Lorgar-Aurelian
Active Member
I was just wondering what criticisms people on here had about Buddhism and Hinduism?
-
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.
- Thread starter Lorgar-Aurelian
- Start date
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.
Sanatana Dharma is often just a slavish devotion to traditional propriety; and an archaic, dysfunctional propriety, at that.
Sanatana Dharma is often just a slavish devotion to traditional propriety; and an archaic, dysfunctional propriety, at that.
Last edited:
Should be in the debate section. Otherwise difficult to counter points being made here.
I am certain it would feel that way coming from a monotheological culture. A person used to a neat garden made of only roses may find a forest chaotic and diverse. But its the forest that is natural and not the garden, which was planted on the ashes of the natural forest that was really there (Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Celtics and later native American cultures). We like the crazy quilt very much thank you.
Yes, clearly our way of going about modernity has been inferior compared to... whom exactly? Japan's drive to modernity led to nuclear bombs getting dropped on her, we all know how much violence has gone on in the transformation of China and Russia, same for Europe. Not every nation has the opportunity of starting in an entirely new land made vacant of its earlier folks by umm... less than ethical means.
...and maybe fix the thread title to correct "Hi nudism" to "Hinduism." (I think in might be some Jains who go around nude, not Hindus, but I could be wrong.
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.
Ok what follows is an opinion by me, but I am only distantly acquainted with the two religions:
Some Hindus think existence and everything arises out of a great consciousness. The idea may have utility as a model but is too often put forward as an absolute physical fact. I do not like that, perhaps because it reminds me of creationism. 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.
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. Is it truly better than no religion? Gautama Buddha does not seem to have been an extremely nice person, because he left his family. I have heard that Buddhists sometimes view this as a virtue, which I think is tragic, and though I do not have any way to substantiate it I believe it to be true. In addition Buddhism can be corrupted and turned against people just like any religion can, so again how can it claim to be for the purpose of improving the world?
Some Hindus think existence and everything arises out of a great consciousness. The idea may have utility as a model but is too often put forward as an absolute physical fact. I do not like that, perhaps because it reminds me of creationism. 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.
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. Is it truly better than no religion? Gautama Buddha does not seem to have been an extremely nice person, because he left his family. I have heard that Buddhists sometimes view this as a virtue, which I think is tragic, and though I do not have any way to substantiate it I believe it to be true. In addition Buddhism can be corrupted and turned against people just like any religion can, so again how can it claim to be for the purpose of improving the world?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Most I've come across, say Buddhism is boring and dosent do anything for them. I actually agree with the criticism and is primarily why I continue on with it.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I agree.
There is good and bad all mixed up of course. It would be silly to attribute supreme perfection to any worldview, including Hinduism or Buddhism. My position is clear, anything that creates suffering for people is to be condemned. This standard holds for all the things within Hinduism too.
You're against karma then? Individuals create their own suffering, no?
Individuals create the conditions that make them vulnerable to suffering, but no they do not create it. There are two ways this goes, one is born in a world driven by desires so that suffering is ubiquitous. Thus if I desire to be wealthy, that desires propels me in a world where disparity of wealth is possible. The other comes from ignorance of true state of affairs, like Arjuna before the battle. That's my take on it. But I do not believe that any suffering is deserved or just or that the Jews who suffered the holocaust did so because they did something particularly evil in a previous life.
Thank you. lol.
Why lol?
Because Hinduism is vast, and has many different takes on a lot of things. I view it that way, not the 'I'm right, and you're wrong' way. So I personally find any statements as if they are fact to be humorous. But that's just me.
Oh. It's an interpretation. I am not claiming anything normative.
Buddha Dharma
Dharma Practitioner
I think many westerners misunderstand what the Dharmic religions are getting at with illusion. We are not saying the world is an illusion in itself. The ways we relate to it through the faculties and emotions can be illusory.
I can prove in Buddhism's case that the teaching is not that the world is illusory, and I'll let a Hindu sort out the rest. The Buddha had it suggested to him by some philosophers that reality is only an illusion generated inside the mind. He quipped to them that if that were so- why can't mind generate a pleasant illusion for itself? Since the mind seems to desire it...
Rather Buddhism is about confronting reality in a radical way by western sensibilities- by taking off the lens of mind with it's ideas and impressions.