Refuting Buddhism

[TheAtheist]

The closest thing we have in the west to Buddhist philosophy is the social science of Semiotics, or the science of signs and how our brains “work” in regard to signification. :

You might also want to look up the writings of the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, specifically his later work regarding “language games”.

Many schools of Buddhism (and to be complete on this matter, Non-Dual/Advaita Vedantic Hinduism) distrusts the ability of the spoken/written language in its ability to adequately communicate about reality.

Ultimately for them, absolute Truth can only be conveyed via Experience (even verified Empirical Data isn’t the gold standard). Otherwise there is a tendency to start confusing ideas about The Thing In and of Itself, the Mental Conception of the Thing, and the Symbol of the Thing.

I think one of the reasons why so many Westerners (be you Christians, Atheists, whatever), have such a hard time trying to understand what the Buddhists (or any of the other Dharmic faiths for that matter) believe is because their underlying intellectual structure partakes of a variety of different subfields/disciplines which the West in its historical progression has put into these nice neat little boxes.

The flaw in this line of thinking, is to believe that those categorizations are universal.

As i’ve often quoted a Chinese friend of mine who is actually one of yours (he is Catholic)

Putting the issue of the meaning and nuances behind words aside, because that’s a whole other can of worms. What about Logic? In order for dialogue or debate to occur, these rules of understanding need to be established. But is the logic systems of Aristotle compatible with Dharmakirti? And do either one of them have compatibility with my own native tradition which jettisoned a formal understanding of logic in its philosophic discourse until Buddhism showed up at our doorstep with Dharmakirti’s manuals?

If the words we use to translate foreign words do not carry the same nuances, if the rules of understanding are in conflict, and if the history of development of ideas is not adequately conveyed - can we really “speak about” another system of thought that emanates outside of our respective cultures in an informed sense?

Or are we simply tilting Strawmen?

I kind of buy into his statement.

Heck, to a certain degree this thread (along with the “How to speak with Hindus” thread hanging around here) kind of proves his point.

These religions that fall out of the Western/Middle Eastern experience are, to draw an analogy, running off a different Operating System.

Yet, when discussed on this or other forums, there’s a tendency to slip back into Aristotlean-Analytical thinking (because that’s your baseline) when evaluating this concepts AND investing meanings/nuances to the translated words when those nuances do not exist in the Original definitions.

Don’t get me wrong, this happens in the reverse direction as well. I remember when I had to try to explain to a number of Hindu students what the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation was…

4 Hours… 4 Hours of parsing out the words like Homoousios, Hypostasis, Hypostatic Union, and Oikonomia (not exactly easy theological terms to translate into English!)…back into a tongue they understood approximate words.

…and then striking down all the erroneous conceptions those words used bring up.

Ex. Oikonomia/οἰκονομία In Greek -->Economy in English. → अर्थ प्रबन्धन in Hindi

Which resulted in the comment of “So this Jesus, he had some sort of financial plan tied to his Resurrection?”

:crying:

Obviously something got lost in translation which required a lot of explanation.

 

[Christ_is_Risen]

You might also want to look up the writings of the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, specifically his later work regarding “language games”.

Many schools of Buddhism (and to be complete on this matter, Non-Dual/Advaita Vedantic Hinduism) distrusts the ability of the spoken/written language in its ability to adequately communicate about reality.

Ultimately for them, absolute Truth can only be conveyed via Experience (even verified Empirical Data isn’t the gold standard). Otherwise there is a tendency to start confusing ideas about The Thing In and of Itself, the Mental Conception of the Thing, and the Symbol of the Thing.

I think one of the reasons why so many Westerners (be you Christians, Atheists, whatever), have such a hard time trying to understand what the Buddhists (or any of the other Dharmic faiths for that matter) believe is because their underlying intellectual structure partakes of a variety of different subfields/disciplines which the West in its historical progression has put into these nice neat little boxes.

The flaw in this line of thinking, is to believe that those categorizations are universal.

As i’ve often quoted a Chinese friend of mine who is actually one of yours (he is Catholic)

I kind of buy into his statement.

Heck, to a certain degree this thread (along with the “How to speak with Hindus” thread hanging around here) kind of proves his point.

