such as the idea of abandoning family life for monasticism. This was a widesrepad Chinese criticism of the Dhamma, used by none other than the great persecutor of Buddhists, Emperor Wuzong of Tang who ordered what is called the "Great Anti-Buddhist Persecution". In his royal edict, he wrote:

"Now if even one man fails to work the fields, someone must go hungry; if one woman does not tend her silkworms, someone will be cold. At present there are an inestimable number of monks and nuns in the empire, each of them waiting for the farmers to feed him and the silkworms to clothe him, while the public temples and private chapels have reached boundless numbers, all with soaring towers and elegant ornamentation sufficient to outshine the imperial palace itself."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Ant ... ersecution

I should mention that this is an argument that is not just from the medieval Chinese or Koreans, but is seen today as well. Jon Horgan wrote a popular article in Slate which concludes with this thought:

"I have one final misgiving about Buddhism—or rather, about Buddha himself. His path to enlightenment began with his abandonment of his wife and child. Even today, Tibetan Buddhism—again, like Catholicism—upholds male monasticism as the epitome of spirituality. To me, "spiritual" means life-embracing, and so a path that turns away from aspects of life as essential as sexual love and parenthood is not spiritual but anti-spiritual."

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cro ... -buddhism/

For a larger overview of the Neo-Confucian criticism of Buddhism, see EARLY NEO-CONFUCIAN CRITICISM OF CHINESE BUDDHISM by Jacques Langlais:
https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/bitstream ... lltext.pdf

A more recent critique that I found online is one by a presuppositional apologist (a school of Christian Apologetics), it is quite dense so I haven't had the time to dig into it much but nevertheless here it is:
http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/v ... xt=masters

Common critiques also come from the New Atheists and they tend to focus on the "supernatural" elements of Buddhism (various realms and devas and so forth) as well as historical events in which Buddhism has supported violence and war (therefore treating it as they do other religions, and stating that it is just as violent as other religions). Here is one such extended critique of the Dhamma from a the Atheist scholar site:

http://atheistscholar.org/Criticism/Buddhism.aspx

Here we see the "childish fantasy" of the doctrine of Kamma criticised for promoting the status quo in society (which is useful for rulers and the elite) and for having a victim blaming attitude. The atheists here make the point that the Buddhist doctrine of Kamma could act as a doctrine that leads to blaming those who are less fortunate (for example, those killed in natural disasters), since they must have deserved the current condition by some action in a past life. This is a view that apparently some Buddhists in Japan have also held. Daizen Victoria writes in Zen at war about Ichikawa Hakugen (1902–1986), a critic of Japanese "Imperial-Way Zen" (Kodo Zen), who argued that:

"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. Differences in social status, wealth, and happiness are seen as just rewards..." (Zen at war, page 171)

Even if one argues that this is the wrong way to view karma, the fact that it has been twisted in this way historically and that it can lend itself to this sort of distortion should be something that a Buddhist is aware of.

The atheist (not sure who the author is here) also makes two other (albeit weaker) arguments. One is claiming that Buddhist belief in rebirth and kamma necessitates a mind body dualism (this is not the case, the Buddhist view is not a metaphysical theory of mind, simply a theory of what happens). The other argument is the old "where do all the souls come from?" argument which is equally senseless since there are no souls in Buddhism, and Buddhism holds that there are countless world systems.

The criticism of the Buddhist doctrine of kamma as promoting status quo and aiding the elite in oppressing the weak and the poor is one of the strongest arguments here, and it has been taken up for others, most notably the well known Marxist critic Slavoj Zizek. There are various articles out there as well as long lecture videos of Zizek taking up this topic and pontificating about modern western Buddhist complacency in the face of capitalist exploitation. It is a topic commonly paired with the "Buddhist warfare" discussion (often citing Brian Victoria's "Zen at war", a major source for this, and recent events in Burma or historical events in Sri Lanka). One source for this is in Hitchens' one of the so called "New Atheists" in his "God is not great, how religion poisons everything". I think it is effective for some because it is partly true - Buddhists are humans after all and have done bad things historically - war, supporting oppressive regimes and economies, etc.

I should also mention another group of people who are known to use this line of critique (and others, influenced by postmodernism), the folks over at speculative non-Buddhism such as Glenn Wallis, Tom Pepper, et al. Glenn Wallis' critiques are particularly incisive, given his deep knowledge of the Dhamma, the early texts and Pali. The main text to look at here is "Cruel Theory, Sublime Practice: Toward a Revaluation of Buddhism", a shorter article available on Glenn's site is "Nascent speculative non-Buddhism".

http://glennwallis.com/
https://speculativenonbuddhism.com/

Another common and related critique (which I think is not a criticism of Buddhism in general, but of certain Buddhists) focuses on individual exploitative figures and the hurtful things they have done (Trungpa comes to mind, Frederick Lenz alias "Rama", FWO founder Sangharakshita).

