Talk:Criticism of Buddhism

Nominate for Deletion

This article is clearly not approaching the topic from an objective standpoint. The comments the Buddha made about the human body have been taken out of context, the quote from Nietzche is wrong (he considered Buddhism to be a positivist religion) and there are some other dubious pieces of information that have no source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.62.3 (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, but the last AfD was a snow keep (I !voted keep in that as well, but I've come round to the opinion that the existence of this article is a net negative). I might re-nominate it when I get the time; in the meantime, I'll reiterate my support for the removal of the Nietzsche section, and I also think the meditation section should go, because the sources provided are not actually criticizing Buddhist meditation, just meditation as it is popularly practiced in the United States. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

"The comments the Buddha made about the human body have been taken out of context", it's not. I am the one who added this paragraph, in fact I am not even satisfied with just quoting this, the author clearly holds a much more critical attitude in the article than the passage I quoted. The author argues that:

“ Women in Buddhist texts are not only stereotypically jealous but also lustful, deceitful, and defiled. In early Buddhist literature, the Buddha himself keeps repeating that the female body "is a vessel of impurity, full of stinking filth. It is like a rotten pit ... like a toilet, with nine holes pouring all sorts of filth." ... A common trope of male discourse, misogyny can easily be detected in practically all of the major religions. As noted earlier, Buddhist historians have been particularly embarrassed by the story regarding the foundation of the nuns' order. Even if this Vinaya tradition is apocryphal, it remains to evaluate to what extent early Buddhism was misogynistic. ”

Unexplained accusations of conforming to a reliable source are "taken out of the context" are obvious Wikipedia:OR. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 06:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

You're right to say that the cited author has a negative attitude towards Buddhism, that's precisely the problem. The same page you quote from also notes that some scholars "see such statements as aberrant and not truly Buddhist" or believe that "such statements should be taken simply as adjuncts to meditation on the impurity of the human body ... [being] very carefully restricted to the goal of taming the meditator's own mind". Describing only one point of view is a violation of WP:BALANCE. To give an unbiased overview of a dispute, we ideally need sources which do not take sides in the dispute. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sojourner in the earth: First of all, the author uses a great deal of space in his article to show to justify why he disagrees with Nancy (by the way, of the two paragraphs you quoted, one is from a specific scholar and the other is from a number of scholars), and it's worth considering at least how much weight is given to both sides. Or at least the fact that the Buddha himself said it is a fact and worth writing about. Secondly, holding a critical/negative attitude doesn't mean it's necessarily not worth writing about; consider David Hume's criticism of Christianity. Finally, from the three sources I've cited (note that they are not titled something like "Criticizing Buddhist Attitudes Toward Women", but rather "Women in Buddhism", also considering the present writing style of Women in Buddhism), it seems that this author's view is rather the mainstream one. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 00:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear; I didn't mean to say that the author's opinion is not worth writing about – I meant that we shouldn't write only about the opinions of people on one side of the debate to the exclusion of those on the other side. To take your own example, Criticism of Christianity presents Hume's argument against miracles, but also says that the Catholic Church and certain apologetic writers reject those arguments. Of course it's the mainstream opinion that miracles are not real, but that doesn't mean that we as an encyclopedia should take that stand; instead, we should neutrally describe the state of the discussion. In this case, we have a nuanced topic that has been written about in different ways by different authors; it is non-neutral to cherry-pick the most negative things that people have said about the topic and present those as if they represented the full range of views. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 07:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say that the author's opinion is not worth writing about – I meant that we shouldn't write only about the opinions of people on one side of the debate to the exclusion of those on the other side. Yes, that's certainly true, however to be honest, I haven't found many authors with a positive view on the subject. Any suggestions for better organizing content on this? Of course it's the mainstream opinion that miracles are not real, but that doesn't mean that we as an encyclopedia should take that stand; Honestly, there is something wrong with the way you phrased it. In the jurisprudence I've seen in the past, it depends. In roughly 20% of the jurisprudence the prevailing view is described as fact (see Wikipedia:CHARLATANS), leaving 80% of the jurisprudence as you say. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 09:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

If you're looking for positive views, a good starting point would be the sources cited by Faure. The quotes he provides from Nancy Schuster are from "Yoga-Master Dharmamitra and Clerical Misogyny in Fifth Century Buddhism", The Tibet Jounal 9(4), 1984, p. 41, JSTOR 43302197. That article has some good information but it's pretty specialized. A more general overview can be found in a chapter written by Schuster in A. Scharma (ed.), Women in World Religions, 1987, State University of New York Press, pp. 105–133.

