10 Questions for the Buddhist
Here are some thought starters for dialog with a person of the Buddhist faith. Since, over time, Buddhism has fragmented into diverse religious traditions, some of the following questions may not directly apply in every individual case. The questions are intended to address various fundamental elements of classically understood Buddhism with no intent to oversimplify the issues or merely to setup "strawman" arguments.
- Authority of Buddha
Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) presumably gained "enlightenment" one day while meditating under a fig tree.
Why should we believe that Buddha's metaphysical claims or insights are true? Why believe him over any other mystic who made assertions based on private revelations?
To have confidence in supernatural claims we need supernatural verification.
Are there any reliably attested miracles or prophecies that we can look to for validation of his claims, or are we simply to take his word for it?
- Document Reliability
The teachings of Buddha were not put to writing until several hundred years after his death, and various mystics have added to the canons since that time.
Why should we believe that they even have an accurate record of what Buddha actually taught? Are any of these writings considered absolutely authoritative, or is it acceptable to pick and choose what is appealing?
- Authority of Tradition
There are various Buddhist sects teaching profoundly different things, e.g., emphasis on one scripture over another, atheism vs. deism, meditation vs. ritualism, and personal striving vs. reliance on guides.
Which school of Buddhism are we to consider the most accurate representation of the "truths" that Buddha discovered? How can we discern which of the various sect's founders have the most accurate grasp of the truth?
- Karma and Morality
The "soul" is supposed to progress upward to Nirvana through numerous cycles of reincarnation. Living a "moral" life is part of what advances one in this process (the principle of "karma"); yet all is illusion including, it would seem, good and evil.
If good and evil are not objective, then how are they important to our development? Why should an illusory and meaningless idea be so important to our existence?
Buddhism teaches the Eightfold Path (right thought, right speech, right action, etc.), but what specific principles and rules for good behavior does the Buddhist propose, and are these objective and applicable to all people in all times and places? What is it that drives and enforces these laws of karma?
Morality is about being selfless and "other" focused, but much of Buddhism involves self-centered practices such as isolationism, meditation, and private ritualistic behavior.
In what way is a good Buddhist a moral and valuable member of society rather than a self-absorbed individual?
In Buddhism, there is no unified self that is contiguous between each lifecycle; we consist of component parts that come together in new arrangements for each life.
How does karma work if there is no persistent "self" to credit or debit according to the deeds of each lifetime? And how is it we hope to learn anything from this cycle of incarnation if we have no persistent memories throughout the process?
Are you anxious about the effects of your karma from this life? If so, doesn't that imply that you believe that you have a personal soul that is persistent and will reap the harvest of your deeds in this life?
Does karma take into consideration every single illicit thought and deed? How well are you staying ahead of your debts? Is it possible to know if you are doing enough to make progress?
- Detachment
Buddhism calls for detachment from our desires, the world, and even rational thought, but it also teaches numerous ideas about how to do so.
How is it possible to rationally embrace and apply these ideas, yet also to "detach" from doctrines and thoughts about doing so?
If Buddhism teaches detachment from all desires, does this also mean we must be detached from our families, friends, the needy, and from our desire for goodness and justice in the world?
- Nirvana
The end of existence (Nirvana) for the Buddhist is soul extinction - there is ultimately no afterlife, or at least no enduring "self." Our aim is to be released from the suffering (Samsara) that is life in the earthly realm.
Why should we be excited about spiritual suicide? Life is not so bad for everyone; why can't we just decide to selfishly enjoy each incarnation as much as we are able? Are there any consequences of intentionally not following the path laid out by Buddha? Is there some point in cosmic history where our chance is over and we would be faced with something worse than non-existence?
If the "self" doesn't really exist to begin with, how is it that it can become extinct? Mustn't it first be to strive for non-being?
- Origins
How did we come to be in this state of suffering and imprisonment in the world? What happened to put us into this mess from which we are supposed to escape?
Since it all is to ultimately end in nothingness for us, how can there possibly be any purpose for these lifetimes of toil and suffering?
- Science & Order
Science has revealed that we live in a world with a beginning of space-time-matter, with fine-tuned laws of physics, and which is orderly and rational. The cosmos has every appearance of intentionality and "personal" design - so much so that even secular science recognizes this as the "anthropic principle."
What is the Buddhist creation story, and how does it relate to science, order, purpose, and the design of the world around us?
- Reason & Consciousness
The universe is concrete and orderly. Logic and reason are indispensable to our lives. Our consciousness and existence are self-apparent and directly, subjectively known. Why is the very world (or illusion) that has been presented to us so much at odds with what Buddhism says the cosmos actually is and where we are trying to go?
Buddhism calls us to reject our deepest intuition of our self and reality.
Why is it reasonable for us to do so?
- Jesus
Who is Jesus?
This is a personal question, since Buddha lived before Jesus' time, but the answer is sure to be something like, "an enlightened man" or "an incarnation of the Buddha."
Why not instead believe in the classical Jesus whose life was recorded in the generation of His disciples; whose teachings fit with our observations of the world, history, and human nature; whose authority is vouchsafed by many signs and wonders; who can deal with our moral debt and spiritual shortcomings in this very lifetime; and who offers us a promised eternal future that we can be excited about?
© 2008 LifeWay Christian Resources
- Share this:
-
Blink
-
Del.icio.us
-
Digg
-
Furl
-
Simpy
-
Spurl
-
Y! MyWeb
In response to the previous post:
First, points 2 & 3 raise the issue of knowing what Buddha actually said to begin with. But I will agree for the sake of argument that he did not tell anyone to just blindly "believe in me." The problem is that this man made metaphysical truth claims which he sought to pass on to other people, and these truths are in opposition to those made by other "spiritual leaders" such as Muhammad or Jesus. The question still stands: why should we believe Buddha's model of reality is anywhere close to accurate? And if it's just a matter of believing what "seems right to you," then I must, first, disqualify Buddhism, since it is rather odd and doesn't "seem right to me," and I must, second, ask why transcendent metaphysical reality would be something that our opinions would have an affect on anyway? Might it not be the kind of thing that we could not guess or imagine unless someone with authority told us about it (and this leads us back to the issue of credibility and verification)? If we rely on the idle musings of ourselves and others, then "truth" will have a million different flavors.
Second, I think you will find that the variety in Buddhism is profoundly more diverse than even the wildest difference among "Christians." The most extreme divisions within Christendom can be found in Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism. Yet even these are united in their understandings of God's nature, who Jesus was & what He was about, man's problem & its solution, and our ultimate destiny – there is unity in core and essentials. Compare this with the flavors of Buddhism, where there is not even agreement over the nature or existence of god(s). But it is of no consequence to the Buddhist because consistency and reason are worldly hindrances to "enlightenment," though apparently valid tools for deconstructing other religions. To the outsider, the differences in Christianity are exaggerated by the fact that they tend to examine only the external practices to the neglect of the creeds and confessions. Additionally, Christians are extremely keen on details and distinctions, which tends to highlight the differences that do happen to exist.