Criticism of Buddhism

Most schools of Buddhism have more rules for bhikkunis (nuns) than bhikkus (monk) lineages. Theravada Buddhists explain that in the time of the Buddha, nuns had such problems like safety if they were to be ordained the same way as monks who traveled around in the forest and between cities. Thus, more rules have to be created for nuns; for instance: nuns are forbidden to travel alone.[1]

Alexander Berzin referred to the Dalai Lama's statement at the 2007 Hamburg congress:[2]

Sometimes in religion there has been an emphasis on male importance. In Buddhism, however, the highest vows, namely the bhikshu and bhikshuni ones, are equal and entail the same rights. This is the case despite the fact that in some ritual areas, due to social custom, bhikshus go first. But Buddha gave the basic rights equally to both sangha groups. There is no point in discussing whether or not to revive the bhikshuni ordination; the question is merely how to do so properly within the context of the Vinaya.

The most criticised doctrine is found in Amida Buddha's vow 35: "The Buddha established the Vow of transformation [women] into men, Thereby vowing to enable women to attain Buddhahood".[3] Earlier limitations on attainment of Buddhahood by women were abolished in the Lotus Sutra which opened the direct path to enlightenment for women equally to men.[4] According to Nichiren "Only in the Lotus Sutra do we read that a woman who embraces this sutra not only excels all other women but surpasses all men".[5]

In medieval Southeast Asia, there were a number of Buddhist states, including the Pagan Kingdom, the Sukhothai Kingdom, and the Kingdom of Polonnaruwa. In Sri Lanka especially, modern monks frequently involve themselves in nationalist politics.[6] These Buddhist nationalists have been opposed by the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement, a self-governance movement led by the Buddhist A. T. Ariyaratne and based in Buddhist ideals, who condemn the use of violence and the denial of human rights to Tamils and other non-Buddhists.[7]

Maung Zarni, a Burmese democracy advocate, human rights campaigner, and a research fellow at the London School of Economics who has written on the violence in Myanmar and Sri Lanka, states that there is no room for fundamentalism in Buddhism. "No Buddhist can be nationalistic," said Zarni, "There is no country for Buddhists. I mean, no such thing as ‘me,’ ‘my’ community, ‘my’ country, ‘my’ race or even ‘my’ faith."[8]

Violence in Buddhism refers to acts of violence and aggression committed by Buddhists with religious, political, and socio-cultural motivations. Buddhism is generally seen as among the religious traditions least associated with violence,[9] but in the history of Buddhism there have been acts of violence directed, fomented or inspired by Buddhists.[10]

Friedrich Nietzsche, through Schopenhauer whose pessimism was highly influenced by Buddhist philosophy, interpreted Buddhism as a life-negating philosophy that seeks to escape an existence dominated by suffering. According to Omar Moad, Nietzsche misunderstood the meaning of Buddhist doctrine.[11] The term Dukkha has different meanings and is neither pessimistic nor optimistic.[12][13] Dukkha may mean disappointment, desires, cravings, bereavement, unfulfillment, or dissatisfaction.[14]

Lama Surya Das emphasizes the matter-of-fact nature of Dukkha:[15]

Buddha Dharma does not teach that everything is suffering. What Buddhism does say is that life, by its nature, is difficult, flawed, and imperfect. [...] That's the nature of life, and that's the First Noble Truth. From the Buddhist point of view, this is not a judgement of life's joys and sorrows; this is a simple, down-to-earth, matter-of-fact description.

While the Buddha describes the flawed and imperfect nature of life in the first noble truth, he also points to the causes that underlie this imperfection and how to bring these causes to an end.[16]

Buddhism is sometimes seen as antithetical to much of Confucian philosophy. Due to the focus on social roles as the source of ethical obligation in Confucianism compared to the seemingly inherent nonconformity of Buddhism, there was a sustained ethical critique of Buddhism in early Confucianism. While Buddhism entails the belief there is nothing rightfully considered the self, Confucianism emphasized the self a great deal in their doctrines of self-development and societal roles. As a consequence Buddhism was considered by many to be nihilistic.[17]

Sam Harris, a prominent proponent of New Atheism[18] and practitioner of Buddhist meditation, claims that many practitioners of Buddhism improperly treat it as a religion, criticizes their beliefs as "naive, petitionary, and superstitious," and claims that such beliefs impede the spread of Buddhist principles.[19] However, he has also underlined that these beliefs stem from the tendency of some Buddhists to not follow a fundamental teaching of Buddhism; namely, to believe a teaching only with sufficient evidence.[20]

Stephen Batchelor, author of "Buddhism without Beliefs" has written about karma and rebirth, asserting that the Buddha “did not claim to have had experience that granted him privileged, esoteric knowledge of how the universe ticks”. However, his critics point out that his assertion is contrary to the earliest written records of the Buddha's teaching as well as hundreds of years of academic study on the topic. They also point to a lack of scholarly research on Batchelor's part to give credibility to his claims; and suggest that Batchelor may be attempting to reshape Buddhism due to his own discomfort with concepts such as karma and rebirth.[21]