Buddhism, Blasphemy, and Blackmail

essem

By chance I came upon this provocative title.

About Buddhism, Blasphemy, and Blackmail
9 Posts since 2013

This is a short blog series critically investigating the wide intellectual
berth that Western intellectuals and non-intellectuals typically give
Buddhism.

From the end of Post 9:

"... Those who would admonish me for criticizing Buddhism would do
well to understand that learning and discussing its history openly and
honestly can reduce fanaticism and increase truthfulness, while at the
same time no less suggesting respect and intrigue.

In that spirit, after an appropriate amount of time, I will publish one
final post in this series, aggregating and responding to the feedback
from the posts."

http://bigthink.com/blogs/buddhism-blasphemy-and-blackmail

Florian

Wow. Nice link. Why do people insist on criticising Buddhism before they try to understand it?

aMatt

Florian said:

Wow. Nice link. Why do people insist on criticising Buddhism before they try to understand it?

The same reasons we ask questions that we already know the answers to!

vinlyn

I would suggest that people read his blog, sift out the hyperbole and rhetoric, and then think about the points he makes.

And if one thinks he's inflammatory (which he is), he's no more inflammatory than are many atheists (and some Buddhists) regarding Christianity.

Florian

I have read his blog. He is a poor scholar who has not understood what he criticises. I don't find him inflammatory, just badly informed.

vinlyn

Florian said:

I have read his blog. He is a poor scholar who has not understood what he criticises. I don't find him inflammatory, just badly informed.

No, he's inflammatory, but I think his main problem is that he's overly impressed with his own talent for writing (which he has), and thinks whatever he writes is the whole truth.

Sile

In his first blog post, Nicholas states:

"Out of this, I feel strongly that I must fight against the claims that I have often heard from my Western Buddhist and non-Buddhist compatriots, who, through insisting on a series of vagaries and leveraging a sort of ethical catch-22, elevate Buddhism to a level above criticism and reproach."

I find it curious that what started this latest foray on his part it the fact that a major Western publication lead with an article critical of Buddhism It is the Burmese government which quashed it, not Western compatriots. To be more accurate though, the Time article was critical of violence--not Buddhism.

His implication is the clear and now-familiar mantra: some Buddhists are engaging in violence, so you shouldn't have the Dalai Lama (or any Buddhist) speak at your institution. The further irony is that the Dalai Lama probably addresses and admonishes against violence within Buddhism as much or more than any other major speaker, at least in my experience. He admonishes against violence, period, and doesn't pretend any human, Buddhist or not, is not prone to violence or causing harm.

Nicholas is trying too hard. The West is a practical feeding frenzy for anyone who wishes to criticize Buddhism, Paris Hilton's hairstyle, or any other topic.

What may disappoint Nicholas, on the other hand, is the fact that people (even frenzied Westerners) are quite able to separate the actions of a few from the actions of the many.

lobster

Strange as it may seem, as we increase in confidence with the dharma, we are also able if we wish, to be more exploratory of counter views.

Get results from criticism? Any good?
Well I tend to feel we become what we focus our attention on.

Should we do our dirty laundry in public? Of course, why not. Silence towards bad behaviour in Buddhism is Noble? Perhaps but then we could say abusive behaviour relies on the silence of the Noble?

I read a bit of the material - was not impressed, my precious time is best focussed elsewhere. Must be time shortly to find some good company (in my mind - the Buddhas) and sit with them quietly . . .