Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

"The Buddha Delusion": On Addressing Criticisms of Buddhism

GlowGlow Veteran
edited January 2011 in Buddhism Today
On Amazon's page for Confession of a Buddhist Atheist, I found this review. Very little of it is actually a review of the book, but the author has some particularly scathing things to say about Buddhism and about its Western adherents. The first paragraph reads:

We have had nearly a hundred years of Buddhism in the West and the West is getting worse. What has Buddhism contributed to contemporary western societies? It has added a touch of gravitas and exoticism to the self-help, wisdom-while-u-wait industry. It has created a cluster of hierarchical groups wearing black or maroon skirts - each claiming orthodoxy and direct ancestral links to the Buddha himself. It has conferred a dignified aura to hard-line vegans, neo-puritans and the occasional recovering hedonist. It has granted a few celebs the chance to express platitudes for the spiritual emancipation of their fans and of paparazzi. It has managed to both sanitize the world of psychotherapy (via mindfulness-based cognitive-behavioural therapy) and re-mystify it (via trans-personal psychology). And with Mandela fading fast from the limelight, it has also given the media two new moral superstars to applaud and patronize: the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh.

The rest of the review is a lengthy invective regarding Buddhism in the West. We have the Buddha's instruction in the Brahmajala Sutta on how to deal with such criticism: "5. 'Brethren, if outsiders should speak against me, or against the Doctrine, or against the Order, you should not on that account either bear malice, or suffer heart-burning, or feel ill will. If you, on that account, should be angry and hurt, that would stand in the way of your own self-conquest. If, when others speak against us, you feel angry at that, and displeased, would you then be able to judge how far that speech of theirs is well said or ill?... But when outsiders speak in dispraise of me, or of the Doctrine, or of the Order, you should unravel what is false and point it out as wrong, saying: "For this or that reason this is not the fact, that is not so, such a thing is not found among us, is not in us."'

What do you think? Read the review and see where, if any, the discrepancies lie. (I'll give you a hint: the first one, in the first sentence, is the reviewers assumption that "the West is getting worse." First, who says it's getting worse? I certainly think we're better off than we were 100 years ago on many fronts: socially, materially, and otherwise. Second, there is no verifiable causal link between Buddhism's arriving in the West and any alleged deterioration that happened within that timespan.)

Certainly, no one who has benefited from the Buddha's teaching will be in any way jolted by the criticism. I found myself reading with amusement. I do think this person has a beautiful way with words and a wonderful way of stirring up controversy. I also thing, surprisingly, that he brings up some quite valid points, especially concerning "bio-morality" and Buddhism's uncomfortable alliance with the positive thinking crowd. Of course, I myself have been helped greatly by some of the therapeutic applications he criticizes. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive therapy has what ultimately helped me get rid of my recurrent depressive episodes. Reading such a review was thus an exercise in equanimity: guarding myself against the tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater and disregard the reviewer entirely, and admitting that there is some good critical thinking in there as well.

Comments

  • i've heard these criticisms a couple times before and in some sense they are true, but the fellow who wrote this was at the time making a joke, he told me, so it shouldnt be taken seriously
    its actually not really reading as a criticism of buddhism itself but buddhism as a historical social process, western buddhism definitely does have its weaknesses but this person just has something sharp in his butthole probably
  • Do you think their vitriol is mainly against "Buddhism" or Dharma?
  • GlowGlow Veteran
    i've heard these criticisms a couple times before and in some sense they are true, but the fellow who wrote this was at the time making a joke, he told me, so it shouldnt be taken seriously
    its actually not really reading as a criticism of buddhism itself but buddhism as a historical social process, western buddhism definitely does have its weaknesses but this person just has something sharp in his butthole probably
    Oh, really? Well that takes some of the fun out of it. :P
    Do you think their vitriol is mainly against "Buddhism" or Dharma?
    Definitely "Buddhism" as an "-ism", at least in its Western manifestation.
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited January 2011
    If its Batchelor, its boring (to me)...

    :thumbdown:
  • edited January 2011
    Yeah, kindness and compassion: basically disgusting ideas when you look into it.