The critique of sexism and discrimination against women is one that is also commonly seen, focusing on the treatment of women in Buddhist traditions, the eight garudhammas and so on.

My last link is this one from a Secular Humanist site which includes various criticisms including the misogyny claim, http://www.humanreligions.info/buddhism_criticism.html

Thoughts, responses? I have tried to outline the major historical and contemporary criticisms I have seen of the Dhamma and Sangha, there is definitely a lot of food for thought here. I think that a lot of it is simply due to the fact that Buddhists are human beings, humans do nasty things no matter what they call themselves. I don't think Buddhists should expect to be immune from such things happening in our tradition (I know I have done things I am not proud of). However there is also real criticism of particular doctrines here. So I would say there are two main strands of critique, one which focuses on historical ethical lapses (wars, abuses, misuses and so on) and one which focuses on doctrine and beliefs (especially of karma and rebirth).
Last edited by Javi on Mon Sep 12, 2016 7:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Vayadhammā saṅkhārā appamādena sampādethā — All things decay and disappoint, it is through vigilance that you succeed — Mahāparinibbāna Sutta

Self-taught poverty is a help toward philosophy, for the things which philosophy attempts to teach by reasoning, poverty forces us to practice. — Diogenes of Sinope

I have seen all things that are done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a chase after wind — Ecclesiastes 1.14
User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
Posts: 4646
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: Critiques of the Buddhadhamma

Post by Bhikkhu Pesala »

Your post is way too long, and tries to discuss too many points. If you have any critique of particular issues such as the Bodhisatta leaving his wife and child, focus on that. (It has already been answered adequately in previous threads).
BlogPāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
davidbrainerd
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Critiques of the Buddhadhamma

Post by davidbrainerd »

Javi wrote:The first critics of the Buddha Dhamma were, naturally, the Orthodox Hindus, represented by key thinkers such as Shankara...
There are some critiques by Niganthas found in the suttas themselves, like in MN 56, the disagreement on whether "bodily offence" or "mental action" is more "heinous," as well as whether "offence" or "action" should be the recognized category.
User avatar
cjmacie
Posts: 690
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:49 am

Re: Critiques of the Buddhadhamma

Post by cjmacie »

Javi wrote:The Confucians were one of the most consistent historical critics of the Buddhists - along with Orthodox Hindus.
This Chinese neo-Confucian (Song Dynasty) reaction to Buddhism (i.e. in Tang Dynasty) I've been exposed to, in the study of history of classical Chinese medicine with a Taoist master teaching. Many of the "Great Masters" of Chinese medicine, of ca. 500-1200 CE, were adept Buddhists as well as Taoists, the distinction being s/w hazy; some of them primarily religious/philosophical and secondarily into medicine.

As to the neo-Confucian revolt against the "foreign" influence of Buddhism -- one story-line is that Buddhist monasteries in China were in some way tax-exempt, and the Chinese, as astute business people as they often are, were incorporating their businesses and family assets into "monastic" institutions on a large scale, such that the government was going broke.
Javi wrote:The Confucian of this text also criticizes Buddhist actions such as the idea of abandoning family life for monasticism.
Relative to this, in once browsing the Song Dynasty commentaries on KungZi's (Confucius) "Four Books", I came across a description of "Confucian" meditation, which reminded me very much of anapansati-samadhi meditation technique. Except the goal was not "liberation" of the individual, but rather conditioning the individual to be an more accomplished ("enlightened" perhaps) Mandarin – good father, citizen, government minister, etc.

This fits into what I'd heard/read – that in general the neo-Confucian Mandarins in fact re-branded into their own system many of the basic elements of Buddhism, so these aspects were not outright outlawed, not forbidden for the Chinese, but rather no longer of "foreign" origin.

The pervasiveness and perseverance of which: My first "gigong" teacher (1980s) – a "Taoist" priest -- came to Palo Alto and taught a couple years ago, at age 100 shortly before his death. He taught an extended "form" of moving exercises, concluding with a sitting exercise, which was also essentially, in form and purpose, anapansati-samadhi. At the end, he emphasized that if one were pressed for practice time, best skip the moving patterns but do the most essential, the sitting meditation.
User avatar
cjmacie
Posts: 690
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:49 am

Re: Critiques of the Buddhadhamma

Post by cjmacie »

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:Your post is way too long, and tries to discuss too many points. If you have any critique of particular issues such as the Bodhisatta leaving his wife and child, focus on that. (It has already been answered adequately in previous threads).
Beg to differ. It's a good historical survey and offering of sources -- and not as long as many much more inane posts in, for instance, recent philological debates here.
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Critiques of the Buddhadhamma

Post by chownah »

