A Critique of Buddhism, essay

[ephemeral]

This might be more fitting for the ‘philosophy of religion’ froum

I had to write a religious/philosophical paper for school recently, and I chose to write “A Critique of Buddhism.” The main difficulty, however, is that I don’t know very much about Buddhism.

If you could point out some flaws in my arguments, it would be greatly appreciated.

The paper is too long to post, but here is a link to it: philosophy-forums.com/index.php?page=6

Quick summery:

This paper is a collection of points critiquing the Buddhist doctrine. My general intent is to show that if Buddhism desires to be considered freethinking, unlike Christianity, Judaism and Islam then it should justify its doctrine philosophically. I will begin with a contrast between general religion and Buddhism, and then launch into a lengthy questioning of Buddhism’s central tenants, including: karma, reincarnation, morality, selflessness, impermanence and many others. My arguments are not intended to be conclusive or in any way philosophically adequate, but instead to arouse the overall experience of questioning Buddhism, and perhaps remove the stigma that religions should not be criticized.

[Xunzian]

Since Buddhism established itself as a critique of Hinduism, I think it actually does a pretty good job. Especially since it largely operates on a specific form of proto-logic.

I’m too drunk to delve too much further, but it seems like you are taking an achronistic view. Especially since you are defining philosophy in the same way it has been defined in the west.

In short, I am uncertain that your critique couldn’t be answered simply by saying: If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha.

Edit: What kind of Buddhism have you learned about? In my (admittedly intoxicated) state, it could serve as an acceptable critique of what I understand of Theravada Buddhism . . . but it’s called the lesser vehicle for a reason, man.

[ephemeral]

@Xunzian

Since Buddhism established itself as a critique of Hinduism, I think it actually does a pretty good job. Especially since it largely operates on a specific form of proto-logic.

I’m too drunk to delve too much further, but it seems like you are taking an achronistic view. Especially since you are defining philosophy in the same way it has been defined in the west.

In short, I am uncertain that your critique couldn’t be answered simply by saying: If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha.

Edit: What kind of Buddhism have you learned about? In my (admittedly intoxicated) state, it could serve as an acceptable critique of what I understand of Theravada Buddhism . . . but it’s called the lesser vehicle for a reason, man.

I’m familiar with Vajryana Buddhism.

What are you on? What kind of beer are you drinking?

[Xunzian]

That is a tibetian buddhism, right?

I am unfamiliar with it, but it is an esoteric sect, right? Make sure when you are critiquing a system that you aren’t lost in a specific sect. It is a rich tradition, so easy critiques are hard. But that isn’t to say that there aren’t problems with Buddhism as a whole.

As for the beer I am drinking, I had a Founder’s Devil Dancer (A crazy beer, halfway between a double IPA and a Barleywine), a Jever Pilsner (one of the best beers in the world0, a few ‘The Blacks’ from Brugge (Black is based off an archaic style from Belgium), a crazy russian beer I’ve never heard of, a Stiegl Bock from Austria (very good!), and the red beer (I forget the name) from Eggenburg in Austria. All of them, delicious.