    H.H. Dalai Lama should be more self-conscious. That robe's getting a bit tired; when's he gonna get an "Extreme Makeover?"

    (joking). :D

    Movie industry has the same problem, Reviewers would rather TRASH something even if saying something good was funnier (so to speak).

    When the reviewer guy above says,
    "[Buddhism] has granted a few celebs the chance to express platitudes for the spiritual emancipation of their fans and of paparazzi."

    Even though he's stated it disparagingly the reviewer should see that it is still a good thing. Famous people platitudinally "broadcasting" a message to be decent human beings to the general platitudinal public; he's got a problem with that?
    What's the problem exactly? How can _that_ be a problem? Geez. :nyah:

    Compare to celebrities like G. Beck and R. Limbaugh "broadcasting" hate, anger and distrust.

  • GlowGlow Veteran
    edited January 2011
    Here's the third paragraph, where he gets to his point about how Buddhism becomes diluted::

    Contemporary mainstream Buddhism appears to have wholeheartedly inherited the misguided universalism of the Victorian era, at the time a response aimed at normalizing the bewildering array of worldviews brought about by imperial expansion, i.e. the belief that the experience of Truth (a reified and transcendental truth with a capital T) is the same everywhere, above and beyond cultural, ethnic and social circumstances. The universalism and perennialism we find in popular Buddhist authors proffers the possibility of an internalized view from nowhere above the contradictory claims of religions and philosophies in a kind of purified realm of experience, a stance all the more problematic because it blatantly evades cultural diversities and ignores its own imperial connotations. It is an integral part of the enduring western tendency to assimilate and neuter Buddhist teachings by discarding their existential edge, a tendency rooted in the desire to divert the radical nature of the practice towards comforting homilies. During the Victorian era the Buddha was portrayed as a harmless and serene Victorian gentleman. Could a contemporary portrait be that of a Facebook-Guru dishing out virtual platitudes while you sip your double macchiato at Starbucks?

    Interestingly, he frames Buddhism in terms of its existential inquiries, which has always been a huge part of my particular practice. Nietszche, a Westerner who underwent his own existential breakdown as the Buddha did, saw in Buddhism a kindred philosophy to his own existentialism, except he interpreted the Buddha's message as one of complacence in the face of anomie. It's one thing I've been considering for many years: to what extent is the Buddha's prescriptive, behavioral injunction a sort of isolationism. Certainly we have the "engaged Buddhism" of Thich Nhat Hanh, but even in Buddhist countries, does the religion engender a dissociation as opposed to engagement when it is needed and is this a good thing?
  • Batchelor = Boring

    Ranting & raving about nothing.

    No liberation.

    Image and video hosting by TinyPic

  • GlowGlow Veteran
    Yeah, kindness and compassion: basically disgusting ideas when you look into it.

    H.H. Dalai Lama should be more self-conscious. That robe's getting a bit tired; when's he gonna get an "Extreme Makeover?"

    (joking). :D

    Movie industry has the same problem, Reviewers would rather TRASH something even if saying something good was funnier (so to speak).

    When the reviewer guy above says,
    "[Buddhism] has granted a few celebs the chance to express platitudes for the spiritual emancipation of their fans and of paparazzi."

    Even though he's stated it disparagingly the reviewer should see that it is still a good thing. Famous people platitudinally "broadcasting" a message to be decent human beings to the general platitudinal public; he's got a problem with that?
    What's the problem exactly? How can _that_ be a problem? Geez. :nyah:

    Compare to celebrities like G. Beck and R. Limbaugh "broadcasting" hate, anger and distrust.

    I think he's not so much attacking the ideals of compassion and kindness (which would, you're right, be pretty ridiculous), but rather the somewhat noncommittal way people approach Buddhism. Reading the rest of the review, he's advocating quite a serious, fastidious consideration of Buddhism, as opposed to fetishizing the teaching. In other words, he's saying the deification of Buddhism and the Buddha, sanctifying it, neuters it of its serious philosophical contribution to the world, on the same level as that of the Greeks, for instance.
  • GlowGlow Veteran
    edited January 2011
    Batchelor = Boring

    Ranting & raving about nothing.

    No liberation.

