Log in

No account? Create an account
Vexen Crabtree 2015


Vexen Crabtree's Live Journal

Sociology, Theology, Anti-Religion and Exploration: Forcing Humanity Forwards

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Vexen Crabtree 2015

Criticism of Buddhism

"Criticisms of Buddhism: Its History, Doctrine and Common Practices" by Vexen Crabtree (2004)

Once again, you are proving the Bible to be TRUE. Again, I applaud you ... keep up the good work! The fact that you get on here and criticize EVERY religion (especially Christianity ... that says something in itself), is very prophetic ... Biblically that is. You see, you are playing into what it is written in the Bible. As God states in the Bible, there will be a day when there will be a one-world religion (because EVERYONE will listen to people like you and decide we all need to be on the same page, religiously, to make everyone happy and be at peace with each other). Then, of course, that one-world religion will be abolished/destroyed by the Anti-Christ because he, alone, will want to be worshipped. You see, you are marching right along with God's Word, the Bible! I love reading everything you and others submit on this site. It excites me to no end because I see God's word unfolding before me. Thank you for confirming that God's Word is eternal and true (not that I needed to be convinced anyhow). Please, keep up the good work! Thanks so much!

Pleased I can help. Just keep taking those pills!

(no subject) (Anonymous) Expand
Curious (Anonymous) Expand
Anyone criticizing (Anonymous) Expand
buddhism (Anonymous) Expand


You need to study Buddhism a tad more before you comment on it.

Buddhist don't know or care if a/the historical Buddha existed. If he did not, that would not have any serious effects on Buddhism. You are trying to cater to christian readers who don't understand Buddhism to begin with, and in turn show your great ingnorance on the subject.

Points 1 and 2 could easily be true, but again does not matter to Buddhists.

In Point 3, You confuse modern day "new agers" that borrow from Hinduism (mostly) and Buddhism (a little). That's like calling the Aquarian Christ types or modern Gnostics representitives of Christianity. It's dishonest.

In Point 5, You show your ignorance or are pandering to christian readers. Many of the questions you pose that Buddhism "tries to answer", are meaningless in Buddhism. These "questions" are NOT answered in Buddhism because in Buddhism they are shown to be meaningless through direct experience and practice (not through words or scripture - sorry that leaves you nothing to quote).

In Point 4, you point out that Buddhism like any religion or philosophy can be used in bad ways. Big deal? So only Athiest are perfect? Now who's on a moral high horse?

Point 6 is so bad it would be funny, but I think your serious. Buddhism does NOT teach/condone/promote the idea that one should do nothing of suffering. Buddhism at its very core is about combating suffering, not its acceptance. Read a book, please. You are no doubt calling on the resources of "armchair" buddhists who read old texts riddled with ancient asian/indian superstitions and think it's somehow Buddhism (as you do).

Point 7 you illustrate the fact that differnt religions attract different types of people. That's true though I don't see how that's a criticism of Buddhism? That's just human nature.

As you say in point 8: "genuine Buddhists in the West are very hard to find." and most these days (even asians) will tell you that genuine Buddhist in the EAST are hard to find. The west is slowly getting the reputation of having the "true" Buddhists, with old superstions stripped away.

Please do yourself a favour and read a book on BUDDHISM that seperates old cultural superstitions from Buddhism itself. You probably won't buy into it, but at least you can spot a malinformed "new ager" from a Scripture Bookworm Monkey from a running horse and have the knowlege to tell them apart from an actual Buddhist.

Re: Learn (part one, I hit max. character limit)

I know points one and two don't ultimately matter to Buddhists, the philosophies and meta narrative could be true with or without any actual Buddhas having yet become enlightened. But... it should still be known what roots the religion has, and these points are important to anyone studying Buddhism as a religion, whether or not that person employs Buddhist ideas as part of their life experience. This page is more for scholars and debators than for Buddhists looking to affirm their beliefs.

Point 3 is valid: Most modern Buddhists in the UK, for example, only DO know of the more New Age versions of Buddhism; partially this is because of the routes that we have come to know of Buddhism in popular culture in the West.

Atheism has been used in a bad way just the same as other belief systems, just look at Stalin and Russian atheist oppression of religion. Point four starts with an acknowledgement that Buddhism has one of the cleanest slates with regards to this though; I am hardly on a moral high horse by pointing that out, the opposite!

Point 5's questions are pertinant. And for the record I don't grant "scripture or words" higher precedence. I'm not a Christian or a fundamentalist, or even in a literalist, of any religion or belief. The questions I ask in point 5 are ones that the most famous Buddhist texts also ask; and are those that the most intricate Buddhist texts struggle with, including those detailing the conversions of Kings and conversations of Buddhist sages themselves. Why, answer me, is there a 'reality' or a false ego in the first place? This, as I point out, is the same fundamental problem as the ones Christians have with the problem of evil... why did God create evil as a possible result of free will? Very similar problems, and I do right to point out their likeness.

