Buddhism under scrutiny: neither God nor void

Buddhism, the religion promising emptiness and leaving practitioners without God

Christianity was dismissed as guilt-inducing, Sarracin as violent, and Judaism rejected it for lack of circumcision. When only Buddhism seemed left, the conclusion remained the same: it is also a trap. This begins an analysis that has persisted for years and recently resurfaced: the thesis that major mainstream religions, including Eastern ones, share a fundamental flaw—nullifying human creative potential—and that only individuals can find God within themselves.

The central argument is that Buddhism substitutes the concept of God (brahman) with that of emptiness (shunyata), directing all practices—yoga, meditation—toward nothingness rather than wholeness. The critique is not new; Nietzsche already noted Buddhism as "the Christianity of Hindu civilization," with the same longing for peace and world-weariness. But here a practical nuance is added: if you strive to drive in order to stop driving, you become paralyzed. That is what Buddhists achieve, according to this reading: becoming inactive, avoiding worldly pleasures, zombies seeking a void that is actually darkness.

Emptiness is not nothingness: the problem of definitions

The discussion quickly becomes entangled in semantics. For some, emptiness is simply non-consciousness of the whole, ignorance before it; for others, it is a tremendous force, the origin of galaxies, and confusing it with a hole is a gross error. "Emptiness, whose highest exponent are black holes, is the origin of all galaxies," it is claimed, before accusing the interlocutor of mixing physical concepts with sarracena categories. The response does not wait: when people speak of emptiness, they think of an empty backpack, not a cosmic force.

Meanwhile, Buddhism is 2,500 years old, with many schools and abundant literature. To know its goal, it is argued, one should attend to what the Buddha himself said: purification of the mind, eradication of dukkha. That is nirvana. Some recall that early Buddhism reinterpreted the Brahmanic pantheon and none of its devas were considered creators, allowing a fully materialist reading of the teaching. For Buddhism, all samsara is made of two basic bricks: matter and mind.

Life is not suffering: the reply to the Noble Truths

One of the most repeated objections targets the first Noble Truth. If life is suffering, Buddhism induces focusing on the negative, and thought is creation: constantly focusing on suffering prevents avoiding generating more suffering. Life is not suffering, it is replied; life is life, and within it there are many things, including suffering, which can be bypassed once God is found within oneself. The Buddhist solution—escaping by not desiring—seems unfeasible: if desire is intrinsic to life, it cannot be avoided.

Not all diagnoses are so harsh. Some maintain that the problem is speaking of a God when reality is a word too small and outdated, and that what exists is an ineffable, infinite, eternal whole. Others recall that Buddhism is not negatively inclined by vocation, but its core is liberation from suffering, and if we experience dukkha due to a specific cause, the best thing is to remove that cause. If drinking alcohol causes us suffering, sitting to meditate to solve it is stupid; the correct thing is to stop drinking.

Nirvana as egoistic desire: the vicious circle

The most incisive criticism arrives at the end of the path. Nirvana originally means extinction, like a flame going out. Seeking the extinction of one's concrete existence is, according to this reading, an egoistic desire, and moreover impossible: you are already the whole, already eternal, and the experiences you will live are infinite because the whole is infinite. "You only seek to extinguish your concrete existence, which is an egoistic desire," it is summarized, before qualifying the approach as spiritual nihilism.

Against this, the defense of Buddhism as a practical path: when reading the Pali Canon, one cannot help smiling at the superstitions practiced by the Buddha's contemporaries, which they considered revealed truths. One can buy all kinds of sterile nonsense that tangle the mind in more suffering, or undertake the arduous path leading to liberation. The question, deep down, is how to free oneself from dukkha when you have a crappy job.

The shadow of control: from Abrahamic religions to Buddhism

The thread drifts toward a broader suspicion: all mainstream religions are merely a type of control over the masses, imprinting on the psyche that the only way to feel divinity is their own. Christianity, Sarracin, and Judaism are abominable for their intolerance, rigidity, and insistence on faith and submission to external authority rather than practice and internal knowledge. That faith demanded is, for this current, the absolute proof of deception: if you weren't deceived, you wouldn't be asked to believe anything.

The exoteric version of major religions is nothing but a tool of control, it is argued, while immanence is vindicated: God is both transcendence and presence within us, the Kingdom of Heaven is inside us and we are inside Him. Macrocosm and microcosm intimately related. The problem, concludes another voice, is that there is no problem at all: Buddhism is Buddhism, Sarracin is Sarracin. You trinc it or you don't. If you see any issue, you shouldn't trinc it.

The analysis gets stuck exactly there, where definitions cease to be operative. Some claim emptiness is ignorance; others, that it is the force generating galaxies. Some see nirvana as extinction; others, as liberation. Meanwhile, the underlying question remains unanswered: if all mainstream religions are traps, where is the exit?