Talk:Criticism of Buddhism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Section on corruption

Shii: Why did you delete the section on corruption? Do you think it is not an accurate representation of what the source said? Or do you think it is not notable? --Noleander (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It may be notable, but you've got to find more than two pages in a single book. Shii (tock) 04:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to add detail to "marxist criticism" section

I propose to add detail into the marxism section, including more specificity on the criticism from Communist China, such as "Critics claim that the Tibetan Buddhist leadership lived off the labor of the peasants" and that "Critics claim that the Tibetan Buddhist leadership was hypocritical because they led a life of comparative luxury", and "Critics claim that the method of determining the next Dalai Lama was contrived and irrational". Of course, all content would be supported by reliable sources. And all critical content would be balanced by content that represents opposing or balancing viewpoints. --Noleander (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been researching these criticisms, and it appears that all of the criticisms listed above are made by a variety of sources: Chinese communists, Buddhists themselves, atheists, and others. For that reason, new sections for these criticisms should not be under the "marxist criticism" section, but rather at the top level, or perhaps within a new section that focuses on "Criticism of Buddhism in Tibet". --Noleander (talk) 03:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Shii: I see you deleted a citation/footnote from this section. Could you explain why you deleted it? --Noleander (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

.. also: Why do you think "Marxist criticism" is a better section title that "Exploitation of peasants"? The latter criticism was made by many non-marxists. --Noleander (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"Many"? Both of the cited writers appear to be Marxist. Also, isn't such a title inherently a class-based criticism? Shii (tock) 04:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Shii: could you reply to my question about the deleted source? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Um... I think I deleted a general book about Tibet? I guess you can restore it but I can't remember deleting a link to a specific criticism. Shii (tock) 04:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Better section titles?

The section titles look like they could be improved: specifically, they should summarize what the criticisms are, rather than where they come from. Comparison with other similar articles seems to reveal a pattern for "subject based" titles rather than "source based". For example: The title "Feminism" may be better for readers as "Women's rights" or "Inequality". And the section "Marxist criticisms" could be "Feudal society" or "Oppression of peasants" etc. Any comments? --Noleander (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll make this change soon. --Noleander (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Content in wrong section?

The following content

The Zen priest Brian Daizen Victoria has accused Japanese Buddhist institutions of enabling the Pacific War in his book Zen at War. The San Francisco Zen Center has been one focus of controversy in the United States.[3]

is in the section "Self Criticism". Those are two distinct issues, the first seems to be focusing on supporting war/violence; the latter involves some controversies described in detail in San Francisco Zen Center. I'm wondering if these should be in this section? or in another section?

Also, that "Self Crticism" section starts with the text "Critical Buddhism is a branch of Japanese Buddhist scholarship which aims to reform Buddhism through critical examination of its practices and philosophy." which seems to define the scope of that section rather narrowly. Is it the intention that that section be so limited? Or is the section supposed to contain all criticism that comes from Buddhist sources? --Noleander (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, "critical Buddhism" is mainly the claim that the Buddha-nature doctrine of East Asian Buddhism is heretical. Peter jackson (talk) 11:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources?

Shii: I see you removed some criticisms, and you used the "Reliable source" policy as an explanation. But the RS policy simply addresses the accuracy of the sources: its purpose is to ask: are the sources accurately stating facts? The topic of this article is to capture criticisms of Buddhism. Are you saying that the Harris and Hitchens sources are not accurately defining the criticism? Or are you suggesting that the only critics permitted to be discussed in this article must be experts in Buddhism (and that journalists and lay-people's criticisms cannot be included)? If the latter, could you give some WP policies that support that? --Noleander (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Obvious we can't just record anyone's criticism. I think we should discuss the criticisms of people which are acknowledged by unbiased experts established in the field, such as those I did not remove from the page. Shii (tock) 02:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you refer to some WP policy that limits the critics in the way you suggest? The WP policies are pretty clear: any critics's criticism that is documented by reliable sources is acceptable (here "reliable" means the source accurately describes the criticism, not that the source describes the critic as notable or expert). Many critics of religion are most definitely biased (for instance, members of other, "competing" religions; or members of secular governments that are at odds with the religion). In addition, many critics (tho not biased) are not "experts" in any sense: for instance, they may be simple peasants or women that feel oppressed (omitting their documented criticisms would silence them in this encyclopedia). I do agree with you that not every criticism of a religion is appropriate for this encyclopedia: for example, criticisms that are made by a single individual and never documented by any secondary source (such as an academic, news source, academic, apologist or journalist) would not be appropriate. If you look at any other "Criticism of someReligion" article (e.g. Criticism of Christianity or Criticism of Islam) you'll see lots of important, encyclopedic criticisms by biased critics and non-expert critics. --Noleander (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm saying. It has to be documented by reliable sources, and this is not. Shii (tock) 04:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I added some more sources for the "Bhuddism is not a religion" and "Buddhism is used to support the Sri Lanka civil war" content. There are scores of additional sources available, if you want more. --Noleander (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, "Buddhism is not a religion" is mainly said by (some) Buddhists themselves, so does it really belong under criticism? (And similar claims are made in all other religions too: [1].) Peter jackson (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

To the original topic for a moment, although Hitchens and Harris are not scholars of religious studies, per se, they are relatively prominent and certainly notable figures, and their books have come from well established publishers. That's not to say everyone agrees with their criticism or that all their assumptions are correct, but in the context of an article on criticism, the criteria for inclusion should hinge more on the notability of the critical view than the reliability of its source. A more appropriate way to balance the article would be to acknowledge (for example) Hitchens's role as a journalist (as opposed to a scholar of religion) and show, using reliable scholarly sources, where his arguments are inconsistent with scholarly consensus.

