Fuck Buddhism

[ZeaLitY]

Oh, Thought. How true. Not that I mind! This is extremely entertaining.

Yeah. Several millennia of darkness, rape, theft, violence, war, discrimination, oppression, and evil grown from the tree of religion (which is still bearing fruit) is a real riot.

[Mr Bekkler]

Oh, Thought. How true. Not that I mind! This is extremely entertaining.

Yeah. Several millennia of darkness, rape, theft, violence, war, discrimination, oppression, and evil grown from the tree of religion (which is still bearing fruit) is a real riot.

No, I mean religious debate is always interesting. The subjects thereof are not the source of the entertainment, merely the inspiration.

The subjects themselves are serious enough. I just don't see them as solvable via forum. Discussable? Yes, absolutely.

[IAmSerge]

im usually always annoyed by them cus they usually turn out to be the same thing as the last religious debate.

[Mr Bekkler]

im usually always annoyed by them cus they usually turn out to be the same thing as the last religious debate.

But with new people. Which means people think in patterns that shift and move around so everyone fills a role in the "prophesized" argument formula. Which is extremely interesting IMO.

[V_Translanka]

im usually always annoyed by them cus they usually turn out to be the same thing as the last religious debate.

Good thing we all have the ability to ignore things...If we don't like the topic of a thread we can, y'know...not post in it, yar? Tis a beautiful thing.

[IAmSerge]

your theory is interesting, indeed.

the actual debate that it pertains to has no interest from me.

[Uboa]

A lot of terms in the basic Buddhist texts cannot just be taken at face value.

This virtually increases the blame of Buddhism as a religion for oppressing humanity, because not only does it make these pronouncements, but does it so confusingly and communicates its concepts so poorly that we result with these popular conceptions and practices. It's like when people say, "The Quran does not profess violence." No, but Islam as practice certainly facilitates such an interpretation. At this point, apologists will say, "well, that's a problem with people, not religion." Semantics; remove religion and you remove the problem at the source.

Well, religion isn't going to be wiped off the face of the earth any times soon for many, many reasons.  Even if the religious institutions of the world suddenly and mysteriously vanished, we'd still be left with these cryptic and intriguing texts known to the masses as books which had influence over many billions of lives through history.  Even if religion were gone the intrigue of it would most definitely remain, that is unless the burning of religious books should happen to become fashionable at some point.  Would you prefer that?

The pronouncements which you mention, save unimaginable disaster, will be around for ages and ages to come.  Many will come in contact with them, and many will be moved by them to look more deeply into Buddhism, even if Buddhism comes to be seen by the masses as an elaborate hoax or something along those lines.  This is true for the words of Jesus as well, and the Koran, and any other religious text.  Religious texts are, in many ways, illuminating mirrors on dark or unclear facets of humanity.  That is not to say that they are always more illuminating than confusing, and sometimes intentionally misleading depending on the authors.  But whatever their flaws, it remains that these same words which have made countless people pause and give deep consideration, or in some cases reorient their entire worldview, will continue to do so.

Why is this?  In the age of science and reason how would this happen?  Since this is a thread about Buddhism, consider the four noble truths.

The first seems to always be roughly communicated as:  "Life is suffering."  It should be something more along the lines of:  "Suffering is unavoidable in life."  This speaks to everyone, correct?  Even on a good day one can remember bad things which have happened to them, terrible things sometimes.  

The second one seems to be roughly communicated as:  "The root of suffering is desire."  Without a better interpretation, this is still something that a lot of people can relate to.  Unrequited love, feeling unsatisfied without more money, a better car, a better body, most people have cursed their lack of this or that at one point or another.  Now, from wikipedia I've pulled this translation of the Pali and Chinese texts: "This is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination."  They use the word "craving", which sounds more powerful than just "desire", at least to me it does.  It also seems to fit more in line with the experience of craving love, or craving a car being more tormenting than just having a fleeting desire for either.  The implications of this are that the cravings listed are the cause of what would be a person's reincarnation, but the central tenet of the message is still that suffering is craving, and craving is suffering.  

The third makes logical sense, roughly communicated as:  "To extinguish suffering, give up desire."  Let go.  Let her go, don't torment yourself over her.  Let him go, he'll only cause you pain.  Let the craving for that new car go, it will put you in debt.  Once again this makes a lot of sense.  And, what's more, upon reading this any number of tormented individuals may wonder why they never though of this before.  They may have already formed the opinion that Buddha or Buddhism could further help them if they sought out more information.

The fourth noble truth almost sounds like it's meant to recruit people to the path:  "To give up desire, follow the eightfold path."  If anyone was intrigued in the least by the time they got to the third noble truth, they'll be interested in heeding the fourth which now calls upon them to seek the eightfold path and follow it to some extent.  

These are the established and widely known four noble truths of Buddhism, the vehicle by which many people have become seekers in the Buddhist realm, and by which many more will in the future.  Likewise, many people who read about Jesus are intrigued by his relationship to "God the father", and by his life on earth and his words.  And why not?  Jesus and Buddha are two of the great mysterious figures of the human world, as intriguing to many as the origins of the universe.  The pull of this intrigue is what makes us as individuals think, and makes us want more knowledge, makes us want to search within or without ourselves.  This is one of the greatest aspects of who we are as individuals, but if we set off on any path without reliable guides we may end up in what looks like more trouble than we started out in.  This is not my argument for religion so much as it is for understanding.  By understanding the self-mirroring aspects of the major religions and teachers we can, hopefully, see through the fog and come to a better grasp of who we are and why we are the way we are.