I think you misunderstood point 6, it's about psychology, not logical beliefs nor teachings. Most major religions are at their core about combatting suffering - including Christianity, Humanism, and Buddhism. Buddhism is especially clear in it's ethics and morals that it is best to reduce suffering as much as possible.

7: Buddhist psychological methodology and ideology only suit some people because the Buddhist exploration of psychology is itself limited to only a particular type of understanding, the world-view is narrowed by the beliefs of the religion.

8. Yes, I agree we're getting better, and Buddhism anywhere is hard to find but... note that once you start looking for "genuine" members of a religion, they're ALWAYS hard to find no matter what religion you pick.

Re: Learn (part two) (Anonymous) Expand
Re: Learn (part two) (Anonymous) Expand
Dwelling (Anonymous) Expand
Re: Learn (Anonymous) Expand
Re: Learn (Anonymous) Expand
Re: Learn (Anonymous) Expand
i dont like you or your websiteways have no right to show intolerance to other ways of thinking. its fine that you are christian if that works for you, but dude get a grip and keep your shitty ideas to yourself. no one likes a know-it-all.


I read your points and I do agree with certain issues you have raised about Buddhism becoming yet another form of blind faith or a religious creed. Buddhist philosphy is not esoteric and is based on getting grips with your life and exerting "yourself" for self improvement.
I will try to clarify some of your arguments by one such story as said to have been related by Buddha himself:
If an arrow came and pierced a person, would he/she seek treatment only after, or would a doctor on examining the patient agree to treat the patient only after they had cleared these few points:
1. where did the arrow come from?
2. what was the birth/caste/race of the person who shot the arrow?
3. how tall was the person?
4. what color was the person?
5. which direction did the arrow come from?
6. what kind of a bow and arrow was it?
7. What speed was the arrow travelling?

... or would they seek a treatment that relievs pain and works to heal the wound?
That is why it is really not important to get involved in (fruitless) philosophical discussions about the birth of Buddha, his being or not being an aetheist, or on how many others might have missued his name to harm others. It also does not matter if he used any existing philosophy or he did not.

The Sati Pathana Sutta and the practise of Vipassana as a form of non sectarian meditation clearly and immediately points out the convergence of both, the philosophical and practical aspects of the method of Buddha's teaching.

Infact it is largely because most people have not had the opportunity of personally "Experiencing" the simple and direct impact of vipassana that they have tried to turn a secular, non sectarian phlosophy of the Buddha into a religion where they worship him and other deities for favours or "enlightment".

The Buddha, possibly like many others before him and after him found the seeds of truth and enlightenment within each sentinent being and his conception of an enlightened person is very simple, "He/she who does skillfull acts which are good for him/her and for others, is an enlightened person". However, inorder to even start doing skillfull acts (not "good" or "bad" acts) we have to train our mind from not reacting to situations and circumstances in our pre concieved ways. We have to break the chain of reactive action and thoughts, rather start looking and acting in a creative manner. Easier said than done, that is why one can practice Samtha meditation- the practice of stillness, Vipassana - the practice of Insight into reality and Maitrei- the practice of generating good will.

Where the question of "Reality vs. False Reality" is concerned; actually in all honesty and with all due humility the only truths which we can clain for our selves in this entire existence is that of Eternal Change and Interdependence of all phenomenon. There maybe other Truths, I cannot vouch for them, in my life I can say that there is not a single thing which is not changing and not a single thing which is not interdependent.
So then what is false reality, it is when we start believing in either Nihilism- there is nothing and it does not matter anyways or we believe in Absolutism- all that is there in the world etc. is truth and reality and it will always be so and some things even exist independent of anything else, i.e. god, spirit, soul,the universe, the act of creation.
Reality however shows that we cannot conclusively prove that there is anyone thing that does not or will never change or that there is something which exists independently of anything else.
It is Nihilism and Absolutism which causes us to believe in a false sense of the I as a non existing or a static fixed entitity. the truth is that there is an I but it is also continuously changing and adapting, so there is little reason to get fixated on the I.

Cheers and maybe we can meet again on the net.
Sachin Singh

point 3. on Buddhism

Point 3. reads well the first time. However I am currently researching Buddhism and therefore I'm not just going to take your evidence at face value. If you can find me a single article from a reliable source that doubts the historical evidence for Buddha I will be very impressed, because I cannot. The fact that the piece that you quote actually says that Historians are unanimous is a pretty good indicator that you are clutching at straws on this one. Some of the other points that you make are fair though.

