can u do some criticism of buddhism?

Question

i am writting a paper on buddhism and existence of suffering,, could u give me some suggestion,,,
by writting some criticism of buddhism.... why all people cant practice buddhism? and how is buddhism unable to follow the path of peace and some examples that contrast with buddhism non-violence philosophy..
and some comparision (pros and cons) of buddhism with christianity and hinduism.


sorry for the trouble
thankx :)

Answer 1

Buddhism preaches that the physical world is an illusion, and that the path to enlightenment is an inward path. Some people say that because of this, Buddhists are unable to defend themselves from aggression, as in the Chinese takeover of Tibet and elsewhere. Others say that this inward focus leads to a neglect of real world problems, such as helping the poor and fighting injustice.

Answer 2

Hey dude,

I'm gonna level with ya. What type of Buddhism are you talking about? Thereavada, Yagachara, Abhidarhma, Mudyamika, Chan, Rinzai Zen, Soto Zen, Pure Land? *Breaths*

All of these sects have different philosophies based on those the Buddha put forward.

Even if we look at the most basic of Buddhist assumptions, the 4 noble truths, all these different sects color them in their own belief. Abhidarma believes the world is real, not illusory, but any object that is made of parts: all objects save atoms (the philosophical concept not the physics) have no meaning. Chan Buddhism, Rinzai and Soto Zen on the other hand believe the world is entirely illusory.

That said. if one finds the the human condition is not one of suffering, then why be Buddhist, you disagree with the most basic point. Also, some of the sects require you to be a monk in order to be Buddhist and very few people are prepared to do that.

Answer 3

Absolute Buddhism is hard for everyone to achieve, because it doesn't have the omnipotent God-parent figure so easy/comforting for westerners (or just animals in general) to relate to. Therefore it seems like more of an intellectual religion (vs archtypal/emotional).

A dog's master is much like a God as Christians relate.
Now consider a Buddhist dog:

Could a dog understand the dualism and oneness of everything?

Can a dog remember or feel connected to past lives?

Can a dog conciousnesly transcend his own conciousness?

Hmm, maybe so. But the average Walmart shopper?

Also, I don't agree with comment against detachment. A high level Buddhist does much good in tiny movements. Whereas many westerners do much bad in inefficient, unaware, vulgar, and frenetic movements. Good luck.

Answer 4

There are some grievance on the muse of divisions of Buddhism is for romance for all mankind and residing beings, there's a important portion of Buddhists who're meat eaters. (A small share who're in contrast view are vegetarilans) 2. Sanyasins custom does not bar from accepting rituals in favour of sanyasins. Ceremonies are achieved interior the buddhist properties with serveral selections to the Bikshus. 3. circumstances exist whilst sanysin's have wield weapons for killing for political reasons. in any different case, the preachings of Buddhism are stable for all mankind, even though it says there is no author. yet buddha himself is respected as God by the followers, which works against Buddhism. the main subject of love and time-honored brotherhood is somewhat a element to be liked of Buddhism. VR

Answer 5

*Buddhism has no one defining point. It has been left open to complete interpretation.

*There are few true Buddhists in the world, only people with Buddhist ideals, many atheists tend to adopt these ideas.

*Buddhism does not offer an explanation as to the origin of the universe and it does not offer any savior or supreme entity.

*Buddhism takes years of dedication, and requires commitment that the majority of city dwellers are not able to give.

*All three of these religions attempt to refine all of the positive aspects of the human persona.

*Each religion tends to shape and mold the minds of men, restricting the natural free thinking aspects of our minds.

Answer 6

I don't agree with the kind of criticism you want to hear. I think those are wrong criticisms.

You have to learn about something before you make a criticism of it. You can't come up with a conclusion and then look for for a way to support it - that's putting the horse before the carriage.

Think of it like science - if a scientist was to say, "OK, I work for a tobacco firm and I want to say tobacco doesn't cause cancer," and then he went out and did some experiments that he made up and then 'concluded' that tobacco doesn't cause cancer, lo and behold... We would say that that is pretty suspect, shady science.

It's the same with philosophy.

I suggest you do more research.

Answer 7

It bugs us this personal war on attachment. Happens to like attachment. It almost seams that Buddhists want to kill the very thing they value most. Guess we’re just jealous we’re not enlightened yet.

Answer 8

You are not going about your paper the right way.

You have a thesis with no support, and your asking us to support your empty thesis.

You don't need to apologize, to us, for the trouble. The trouble is yours.

PS-If you have any support for your thesis, can you please post it in the "additional details" section of your question?