I think there has been some study in thailand about the health hazard of the burning of joss sticks in temples and other public places with poor ventilation. I'm serious, some studies I think must have been done since a respectable public figure has in the past been given a significant amount of media time venting this problem.
chownah
Saoshun
Posts: 282
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:59 pm

Re: Critiques of the Buddhadhamma

Post by Saoshun »

All this critique comes only from lack of attainments. :broke:
Remember… the Buddha had said that everyone living in this world is crazy, by the phrase, “Sabbē prutajjana ummattakā”; excluding the Arahants, everyone else is crazy. Would you get angry if a mad person scolds? Do we get angry for a crazy thing done by a crazy person? Just think about it! :candle:
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Critiques of the Buddhadhamma

Post by binocular »

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:Your post is way too long, and tries to discuss too many points. If you have any critique of particular issues such as the Bodhisatta leaving his wife and child, focus on that. (It has already been answered adequately in previous threads).
Agreed. Maybe just make this thread a collection of references, and then address each one of them in separate threads.

- - -
Javi wrote:I think that it is an important exercise to always question your beliefs.
If one were to _always_ question one's beliefs, one would end up in a certain institution with white padded cells. :juggling:
If one truly believes that what one holds to be true is the case, then one should not be afraid of holding it up to the light of the scrutiny of others with opposing arguments.
It's not clear that people who firmly hold particular beliefs are actually interested in their beliefs being scrutinized by others. What would be the reason to open one's beliefs to scrutiny from others, if one is already certain that one knows The Truth?

While people who firmly hold their particuar beliefs tend to fight a lot with eachother, this seems to be more out of a sense of entitlement rather than being open to scrutiny from others.
Last edited by binocular on Mon Sep 12, 2016 5:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Critiques of the Buddhadhamma

Post by binocular »

A Catholic criticism of Buddhism, here in turn addressed by Bhikkhu Bodhi: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... ay_30.html

- - -

The Bahai criticism of Buddhism:
/.../
Baha’is believe that Buddha was a Manifestation of God, like Christ, but that his followers do not possess His authentic writings. This problem of authenticity plagues many Faiths, including Judaism, Christianity and (to a lesser extent) Islam. But despite that problem, and the parallel problem of the gradual corruption of the authentic and original teachings of each of the Prophets over time, the core teachings of these great religions have a remarkable consistency and congruity:

The real teaching of Buddha is the same as the teaching of Jesus Christ. The teachings of all the Prophets are the same in character. Now men have changed the teaching. If you look at the present practice of the Buddhist religion, you will see that there is little of the Reality left. Many worship idols although their teaching forbids it. – Abdu’l-Baha, Abdu’l-Baha in London, p. 63.
Of course some forms of Buddhism are not focused on idols, but Buddhism, like all religions, is in need of renewal.

http://bahaiteachings.org/buddhism-and-the-bahai-faith
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
Posts: 4646
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: Critiques of the Buddhadhamma

Post by Bhikkhu Pesala »

There is little benefit to be gained by arguing with Straw Men. These "critiques of Buddhadhamma" are critiques of non-dhamma that the author has taken to be the Buddha's teaching, e.g.
The Atheist Scholar wrote:However, Buddhist theologians say that not everything that happens to a person in their present life is necessarily karma, like winning the lottery or breaking a leg. They maintain that we Westerners misunderstand karma. But what will happen to the souls who perish in great disasters?

Population of the world over 7 billion now- not enough souls for all the new bodies.

How does soul enter a woman’s womb to be reborn?
As others have suggested, if you want to discuss particular topics, search for previous threads first (most have been discussed to death already), and if you don't find any satisfactory rebuttals, start a new thread.
BlogPāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Critiques of the Buddhadhamma

Post by binocular »

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:There is little benefit to be gained by arguing with Straw Men. These "critiques of Buddhadhamma" are critiques of non-dhamma that the author has taken to be the Buddha's teaching, e.g.
I'm interested in understanding why those critics make those strawmen and why they insist in them, no matter what else they read or what a Buddhist may tell them. Those critics seem to be immune to correction.

It seems that understanding what drives them to make those strawmen would inform a more helpful way of replying to them (as opposed to telling them straightforwardly where they are wrong and getting nowhere with that kind of approach).
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
Posts: 4646
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: Critiques of the Buddhadhamma

Post by Bhikkhu Pesala »

The Debate of King Milinda is a series of rebuttals to a series of critiques, purportedly made by the Greek King Menander in dialogues with a Buddhist Saint, Nāgasena. There's not much doubt that King Menander existed, and was in the right place at the right time to have such dialogues, but the work may have been a literary construction to expound the Buddhist POV rather than an accurate record of any actual conversations.

If someone sincerely wishes to understand the Buddha Dhamma properly such dialogues are constructive, but those who hold opposing views are rarely open to dialogue.
BlogPāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
Saoshun
Posts: 282
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:59 pm

Re: Critiques of the Buddhadhamma

Post by Saoshun »

Saoshun wrote:All this critique comes only from lack of attainments. :broke:

Again, show me those critiques and their attainments besides intellectual bubble.

