"Rely upon yourself: do not depend upon anyone else. Make my teachings your light. Rely upon them: do not depend on any other teaching." - The Buddha [1]

The first thing to be said when doing a critique of Buddhism is that it is not monolithic. There are many schools of Buddhism (Theravada, Mahayana, Tibetan, Zen, etc.,) and in Japan alone there are more than 200 sects.[2] The most popular (in number) is the Mahayana school. This critique will be based upon their teachings. I will focus on an Introduction to Buddhism , written by Mike Butler from the Buddhist Studies: Buddha Dharma Education Association & BuddhaNet [3] for this critique. The ammunition for this critique will be taken from the Buddhist concept of impermanence. Butler, writing about impermanence, says that:

"The problem is that the "world out there" is constantly changing, everything is impermanent and it is impossible to make a permanent relationship with anything, at all. If we examine the notion of impermanence closely and honestly, we see that it is all-pervading, everything is marked by impermanence. We might posit an eternal consciousness principle, or higher self, but if we examine our consciousness closely we see that it is made up of temporary mental processes and events." [4]

So, according to Buddhism one of the reasons man has problems is because he tries to invent some idea of permanence in this ever-changing impermanent world. We can conclude that Buddhism teaches that the only permanent thing is that nothing is permanent. This concept is Buddhism's Achilles heel.

First, Buddhism is not neutral. Though some may want to marry Jesus' teachings with the Buddha's, such as Thich Nhat Hahn's book Living Buddha, Living Christ . Hahn declares that "I do not think there is much difference between Christians and Buddhists, and, when you are a truly happy Christian you are a truly happy Buddhist."[5] But according to the Buddhist concept of impermanence, Christianity and Buddhism will never be compatible. In fact, according to this concept, Buddhism denies Christian teaching. The Bible teaches us that God's word stands forever (Is. 40:8), God's laws are unchanging (Matt 5:18) and Jesus is the first and the last (Rev. 2:8). The concept of impermanence, therefore, is diametrically opposed to Christianity and, therefore, Buddhism is not neutral.

Regarding to our ability to verify that Buddhism is true, Butler writes. "Everything the Buddha taught was based on his own observations of the way things are. Everything that he taught can be verified by our own observations of the way things are."[6] This statement presupposes some sort of permanence, which would not make sense if the doctrine of impermanence were true. Firstly, it presupposes that our observations can lead us to true beliefs about the world outside us. It did that for the Buddha thousands of years ago, and it has remained the same since. The "world out there" that was observed by Buddha is also the same for us today. If it were not, we could not verify his observations by our own. Maybe what Butler meant by "observations" was not empirical, but mental observations. That is, the Buddha and modern man "observe" with our minds through contemplation the way things are. Yet impermanence destroys this as well. Remember that Butler said that "mental processes" are temporary?

Buddhism tells us that there are four noble truths, and these truths tell us about our problem (searching for permanence) and how to achieve salvation (through meditation). One must wonder, how can there be such things as truths in this ever-changing world? One of these truths is that suffering is universal. How can there be something universal if one presupposes impermanence? The Christian worldview makes sense out of the fact that there is suffering. It is because man has sinned against God and that is one of the consequences. Buddhism cannot account for why mankind always suffers. The Buddhist borrows from the Christian worldview then.

Another noble truth is that to get out of our problems we have to meditate. Butler says that through meditation we will "develop the insight that things are really quite simple."[7] This idea has many problems. First, it assumes a metaphysical state of affairs. That is, since meditation has worked in the past to free us, it will work now or in the future. But how does Buddhism account for the belief that the future will resemble the past if its concept of impermanence were true? Furthermore, to say that through meditation we will discover that things are really quite simple is to contradict oneself. If everything is complex and constantly changing, Mr. Butler, then how can there be anything that is simple (i.e., not complex)? There is much more to say about the noble truths but I do not need to go into any detail. Applying their concept of impermanence to any Buddhist teaching will destroy that teaching.

Finally, the Buddhist concept of Nirvana teaches that the way things really are is simple, and that life is an illusion. When we achieve nirvana we will belong to the impersonal void. The way things really are is that there are no distinctions; all is one.[8] If this is the case, then Buddhists cannot believe in the concept of impermanence. To believe this concept is to make a distinction between permanence and impermanence. It looks as if one of Buddhism's main tenants is an illusion! But this tenant is the basic belief that is used to achieve all their other tenants. Therefore, Buddhism's two biggest doctrines (impermanence and nirvana) are at war with each other and the two cannot be reconciled. Thus Buddhism destroys itself.

[1] The Teachings of Buddha, Pg 18.

[2] Ankerberg and Weldon Pg. 48.

[3] This intro is available at www.buddhanet.net

[4] Ibid. Pg. 1

[5] Living Buddha Living Christ, Pg 53

[6] Mike Butler, Intro to Buddhism. Pg 1

[7] Ibid, Pg 2.

[8] See Ankerberge and Weldon for quotes by many Buddhists about what Nirvana is like. Pg. 60-61