These religions that fall out of the Western/Middle Eastern experience are, to draw an analogy, running off a different Operating System.

Yet, when discussed on this or other forums, there’s a tendency to slip back into Aristotlean-Analytical thinking (because that’s your baseline) when evaluating this concepts AND investing meanings/nuances to the translated words when those nuances do not exist in the Original definitions.

Don’t get me wrong, this happens in the reverse direction as well. I remember when I had to try to explain to a number of Hindu students what the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation was…

4 Hours… 4 Hours of parsing out the words like Homoousios, Hypostasis, Hypostatic Union, and Oikonomia (not exactly easy theological terms to translate into English!)…back into a tongue they understood approximate words.

…and then striking down all the erroneous conceptions those words used bring up.

Ex. Oikonomia/οἰκονομία In Greek -->Economy in English. → अर्थ प्रबन्धन in Hindi

Which resulted in the comment of “So this Jesus, he had some sort of financial plan tied to his Resurrection?”

:crying:

Obviously something got lost in translation which required a lot of explanation.

I tried to read Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus once. Let me say it was the most rewarding pg. 1 of a book I ever made it through. I think it took me a week.

 

[rossum]

These religions that fall out of the Western/Middle Eastern experience are, to draw an analogy, running off a different Operating System.

I am so going to steal that. I’m a computer geek so it’s just perfect for me.

Thanks,

rossum

 

[TheAtheist]

I tried to read Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus once. Let me say it was the most rewarding pg. 1 of a book I ever made it through. I think it took me a week.

Its a rather impressive book. I actually had to be “hand-held” through it by a Wittgenstein specialist (i’m a neurobiologist by training, so i am out of my element at times). I was told the interesting fact that Wittgenstein designed the book in a manner that all propositions could logically followed from the previous propositions…no matter where one started in the book.

That being said, he did end up refuting that Tractatus due to that same…i wouldn’t say mistrust…but perhaps awareness of the limitations of language.

I am so going to steal that. I’m a computer geek so it’s just perfect for me.

Free of charge. I robbed that analogy from someone else who is much more apt with these matters.

Besides, its a very good analogy no?

I just find that these general “Let’s Refute _________” on any forum, this one, some of the Islamic ones i point my head into, the New Atheists ones (those irritate me the most), etc. etc. are just well… less than edifying.

Its not I expect a Catholic to accept Buddhism, or Jew (is that political correct to say Jew? something i’ve never quite figured out) to accept Islam, etc. etc.

But generally, if one wants to offer a criticism that’s of worth/value it usually implies that the person has a good understanding of the object of criticism.

And that’s just not really the case when someone here for instance, decides to talk about a religious tradition that falls outside of their cultural sphere.

And I get caveats to all of this, i really do. We’re in the “Catholic Clubhouse” right now, nothing wrong with that because there are multiple Clubhouses strewn across the internet. But being in a Clubhouse of course implies a sense that its members may simply wish to come to a place where they could be proud members of the cause they have signed up to.

Then there’s the age thing of course, generalized lack of experience or limited experience.

And I can’t really hold the whole of the CAF membership to the standards of people like Contarini, Meltzerboy, or Carvadossi ( I mean at least two of them are university-tenured religion professors) - as much as I love reading their posts. Heck i’ve had to rethink a couple issues because of their thoughts.

Yet one can hope…for something better.

---

To the OP, you asked how might a person refute Buddhism.

If you are still bothering to read this, may I ask two simple questions

1.) Is the purpose simply to refute their philosophical basis?

Have you possiblely considered that hoping to find a paragraph or two written on a website might not exactly be the best way to go about doing that?

Think on this for a second - many Catholics here often speak about how they are misunderstood to those who are outside their faith.

Well if that’s truly the case (i do think it is), then it kind of puts the onus on you to not only understand your own faith correctly but to understand the other guys or gals also.

Otherwise, you are doing the same exact thing that you don’t want to happen to your most cherish beliefs.

And i know you young-ins don’t like to hear this but, usually understanding requires work, and work requires a lot reading. And interaction with the people you are seeking to i guess critique.