Side note: I agree with Peter, the "Buddhism is not a religion" idea seems to me entirely out of place in this article. We should give that its own section in the talk page, though. /ninly_(talk) 16:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, I am not sure why that last claim is here, because it's semantics. I removed it because it seemed to be a prologue for Sam Harris' statement which is simply his personal opinion (if Buddhism is not a religion, why the need to "de-religify" it? Anyway he doesn't know what he's talking about and nobody who studies the topic seriously would write about his claim). Shii (tock) 16:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Accusation of violence

The subsection, Accusation of violence proves no link between buddisum and violence that has been accused here. It should be noted at the actions of individual people can not be considered as the actions of the religion. None of the refs given here suggests that these people carried out these acts in the name of their religion. Hence what I believe is that due to the lack of refs to suggest action were carried out in the name of Buddhism, these items should be moved to the articles on the conflicts them selves. Just because Gavrilo Princip assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria leading to the start of world war 1, we can't say that Atheists started world war 1.Cossde (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The Chinese government used the label "the scum of Buddhism" for Tibetan monks and claimed that thousands of pounds of explosives were found in Buddhist monasteries. A more appropriate analogy is the Christian Crusades. Not all Christians were involved, certainly not Eastern Christians, but it's still discussed in Christianity and violence. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Sex scandals

A comment

There have been a number of well-publicised sex scandals involving teachers in emerging Western Buddhist groups.(reference cited:Bell, Sandra (2002). "Scandals in Emerging Western Buddhism". In Charles S Prebish & Martin Baumann (ed.). Westward Dharma: Buddhism Beyond Asia (PDF). University of California Press. pp. 230–242. ISBN 0520226259.)

inserted at the end of the section 'Not true to Buddhist principles' was removed without discussion.

I have reinserted it and suggest it would be skilful (not to mention courteous) that any person wishing to remove it should explain why and seek consensus in the discussion page here. Presumably the person who removed it imagines that sex scandals are true to Buddhist principles? Rinpoche (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to add content to Feminism section

I propose to add content to the Feminism section: specifically, the criticism that Buddhism, at least in Tibet, was sexist; and the Buddhist leadership was exclusively male; Buddhist nuns had less power and prestige than male monks; and that women were treated as inferior to men. --Noleander (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Should we change the structure of this page to distinguish between Tibet and other parts of the world? Shii (tock) 00:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That may be a good idea. If several of the criticisms are unique to Tibetan Buddhism, then perhaps it would be best to have a section "Criticism of Tibetan Buddhism", or similar. --Noleander (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, do please go ahead with more content on the Feminist section. I would especially like to see content referencing June Campbell's book I added as a reference a few weeks ago. Regarding the proposal to treat criticism of Tibetan Buddhism separately, I think that would be quite a good idea but only if referencing main articles perhaps. Thus I suggest a section 'Criticism of individual schools' bulleting various schools giving a brief account of the issues and linking to a separate main article for that school. Rinpoche (talk) 09:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)\

   I think that maybe considering and thinking over the dalai lama for a second would be good; he follows tibetan buddhism and is the head of that branch. He is not in any way sexist, but a loving and kind human being

"Buddhism is not a religion" is a criticism or not?

This is a new section that is focused on the "B is not a religion" topic. I read the sources, and I agree that it appears that "B is not a religion" is indeed not a criticism. The sources do say it, but they are saying it in a positive, not negative, way. On the other hand, there is a significant criticism in one of the sources: http://www.samharris.org/media/killing-the-buddha.pdf which says (paraphrasing): "Buddhism is not a religion, but many practitioners improperly imbue religious affectations into their practice of Buddhism". So, it appears that most of that section can be deleted, but the Harris criticism should stay. The Harris criticism is nearly identical to the criticism identified in the first sentence of the "General Criticism" section, namely "Criticisms include the beliefs that among the various Buddhist cultures and institutions, not all are true to original Buddhist principles". So it looks like the Harris criticism should be moved up into the General Criticisms section, next to that ".. not all are true ..." content. --Noleander (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and implemented the above suggestions. --Noleander (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

And I renamed "General Criticisms" section to "Not true to Buddhist principles". --Noleander (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the restatement of Harris' point is now more useful to the article (it's still currentism, but whatever). However, the Hitchens claim must go. The topics he is discussing are widely known in academia, and he is blatantly wrong in the case of Japan; there is much more that could be said about Sri Lanka which he skimps over. If Wikipedia is to be a source of information rather than a soapbox for Hitchens fanboys, then we should state the facts of the matter. If people will agree with me to take him out, I'll go fetch some sources... it shouldn't be too hard. Shii (tock) 04:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Shii: could you clarify a little bit? It looks like the article has three separate points from Hitchens: (1) Japan; (2) Sri Lanka; and (3) "reason". The Sri Lanka criticism looks pretty solid, and I recently added some additional sources that corroborate that (in the sentence preceding the Hitchens sentence). Regarding item (1) Japan: the notion that a critic is "right" or "wrong" is irrelevant to this encyclopedia: a criticism can be documented here, even if erroneous. If a critic is (in an editors opinion) wrong, the solution is to add balancing material (e.g. ".. however authority ABC disagrees with Hitchens blah, blah..". What do you think about (3)? --Noleander (talk) 04:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Noleander. I'm not a great fan of Hitchens, but since he's a notable figure and has published criticism, I don't think silencing his views would do the article any favors. You can also expect fans of his to perpetually reinstate the material in one form or another, leading to all sorts of potential turmoil. As Noleander and I have suggested above, the inclusion of sourced counterarguments would be much more effective in balancing the article. /ninly_(talk) 05:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should "silence" him, any more than we should silence the view of Joe the Plumber about Buddhism. It's just to acknowledge that he is not the best source for discussing these issues, and there are people who actually put time into them and know more about them.