Re: point 3. on Buddhism

The Buddha was a Sammasambuddha, a self-enlightened Buddha. Only one Sammasambuddha will ever appear in the lifetime of the Universe. The fact that his Teaching, called The Dhamma, is extant is proof that he lived. No-one else can discover and teach it, not God, not Jesus Christ, not Satan. It is interesting to note that Satanists do not think that Satan exists. They think that he does not exist because they do not understand the significance of Names and Genesis, Names and Forms, NamaRupa.

A Buddha does not arise in the world when there is no need for one. When there is a need for one, a Sammasambuddha is born into the Universe. He is born as a Bodhisattva. His duty is to discover The Dhamma and to teach it. When the Buddha passed into Nibbana (Nirvana), he left behind the Sangha. The Sangha consists of enlightened Arahats (Arhats) and Novices. The Enlightened Arahats are the Guardians of The BuddhaDhamma. The Arahats have the Duty of maintaining the original purity of The Dhamma. The Arahats have the Duty of Teaching the Dhamma to the Novice Monks and Nuns and The Householders.

Re: point 3. on Buddhism (Anonymous) Expand
Buddhism is not entirely solitary at all. Temples and congregations are widespread out here in America; in fact, my hometown has one dedicated to the Theravada tradition. This is mostly due to the Asian community we have out here, but in due time, whenever I feel apt to a religious service of any kind, I might just attend that one instead of a church. The only reason why I don't attend a temple is for the same reasons I don't attend a church either -- just disinterested.

And btw, are you aware that there are different schools of Buddhism too? The zen types are seemingly more superstitious than thervada and they believe in hell and all sorts of ghosts.

Buddhism is definately not solitary. Sangha, or "Community", is one of major and important parts of Buddhist theory and action.

Buddhist temples and communities in the UK are concentrated in the North West.

Of course I'm aware of different schools of Buddhism, I've studied the major ones. All schools of Buddhism are, on the ground, more supserstitious than they are in doctrine.

from The Sutta-Nipatta (Anonymous) Expand
Sangha (Anonymous) Expand

Re: Buddhism: Inhumane Dismissal of Suffering

Om mani padme hum

Don't know where to start...

Your misapprehension of the Buddhist world is so extensive, I cannot imagine where to start addressing your mistakes. As Rudyard Kipling wrote, "East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet." We all have our opinions and we fortunately live in a world where we are free to express them. This however does not mean that successful communication is guaranteed. Your comments in some ways express your understanding of Buddhist views that approach what I understand to be Buddhist views, as others have commented. But in other respects, I am dumbfounded by you comments. I used to have the energy to address each and every point of misunderstanding I encountered, on the subject of Buddhism, or what have you, but I now understand this to be a futile task more often than not. I find it more productive when turning to questions on the human condition, to seek cooperation and collaboration for the common good. Personally, I do what I can for all living beings and practice within the sangha. Criticism of others views, like attempts to effectively communicate, often end in failure, although not completely without benefit: success is certainly precluded if attempts are not made, right?

Leave you with this:

As Nagarjuna taught, all propositions fail in the face of emptiness because that which is sought to be proved must be assumed in the first place.


Quite an interesting interpretation of the Buddhist teachings, however i feel you may fall down on certain issues through a lack of proper insight.

1. Development - Buddhism does not invent anything because it does not need to, Buddha mearly opened his eyes to something that was always there, a culmination if you will of the underlying "truth" that other religions had managed to grasp in certain ways.

2. The Buddha - Unlike christianity, Judaism, Islam et al the existance of Buddha is irrelevant to the validity of Buddhism, without Buddha, there is still Dharma, but without the likes of Jesus, christianity would crumble. "The proof is in the pudding" is perhaps the best way to illustrate this.

3. Western Buddhism - Buddhism has never been a strict singular path, the Buddha taught us all to learn from our experiences, not mearly from scripture. Just as Buddhism teaches, nothing is permanent, everything changes....even Buddhism itself.

5. Nirvana and the Self - Mordern Quantum mechanics have helped in some ways to illustrate these issues. Consider the multiverse, where every possibility exists at once (buddhists might call this Nirvana), but from this infinite purely through chance a consciousness arises, collapsing the multiverse into a single percievable reality(waveform collapse), the universe as we know it.

4. World morality - While christianity and Islam contain texts that allow murder etc Buddhism to my knowledge has no such scripture, those who kill, or hurt others in any way go against Buddhism, and even if they claim to be buddhist they are not. It is both illogical and impossible to label buddhism due to the actions of those who go directly against its teachings.

6. Dismissal of Suffering - Buddhists do not look to buddha for the answer, he is unable to give it. THey look to buddha for teaching and explanations. Indeed, our present circumstances are the result of previous actions however Buddhism does not teach these to be inescapable. We can escape our situation, through good deeds to others, through wisdom and sacrifice of the self. Unlike christian Sin, Karma is not a permenant mark, it can be changed.

Just my own interpretations of Buddhism, in respect to your criticisms.

