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
Glow
Veteran
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.
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.
0
Comments
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
Definitely "Buddhism" as an "-ism", at least in its Western manifestation.
:thumbdown:
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).
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.
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?
Ranting & raving about nothing.
No liberation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mappō
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#?
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.
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.
Seriously though, thanks for the thread so far. I needed that somehow.
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!
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."
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.
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.
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!
Buddhists seem to lack the judgmentalism of the archetypical puritan.
I believe the previous president of the U.S. was a former alcoholic who became a born-again Christian.
Like they wouldn't without Buddhism?
1. "sanitize"? maybe it was in need of it.
2. never heard of it.
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.)
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.
those three things seem like the literal opposite of Buddhist teachings. how can you possibly link buddhism to them?
Is that so?