• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Criticism of Hinduism and Buddhism.

Buddha Dharma

Dharma Practitioner
Buddhism claims to be for the purpose of improving the world, yet the world seems not much changed although the religion has been around for millennia.

Are you saying that from an eastern historical perspective? Or a personal one?

Gautama Buddha does not seem to have been an extremely nice person

Gautama Buddha's primary concern wasn't to be 'nice', as westerners understand that word to mean. Gautama Buddha wasn't trying to tickle anybody's ears, which may be how some define nice.

How about Jesus? Was his primary concern being 'nice'?

Buddhism may transform someone into a nicer person, but that isn't the primary objective. The primary objective is to wake you up from this mesmerizing false grasp on reality called Samsara.

That being said, I don't know of many people that had the Buddha's kind of love for everything universally, and insisted his followers do the same. Not just in word, but actual deed. The Buddha said one has departed from him if they act in the ways some Christians act while claiming to love. You know: like how Christians treat LGBT people.

Prejudice may happen in Buddhism, but the Buddha didn't want it in the Sangha, and the Vinaya is clear he didn't allow it while he lived. Any monk the Blessed One would have caught encouraging prejudice and hatred, he would have expelled from the Sangha. Hatred is a poisonous emotion in Buddhism, as is prejudice. We call it: acting in aversion.

The Buddha accepted both women and homosexuals into the monastic orders, and into the lay community.

I invite you to think about these things more.

because he left his family

He left them how? In what state? Why don't you expound?
 
Last edited:

ajay0

Well-Known Member
I was just wondering what criticisms people on here had about Buddhism and Hinduism?

A criticism of mine with respect to Hinduism and Buddhism, is that many Hindu and Buddhist laymen do not try to undertand the higher philosophies like that of Advaita or Shunyata, and create a correct theoretical and practical philosophical culture revolving around them.

Many are getting enchanted with the modern materialistic and consumerist culture, developing cravings for sensory pleasures and aversion for unpleasant experiences even if useful, and strengthening their egos thereby in the process. Later on they complain about the suffering or misery, conflict and lack of peace in their lives, and wonder where they have gone wrong.

A little philosophical study about the nature of the mind and the ephemeral world , could have saved them much of their distress due to foolish actions motivated by greed and gratification.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
Don't get me wrong. I'm not disparaging Hindus. You can see from my profile that I identify as a Hindu, but all belief systems, philosophies and technologies may benefit from constructive criticism.
If historical facts threaten one's world-view, maybe that world-view needs revision.

I kind of agree with you as far as the Manusmṛti and Dharmaśāstra, for example. Much of them, I think, is waaaay outdated. Yet people quote and cling to them as if they were the Vedas themselves and still applicable to life in the 21st century. Manusmṛti and Dharmaśāstra, may have been applicable to the times they were compiled, but I can't see how they are today. I think they are something that needs to be looked at with a critical eye.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
This seems nothing more than an opinion put forward as a certainty, and so it undermines the claim of logic made by the religion. How is it logical to presume everything arises from consciousness? It seems plainly to be an article of faith or an axiom.

The concept of a single origin of all being, Brahman, is well documented in the Upanishads as original text. The commentaries came later, though the text of the Upanishads can be taken at face value. Not to mention they're not of human origin (apaurusheya, literally "not of man").

As far as (un)certainty in the Rig Veda the hymn Nasadiya Sukta itself questions how creation came about, who did it and how. That's one of the distinctions between Hinduism and the Abrahamic religions... Hinduism does question itself.

Then even nothingness was not, nor existence,
There was no air then, nor the heavens beyond it.
What covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping?
Was there then cosmic water, in depths unfathomed?

Then there was neither death nor immortality
nor was there then the torch of night and day.
The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining.
There was that One then, and there was no other.

At first there was only darkness wrapped in darkness.
All this was only unillumined cosmic water.
That One which came to be, enclosed in nothing,
arose at last, born of the power of heat.

In the beginning desire descended on it -
that was the primal seed, born of the mind.
The sages who have searched their hearts with wisdom
know that which is kin to that which is not.

And they have stretched their cord across the void,
and know what was above, and what below.
Seminal powers made fertile mighty forces.
Below was strength, and over it was impulse.

But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
the Devas (gods) themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?

Whence all creation had its origin,
he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows - or maybe even he does not know.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
The concept of a single origin of all being, Brahman, is well documented in the Upanishads as original text. The commentaries came later, though the text of the Upanishads can be taken at face value. Not to mention they're not of human origin (apaurusheya, literally "not of man").
As I am not personally knowledgeable in this matter I will not speak on it.

