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.
Can a Buddhist be critical of other faiths
zidangus
Veteran
I thought I would bring this up, as there were a few remarks aimed at me in a thread I started on slavery and Islam.
Ok so as a Buddhist is it right or wrong to be critical of another faith. In my opinion I think it is perfectly acceptable to be critical or at least acceptable to make a counter argument when that faith are stating beliefs which have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be untrue, as facts (for example some versions of the christian creation theory), or when their beliefs can result in the suffering of innocent people (for example, islam and slavery).
I would also like to point out in favor of my attitude of being critical when appropriate, to the Buddhas highly critical attitude towards some aspects of Brahmanism, which he did not agree with.
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/dharmadata/fdd48.htm
So if the Buddha thought it was acceptable to criticize others beliefs which he did not agree with, then why do some Buddhists think it is not right to do this now ?
For those who do not like to criticize or argue against others beliefs for any reason whatsoever, is this not just another case of extreme political correctness on your behalf ?
Ok so as a Buddhist is it right or wrong to be critical of another faith. In my opinion I think it is perfectly acceptable to be critical or at least acceptable to make a counter argument when that faith are stating beliefs which have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be untrue, as facts (for example some versions of the christian creation theory), or when their beliefs can result in the suffering of innocent people (for example, islam and slavery).
I would also like to point out in favor of my attitude of being critical when appropriate, to the Buddhas highly critical attitude towards some aspects of Brahmanism, which he did not agree with.
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/dharmadata/fdd48.htm
So if the Buddha thought it was acceptable to criticize others beliefs which he did not agree with, then why do some Buddhists think it is not right to do this now ?
For those who do not like to criticize or argue against others beliefs for any reason whatsoever, is this not just another case of extreme political correctness on your behalf ?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Proper practice even goes so far as to not call others on their practice even as Buddhists... to not say "you're doing this wrong, I'm doing this right... you understand this wrong, I understand this right". If we're not even supposed to be critical of each other, how can we be critical of non-Buddhists?
Interfering with other people just because we think they're wrong is a road to suffering for all involved. Politics is just the same! It's attachment to views, and it leads to dukkha dukkha dukkha in insane amounts.
First, I think it is important to understand what your motive is. I consider myself to be part Buddhist and part Christian. I look at some of the criticisms of Christianity here and see only mean-spiritedness. I see other criticisms of Christianity here that are well-thought-out and valid.
Second, is one just being critical, or is one truly analyzing?
Third, is one fair minded? Can the person who criticizes another religion be critical of Buddhism, when appropriate. Is one holding Buddhism to the same standard that they are holding the other religion to?
And finally, if all one is doing is saying "my religion is better than your religion", then I think that's way off base. In the end, we won't KNOW until the END.
You say that Buddha taught us not to get involved with the religious beliefs of others, yet it is clear that Buddha did criticize others religious beliefs, when he thought they were wrong, for example the caste system
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/lifebuddha/2_24lbud.htm
http://www.buddhanet.net/bud_lt21.htm
So in my opinion, from a Buddhist point of view, If someone has a belief which is against that of Buddhas teachings, then as a Buddhist I should be able to voice my opinion that I think their belief is wrong view, just as Buddha did in his time.
If you're only suggesting being critical of other religions amongst friends and peers, such as on a forum where the religion can be discussed, there's nothing wrong with that. Telling people their religion or their beliefs are wrong is something else though.
The Buddha didn't criticize other religions because they were wrong, only because they did not provide a path to liberation. Everything he taught was in regards to suffering and the cessation of suffering. If you choose to be a Buddhist, you choose to follow a certain path, and that's your right. It's everyone else's right to choose what they believe and what they do.
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/dharmadata/fdd53.htm
and I'll highlight this part
'The Buddha, himself born into the warrior caste, was a severe critic of the caste system. He ridiculed the priests claims to be superior, he criticised the theological basis of the system and he welcomed into the Sangha people of all castes, including outcasts. His most famous saying on the subject is : " Birth does not make one a priest or an outcaste. Behaviour makes one either a priest or an outcaste".'