Buddhism Delusional

How so, Buddhism is a western term and is 80 percent or more of the time interpreted in western viewpoints. Buddhism is finding an island onto yourself, Buddhism is breaking away from attachment of worship and praise for the unknown God. Buddhism is the conscious awareness of everyday. It is innocent as it is flawed. Buddhism is everything and everything that is in reality, that we see, hear, touch, and correspond with. It is a way of life to end life. Buddhism is more then achievement perfection through enlightenment and complete understanding of our reality, it is letting go of unwanted desires and taking control of our thoughts in a mindful matter. It embraces science and notices a threat as really a possible learning point. So where is this delusion? An experience with insight is vital. Buddha is special and a Lord, because he didn't have anything before him that stated his claim to a higher consciousness. His understanding is clearly, earthly. The experience can not be exactly duplicated in theory, thus born his adherants and disciples. We are followers and users of the Dharma, striving for something, nothing, and evolving the conscious experience. It can be spiritual it can be secular.


Without a doubt without a doubt this is one of the most profoundly simpleminded critique of Buddhism I have ever read. It is nothing more than the usual neurotic rants that you find from skeptics. Somehow the author thinks it is important whether or not to Buddhism has any original ideas. This of course is totally irrelevant, Buddhism is a religion of practice faith and the cultural baggage that come with Buddhist traditions are irrelevant. Also much of what is said here is just the if effluevium generated from a overenlarged ego.. nowhere in the Vedas or the upanishads for instance do we find the doctrine of the bodhi sattva. This polemic would get an F in Buddhism 101 from any competent professor in the country. As for history is concerned no tradition is so compelling that it automatically generates a virtue in its adherents. These kind of skeptical millimeter shallow interpretations of philosophy and history are laughable. It is a critical equivalent of someone interpreting Christianity as based on cannibalism due to the Eucharist.
You cannot understand Buddhism unless you understand the eightfold path and the doctrine of corn or dependent origination. Evidently the scholar to use the term loosely never heard of the noble fourfold truths would start with the recognition of suffering. The whole point of Buddhism is to end suffering. Obviously the author doesn't understand that regardless of external circumstances the mind is the ultimate source of suffering, which is why one man suffers more in identical situation than another. I would literally have to write an encyclopedia to go over all the misconceptions and lack of scholarship in his statements.
Zenshin Roshi

This site sucks. I don't think you people should be criticizing any ones religions. It's their preference not yours and none of your business. If you are happy with your religion I applaud you, but let others have their own and keep your religious intolerance to yourself. I, personally, think that you people are extremely shallow, aren't entirely comfortable with your beliefs, and, therefore, think you need to criticize others to satisfy your own insecurities or egos. Get a life, then get over yourselves!

Beliefs lead to actions... actions based on superstitions lead to inhumanity, suffering and eventually war and genocide. That's what the Dark Ages were.

If people stopped being religious and started learning more useful things in life (like, morals, maths, science, philosophy, etc) then the world would be a better and more peaceful place.

Actions (Anonymous) Expand
Beliefs (Anonymous) Expand


Its funny how Satanist go on and on about how "evil" ingnorance or stupidity is.

Then in a essay on another religion Mr. "Satan" Crabtree is COUNTING on other readers ignorance of Buddhism for his little critisisms to even make any sense.

Many of your misleading errors have been pointed out to you and then doged worse than a forked tounge politician. You think a little too highly of your own opinion and no one doing any serious religious studies would possibly take anything you say seriously.

You say In Buddhism, ultimate transcendental reality is nirvana, complete abolition of the self.

This is a misunderstanding of Buddhism which was deliberately spread by Jesuits in the late 19th century to stem burgeoning interest in Buddhism.
(Conf. JJ Clarke 1997 Oriental Enlightement)

Buddhism really does not address ultimate transcendental reality as does Christianity, but rather addresses clinging to egoic constructed self. Nibbhana when you have experienced is the recognition that such a self is not the true nature of being in the world and that who we are is something which is not inconsistent with a process theological reading of the Bible.

You become all things and remain as you are.

Interesting view on Buddhism

I have read through your journal on Buddhism and I find that you have very interesting arguement.

While I am a Buddhist, I have continued to look into opposing views on Buddhism. I do not want to restrict myself with only the Buddhist opinion but also to know in what way others look at Buddhism and whether they are right. I was very disappointed with most of the arguements as they merely trying to lift their status by down grading Buddhism.

I find that your writing is trying to be as objective as possible. There are of course certain parts that I would agree and disagree with you on your view of Buddhism, however I respect your opinion due to your objecivity and your attempt to understand what it means. It is quite clear to me that you would not want to just quote out of context but having a more generalised view of what Buddhism means before you write your journal.

I enjoy reading this journal of yours and look forward to more contribution from you.