As far as (un)certainty in the Rig Veda the hymn Nasadiya Sukta itself questions how creation came about, who did it and how. That's one of the distinctions between Hinduism and the Abrahamic religions... Hinduism does question itself.
You would like Abraham. If you came to him then no matter who you were he would bow to you and make you a meal himself and invite you to join him on his quest, and he would tell you of the wisdom of peace. Of course you would have liked him, and so would I had I met him. He was a good man though he made mistakes, some of them really stupid. He is titled the 'Father of many tribes,' and this can be taken several ways. Abraham's children are not reckoned through his physical lineage. There is no limit to who can claim to be of Abraham. All anyone has to do is dedicate themselves to peace, so in that there is quite a broad window for who can be considered Abrahamic. I am not sure that Abrahamic religions do not question themselves and think perhaps you are arguing from the specific to the general. Maybe some specific religions would like you to think that they own Abraham, but that would not be Abrahamic of them. If I say I am a son of Abraham and that I vow to do no harm to anyone, then there is no one who can gainsay me; but if I say I am a son of Abraham and attack others then there is reason to question it. I think it does not require any absolute truth or point of view of the universe or of our origins. There may be some people who are more informed about Abraham than I am, but that is my rough understanding.

Then even nothingness was not, nor existence,
There was no air then, nor the heavens beyond it.
What covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping?
Was there then cosmic water, in depths unfathomed?

Then there was neither death nor immortality
nor was there then the torch of night and day.
The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining.
There was that One then, and there was no other.

At first there was only darkness wrapped in darkness.
All this was only unillumined cosmic water.
That One which came to be, enclosed in nothing,
arose at last, born of the power of heat.

In the beginning desire descended on it -
that was the primal seed, born of the mind.
The sages who have searched their hearts with wisdom
know that which is kin to that which is not.

And they have stretched their cord across the void,
and know what was above, and what below.
Seminal powers made fertile mighty forces.
Below was strength, and over it was impulse.

But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
the Devas (gods) themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?

Whence all creation had its origin,
he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows - or maybe even he does not know.
Thank you for that translation! "Nasadiya Sukta" Ok, I will try to remember it.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Are you saying that from an eastern historical perspective? Or a personal one?
From Wikipedia on Mahayana:
"According to the teachings of Mahāyāna traditions, "Mahāyāna" also refers to the path of the Bodhisattva seeking complete enlightenment for the benefit of all sentient beings, also called "Bodhisattvayāna", or the "Bodhisattva Vehicle"."

Mahayana - Wikipedia

Hence I said that while I was only distantly acquainted with the religion that Buddhism sought to improve the world. That seemed supported by "All sentient beings." Therefore it seems reasonable to require that there should be a certain visible improvement to the world if Buddhism benefits all sentient beings.

Are you saying that from an eastern historical perspective? Or a personal one?
Historically not personally. I did say I was only distantly acquainted and did not claim the last word on the subject, but I think its reasonable to ask where are the results, the change, the improvement. If people are being improved then this should be reflected in the world. Is it so much to ask for from an enlightened being such as the Buddha?

Gautama Buddha's primary concern wasn't to be 'nice', as westerners understand that word to mean. Gautama Buddha wasn't trying to tickle anybody's ears, which may be how some define nice.

How about Jesus? Was his primary concern being 'nice'?
It seems to me that Buddhism attempts to appeal to the whole human both the evil and the good by saying that it is about escaping from Samsara, but if the end result is believed to be compassion then lets not kid ourselves what its actually about. What is the pulling the plug in a sink about? It is about emptying the sink, not about the swirl of the water as it is flushed. It is about results. You want to pull the plug to benefit the being, drain out the self focus in order to obtain a particular result. You can claim the result is escape from Samsara but its actually that you hope to help beings to escape from Samsara, and so it is about compassion and not about Samsara at all. What would Buddha be to us if he had not decided to teach? He'd be not even remembered, and so even if he had managed to escape from Samsara he still would not be the Buddha.

Buddhism may transform someone into a nicer person, but that isn't the primary objective. The primary objective is to wake you up from this mesmerizing false grasp on reality called Samsara.

That being said, I don't know of many people that had the Buddha's kind of love for everything universally, and insisted his followers do the same. Not just in word, but actual deed. The Buddha said one has departed from him if they act in the ways some Christians act while claiming to love. You know: like how Christians treat LGBT people.