2.) But if your goal is conversion, well that’s a different story altogether.

In fact, another member of CAF actually gave the "right’ answer on this thread.

You know, the Carmelite and Jesuit missionaries who show up in my neck of the woods along with those Missionaries of Charity (the group that your Mother Teresa belonged to) - they actually follow that suggestion whether they are getting airtime on the News or if you bump into them in the streets of Mumbai.

Be like Christ.

Easy to understand, incredibly hard to pull off.

But in either scenario 1 or scenario 2 , whether your after the mind or the heart one things for sure some, i guess you folks use the colloquoism “elbow-grease” has to be expended on your part.

Good luck to you.

 

[josesiem]

I practiced Buddhism for about 13 years and then slowly converted to Catholicism. It’s been taking/took me a long time to come around to a Christian way of seeing things. Here are my thoughts about this.

Paul Williams, one of the most well-known scholars of Buddhism, converted to Catholicism a number of years ago and has written his critiques of Buddhism, which are as expected coherent and sound. They don’t disprove Buddhism, since that’s not possible, however they show some of the unsavory aspects of it.

If you want to refute Buddhism, you have to choose your target wisely. Best to stick with the Theravada tradition, since it’s probably what the Buddha actually taught. Other Mahayana traditions are easy pickings.

The reason I found Buddhism unappealing after so many years is manifold. FWIW, I’ll state a couple here. I’m not interested in debating these points, since I’ve done that many times over the years. Buddhists are as dogmatic as other religious.

The ultimate worldview of Buddhism is pessimistic, in that, the Buddha saw all of existence (the six realms) as unsatisfactory and “suffering”. He called it a “whole heap and mass of suffering.” Rebirth in any realm, even a God realm, contained suffering and was best avoided, i.e., achieve Nibbana.

I find this a bleak view of life. Life’s ultimate purpose is to make sure you never “live” again. The end game of Buddhism is the complete extinction of all life. Do the math and follow the logic – this is the way it is. All beings will eventually escape the six realms and acheive nibbana, which is a blowing-out, an extinction of the rebirth of the self. Notice that nibbana is not a rebirth into some better, blissed-out realm or heaven – it’s not rebirth at all. It’s the end of birth, hence life.

Buddhism is an extremely difficult path to follow if you want to attain the end goal. If you have family and or kids it’s nearly impossible. This is why so many popular, lay-based movements sprang up a few centuries after the Buddha’s demise: Pure Land, the Lotus Sutra, and Mahayana, in general. The Buddha’s teaching was really for the few, who had eyes to see and ears to hear. Lay people’s best shot was to be reborn as a monk in the next life – this was achieved through constant giving to the monks and other good deeds.

Paul Williams notes that what is reborn is not “you”. “You” cease to effectively exist after death. Your memories, history, etc. is finished at death. All that is carried is your mind-impressions, which might be likened to energetic imprints, and these, depending on what imprints surface at that time, take on new physical form. Thus, even if you were a saint this life, you may be reborn in hell next life due to something you did in 2184 BC. Differing with Hindu thought, the Buddha taught there is no solid core of a person that persists from life to life, but rather, like I noted above, impersonal, energetic imprints manifest in physical form.

That’s enough for now. I’d be happy to answer questions. Buddhism was my life for many years – I still greatly respect it, however I feel it requires a great deal of faith – perhaps less than being a Christian – nevertheless, a great deal of faith to follow the Buddhist path.

 

[rossum]

Life’s ultimate purpose is to make sure you never “live” again.

Not so much a purpose as an observation. You are not the person you were a year ago, the person you were back then no longer exists. That person can never live again, s/he is confined irrevocably to the past no matter what you do.

“You can never step in the same river twice, because it is not the same river and it is not the same you.”

rossum

 

[TheAtheist]

**I practiced Buddhism for about 13 years and then slowly converted to Catholicism. **

Ahem.

FINALLY. Informed Criticism via Experiential data.

Paul Williams, one of the most well-known scholars of Buddhism, converted to Catholicism a number of years ago and has written his critiques of Buddhism, which are as expected coherent and sound.

Double

I’m actually surprised no one here had mentioned Paul Williams earlier, given both his professional commitments and his conversion experience to Catholicism.