    Image and video hosting by TinyPic

    What? You seem to be confused. This isn't by Batchelor. It's just a review of Batchelor's book. I think disregarding something as "ranting and raving about nothing" without consideration is facile.
  • interestingly buddhism has long already had its own internal criticisms, in the idea of degenerative buddhism

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mappō
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited January 2011
    Batchelor has all kinds of views, such as:

    1. Buddha did not extinguish his mind's defilements

    2. Craving is the effect of dukkha rather than the cause

    Batchelor = boring intellectualism

    "universalism of the Victorian era" "imperial expansion"

    wt#?

    Image and video hosting by TinyPic

    Batchelor = Balavagga

    64. Though all his life a fool associates with a wise man, he no more comprehends the Truth than a spoon tastes the flavor of the soup.

  • GlowGlow Veteran
    interestingly buddhism has long already had its own internal criticisms, in the idea of degenerative buddhism

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mappō
    Hm... very interesting. 10,000 years of degenerate Buddhism is an awful harsh verdict. :P
  • GlowGlow Veteran
    Batchelor has all kinds of views, such as:

    1. Buddha did not extinguish his mind's defilements

    2. Craving is the effect of dukkha rather than it cause

    Batchelor = boring intellectualism

    "Victorian universalism"

    wt#?

    Image and video hosting by TinyPic
    Again, this isn't written by Batchelor, and the discussion isn't about Batchelor. I don't personally agree with what much of what Batchelor believes. My thoughts on Buddhism are closer to those of Rupert Gethin than most other writers on the subject.
  • interestingly buddhism has long already had its own internal criticisms, in the idea of degenerative buddhism

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mappō
    Hm... very interesting. 10,000 years of degenerate Buddhism is an awful harsh verdict. :P
    HA YEAH it DOES , my take on that would be well in the time and place of shakyamuni the culture was much more receptive to spiritual liberation, and there were a lot of dedicated disciples and spiritual commitment. but maybe NOWADAYS nothing's changed actually except that Samsara has widened, but Siddhartha was like a Buddha Earthquake, and there are always tremors and there will be another buddha earthquake in the future; there are plenty of good and sincere buddhist practitioners nowadays, but the earthquake happened many years ago, so it seems as though there's been a "decline" in "activity" , or something..... i dont really know what the hell i am talking about HA HAHAHAHAHA but something like that
  • edited January 2011
    Oh.., I think I get it, Glow. I don't like it that if I listen to the many Westerners around me discuss Buddhism, somehow I'm likely to get lulled and more readily able to justify spending more time alone than I do getting out there doing things - thus actually improving conditions?

  • edited January 2011
    oh.... ok.... i got it.... Samsara's vines have spread much but the seeds of Samsara were planted long before even Buddha's day but the seed of Nirvana was planted brilliantly and its brilliance never ceases to diminish and glow radiantly but Samsara's shadow yet spreads.
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited January 2011
    Again, this isn't written by Batchelor, and the discussion isn't about Batchelor.
    Sure.

    My response is the beauty of Buddhism is it can be a rather personal micro thing.

    It provides room & scope for the individual to apply it to their individual life.

    :)

  • GlowGlow Veteran
    oh.... ok.... i got it.... Samsara's vines have spread much but the seeds of Samsara were planted long before even Buddha's day but the seed of Nirvana was planted brilliantly and its brilliance never ceases to diminish and glow radiantly but Samsara's shadow yet spreads.
    Well, if anything, it WOULD explain why we don't see people have earth-shattering nibbanic experiences anymore like Shakyamuni.
    Oh.., I think I get it, Glow. I don't like it that if I listen to the many Westerners around me discuss Buddhism, somehow I'm likely to get lulled and more readily able to justify spending more time alone than I do getting out there doing things - thus actually improving conditions?

    Yeah, that's a big part of it. A lot of people attracted to Buddhism are really just people interested really only in taking up Buddhism as something to make themselves feel special. By adopting Buddhism, they can see themselves as living "awakened" lives when, in reality, they are doing no such thing and only using Buddhism to justify laziness and a holier-than-thou mentality. It's like Chogyam Trungpa's "spiritual materialism." It's turning Buddhism into just another way to feed the ego; a waste of time better spent simply practicing simple generosity, patience, empathy, compassion in the real world.
  • GlowGlow Veteran
    Again, this isn't written by Batchelor, and the discussion isn't about Batchelor.
    Sure.

