This essay lacks any attempt at historical development, i.e. examining how different varieties of Buddhism originated beginning with its birthplace in India, onto Tibet and China, Vietnam and Japan, before jumping the Pacific Ocean in the 20th century. Instead of that rather interesting discussion, this simple straw man is set up:
> "Buddhism is often treated with special regard, as if it is a superior philosophy that correctly identifies the source of all human misery, and correctly lays out the path to its elimination."
Isn't that basically the premise of any religious tradition one could care to name, from the Abrahamic offshoots (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) to every other system of belief one can think of (Hinduism, European paganism, animism, etc.)?
If people find comfort or psychological support by adopting this or that philosophical-religous tradition, (aka the utilitarian argument), there's not really any point in trying to poke holes in their beliefs. The only thing that's unacceptable is when members of one tradition use their belief system as an excuse for persecuting or waging wars on other groups.
It's not meant to be a critique of historical Buddhism as a whole, it's meant to be a critique of how Buddhism is often viewed in the West.
And yes, the "superior philosophy" assumption is pretty widespread in the West, especially compared to eg. Islam. I've gotten some very surprised looks when mentioning things like how Kyoto's sohei warrior monks had violent battles between competing temples and regularly extorted both nobility and populace, the role of Buddhism in ultranationalist mob violence in eg. Myanmar [2] and Sri Lanka [3], etc.
Mass culture in the "west" (whatever that is, so let's just say US for the sake of the argument) absolutely gives Buddhism a pass, but it more or less gives anything that's not Christianity a pass. This is understandable since this culture is largely a post-Christian one.
I think on the left there is a tendency to explain away a lot of Islam's problems too, whereas on the right there is a tendency to exaggerate them. I'm not sure what else to make of This event at Hamline College.[1]
The whole Myanmar thing is quickly turned into a No True Scotsman conversation any time you bring it up.
For sure, the Buddhist majority oppression of the Muslim minority in Myanmar is a niche comparative/inter-religious fact and not something that has been on the world news. Sarcasm.
> "Buddhism is often treated with special regard, as if it is a superior philosophy that correctly identifies the source of all human misery, and correctly lays out the path to its elimination."
Isn't that basically the premise of any religious tradition one could care to name, from the Abrahamic offshoots (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) to every other system of belief one can think of (Hinduism, European paganism, animism, etc.)?
If people find comfort or psychological support by adopting this or that philosophical-religous tradition, (aka the utilitarian argument), there's not really any point in trying to poke holes in their beliefs. The only thing that's unacceptable is when members of one tradition use their belief system as an excuse for persecuting or waging wars on other groups.