One does not often come across critiques of Buddhism. Its more philosophical nature, emphasis on compassion, meditation, and harmony, and lack of any theological rivalry with the major monotheistic faiths have combined to allow Buddhism to mostly develop along its own paths without much significant attack on its precepts. In this regard, although Buddhists do believe in certain supernatural figures who assist followers on their path to enlightenment, such as Bodhisattvas, Buddhism does not include a belief in any monotheistic creator deity similar to those found in Judaism, Christianity, or Islam that would give rise to any significant hostility on the part of those faiths. Accordingly, while there has been conflict between Buddhism and theistic religions at times, such hostility has not been widespread or posed any real threat to Buddhism’s existence and propagation. However, while I find Buddhist beliefs to be very attractive and insightful, there are Buddhist concepts that I do wrestle with. I discuss two of these concepts below.
First, Buddhism’s “Four Noble Truths” teach that life entails suffering and that the source of that suffering lies in craving and attachment, which must be overcome if we are to escape our suffering. Accordingly, Buddhism counsels us to adopt a degree of detachment from the material world if we wish to enter the state of nirvana, the Buddhist concept of paradise, where suffering is extinguished and one moves beyond the repeated cycle of death and rebirth that constitutes existence.
I doubt very much that when the Buddha inveighed against attachments that he meant that we should not be involved in relationships with relatives, friends, and others who populate this world. As I explained in my post titled Love Takes Courage. So Be Brave, My Love! what I believe he was preaching against were attachments to others that are excessive or unhealthy, because they involve a possessive mindset that clings to persons or things after the time has come to let go of them, for example clinging to a loved one after the time of mourning for them has passed. But it is undoubtedly the case that some followers may take this notion of detachment too literally and too far, eschewing the types of relationships that humans need to fully enjoy life and of which I believe the Buddha would have approved.
The situation is not as clear in the case of other cravings and attachments. Does Buddhist thought mean for us not to have any professional or other ambitions? The complete elimination of those aspirations would eradicate the drive for personal growth and achievement. The pursuit of goals that contribute to the well-being of society or personal development is a positive force, the desire for which should not be discouraged. By preaching against attachment to personal aspirations, Buddhism might inadvertently devalue these motivational drivers, potentially leading to a lack of ambition or engagement in constructive human endeavors intended to improve the human condition.
For the reasons set forth above, the ideal of complete detachment can be criticized for being impractical or unrealistic in everyday life. Human beings naturally form attachments to people, places, and things, which can be a source of meaning and fulfillment. An extreme focus on non-attachment might lead to a sense of disengagement from the world and diminish the richness of human experience. By advocating for detachment, Buddhism might overlook the importance of meaningful relationships and emotional connections that are inherent in being human.
I think that one way around this problem is to view the subject of craving and attachment through Buddhism’s focus on moderation. Just as the Buddha rejected radical asceticism, perhaps the correct way to understand the principle against craving and attachment is to avoid excessive indulgence in them, particularly when they involve material aspects of life or status. Of course, it is difficult to know exactly where to set the dividing line between what is desirable and what is excessive, making it difficult to guide the conduct of followers on this point.
Yet another criticism of Buddhism lies in the deification of the Buddha in the form of statues, monuments, and rituals. Indeed, some branches of Buddhism regard the Buddha as a transcendent figure or a deity. This shift towards deification can be seen in practices that involve elaborate rituals, devotional offerings, and the veneration of Buddha statues and images as embodiments of divine qualities. In this regard, some of the world’s great Buddhist sites feature statues of the Buddha of all sizes and styles, and in some cases, in enormous numbers. Such reverence reflects an evolution from viewing the Buddha purely as a human teacher who attained enlightenment through personal effort, to a more divine or semi-divine status where he is seen as an eternal source of spiritual guidance and protection. This transformation has led to diverse interpretations and practices within Buddhism, blending elements of devotionalism with the original philosophical principles of the tradition.
However, the Buddha saw himself more as an enlightened teacher or guide who sought to share his philosophy and thinking with others than as any sort of god or other deity during his lifetime. The Buddha’s core message centered on the idea that enlightenment is attainable through individual effort and insight, rather than through worship of a divine figure. Accordingly, he very well might have found the importation into Buddhism of these attributes of certain theistic religions to be objectionable and a diversion from the doctrine of mindfulness, ethical conduct, and direct insight he was preaching and trying to spread. He would likely have encouraged his followers to focus on the principles of the Dharma (Buddhist spiritual doctrine) rather than on worshiping his person, as the path to enlightenment lies in understanding and practicing the teachings he provided, rather than in reverence for him as a divine being. Seen from this angle, these very beautiful works of art are idols produced by human beings who need material and ritualistic manifestations of their faith to worship.
However, seen from a different angle, the worship of the Buddha as a deity can be seen as a natural evolution of his profound influence and the deep reverence his teachings inspired among his followers. By venerating the Buddha as a divine or semi-divine figure, practitioners can find a powerful symbol of ultimate wisdom and compassion, which can serve as a source of inspiration and aspiration. (Indeed, the Buddha did demonstrate some supernatural abilities during his life, such as his triumph over the temptations of the demon Mara, who sought to use them to draw the Buddha away from his meditation and enlightenment.) This deification allows followers to cultivate a personal connection with the Buddha, viewing him as a perfect embodiment of the ideals of enlightenment and virtue he taught and which they hope to grasp. Such reverence can enhance devotional practices, provide a focus for meditation, and create a tangible sense of divine presence in the spiritual journey. Moreover, deifying the Buddha can serve to preserve and transmit his teachings through cultural and ritualistic expressions that resonate with the devotion and piety of diverse communities, thus fostering a richer and more engaging spiritual experience that bridges the gap between human aspiration and transcendent wisdom. Accordingly, this aspect of Buddhism can be seen as a potentially useful aid to the spiritual development of followers – one that is more helpful than harmful so long as they regard such statues and rituals as symbols of the Buddha’s teachings and not as any sort of idolatry conveying supernatural powers or a source of superstition.