If you want his inaccuracies to remain in the article I won't bother looking for better sources because it's a waste of time. Actually, let me take a few sentences to point out some of his displays of ignorance. The chapter you guys are citing is not about Buddhism specifically, but about "The East", as if three billion people shared some kind of belief system. The blurb about Buddhism begins with the old hot dog joke based on D.T. Suzuki's Theosophical neo-Vedanta which is scarcely Buddhist at all. You guys are asking me to cite him about Sri Lanka, but he talks about Sri Lankan religious nationalism without mentioning the Mahavamsa or political history, as if Buddhism existed in a timeless void, and the majority of the Sri Lanka section is devoted to lauding some awful Victorian-era poem he read in India about how much Sri Lanka sucks (what?!). His primary source on Japan is Brian Victoria, whom I had the pleasure of spending three months with in Kyoto. Victoria is a Buddhist monk who wrote Zen at War to provoke a discussion on the moral responsibilities of Japanese Buddhism. The book is concerned with how Buddhist groups justified their ideological control by the state. It does not talk about whether Buddhists influenced state power. If you know anything about Japanese history it is patently obvious that they had no influence whatsoever; in fact, imperial Japan sent Christian missionaries to Micronesia rather than Buddhists because Buddhism was felt to be too weak. Now, to be fair to Hitchens he seems to have read the book closely and does not misquote it (see page 201). It is the present wording of the article which misrepresents Victoria as seen through the lens of Hitchens. But Hitchens does make egregious and stupid errors about Japan elsewhere in his book. There is simply no reason to (mis)quote Hitchens on Japan when Victoria will do, and there is no reason to quote his uninformed fantasies about Sri Lanka when there exist on this planet people who actually know the slightest bit about Sri Lanka, e.g., Tambiah. I hope you understand why this is slightly infuriating, that reliable scholars are left out of this article while pompous airheads making hot dog jokes get the spotlight because they're popular on the Internets. Shii (tock) 07:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree 100% with you: if there are better sources than Hitchens for a particular criticism, than those sources should also be cited in this encyclopedia. However: if Hitchens is making alleged mistakes in his statements, it is not our job as editors to decide to omit his ideas from this article - instead the solution is to add balancing material that illustrates Hitchens alleged mistakes. That way, if a user of this encyclopedia were to read Hitchens' book, then come to this article for clarification, wouldn't it be nice for that user to see Hitchens' ideas presented, followed immediately by a refutation/clarification from Buddhist experts? --Noleander (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you're saying there. But I don't know what to do with the existing line about his book, because it just puts these two vastly different countries together and ties them up with a generalization. Shii (tock) 15:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur that the Hitchens sentence is very poorly worded, and should be re-written altogether. --Noleander (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest the following wording: Christopher Hitchens summarizes these issues as a specifically Buddhist desire to "put their reason to sleep, and to discard their minds along with their sandals". However, Buddhists also have a record of both passive and active nonviolence [etc] Shii (tock) 16:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I thoroughly agree with all of what's been said here, especially insofar as "reliable scholars are left out of this article ..." and should definitely be incorporated. I just don't have those references at hand. Shii's most recent recommendation is good. My own view is that the "discard their minds" idea is grossly simplistic, but defending Buddhism against criticism is not our job in the article, either. Gotta work with sources and with consensus. /ninly_(talk) 17:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It's simply juvenile to dismiss Christopher Hitchens as a 'pompous airhead'. An academic with a B.A. in religion and everything (but apparently not yet published?) should know better. I trust and hope you're merely young. Rinpoche (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

article

this whole article is a waste of space, i mean letting lying idiots like sam harris and the pope speaking or being a refrence about anything on wiki is foolish, with that said add good reliable sources to this article that are not from some crazy atheist or some child molesting pope or otherwise this article could might as well be deleted because as the wiki article reads now it looks like a crazy person wrote it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.181.199.36 (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I prefer to leave it as it is, so people can make their own judgments Shii (tock) 14:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Nietzsche and Nihilism

Hello? How can there not be a section on here devoted to the criticism most prominent in Nietzsche's 'The Antichrist' that Buddhism is nihilistic. --Caute AF (talk) 06:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Was Nietzsche an expert on Buddhism? Shii (tock) 08:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you add one then? In my experience it is true that this is one criticism often aimed at Buddhism. Orlando098 (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Formatting Problems

The formating of the page (at least on my bower) is very wonky;after the table of contents, there is nearly any entire screen worth of blank space (the tables on the far right are there but the text doesn't wrap around). I don't know much about web-formating coding, so I don't want to try to "fix" it only to f--k up the page even more.

Thanks, 97.124.83.156 (talk) 00:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The Difference between Rational Criticism and Incorrect Judgments

I have added a substantial improvement to the article related to its title: Criticism of Buddhism. Criticism of Buddhism is about its system of thought, doctrines and practice. This was missing from the article rendering its quality as below any standard of reasonable presentation.

Wikipedia policy on articles related to Religion is clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

“Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts as well as from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources”.

What texts were discussed, disputed or critcised in the article? There was no discussion on the validity or meaning of Buddhist doctrines such as Karma, Reincarnation etc… but just a frenzy of attacks: look for example at “War and Violence” section! Where in Buddhist doctrines war and violence is taught? To claim that Buddhism is behind war and violence is defamation of religion and it is against Wiki policy to incite negative emotions, accusations, and 'cold war' between people of different faiths. Is not that true?

Or also, look at “Accusation of Violence” – section: which takes as a reference The Chinese government’s statement about the protesting monks! Is this a quality of an Encyclopedic article?

To raise the article to an acceptable level of impartiality and sense, an honest approach is needed and a clean up is necessary. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Combining two sections about Women in Buddhism

The subject of Women in Buddhism has two aspects: one related to the doctrines themselves, while the other relates to opinions and comments (Feminist Criticism).

Criticism of what various Buddhist doctrines say about women is very important and constitutes basic informative substance about the subject, and should not have been deleted. The other section about Feminism and Buddhism does not include or duplicate the doctrinal criticism. The best way would be to combine these 2 sections into one, as there is no need for separating them.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Nichiren is over-represented, criticism is poorly explained.

Not only that, but there are very few reliable sources - moreover there is little reference to other Buddhist articles which explain the underlying teachings of Buddhism far better than here. If this article is to be treated seriously it needs to depict the criticism. I'm not even sure that I understand the need to defend against these criticisms here - and if so, it needs to be done using the language of the critics, and certainly not in a polemical manner.

This article, at it's worst, demonstrates what others may legitimately critique Buddhism for:- polemical infighting in a religion that preaches tolerance. Before I excised it, there was an unsourced accusation that Reincarnation is a belief central to Tibetan Buddhism - but that accusation is untrue and unsourced. Why on earth do that, especially here?