 

[FireFromHeaven]

Is a mirage nothing? No, it is obviously something. Nothing wouldn’t appear to be water as a mirage appears to be water. Similarly your ‘self’ is not nothing.

Is there any water in a mirage? No, there isn’t. It has the appearance of water, but there is actually no water there at all. Is your ‘self’ what you think it is? No it isn’t. You are not seeing your self, but an illusion, just as illusory as the water in a mirage.

Does the self exist? No.
Does the self not exist? No.
Does the self both exist and not exist? No.
Does the self neither exist not not exist? No.

Words are fingers that point at the moon. They are not the moon.

rossum

Thanks everyone for this very interesting discussion.

Rossum, if words are just fingers then what are these fingers pointing at? What is the moon so to speak? I’m aware that, as you say, words are inadequate to describe this moon, but a general idea would be most helpful.

 

[josesiem]

Not so much a purpose as an observation. You are not the person you were a year ago, the person you were back then no longer exists. That person can never live again, s/he is confined irrevocably to the past no matter what you do.

“You can never step in the same river twice, because it is not the same river and it is not the same you.”

rossum

That’s true. And this is one of those claims of the Buddha that I’d say require a great deal of faith. We all have the experience of being the same, somehow – in fact, Advaita Vedanta uses this feeling of always being an “I” as the basis of their investigation into no-self or reality – but that’s another topic totally. Anyways, no-self is really a matter to be taken on faith until one has the direct experience. And the Buddha said this too. This is why faith is one of the major requirements (five bases/strengths of power), b/c before one attains stream-entry, much of what the Buddha taught is taken on faith.

We can intellectually nod our heads at the “never step in the same river twice” but this insight goes against all human conditioning.

The question is – is what the Buddha taught true, and how can we know it?

The answer: we know it by undertaking the ardent course of meditation and morality until we ourselves have the same experience. Obviously, there’s a problem here – did the meditation produce this insight – IOW, did we condition ourselves to “see” this or is this really at the substratum of our consciousness and we merely discovered the truth, as the Buddha claims.

 

[AveChriste11]

I don’t believe that Buddha is worshipped by Buddhists. But there are many things in Buddhism that contradict Christianity. We could start with the view that creation is the source of all evil and suffering in the world. This contradicts the word of God who said that “it is good.” Then we could move on to our eternal destiny which in Buddhism means that you will become part of the “all”; basically a drop of water in the ocean. You will loose your individuality. Quite the opposite in Christianity where we will be reunited with our bodies at the resurrection and remain who we are.

I haven’t read the entire thread, so someone could have pointed this out already. However I think you are confusing Buddhism with the Advaita (Non-dualistic) school of Hinduism. The idea that all things change, or impermanence is a basic tenet in Buddhism – so therefore the idea that you had a permanent self, an incarnating soul that remains the same was a delusion to begin with. However it would be a mistake to think that the goal is to merge with the Ocean, or All That Is.

I think as per a correlation between Christianity and Buddhism, Christianity teaches that sin and it’s consequences are manifested throughout the Earth. This seems to be something that Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha) realized as he left his Kingdom and ventured into the real world where many had diseases, were poor, and he witnessed death and old age at it’s most intimate levels. Hence he came to the conclusion that life is suffering.

 

[TheAtheist]

The question is – is what the Buddha taught true, and how can we know it?

The answer: we know it by undertaking the ardent course of meditation and morality until we ourselves have the same experience. Obviously, there’s a problem here – did the meditation produce this insight – IOW, did we condition ourselves to “see” this or is this really at the substratum of our consciousness and we merely discovered the truth, as the Buddha claims.

That’s actually the major sticking point in the dialogue between Neuroscience/Cog Sci and Buddhism. Or any of the other religious creeds/faiths/whatever term you choose who engage in a form of “meditation” however so conceived.

Its easy to take metrics about i guess you can say…ancillary effects of the practice in question. A study that comes to mind was one done in Italy on Rosary Prayer and Yogic Mantra chanting and cardiovascular effect put out by the British medical journal a while back.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC61046/

The sample size is small (23 people if i remember correctly), but the effect is at least noticeable.