As I said above, however, the way to find out the respective prominence of each particular point of view is to find sources that neutrally summarize the debate. Here are two that might be useful [1] [2]. But then again, all this would only seem to be duplicating the work done by the authors of the Women in Buddhism article. All that's really needed here (if anything) is a summary style paragraph pointing readers to that article. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 09:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I've read the works, all of them are in fact more critical than I would have expected, for instance, although Nancy's 1987 work says she does not consider Buddhism to be anti-female, she does, in fact, list a number of unfavourable elements in the later text (pp. 118-120). The only thing that's problematic is Nancy's 1984 work (which also happens to be the first one you listed), and very unfortunately the work overly neglects the fusion of Buddhism and Confucianism. The papers I've seen basically all point to the problem that, despite some writings depicting women's duties, women's status itself is what triggers the problem.

Again with reference to the Criticism of Christianity, I think a better way to write this would be to include at the beginning, "Although women themselves often appear and play an important role in Buddhist texts, much of the Buddhist literature often tends to marginalise the notion of 'femininity' itself."

All that's really needed here (if anything) is a summary style paragraph pointing readers to that article. Well... I guess that statement is a little too unfounded now. Not only does the entry for Women in Buddhism itself fail to be as specific about the history of women as Women in Christianity, and the analysis of the scriptures themselves is lacking, but also the entry for the Criticism of Christianity is not a summary of the Women in Christianity entry, but rather a paragraph of summarised criticism. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 06:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

If you think Women in Buddhism needs improvement, then your efforts would be better directed towards working on that article, rather than turning this one into a content fork.

In any case, I don't think there's anything more to be gained from further back-and-forth. I'm sorry to say that your above comment gives the impression that you have wilfully disregarded Schuster's conclusions on the grounds that they don't align with your own point of view. If, having read the sources I provided, you still believe that the paragraph you added to this article accurately represents the full range of views on the subject, then I don't know what else to say to you.

I won't remove the section because it appears at the moment that I'm the only one objecting to it (aside from the IP who started the discussion). But I urge you to reconsider your approach. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 10:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sojourner in the earth: accurately represents the full range of views on the subject, then I don't know what else to say to you. It certainly isn't. However, the problem is that we are writing a criticism article, and I never argued in the article that Buddhism itself is anti-feminine, I am talking about the fact that women are often depicted as lewd in early texts - even if men are equally so - but that has become a point on which Buddhism has been criticised for. Thus, I really can't understand why similar content in similar situations can appear in Criticism of Christianity#Christianity and women, but not here. I also hereby sincerely hope that you will give a reason that will keep it different from several other similar articles (Criticism of Christianity#Christianity and women, Criticism of Islam#Women in Islam, Criticism of Jainism#Status of women), or some other alternative. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 13:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Highly incomplete coverage of topic (as of 3 Feb 2024) - needs updating or deletion

The page title is "Criticism of Buddhism", yet the only criticism given (as of 3 Feb 2024) is feminist criticism. The page also contains a link to "Women in Buddhism" which covers that approach in more depth and with more balance.

The "Criticism of Buddhism" page needs expansion to give comprehensive coverage of the multiple various viewpoints from which there has been criticism of Buddhism. Feminist criticism should be including as a heading for one viewpoint among them, some relevant information (more objective and balanced information than currently given) should be given under that heading, and the link to "Women in Buddhism" should be available for more detail.

At present (3 Feb 2024) the page "Criticism of Buddhism" is a redundant page in that the "Women in Buddhism" page gives better coverage of the entire contents of the "Criticism of Buddhism" page in its current form. Accordingly, unless the page is updated as set out in the above paragraph, it should be deleted. 2400:2650:3C42:8F00:5848:8184:327:3484 (talk) 07:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Karma and 'god and evil'

This edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Buddhism&curid=10510197&diff=1219861630&oldid=1219839265 proposes a number of objections to the doctrine of karma that strike me as overly simplistic.

• Atonement: you can't purge the karmic seeds sown by your actions through expressions of regret, or somehow making up for those actions with other actions.
• Proportionality: the idea that karma is like a set of scales, such that you can balance 'good' actions with 'bad' ones is from some kind of pop Buddhism. Each action sows its seeds independently; they don't somehow balance out.
• Death: I don't think it's true that death is considered the ultimate evil. Like suffering, it's just the reality of samsara.
• Free will: this is a preoccupation of Western philosophers, again based on a simplistic view of karma. Karma isn't supposed to be seen as deterministic. Rather, karmic traces are seen as predispositions.

The claims are not cited, so they are eligible for reversion; but my remarks above are equally uncited, so I'm not reverting. Does anyone have citations for the claims, that might put them in context? MrDemeanour (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, I don't have the book on hand, but it looks like the citation is supposed to be the Whitley Kaufman text mentioned in that paragraph. If someone who has the book can confirm or rebut the edit, we can take action. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

@MrDemeanour: Hi. I have made the citation above. User:HandThatFeeds is correct in saying that it is Whitley's source that criticized so. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 05:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

References