Moreover, identifying reincarnation as a Hindu concept is likewise a mistake - it turns Buddhism into some sort of regional trope. Reincarnation is found across the globe - it's not merely Hindu. Even still, there are Hindu schools who don't accept reincarnation. (20040302 (talk) 10:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC))

Well, this article was perfectly fine before SafwanZabalawi found it, but once SafwanZabalawi decides to wreck a page, there is very little you can do about it. This already happened on Soka Gakkai which used to have a reasonable length and mostly scholarly citations. Now it is a tangled jungle of quotations and this article will probably turn out the same way. It's kind of like being attacked by a golem, it's pointless to argue. Shii (tock) 14:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow, well that is an improvement, although the dependancy upon Batchelor is a bit overbearing!! Especially the sentence ending ...obscured the originally secular but mystical system of psycho-spiritual self-improvement that the Buddha intended and taught. - it may not be obvious to all, but of course that's only a claim made by secularists such as Batchelor. Personally I find it hard to comprehend how one can really explain the Four Noble Truths and the Twelve Nidānas without recourse to rebirth and karma. (20040302 (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC))

I agree, and I'm happy to see you are interested in maintaining this article long-term. Let's try to bulk up these existing sections with some quality citations. Shii (tock) 17:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The Talk here is a good opportunity for learning more about editing Wiki articles. Please depend on Wiki guidelines and not on unheard of before arguments, such as "the length of article" or "jungle of quotations" or " no one likes the text", "this article at its worst'... These arguments have nothing to do with an academic presentation of any subject.

We look at improving the article by reliable sources, quotations and wide spectrum of criticism. Criticism of Christianity, for example - does not end at listing different churches infighting (or Chrsitans inconsistency) ...but includes criticism in the field of doctrines from scientific or rational perspectives. The same here. Doctrinal Criticism of Buddhist concepts is importnat to list here, and if we are in doubt, please apply to the Disbute Resolution Board. To list only political issues and fighting between religions makes the article at teenagers sort of accusations without substance of doctrinal criticism.

Another thing which is against Wiki guidelines is the defamatory language used against all Buddhists asbeing inconsistent or violent, obviously a mistake, so the word "Some" must be considered. I think Wikipedia editors can give assistance in these 2 areas: Doctrinal criticism and false generalisation using defematory languge against all Buddhists or Buddhism itself.

What was said about Reincarnation or Rebirth reinforces the fact that Buddhist schools have differing views (but both views are criticised). Please go ahead and bring RS to support your views, but just deleting what you do not "like" is not supported by Wikipedia guidelines.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought so. I will bow out of this discussion. Enjoy your article. Shii (tock) 03:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Reincarnation

There is plenty of space on Wikipedia, and there are articles already on both reincarnation and rebirth. I accept that there is a place on this article for rebirth, which is accepted by Buddhism. However I do not aaccept that there is space for reincarnation as it is not accepted by Buddhism. Therefore I am removing references to it (regardless distinguishing between the both is out of scope here). 20040302 (talk) 08:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

20040302, you could have simply removed such criticism if you had found, I read it, it was completely unwanted, seemed very childish too, just like many other criticism here. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Bladesmulti, Sorry? I'm missing something. When I make an edit to an article, I normally leave my reasoning on the talk page. Are you suggesting that this is bad practice? (20040302 (talk) 12:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC))

No, it's great practice. But if you find something really misleading, like it was here, previously regarding the re-incarnation concept. Just remove it. Even more when the editions are hardly favored by given sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Chinese criticism of Buddhism

Han Yu

http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/texts/hanyu.html

Zhu Quan

http://books.google.com/books?id=i6pIMVGPkuUC&pg=PR13&dq=zhu+quan+buddhism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Nl2gU8ucNcWSyATSsoK4Cw&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=zhu%20quan%20buddhism&f=false

Zhu Xi

http://books.google.com/books?id=wyq9xcHX25gC&pg=PA341&dq=zhu+quan+buddhism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Nl2gU8ucNcWSyATSsoK4Cw&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=zhu%20quan%20buddhism&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=iKjsm-JUbD0C&pg=PA204&dq=zhu+quan+buddhism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Nl2gU8ucNcWSyATSsoK4Cw&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=zhu%20quan%20buddhism&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Are Christopher Hitchens' personal opinions of Buddhism notable enough to be cited here?

Our article on the man himself only mentions Buddhism once, and it is in the same sentence as the phrase accusations of "intellectual and moral shabbiness". Where did he get his information on Buddhism? Were his opinions adopted by others and elaborated on as criticisms of Buddhism? If we are not going to cite one man's personal opinions in the article on him, then I hardly see why they should be cited in an article on the subject on which he was expressing said opinions... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Scrolling up the page, trying to see how likely it was that anyone would ever respond to a random comment on this article talk page, and I noticed that User:Shii seems likely to have agreed with me on this point some years back.[2][3] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Good point. I cut the paragraph. Drmies (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Criticism articles not allowed

Separate articles (like this one) devoted to WP:Criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided because these call WP:undue attention to negative viewpoints. Articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from WP:reliable sources fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Johnfos (talk) 09:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Useless articles to collect POVs. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

According to WP:Criticism: "Creating separate articles with the sole purpose of grouping the criticisms or to elaborate individual points of criticism on a certain topic is generally considered a POV fork. Wikipedia:Content forking states that "Wikipedia articles should not be split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject." For example the "Criticism" section of Al Gore should not be moved to a separate article such as "Criticism of Al Gore". Dedicated "Criticism of ..." articles are sometimes appropriate for organizations, businesses, philosophies, religions, or political outlooks, provided the sources justify it; see the "Philosophy, religion, or politics" section above for details." So I disagree. However, the article is disgustingly POV so either in needs to be slashed a lot or it might have to be deleted.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

No one visits this article, it is poorly written and organized. There are very few sources for information critical of Buddhism anyway, I have looked quite a bit. I personally would delete the article. Lipsquid (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

We also have articles about Criticism of the Catholic Church, Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Hinduism. I agree, the articles quality is rather poor. JimRenge (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it would be best to start from scratch?--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to edit at will, I think you may have some good information to build upon, but if you want to start from scratch, I don't think you will get much negative feedback on the idea. I have been cleaning stuff up and will help when I can. Best! Lipsquid (talk) 04:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