Would you would consider Buddhas remarks wrong speech for ridiculing the priests beliefs ?
But keeping quite about what I see as others wrong views, for the fear of upsetting people, is in my opinion contrary to Buddhist teachings.
You can't really have a clearcut solution to that question. It all depends on the circumstances and your intentions.
The sutras are pretty clear on how things were back then, on the kinds of situations where the Buddha would exhort these truths, and they're nothing like arguing with someone about their beliefs for the sole purpose that you think they're wrong. Buddhism is something to seek, not to be imposed.
That's all I'm saying. I used to argue with people about religious beliefs, but I've found it to be not only a waste of time on my part, but from the view of Buddhist practice... quite inappropriate. So I'll bow out, and hope for the best!
Maybe not, but at the same time he did not fall silent out of fear of wrong speech when people with beliefs that he did not agree with challenged him.
Assalayana Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.093.than.html
I don't even want to argue about this anymore since it has nowhere else to go, and wouldn't have responded except you've said something that only reinforces exactly what I said about the Buddha... that he didn't bother people, people bothered him. I'm sure he didn't mind, but he's the Buddha. Most people will mind if you challenge their religious beliefs, and that makes it clearly Wrong Speech.
I mean would you draw the line anywhere on your wrong speech stance ?
Everything has to be weighed, so if you're asking for a blanket yes or no to any and all situations, there isn't one. The details, and the intent, matter.
If you know someone is a suicide bomber, I say feel free to tell that person their beliefs are wrong, but don't expect to walk away from it. Don't use their religion as justification to go up to any random Muslim and tell them their religion is wrong, for instance.
I'm really getting out of this conversation now, this feels like one that can go on forever. Seriously don't ask me anything else!
This is an extreme example, but I do think this proves that there is a line somewhere. The line is when a belief causes suffering. Otherwise, what does it mean to be moral? Surely in order to say that ANYTHING is immoral is to criticize someone else's moral beliefs. In contemporary times the beliefs I see as particularly causing suffering are those promoting homicide, dogmatism, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia, eternal damnation, and ignorance in schools. Yes, I know there are some Buddhists who commit one or more of these things as well, and yes, I would criticize them just as much.
Christians, Islamics, Buddhists, etc all have opinions about what each-other subscribes to. These opinions are not anybody's business. The opinions that they have towards one another is not their business. The opinions that any of you have is nobody's business, but your own and vise-verse.
Critical thinking is essential towards understanding, as long as both, or all, sides can be both criticized and advocated; all the while, allowing no religion to define who one truly is. Religion is in itself a identity view.
understanding will not be found unless one keeps to the practice of non-self and no other.
If my path was that of a Buddhist monk, it would do well to criticize all religions and defend all religions as a practice of understanding.
However, my knowledge is very limited about Buddhism.
Namaste
It's not the religion others follow that will determinate if they perform good actions or bad actions.
As an example we had Christians that supported tortures during the Spanish Inquisition and Christians that performed good actions such as Blessed Teresa of Calcutta.
According to Jonathan Landaw and Stephen Bodian in "Buddhism for Dummies", it's not about criticizing other religions but criticizing other's actions. If someone performs good actions by following his/her religion (any religion) then it's better that he/she continues following such a religion instead of "converting" to Buddhism.
The same applies to the Islam. There are many people who are Islamic and live a decent life by not harming others. And there are unfortunately those Islamist who perform bad actions.
Bud this is not only with the Islam. As I said any religion have examples of followers who perform bad actions, including Buddhism! Yes, there are Buddhists who support and perform violence nowadays in Thailand and there were Buddhists who did so in the past.
Se we don't have to criticize religions. We have to criticize bad actions. And there are examples of bad actions performed by people of different religions.
Are you referring to zigangus or my comment? It's not certain to me what has been meant in your comment, Sea Imprint. It seems one sided. So far, one-sidedness is the reason why in being no religion will be subscribed to, being in my current life.