The primary purposes however - whether its to understand Emptiness, receive a vision of Christ nailed on the Cross, experience the divine presence and oneness of Allah via Muraqaba, etc. etc… we can’t tell whether all of that is simply Conditioning,

The only thing that can be stated, at least from the studies done thus far, is that unless the form of practice has a extra component (such as verbal if you are engaging in some sort of chanting)… the same regions of the brain tend to “light up” on imaging/scans regardless of what one does.

(There are differences of course in certain cases. I’ve been told (although I haven’t seen data…and data is the final arbiter for everything with me at least) that the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius Loyola activate a completely different region…but then again that makes sense given what they are trying to achieve).

But yeah - if you are all engaged in your culturally-specific religious practice and the physiolgoical functions of the brain are very similar…well… one of the options of interpretation that gets placed on the table would seem that all of this is conditioning…

But data sets are still small, and some folks have yet to come to the table (i’m looking dead straight at the Orthodox… come on, can’t you guys spare us one Monastic Hesychast from Mt. Athos. I’m sure Andy Newberg down at Thomas Jefferson Uni’s Neuro department would treat him right. )

 

[rossum]

The question is – is what the Buddha taught true, and how can we know it?

The Buddha taught a path. We can test that the path he taught is true by following that path. As we progress along the path we come to see the expected landmarks along the way. Finding those landmarks, as expected, increases our confidence in the correctness of the path. It is not just the end of the path, but the intermediate stages as well that give us confidence. Faith is required at the start, but as we progress faith is replaced by experience.

The answer: we know it by undertaking the ardent course of meditation and morality until we ourselves have the same experience.

Correct.

Obviously, there’s a problem here – did the meditation produce this insight – IOW, did we condition ourselves to “see” this or is this really at the substratum of our consciousness and we merely discovered the truth, as the Buddha claims.

Not an easy question to answer. To some extent it does not matter, provided suffering is alleviated. Buddhism tends to judge by results, hence the plethora of different techniques that have developed over the centuries. All of those different techniques worked for some people.

rossum

 

[Misplaced_Book]

The OP asked about refuting…not questioning. I have no problem with him/her trying to better understand other belief systems…in fact, I encourage it. Refuting is an entirely different matter and should not be encouraged.

I second this. “Refutation” is a position of antagonism. Does anyone honestly believe that this will bring a Buddhist closer to Christ?

 

[josesiem]

I second this. “Refutation” is a position of antagonism. Does anyone honestly believe that this will bring a Buddhist closer to Christ?

Paul spent his career refuting other doctrines other than Jesus Christ. Being able to refute another worldview/religion is important in today’s multicultural and spiritually promiscuous climate. If you cannot show how x is wrong, then you will not be able to convince the holder of x why he should accept the Gospel.

Furthermore, had I not poked my own holes (at least what I consider to be holes) in Buddhism, I’d never had become a Catholic.

But I agree that we shouldn’t go around unnecessarily antagonizing others.

Jay Smith, a popular evangelist, gives a good defense on the necessity of “offense.” I found this video very interesting. youtube.com/watch?v=4za3QAU_uiQ

 

[FireFromHeaven]

I second this. “Refutation” is a position of antagonism. Does anyone honestly believe that this will bring a Buddhist closer to Christ?

Actually this refutation is much more for my own benefit.

 

[MindNight]

First of all, I am not a buddhist. But to answer this thread’s question (I’ve done lots of research on buddhism), it will be impossible to refute buddhism because, primarily, it does not have one set of beliefs. Rather, it is a philosophy (which was taught by the buddha) that helps you embrace enlightment through your own will. The basic rule of buddhism is “Do unto others as you would like them to do to you”. But the minor rules (or rather components) of that religion varies. If you look at the various traditions in Asia for instance, there are many forms of buddhism. Theravada buddhists are more atheistic in nature than let’s say Zen Buddhists (e.g. Zen’s believe in a hierarchy of different dieties, but they are not creator of the universe, rather only temporarily higher elevated beings which have a certain life span like we do). Of course, there are many other forms apart from theravada and Zen. Some of those other forms actually do for example pray and chant devotions to certain gods and godessess.