There is enough to build on you were right, I edited it quite a bit and added a few things to offer more breadth and more details on certain areas.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 06:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Criticism of Buddhism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100730114549/http://daviddent.net/blog/2007/06/17/the-four-horsemen-of-the-new-atheism to http://daviddent.net/blog/2007/06/17/the-four-horsemen-of-the-new-atheism/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Christian criticism

The source says "autoérotisme spirituel," which translates as "spiritual autoeroticism," not "autoerotic spirituality." Autoerotic spirituality would translate as "spiritualité autoérotique." 89.100.71.14 (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

That may be your personal translation, but the English translation given on the reference states "autoerotic spirituality". Since you are quoting that reference, it should actually quote that reference. Helpsome (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not my "personal translation." It is the literal meaning of those two words. 89.100.71.14 (talk) 11:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

That is not what the source itself states. Helpsome (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The source is a blog, not l'Académie française. 89.100.71.14 (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

If the source is a blog, then it is not a WP:RS.

MrDemeanour (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

And you seem to have changed that so it no longer matters. :) Helpsome (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Criticism sections removed

Hello, I'm wondering why nearly all the criticism of this article was deleted. Up until May 29 2022, there were numerous sections (i.e. Criticism of Buddhist practices, Criticism of Buddhist doctrine, Criticism from Hinduism) which were all deleted by another user on June 15 2022 who claimed it was "irrelevant stuff." After this change was reverted, another user undid the reverted change, citing it as "disruptive editing" - leaving the page empty of critique as before. It seems that these edits are being done because of bias, as the users simply do not like the content. 2601:646:8C00:C2B0:8522:5608:78E7:E56F (talk) 03:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Pinging TrangaBellam who made the initial deletion of that content as "irrelevant". Schazjmd (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Looking through the removed text... honestly, it's probably better gone. The vast majority of it was "This one person said this about Buddhism, and then this other person said this about Buddhism..." It was a mish-mash of various complaints, rather than a coherent description of academic & religious critique. It really read like a holdover article from Wikipedia's early days when standards were lower.

I'd assume there's enough reliable sources available to make an article which fits modern Wikipedia article standards, but we'd have to build it from the ground up. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

So, we now have a "criticism" article with just one section, concerning Nietzsche's opinion. TrangaBellam more-or-less blanked the article on 15th June 2022. That blanking was reverted by an IP editor; and the revert was reverted by WikiLinuz, with the comment "Rvt disruptive editing".

It's not obvious to me how reverting an edit that removed 90% of the article is "disruptive editing"; on the contrary, TB's deletion was vandalism.

On 20th August, دانيالوه seems to have again restored the deleted material, and WikiLinuz has again reverted to the useless stub.

TrangaBellam has been asked to come here and discuss; hasn't happened. WikiLinuz doesn't seem to have commented on this talk page either, despite the fact that their edits are being discussed.

There's a colourable argument that the page shouldn't exist, on the grounds that criticism pages tend to be POV forks. I certainly take the view that the present article shouldn't exist; it gives the impression that the only legitimate criticism of Buddhism is Nihilism.

I haven't inspected the deleted content; presumably some of it was crap, or otherwise inadmissible. But some of it wasn't. My complaint is that the deletion hasn't been properly explained, by either of the editors responsible. Process hasn't been followed, and I think we probably need some admin attention.

FWIW, my view is that (a) the article shouldn't exist, and (b) some of the original content should be be moved to a criticism section in Buddhism, perhaps after putting it on a diet.

I am now going to restore the content as of 20th August. Let's work on that, with a view to building a "criticism" section that could be inserted in the main article.

MrDemeanour (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Please be aware that you are editing a topic which is under AE Sanctions and do not throw words like "vandalism" lightly. None of what I removed belonged here (see HandThatFeed's argument) and the onus of inclusion lies on you. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I haven't inspected the deleted content

You really should have before restoring it. By restoring it, you're vouching for the contents you're adding back into the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

It'd be quite tasteless anyways for this article to be deleted, especially considering the fact that there's numerous articles entirely consecrated for the collection of different POVs of different figures on a specific religion. I think it's better to restore the old content and try to find additional citations for the alleged lack of citations or the lack of informations found in the citations yet mentioned in the article. دانيالوه (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

No, we do not let trash stay and hope someone will find citations. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

As I said, my complaint is about process.

As it happens, I've read the article before; I don't throw words like "vandalism" lightly. Nor words like "spam" or "trash".

I fully expected you to revert my revert, and I didn't expect any talk-page comment from you to be constructive. So I've asked someone wiser to help us.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Criticism of Buddhism

MrDemeanour (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Seems like everyone here could use a good read of WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

This is not fixable by any other way because they do not belong at the first place. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

That's exactly what we did. And the conclusion was that the existing article couldn't be "fixed" as is, it needs rewritten from the ground up to meet modern standards. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Who came to this conclusion? It hasn't been discussed on this talk page. Who is "we"?

It looks as if a small group of people have decided that the best thing to do is to stub the article (I don't mean to imply that they've collaborated, just that they seem to agree).

It must be clear by now that there is more than one editor that disagrees with this deletion. Please restore the original text; then we can discuss how to proceed.

MrDemeanour (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

No. This is how it works, the only people who cared at the time discussed & took action, now you want to reverse it you need to provide reasons why. The material is still in the history of the page if you want to review it, there's no reason to restore it while we have this discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Not exactly appropriate to label 90 percent of the content of an article as "trash" without at least trying to discuss the matters beforehand in the talk page, sure, be bold or whatever, but in this case you can't sacrifice all these potentially useful informations to your own liking. دانيالوه (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

"potentially useful information" - I appreciate the wordplay. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The entire point is that the original article, as written, does not live up to our editorial standards. We don't leave an article up in such terrible shape.

If there is something in the old article you want to salvage, great! I'd suggest you start with that and work on building a new article around it, or finding brand new (preferably academic) sources for the same. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@دانيالوه and MrDemeanour: Please see WP:STUBIFY. --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 20:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@User:WikiLinuz

Thanks for letting me know that you can make an article a stub by deleting 90% of it.