    My response is the beauty of Buddhism is it can be a rather personal micro thing.

    It provides room & scope for the individual to apply it to their individual life.

    :)

    Okay, that is true.
  • edited January 2011


    Yeah, that's a big part of it. A lot of people attracted to Buddhism are really just people interested really only in taking up Buddhism as something to make themselves feel special. By adopting Buddhism, they can see themselves as living "awakened" lives when, in reality, they are doing no such thing and only using Buddhism to justify laziness and a holier-than-thou mentality. It's like Chogyam Trungpa's "spiritual materialism." It's turning Buddhism into just another way to feed the ego; a waste of time better spent simply practicing simple generosity, patience, empathy, compassion in the real world.
    Thanks for explaining that. I might have your last sentence above tattooed to the inside of my eyelids. :D


  • GlowGlow Veteran
    Hah! Although that sound painful. :eek:
  • edited January 2011
    Hah! Although that sound painful. :eek:
    Easier than walking around all day with it on my forehead. :hair: Yes, that's funny, the mere *thought* makes our eyes hurt.

    Seriously though, thanks for the thread so far. I needed that somehow.

  • GlowGlow Veteran
    Thanks for kind comment Roger. :) Glad you appreciated the thread.
  • Now, Give me that old time Dharma,
    Give me that old time Dharma,
    Give me that old time Dharma,
    It's good enough for me.

    There's something sad about a reviewer that posts a, what, ten thousand word essay on an Amazon book review, complaining about decadent Western culture and modern Buddhism in general. Not that I am capable of doing anything but skimming it quickly, and even then my eyes glazed over after the third paragraph. The reviewer is certainly passionate about the subject.

    So that's one vote for the world is going to Hell in a handbasket. At least the modern, Western world.

    If only we lived back in the good old days, when Buddhist temples were burnt to the ground about once every fifty years from invading armies, and Buddhism itself alternated between being banned or made the official court religion on the whim of whatever King held absolute power.

    Ah, but at least the Dharma was taken seriously! Sometimes. When the temples weren't filled with political hacks jockeying for favor.

    But that old time Dharma, now that was real Buddhism!

    It was good for Bodhidharma,
    It was good for Bodhidharma,
    It was good for Bodhidharma,
    so it's good enough for me!



  • GlowGlow Veteran
    Now, Give me that old time Dharma,
    Give me that old time Dharma,
    Give me that old time Dharma,
    It's good enough for me.

    There's something sad about a reviewer that posts a, what, ten thousand word essay on an Amazon book review, complaining about decadent Western culture and modern Buddhism in general. Not that I am capable of doing anything but skimming it quickly, and even then my eyes glazed over after the third paragraph. The reviewer is certainly passionate about the subject.

    So that's one vote for the world is going to Hell in a handbasket. At least the modern, Western world.

    If only we lived back in the good old days, when Buddhist temples were burnt to the ground about once every fifty years from invading armies, and Buddhism itself alternated between being banned or made the official court religion on the whim of whatever King held absolute power.

    Ah, but at least the Dharma was taken seriously! Sometimes. When the temples weren't filled with political hacks jockeying for favor.

    But that old time Dharma, now that was real Buddhism!

    It was good for Bodhidharma,
    It was good for Bodhidharma,
    It was good for Bodhidharma,
    so it's good enough for me!



    LOL! I Googled the author's name and apparently he's this guy -- someone who makes a living on Buddhist-based therapy... hmmm. Apparently, he's also written two books but I doubt I could take any more of his prose than those 10,000 words.
  • edited January 2011


    There's something sad about a reviewer that posts a, what, ten thousand word essay on an Amazon book review, complaining about decadent Western culture and modern Buddhism in general. [edited]

    So that's one vote for the world is going to Hell in a handbasket. At least the modern, Western world.

    It's a small point but, what bugs me are histrionics.

    When he asks, "What has Buddhism contributed to contemporary western societies?" He should go on to answer that question directly. Instead it's a sarcastic reply (see below), those are hardly "contributions."