Prejudice may happen in Buddhism, but the Buddha didn't want it in the Sangha, and the Vinaya is clear he didn't allow it while he lived. Any monk the Blessed One would have caught encouraging prejudice and hatred, he would have expelled from the Sangha. Hatred is a poisonous emotion in Buddhism, as is prejudice. We call it: acting in aversion.

The Buddha accepted both women and homosexuals into the monastic orders, and into the lay community.

I invite you to think about these things more.
Again, it seems to be about being nice. Certainly it is admirable to give a place for the unwanted to live. I count that as making a positive difference in the world. It is a plus.

He left them how? In what state? Why don't you expound?
He left them with food and wealth to seek to understand old age, sickness and death.
 

ajay0

Well-Known Member
He left them with food and wealth to seek to understand old age, sickness and death.

Siddhartha returned back to his kingdom and palace after enlightenment, with his disciples. His father was furious, but he did impart his teachings to his wife and son, and shortened the learning curve for them radically.
 

Buddha Dharma

Dharma Practitioner
Therefore it seems reasonable to require that there should be a certain visible improvement to the world if Buddhism benefits all sentient beings.

Certainly, there is improvement when the teachings are applied. However, that doesn't mean Buddhists can twist people's arm to practice the Dharma in the societies we traditionally hold a majority in.

The Buddha taught a lot of things. A lot more than a single point about Mahayana's stated objective can address.

I can only give you a Buddhist response and you can accept or reject it. This will be rather lengthy for what I'm used to giving.

First off, the Buddha was realistic about the nature of being an animal. That humans are animals means we have capacity for bad. Our own faculties are sometimes the very leashes that lead us on. The Buddha's diagnosis of the human condition was not idealistic. Indeed, I won't mislead you about it.

The Buddha's diagnosis of the human condition was rather bleak. He acknowledged we are beings capable of destroying ourselves. It is not the Buddha's fault if we do so, seeing as his teaching is now known in virtually every corner of the globe.

The Buddha has told us that anger, hatred, and greed are destructive. We know that the Buddha and even great teachers of other world religions have said these things. We choose not to listen. We choose what parts sound easy to us, and even Buddhists can be guilty of that.

However, the Blessed One wasn't offering a buffet line to pick from at will. He was offering a total explanation of where humans stand and how dire our situation is. When we disregard things he taught, even Buddhists- and decide what parts of his teaching we can simply reject> we do so to our own peril.

The Buddha gave the teaching and there is a certain aspect of responsibility on the part of humans. However, we're only touching on the human aspect.

What I will now proceed to say is the belief of only some Buddhist schools. However, it is my belief, and so I do right to speak about it. It is the belief of the great Mahayana vehicle, and it is the hope of all Buddhists- even the Theravada vehicle.

The Buddha was not an ordinary man. He was born to become a Buddha. In the view of some Mahayana schools including mine, this means he came from the Buddha lands of Nirvana. He is not an ordinary being.

Buddhists leave things as paradox where we cannot possibly describe them in human terms, which is good- since human terms are just that. It is an entire mystery for us how the Buddhas are truthful projections of the sum reality of Nirvana, but I believe and accept the teaching that they are.

Shakyamuni Buddha is like all Buddhas. In him we could see Ultimate Reality reflected. He spoke with the boundless wisdom of the Dharma storehouse of infinite merits. The Blessed One, and by this we also mean that Cosmic Buddha that Shakyamuni reflected in the world> the Blessed One will not let those beings he came into the world to save be ultimately lost.

The Lotus Sutra central to my school teaches a great hope. That the Buddha will at the exact right time save all beings. He can do this because the Dharma is called a storehouse of infinite merits. For reasons going beyond human understanding, the Buddha does not save all beings now. Rather at present, he works through his practitioners, and generates Bodhi fields through us when we act according to the virtues, called the Paramitas in Sanskrit.

The Buddha was not ignorant about the human condition and how prone to delusion we are. How entrapped we can be in our habits and emotions. Unfortunately- has the Buddha's Dharma been perfectly practiced in those countries it reached? No it has not. It has even been joined to political causes like Japan joining the Axis powers during World War II. Buddhism has nothing to do with that, so where the Dharma has been ineffective- this is not because the Dharma is lacking.

When the Dharma has been practiced, the nations it reached thrived. They had peace, great intellectual and philosophical revolutions, and the rulers were just and cared about their people. When those countries departed from the Dharma, the fruits of the Dharma naturally vanished.

Japan and China today are far fallen from the Buddha's Dharma with their pursuit of materialism, consumerism, and profit. This is indeed sad. It is sad to see the degeneration of the Dharma, that the Buddha knew all too well would happen.