The point is that no attempt has been made to get consensus for this dramatic change. Nothing in the article you linked to says anything about overriding the usual consensus conventions.

Would you please restore all the deleted content; then let's discuss what should be done.

My sense is that you want to destroy the article. I personally favour deleting the article, preserving only what's worth preserving by moving it to other places. But I'm not at all in favour of what we have now, which is grossly misleading.

I'm willing to try to help with the constructive dismantling, and eventual deletion, of this page. But I'm not interested in working on rebuilding from nothing (literally?) a page called Criticism of Buddhism. So if the content isn't restored, I'll step away from this article. Arguably, if I'm not editing the article, then I don't have business on the talk page either. But I've come here and made a fuss, so I think I should stay to take the flak.

MrDemeanour (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

My sense is that you want to destroy the article.

Please familiarize yourself with WP:AGF.

I personally favour deleting the article

Then follow the process for that at WP:PROD or WP:AfD.

But I'm not interested in working on rebuilding from nothing (literally?) a page called Criticism of Buddhism.

Then you're not actually here to help. You want us to put the article back in a terrible form just... to have an article? That's not helpful.

Your options are: contribute towards building a new article, submit it for deletion, or move on. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

For the record, MrDemeanor has submitted the article for deletion. Please direct discussion of that option there. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@MrDemeanour: The point is that no attempt has been made to get consensus - You do not need consensus to remove garbage from an article. --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 20:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

You do if the removal is contested. MrDemeanour (talk) 10:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Why are you arguing so hard to restore a terrible article? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The decision is that the article is to be kept (and you voted and argued *in favour* of that decision). I accept the decision, although I obviously disagree with it.

I've removed the "Nihilism" section. Nietsche is not an authority on Buddhism (nor on nihilism, I would contend).

I'll stay away from this article for the time-being. Clearly I've got fellow-editor's backs up, and certainly some of my fellow editors have annoyed me. We've gone through a process, I don't care for the result, and I don't think I can make any further constructive contribution here for now. So I'm butting out; if you want me, ping me. MrDemeanour (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

you voted and argued *in favour* of that decision

I'm sorry, where did I do that?

I've removed the "Nihilism" section. Nietsche is not an authority on Buddhism (nor on nihilism, I would contend).

This I agree with. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@MrDemeanour: You said you stepped away from the article, then why are still editing the article? Nietsche is certainly a notable critic. If you want to step back, just step back. Don't further edit your shenanigans on the article. --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 22:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, just want to chime in and say that I also agree with the removal of the nihilism section, for the reasons I gave in the AfD. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Weasel words

What Esima said, also the statements that "Muslims often..." is in itself weaselly, and it is questionable whether [Yahya] should be considered a valid source.--193.175.73.207 (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not thats true Esimal, that part of the article is about what Sam Harris said, if you find any criticism of that statement source it and add it to the sentence, but don't just say "this is clearly false. Perhaps adding a "Responses" section with Buddhist responses to criticism of Buddhism, that would be great. Regarding Yahya, I agree. The way the article is currently is far better. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 02:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Link

• The Broken Buddha/Critical Reflections on Theravada and a Plea for a New Buddhism by S. Dhammika

The link and some of its content should be here, too. Eventually I am going to insert something.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.77.107 (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Quotation

Luna Tarlo, the mother of Andrew Cohen (spiritual teacher) writes after having observed Tibetan Buddhists do the circular walk "chanting and prostrating flat down on the ground every few steps":

“ "Don't you think there's something weird about the way the Tibetans abase themselves with all those prostrations?" I asked Andrew the next morning at breakfast. "Who do you think they're bowing to? The Buddha? I thought the Buddha didn't believe in God and certainly didn't think of himself as God." "It's symbolic," Andrew explained. "They're expressing gratitude for the Buddha's teaching." I'd heard this before but it seemed to me, observing them, that they really were bowing to the Buddha himself and that they believed the Buddha was God. (p. 33) ”

References

Austerlitz -- 88.75.77.107 (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Book: Luna Tarlo, 1997. The Mother of God. Plover Press. ISBN 9781570270437 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.75.77.107 (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Undue weighting given to opinions of Christopher Hitchens?

I understand that this page should be about opinions, but it seems to read like a list of Hitchen's opinions without going into much detail of why he thinks these things. Perhaps he has enough credibility to pull this off, but it seems more like unnecessary weighting of information on his personal opinions rather than some kind of framework and basis for criticisms of Buddhism. Markburnsemail (talk) 07:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed for labeling Harun Yahya a "propagandist"

In this article, Harun Yahya has twice been identified as producing films critical of Buddhism/Buddhists that are "propagandistic"; and, this specific claim regarding the propagandistic nature of the films has been twice reverted (once by User:Scythian1 and once by myself just now). I briefly scanned the cited material (at http://www.harunyahya.com/buddhism02.php) and this doesn't appear to support the claim that Yahya's work is propagandistic. Is there a source for such a claim?

Here on this talk page, I'd like to add my own POV if I may: For me, as a practicing Buddhist, for this article to make such a claim (that Yahya's films are propagandistic) without a source makes WP Buddhist editors (myself included) to me appear defensive, irrational and unopen to criticism. Does not the Dharma and our heritage contain enough rationally desirable material for contextualizing such a criticism without resorting to negative labels? After all: Na hi verena veraani sammantii'dha kudaacana.m...., yes? - Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Attention This article has been repeadly changed without citation or reference! I suggest it either be removed or completely revamped! It has obviously been handled by immature individuals, driven more by emotions rather than research and an unbiased opinion. -- JCB 2/28/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.81.226 (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the article sounds pretty artificial and and the sources are forced. The subject deserves a better, more encyclopedic article. Thoso criticism are not even towards Buddhism itself but to specific individuals and concepts. This section of Ratzinger is also silly since his criticism is somehow childish and moved by hatred and prejudices. There's no single critical opinion by a professional scholar o someone competent enough. Revamping or deletion--Scandza (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Then expand it!!! I added Ratzinger's comment after a very quick search for criticism, but however "silly" you might feel his comments are, the guy is now Pope, so it's a notable opinion. Fences and windows (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible Expansion

(This is mostly copypasta from the post that I made nearly a year ago at Talk:Criticism of Religion. It's meant to suggest some likely avenues of expansion for this article, and where appropriate material might be sourced.)