    Not very "right intentioned" if you ask me.

    He should ask the question he intends to answer.


    His words:

    "We have had nearly a hundred years of Buddhism in the West and the West is getting worse. What has Buddhism contributed to contemporary western societies? It has added a touch of gravitas and exoticism to the self-help, wisdom-while-u-wait industry. It has created a cluster of hierarchical groups wearing black or maroon skirts - each claiming orthodoxy and direct ancestral links to the Buddha himself. It has conferred a dignified aura to hard-line vegans, neo-puritans and the occasional recovering hedonist. It has granted a few celebs the chance to express platitudes for the spiritual emancipation of their fans and of paparazzi."

  • We have had nearly a hundred years of Buddhism in the West and the West is getting worse.
    We've had nearly a hundred years of a lot of things. Maybe the said decline is due to the Browning 1911 pistol.

    It has added a touch of gravitas and exoticism to the self-help, wisdom-while-u-wait industry.
    No. As long as meditation is a core feature of Western Buddhism, the Buddhism will stand apart from standard self-help. Mainly because it takes a ton of work and discipline.

    It has created a cluster of hierarchical groups wearing black or maroon skirts - each claiming orthodoxy and direct ancestral links to the Buddha himself.
    My perception of Western Buddhism is that it is very decentralized, and a lot of practitioners don't give a damn about who's related to the Buddha.

    It has conferred a dignified aura to hard-line vegans, neo-puritans and the occasional recovering hedonist.
    Actually, I think it takes away from the aura of a vegan, since "he's just doing it because it's his religion."

    No one is more holier-than-thou than people who are vegans for purely health reasons. Who cares about religion, it's all about staying young and fit!


    It has conferred a dignified aura to ... neo-puritans
    Buddhists seem to lack the judgmentalism of the archetypical puritan.

    It has conferred a dignified aura to... the occasional recovering hedonist.
    I believe the previous president of the U.S. was a former alcoholic who became a born-again Christian.

    It has granted a few celebs the chance to express platitudes for the spiritual emancipation of their fans and of paparazzi.
    Like they wouldn't without Buddhism?

    It has managed to both sanitize the world of psychotherapy (via mindfulness-based cognitive-behavioural therapy) and re-mystify it (via trans-personal psychology).
    1. "sanitize"? maybe it was in need of it.
    2. never heard of it.

    And with Mandela fading fast from the limelight, it has also given the media two new moral superstars to applaud and patronize: the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh.
    Good.

  • Btw,

    1. Speaking of criticism, here's an... interesting... documentary. (The Buddha surrounded by Hell flames in the intro hints at a slight bias.)




    2. Here is a CNN news guy trying to elicit some outrage from a Buddhist. (Epic fail, you can see it in the news guy's grimace.)

  • buddhajunkie, thanks for sharing that 'documentary'. It's always good to see opposing views, or in this case, propaganda.
  • Interesting that the "documentary" is produced and excerpted from a book by a Conservative Islamic group. I had to pause it and look close at the author. It's kind of refreshing to see something that isn't from the usual Christian Evangelical crowd.

    From: http://www2.truman.edu/~edis/writings/articles/hyahya.html

    One name dominates Turkish creationism: Harun Yahya. Supposedly this is the pen name of Adnan Oktar, the leader of a religious order. But Yahya is credited with so many books, articles, videos, and web pages (www.hyahya.org) that it is hard to believe this is a one-man industry. Plus the intellectual prowess of leaders of religious orders are commonly exaggerated -- tales of incredible intellectual productivity serve as a kind of modern miracle story, bolstering the stature of charismatic teachers. So Yahya is not really a person but the flag under which the most prominent Turkish creationist activities set sail.

  • aHappyNihilistaHappyNihilist Veteran
    edited January 2011
    The "the west is getting worse" argument made me laugh out loud. if the west is getting worse it's because of materialism. if he's talking about the U.S.A. it's because of fear and hatred as well (i live there).
    those three things seem like the literal opposite of Buddhist teachings. how can you possibly link buddhism to them?
  • All I can say is..

    Is that so?

Sign In or Register to comment.