If anybody is interested Kukai addressed pretty well Confucians "running from family" argument.
Remember… the Buddha had said that everyone living in this world is crazy, by the phrase, “Sabbē prutajjana ummattakā”; excluding the Arahants, everyone else is crazy. Would you get angry if a mad person scolds? Do we get angry for a crazy thing done by a crazy person? Just think about it! :candle:
JiWe2
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 11:31 am

Re: Critiques of the Buddhadhamma

Post by JiWe2 »

Kumārila Bhaṭṭa's Slokavartika on omniscient person and the authenticity of Buddhist Scriptures:
https://archive.org/details/slokavartika015341mbp
p.38- (pdf 109/644)

116. “Inasmuch as the assumption by others (the Banddhas) of an
omniscient Person, as also that of the absence of human agency in the
Veda by the Mimansakas, are both of the same type (there is no difference
between the validity of the two),”—those who assert this must think over
the following (points of difference).

117. An omniscient person is not seen by us at the present moment ;
nor, is it possible to prove (by means of Inference) that such a one ever
existed before, as is done in the case of the negation of such a person.

118. Nor can the existence of the omniscient one be proved by
Scriptures; for in that case there would be mutual inter-dependence. And
how can one ever believe the authenticity of a Scripture composed by
another man?
...
126. And further, in the case of (these scriptures) referring to super­
sensuous objects, we would come to recognise their falsity, on account of
the fact of all Scriptures besides the Veda, originating in human agency ;
since in such cases the grounds of their authenticity would be self­
contradictory.

127. And then too, there results the absurdity of (your Scripture
proving) the authenticity of subjects other than either Duty or Non-Duty.
And so long as the Sankhya and the rest continue to exist, your instance
too is hard to be got at.

128. Because, while being a human assertion, it refers to super­
seusuous subjects ;—therefore too, on account of mutual dependence, the
Scripture of Buddha and others would come to be false.
...
132. How can anyone postulate a thing, whose existence can be dis-
proved by reason of its being contrary to Sense-Perception?

133. Nor can your omniscient Person be postulated on the ground of
unbroken tradition. Because the tradition is disputed, has no bassis, and
is only accepted by a few peeple (like yourself).

134. That “ He is omniscient,” how could even his contemporary
enquirers know, being (as they were) devoid of any conception of his cog­-
nitions and the objects thereof?

135. Thus then you will have to assume many omniscient persons
(among his contemporaries and their followers, so that each of these could
be cognisant of the omniscience of his predecessor). For he who is himself
non-omniscient could never recognise another person to be omniscient.

136. He by whom the omniscient Person could not be recognised,—
how could such a person have any idea of the authenticity of his
assertions ? (For these would be) to him just like the assertion of any other
ordinary person.
...
169. Thus then, in the present case (of the Scriptures of Buddha,
&c.),the falsity of these is proved by the fact of their being due to human
agency. This character (of falsity) could not belong to the Veda, because
in its case there is no author (human agency).
Kumārila Bhaṭṭa (fl. roughly 700) was a Hindu philosopher and Mīmāṃsā scholar from Assam.[1] He is famous for many of his seminal theses on Mimamsa, such as Mimamsaslokavarttika. Bhaṭṭa was a staunch believer in the supreme validity of Vedic injunction, a great champion of Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā and a confirmed ritualist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kum%C4%81 ... %E1%B9%ADa
What was the attainment of the Buddha? How do You know it? Can You prove it?
davidbrainerd
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Critiques of the Buddhadhamma

Post by davidbrainerd »

binocular wrote:
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:There is little benefit to be gained by arguing with Straw Men. These "critiques of Buddhadhamma" are critiques of non-dhamma that the author has taken to be the Buddha's teaching, e.g.
I'm interested in understanding why those critics make those strawmen and why they insist in them, no matter what else they read or what a Buddhist may tell them. Those critics seem to be immune to correction.

It seems that understanding what drives them to make those strawmen would inform a more helpful way of replying to them (as opposed to telling them straightforwardly where they are wrong and getting nowhere with that kind of approach).
They're not necessarily strawmen. Its not like all Buddhists in all places and times have believed the same thing. And as far as strawmen go, the Questions of King Melinda presenting the king putting up with the disrespect there of being told he doesn't know what a chariot is (for instance) strikes me as a strawman of sorts. And the idea in MN 56 that Buddha was so easily able to convert Mahavira's top lay disciple over a tiny issue like the one discussed there strikes me as a strawman. The constant claims by modern Buddhists that any notion of a soul or self is "Hindu" even even its not a corporate self strikes me as a strawman. So one could just as well ask why Buddhistd have recourse to strawmen.
Post Reply