So the main point is that it is impossible to refute buddhism as a whole, rather one needs to specifically asks him/herself which of the forms sound more/less resonable. And also, what is the point in trying to find arguments which “refute” a certain religion. I used to waste my time asking for arguments which disprove a certain religion, but all I ended with is a circle of strawment arguments. Thus, it will be more reasonable to ask for “proof” of a certain set of beliefs, since finding proof for the existence makes always more sense than finding proof for its non existence. It’s like me asking, “Can you please disprove the existence of a dragon?”. Why would I want to even disprove a dragon? Is it because I fear its existence? What will I gain by negating the existence? Since the thing is this, if dragons already exist for example, then disproving would be utterly pointless, since you will essentially create strawmen arguments.
The same goes with buddhism, if you don’t particularly like that religion (or “way of life” as buddhists would call it), then don’t believe in it, it’s that simple. Buddhism does not appeal to every single person, and that’s fine, so just believe whatever you already believing in . It’s very possible that buddhism is already fake to begin with, in which in that case there is nothing to worry about. And even if it is true, what good will it do to disprove something which already exists?

By the way, this message was not of hatred in any form, I simply gave my own insights to it so please don’t bash me with insults .

 

[rinnie]

Is a mirage nothing? No, it is obviously something. Nothing wouldn’t appear to be water as a mirage appears to be water. Similarly your ‘self’ is not nothing.

Is there any water in a mirage? No, there isn’t. It has the appearance of water, but there is actually no water there at all. Is your ‘self’ what you think it is? No it isn’t. You are not seeing your self, but an illusion, just as illusory as the water in a mirage.

Does the self exist? No.
Does the self not exist? No.
Does the self both exist and not exist? No.
Does the self neither exist not not exist? No.

Words are fingers that point at the moon. They are not the moon.

rossum

So then what are you if not your self?

 

[rinnie]

I second this. “Refutation” is a position of antagonism. Does anyone honestly believe that this will bring a Buddhist closer to Christ?

Sure the easiest and best thing is to pray for them. Pray that God can work through you and your words and for him to let his grace enter into their hearts through your words.

I mean say when you meet Christ and he says what did I put your here to do? The correct answer would be to do your work. Well how would you do the work of Christ in your life without even mentioning and giving thanks to him for his grace for you to even fulfill this work?

I truly believe the best way to bring anyone to Christ is to imitate him the best way you can morning noon and night. It is by our imitation of Christ that brings him to others.

Then be prepared to teach and know your faith to explain it with the best possible use of the Grace that was given to you by him.

 

[rossum]

So then what are you if not your self?

When I was born, I weighed a few pounds and I could not speak English. Was that my “self”. How come I weigh more now and I can speak English. Does that make me not my “self” any more?

I have changed. I am not what I was, and I will be different again in future. What part of me does not change? Remember that Buddhism does not accept the existence of a soul. A human is analysed into five parts, and all those parts change.

rossum

 

[SteveVH]

When I was born, I weighed a few pounds and I could not speak English. Was that my “self”. How come I weigh more now and I can speak English. Does that make me not my “self” any more?

I have changed. I am not what I was, and I will be different again in future. What part of me does not change? Remember that Buddhism does not accept the existence of a soul. A human is analysed into five parts, and all those parts change.

rossum

The fact that you don’t accept the existence of a soul has nothing to do with the reality of its existence. It just means you don’t accept it. Most others in this discussion do accept it. One cannot just discard that which weakens or contradicts his position as unacceptable. You need to make a case as to why it is unacceptable.

You have an identity as a unique being; no one else is you and there has never been another “you”. This is true from the point of conception. The only thing that changes is the development of the body, however, even then it retains the same DNA, the physical stamp of your unique identity. The divine stamp is found in our souls; our intellect and will within which we live our interior life; that which gives life to the material body. As Christians, this is also the dwelling place of God within us. It is both the soul and the body, in union with each other, that make us human beings. When we separate the body from the soul, we die.

The sky changes minute by minute, but it is still the sky. The tree in my front yard sheds its leaves every fall, but it is still the same tree. A change in appearance is not a change in identity.