• Collusion or cooperation of Buddhist institutions in abetting violent nationalist policies. The book 'Zen at War' deals with this in WWII era Japan; there's also been some writing about the role of monastic preachers in keeping the rhetoric hot in the Sri Lankan civil conflict. Potential difficulty here is that most of these criticisms tend to be limited in scope to particular branches of the Sangha during particular eras, rather than taking a more general view of Buddhism's relationship to government power.
• Critique of Buddhist doctrines and philosophy generally. These are almost all written from a Christian POV, as evangelists and the Vatican are really the only folks to show a lot of interest in general criticism of Buddhist philosophy. Appropriate for a 'Christian Criticisms of Buddhism' section, primarily. Pope JP II wrote a few critical blurbs about Buddhism late in his tenure along these lines. There was a book published specifically about JP and his efforts at inter-religious dialogue that might include some of this content- thinking the book was called something like "JP III and Interreligious Dialogue", author is Byron Sherwin.
• Abuse of authority in the monastic tradition. Quite a bit was written regarding this in the American Zen and Tibetan traditions, particularly following the big meltdown at the San Francisco Zen Center. Old issues of Tricycle would certainly have some info here. A new book on this subject was published recently- title is something like "shoes outside the door". There was also a collection of essays, I think, published under the title "issues of authority in zen buddhism" that deals with the topic.
• Regarding Tibet- the Chinese government is currently the primary author and proponent of criticisms of Tibet prior to the Chinese invasion. Criticisms of the government of pre-Chinese Tibet are difficult to separate out from criticisms of Tibetan Buddhism; there are indications that the PRC thinks that Tibetan Buddhism was to some degree responsible for the low level of development in Tibet prior to the Chinese occupation, but these critiques haven't been greatly elaborated on in Western literature. There's a blanket claim that Tibet was a poor and harsh country prior to the invasion, and that Tibetan Buddhism and the feudal/religious government were responsible for those conditions, but not a lot more elaboration than that (at least that I've seen in English, but I'm far from an expert).
• There were also some critiques of Tibetan Buddhism written during the early 19th Century by early Western observers, many of which involved Protestant writers drawing a parallel between the elaborate ritualism and clericalism of Tibetan Buddhism and that of Roman Catholicism. Donald Lopez catalogs some of these critiques in Prisoners of Shangri La. I don't know that those historical criticisms are still embraced by anyone- they were written before there was much meaningful knowledge of the Tibetan philosophical and scholastic tradition available.
• Feminist critiques- the position of nuns versus monks, the authority of female teachers and leaders, various potentially disparaging remarks made in scriptures about women. The Buddha's reluctance to permit the formation of the bhikkhuni order. Disappearance and non-reestablishment of the nuns order in the Theravada world, resistance to its recreation in modern Thailand.
• Racial/ethnic issues- there has been some writing on a couple of issues in the context of Western Buddhism and race or ethnicity. One avenue of criticism is that Western Buddhists, and Western Buddhist institutions, are pretty overwhelmingly white and middle class and above, and don't seem to be particularly good or interested in reaching beyond those boundaries. Another issue is the isolation of "ethnic" Buddhists in the West from converts.
• Criticism of corruption within Buddhist institutions. Accumulation of wealth. Indiscipline among members of the clergy. Superstition and trading in horoscopes and protective charms among monks.

--Clay Collier (talk) 12:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Haha, it makes me wonder if you went on the Antioch College Buddhist Studies program because what you know is so similar to what I know. Shii (tock) 01:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Nihilism

Maybe there should be added something on the claims of buddhism being nihilist, espescially in connection with Nagarjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā and the term shunyata? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guttormng (talk • contribs) 13:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Nihilism has a very specific meaning and you don't seem to be referring to it. Shii (tock)

Kamikaze attacks

Kamikaze attacks in WWII were inspired by State Shinto fanaticism, not Buddhism! --Esimal (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC) If you want to say that then discuss it with Sam Harris, the guy who said it, not here. This article is on criticism of buddhism and because Sam Harris is a critic of it, he therefore has the right to say that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.69.157 (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Claims on occultism

I noticed that certain critics of Buddhism have made the claim that it is tied to a certain form of occultism. They have argued that the alleged worship of obscure divinities such as Dorje Shugden makes this criticism all the more valid. This should probably be included with appropriate sources. ADM (talk) 05:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I have taken into account both of the above points in my edits. Shii (tock) 01:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Buddhism is tied to Buddhist Tantra, which is arguably a form of occultism. Buddhist Tantra and Hindu Tantra developed together, and tantric practitioners of both traditions would meet together to celebrate ganachakra.

I can't speak for Hindu tantrists; but on the whole Buddhist tantrists operated outside the constraints of formal religion and the monastic order. They were considered a threat to a well-ordered society; and they were.

MrDemeanour (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Nominate for Deletion

This article is clearly not approaching the topic from an objective standpoint. The comments the Buddha made about the human body have been taken out of context, the quote from Nietzche is wrong (he considered Buddhism to be a positivist religion) and there are some other dubious pieces of information that have no source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.62.3 (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, but the last AfD was a snow keep (I !voted keep in that as well, but I've come round to the opinion that the existence of this article is a net negative). I might re-nominate it when I get the time; in the meantime, I'll reiterate my support for the removal of the Nietzsche section, and I also think the meditation section should go, because the sources provided are not actually criticizing Buddhist meditation, just meditation as it is popularly practiced in the United States. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

"The comments the Buddha made about the human body have been taken out of context", it's not. I am the one who added this paragraph, in fact I am not even satisfied with just quoting this, the author clearly holds a much more critical attitude in the article than the passage I quoted. The author argues that:

“ Women in Buddhist texts are not only stereotypically jealous but also lustful, deceitful, and defiled. In early Buddhist literature, the Buddha himself keeps repeating that the female body "is a vessel of impurity, full of stinking filth. It is like a rotten pit ... like a toilet, with nine holes pouring all sorts of filth." ... A common trope of male discourse, misogyny can easily be detected in practically all of the major religions. As noted earlier, Buddhist historians have been particularly embarrassed by the story regarding the foundation of the nuns' order. Even if this Vinaya tradition is apocryphal, it remains to evaluate to what extent early Buddhism was misogynistic. ”

Unexplained accusations of conforming to a reliable source are "taken out of the context" are obvious Wikipedia:OR. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 06:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

You're right to say that the cited author has a negative attitude towards Buddhism, that's precisely the problem. The same page you quote from also notes that some scholars "see such statements as aberrant and not truly Buddhist" or believe that "such statements should be taken simply as adjuncts to meditation on the impurity of the human body ... [being] very carefully restricted to the goal of taming the meditator's own mind". Describing only one point of view is a violation of WP:BALANCE. To give an unbiased overview of a dispute, we ideally need sources which do not take sides in the dispute. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sojourner in the earth: First of all, the author uses a great deal of space in his article to show to justify why he disagrees with Nancy (by the way, of the two paragraphs you quoted, one is from a specific scholar and the other is from a number of scholars), and it's worth considering at least how much weight is given to both sides. Or at least the fact that the Buddha himself said it is a fact and worth writing about. Secondly, holding a critical/negative attitude doesn't mean it's necessarily not worth writing about; consider David Hume's criticism of Christianity. Finally, from the three sources I've cited (note that they are not titled something like "Criticizing Buddhist Attitudes Toward Women", but rather "Women in Buddhism", also considering the present writing style of Women in Buddhism), it seems that this author's view is rather the mainstream one. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 00:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear; I didn't mean to say that the author's opinion is not worth writing about – I meant that we shouldn't write only about the opinions of people on one side of the debate to the exclusion of those on the other side. To take your own example, Criticism of Christianity presents Hume's argument against miracles, but also says that the Catholic Church and certain apologetic writers reject those arguments. Of course it's the mainstream opinion that miracles are not real, but that doesn't mean that we as an encyclopedia should take that stand; instead, we should neutrally describe the state of the discussion. In this case, we have a nuanced topic that has been written about in different ways by different authors; it is non-neutral to cherry-pick the most negative things that people have said about the topic and present those as if they represented the full range of views. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 07:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say that the author's opinion is not worth writing about – I meant that we shouldn't write only about the opinions of people on one side of the debate to the exclusion of those on the other side. Yes, that's certainly true, however to be honest, I haven't found many authors with a positive view on the subject. Any suggestions for better organizing content on this? Of course it's the mainstream opinion that miracles are not real, but that doesn't mean that we as an encyclopedia should take that stand; Honestly, there is something wrong with the way you phrased it. In the jurisprudence I've seen in the past, it depends. In roughly 20% of the jurisprudence the prevailing view is described as fact (see Wikipedia:CHARLATANS), leaving 80% of the jurisprudence as you say. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 09:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

If you're looking for positive views, a good starting point would be the sources cited by Faure. The quotes he provides from Nancy Schuster are from "Yoga-Master Dharmamitra and Clerical Misogyny in Fifth Century Buddhism", The Tibet Jounal 9(4), 1984, p. 41, JSTOR 43302197. That article has some good information but it's pretty specialized. A more general overview can be found in a chapter written by Schuster in A. Scharma (ed.), Women in World Religions, 1987, State University of New York Press, pp. 105–133.

As I said above, however, the way to find out the respective prominence of each particular point of view is to find sources that neutrally summarize the debate. Here are two that might be useful [4] [5]. But then again, all this would only seem to be duplicating the work done by the authors of the Women in Buddhism article. All that's really needed here (if anything) is a summary style paragraph pointing readers to that article. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 09:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I've read the works, all of them are in fact more critical than I would have expected, for instance, although Nancy's 1987 work says she does not consider Buddhism to be anti-female, she does, in fact, list a number of unfavourable elements in the later text (pp. 118-120). The only thing that's problematic is Nancy's 1984 work (which also happens to be the first one you listed), and very unfortunately the work overly neglects the fusion of Buddhism and Confucianism. The papers I've seen basically all point to the problem that, despite some writings depicting women's duties, women's status itself is what triggers the problem.

Again with reference to the Criticism of Christianity, I think a better way to write this would be to include at the beginning, "Although women themselves often appear and play an important role in Buddhist texts, much of the Buddhist literature often tends to marginalise the notion of 'femininity' itself."

All that's really needed here (if anything) is a summary style paragraph pointing readers to that article. Well... I guess that statement is a little too unfounded now. Not only does the entry for Women in Buddhism itself fail to be as specific about the history of women as Women in Christianity, and the analysis of the scriptures themselves is lacking, but also the entry for the Criticism of Christianity is not a summary of the Women in Christianity entry, but rather a paragraph of summarised criticism. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 06:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

If you think Women in Buddhism needs improvement, then your efforts would be better directed towards working on that article, rather than turning this one into a content fork.

In any case, I don't think there's anything more to be gained from further back-and-forth. I'm sorry to say that your above comment gives the impression that you have wilfully disregarded Schuster's conclusions on the grounds that they don't align with your own point of view. If, having read the sources I provided, you still believe that the paragraph you added to this article accurately represents the full range of views on the subject, then I don't know what else to say to you.

I won't remove the section because it appears at the moment that I'm the only one objecting to it (aside from the IP who started the discussion). But I urge you to reconsider your approach. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 10:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sojourner in the earth: accurately represents the full range of views on the subject, then I don't know what else to say to you. It certainly isn't. However, the problem is that we are writing a criticism article, and I never argued in the article that Buddhism itself is anti-feminine, I am talking about the fact that women are often depicted as lewd in early texts - even if men are equally so - but that has become a point on which Buddhism has been criticised for. Thus, I really can't understand why similar content in similar situations can appear in Criticism of Christianity#Christianity and women, but not here. I also hereby sincerely hope that you will give a reason that will keep it different from several other similar articles (Criticism of Christianity#Christianity and women, Criticism of Islam#Women in Islam, Criticism of Jainism#Status of women), or some other alternative. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 13:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)