I dedicate the merit of my practice everyday to the hope Japan, China, and so on will abandon what the west taught them and return to the Sublime Dharma. I also pray that the west will embrace the Sublime Dharma, which may be the ONLY thing that can save our world from being destroyed by empty consumerism and corporate profiteering.

I am sorry if this seemed preachy on my part. This is what Buddhism historically teaches.

Historically not personally. I did say I was only distantly acquainted and did not claim the last word on the subject, but I think its reasonable to ask where are the results, the change, the improvement. If people are being improved then this should be reflected in the world. Is it so much to ask for from an enlightened being such as the Buddha?

I answered this largely above.

It seems to me that Buddhism attempts to appeal to the whole human both the evil and the good by saying that it is about escaping from Samsara, but if the end result is believed to be compassion then lets not kid ourselves what its actually about.

It is ultimately about both, and as I said in my first post- the traditional view of Mahayana is both will happen.

Again, it seems to be about being nice.

There's a reason I tend to shy away from emphasizing Buddhism's niceness @Brickjectivity. I don't want to encourage any of the secular distortions of the Dharma taking place, and many secular Buddhists think the teachings only 'sound nice'. They aren't serious about the teaching.
 

Buddha Dharma

Dharma Practitioner
I guess I might as well mention too, since it ties in with how Buddhism benefits the world. The practice of meditation and mantras generates all kinds of unknown benefits. Not necessarily for Buddhists. This good sent out can touch anywhere.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Hinduism isn't a homogenous philosophy, it's a crazy-quilt of tribal cults and regional philosophies lumped into a single religious entity during the British Raj.

I find this as strength.

Sanatana Dharma is often just a slavish devotion to traditional propriety; and an archaic, dysfunctional propriety, at that.

I think this para contradicts the previous one.

When ‘assimilation of variety’ is a characteristic how can it at the same time be ‘slavish’?
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
I think Buddha's primary intention was to help people and eliminate suffering. If you don't have that intention the religion is only going to be mental gymnastics, and not really profit anybody in any meaningful way.

Perhaps people use the religion solely for their own purposes. I wouldn't blame it on the religion.
 
Last edited:

Buddha Dharma

Dharma Practitioner
I think Buddha's primary intention was to help people and eliminate suffering. If you don't have that intention the religion is only going to be mental gymnastics, and not really profit anybody in any meaningful way.

One is welcome to this opinion of course. I am simply obligated to point out that secular Buddhism is 'Buddhism and water'. It cuts a lot out, and not only what some may call 'mental gymnastics'- actually beneficial and meritorious practices like the mantra chanting I mentioned briefly.

Buddhism makes claims about the cosmos historically, and the Buddha was not a secular guy only looking to help people live a good life. I am sorry if this sounds confrontational. The Blessed One made strong claims.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
One is welcome to this opinion of course. I am simply obligated to point out that secular Buddhism is 'Buddhism and water'. It cuts a lot out, and not only what some may call 'mental gymnastics'- actually beneficial and meritorious practices like the mantra chanting I mentioned briefly.

Buddhism makes claims about the cosmos historically, and the Buddha was not a secular guy only looking to help people live a good life. I am sorry if this sounds confrontational. The Blessed One made strong claims.

I don't take it confrontationally. You know it better than i do.

I just felt that from reading his story, he had that intention of eliminating suffering, and helping people. I thought that was part of his right intention.

But I surmise from what you say one isn't practicing Buddhism, if one doesn't take it as a whole. They are trying to cherry pick it instead.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I find this as strength.
Depends how you define strength, I think. Ecumenical? Inclusive? Fair handed?
On the other hand, it makes "Hinduism" pretty hard to pin down, with it's many conflicting traditions, mythologies, doctrines, cosmologies and metaphysical outlooks.

When ‘assimilation of variety’ is a characteristic how can it at the same time be ‘slavish’?
Because the various sects are not ecumenical. Sects often insist on its own view of things and dismisses other world-views.
 

carmenara

Member
Where Hinduism is indeed vast and confusing 'from the outside' I find it an embodiment of freedom and a vast repository of knowledge passed down through the ages.

My experiences with other religions in the past had not been so pleasant, due to structure and demands that I "unlearn" this and that. Being herded around was not so good.

Hinduism was like contemplating if I should walk in the door to a sacred place, deciding to take the first step, and having a lot of helping hands within. And there's so many things to do all year round! I see it not as a religion but as a lifestyle now.
 
Top