Without the assumption that your comment was implicating my self, it is worthy to address that my previous comment's approach is within the context of philosophic understanding by means of critical thinking to train the mind to see from both standing points. This is not meant in the Buddhist sense, but in the sense of a conscious practice of critical thinking against all religions and conscious defending of all religions to observe the results, which is the emptiness of identity views. That none of it defines who we truly are as individuals.
After emptiness is achieved, then is there open liberation to practice what the dhamma says is metta. Not in the religious formality, but as the fruits of compassionate contemplation. This is where the Buddhist sense come in.
This has been practiced in my current life. In my current life, in being no Buddhism, no religion is subscribed to.
Let compassion be the breath of being.
Namaste
It's one thing to engage in debate with an opponent where both sides put their beliefs on the table and assert them to be correct and their opponent's beliefs to be flawed. It's quite another thing to tell your Christian friend that she or he is going to have to endure terrible suffering because of their wrong understanding of reality or some such criticism. This can only antagonize someone who probably has no clue what you're talking about, even if you explain, it's doubtful their their past experiences in their current life have prepared them to consider what you consider to be the crucial points of existence. Instead of making them see the light, it may simply strain your relationship with them, it may cause them to get angry, or you to get angry (or both), and almost certainly won't act as a catalyst to push them in the right direction, where they would be receptive to the dharma. If anything it would tend to make them want to avoid Buddhists, who appear to be so arrogant and dismissive of what they believe to be a positive force in their own lives. In truth few Buddhists reach the point of being able to practice effectively in the area of ultimate truth. Most Buddhist practices that can be achieved by mainstream practitioners, fall into the realm of morality and gaining merit. These practices are not much different than those taught by most of the world's major religions. There's really little difference between practicing first four Perfections of Wisdom (except when conjoined with true wisdom, which is something aryas practicing on the Path of Meditation do after seeing emptiness directly) and practicing the teachings of Jesus.
Practice patience---turn the other cheek
If you're rich, give it up or your F----d; feed the sick, house the homeless, etc.
Give others what they really need to be happy (do unto others, etc. )
Love thine enemies
Blessed are those who renounce violence
Karma---As ye sow, so shall ye reap
Better to find common ground in morality. Establish that first; then maybe karma, because Jesus definitely taught about that; then talk about how Jesus claimed to be within all being; the gnostic angle; there are many ways to constructively engage Christians and Jews and others; I've had some good discussions with them, even with an atheist who has very negative feelings about all religions last week; humans have much commmon experience, mainly, and that means there's always a lot of common ground to work with.
Except, actions don't happen at random and without cause. Actions are always determined by the individual's beliefs. If you criticize an action, you ARE criticizing the underlying belief that caused it, which sometimes happens to be a religious belief.
Numbers 31:15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the LORD in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."
Joshua 6:20 When the trumpets sounded, the army shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the men gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so everyone charged straight in, and they took the city. They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.
Prostitution is rampant in Thailand...a rite of passage for young men...and beyond.
Thailand is a Buddhist country.
Hence, we can blame Buddhism for prostitution?????
Whether an issue is due to a religion or not depends on whether that issue promoted by the belief or people justify their actions based on the belief/ religion.
Believers are living in a bubble of delusion and are harmful to humans as a species.
In the case of Islam, I have gotten slack for just saying what a Muslim from a temple in San Diego told us after 9/11 when he came to speak at our temple. He said, and I quote: "You will all have to become Muslims or else." Tell me that isn't scary, but here in the U.S. people are constantly trying to promote the view that Islam is peaceful, and if you say otherwise, even coming from the head of this Muslim group, people don't wish to hear it.
Speaking of slavery, look at what Christianity has done. No religion is without fault, and I think that even the harm done in the name of Buddhism should be exposed.
We may not wish to cause a person to suffer, but at the same time we need to point out that they are causing suffering when they teach slavery or when they harm others in different ways.
That the churches condoned slavery and owned slaves does not invalidate the liberation message, any more than Jefferson's slave-owning undermines his work.