No matter how much confusion these teachings of Buddhism may cause, I hope that they never fade into obscurity.  They are a wealth even in their mystery, and maybe that is their most valuable aspect; their mystery, their pull on our minds to understand things we've never imagined possible.

[Lord J Esq]

The road refers to the striving, the very same striving which Buddhism dismisses.

This is wrong.  If you were to say "nirvanism", which you referred to earlier, instead of Buddhism, I would say you are probably correct. 

From the Dhammapada:

91: Those who have high thoughts are ever striving: they are not happy to remain in the same place.  Like swans that leave their lake and rise into the air, they leave their home for a higher home.
111:  Better than a hundred years lived in ignorance, without contemplation, is one single day of life lived in wisdom and in deep contemplation.
112: Better than a hundred years lived in idleness and in weakness is a single day of life lived with courage and powerful striving.
370: Cut off the five--selfishness, doubt, wrong austerities and rites*, lust, hate; throw off the five--the desire to be born with a body, or without a body, self-will*, restlessness, ignorance; but cherish five--faith, watchfulness, energy, contemplation, vision.  He who has broken the five letters--lust, hate, delusion, pride, false views---is one who has crossed to the other shore.
375: This is the beginning of the live of a wise monk; self-control of the senses, happiness, living under the moral law, and the association with good friends whose life is pure and who are ever striving.

*Where 370 is concerned:  This takes a little dissecting to truly understand.  "Wrong austerities and rites" seem to be the kinds of things which Zeality was really harping on in the beginning of this thread.  Most experienced Buddhists would know that a person has nothing to gain from that which he dismissed in his rather unique fashion.  Where "self-will" is admonished, that statement could be interpreted as the kind of foolish selflessness which seems to come with "nirvanism", but in the same chapter he mentions the "Self" with a capital S.  Without trying to read to much into that, save it to mean the higher Self, which some would say is a foolish notion of a god-self.  I just take it to mean the self which is above the most base desires; the self that contemplates actions and strives to be wise and good in life, etc. 

A lot of terms in the basic Buddhist texts cannot just be taken at face value.  The word "desire" for example, where the Buddha talks about forsaking desire, cannot possibly mean everything which could constitute desire.  It's a specific type of desire the Buddha talks about, and it's the kind of desire that could hold a person back from being able to "leave their lake and rise into the air".  Likewise "suffering", "attachments", etc.; most of the familiar and, in a sense, overused terms with regard to Buddhism all mean particular types of that which is described. 

It's easy to read ridiculousness into the basic tenets of Buddhism just to discount it.  But before one does that it's important to remember that to come to any kind of deeper understanding of Buddhism before discounting it in such a way does not make one an apologist, if that's what some in this thread are trying to avoid.

I am also not trying to be an apologist.  I'm just trying to lift the concept of Buddhism that is being presented in this thread out of the haze.  It seems like those who are speaking out the most with regard to Buddhism are doing so more with the aim of discounting it outright than trying to reach some understanding of it here.  If I am mistaken about that, let me know.  (Granted, the title of this thread is "Fuck Buddhism"...)

I originally missed that this was directed at me. I will stand by my earlier assertion--"Buddhism" explicitly and not "nirvanism" discouraging striving in the sense that I described--because my interpretation is that Buddhism genuinely does discourage it. Not all striving--I agree with you there--but certainly the flavor of striving of which I spoke, which, roughly put, includes the shaping of other people and one's surroundings, in addition to oneself. Buddhism would teach us to strive to accept the nature of things, by perceiving and understanding them. I agree with that much, very much: Self-awareness is necessary, and even the best of us don't have enough of it. Beyond the removal of ignorance, however, I advocate striving to change the nature of things, to intervene, to be selective--not willy nilly but with design. Unless I am severely mistaken in my (admittedly limited) understanding of Buddhism, such impulses are discouraged. Indeed, this is part of the explanation as to why Buddhism is less warlike than the Abrahamic religions, which is a fascinating observation in its own right.

[Thought]

I can take that one of two ways: If you're referring to my structure and composition and technique...

If, on the other hand, you're referring to the tenor and style...

It might simply be that the more one writes the easier it is to write, and the better such writing tends to be.

Though I suspect it might have to do with the context. Often when you post -- at least, your posts that I see -- it is in response to what someone else has said. What you write in those situations is primarily of a reactionary nature. This, on the other hand, seemed to spring more from your own independent musings on the subject and not so much in a response to what had been said before. It strikes me as something delivered from an easy chair in a library, as it were, rather than as part of a debate or in a lecture hall.

I consider it typical of my output, but perhaps my less controversial tone here struck you as “more professional.”

Quite possibly. I have been wondering over the weekend if in general your writing is better than I give you credit for and my mere objection to your stance has prevented me from realizing it. Being limited to one perspective, I unfortunately can't tell if I have been right or biased, which annoyingly have the same end product. That makes determining the truth a difficult business. If I have been biased, I do hope you'll be patient with me.

Though I do get to take comfort in the fact that I still disagree with you on many points.

Speaking as what some would call a "religious apologist," I must admit I've reached the conclusion that moral guidelines stem from rational thought alone…

…Things like whether we should inflict physical and emotional pain on others -- the answer is "no."

While I would agree that Atheists and Theists are both perfectly capable of developing and adhering to equally good moral guidelines, I would object to these being ideally reached through rational thought alone. Perhaps this is part of my own short comings, but I can find no rational reason for intentionally avoiding inflicting physical and emotional pain on others.

If I were to tell someone why one shouldn't do these things, it would involve phrases like: "because it is rude," "because you wouldn't want them to do it to you," etc. All of which I would tend to argue aren't rational reasons. Manners (and thus the infringement of them) are an arbitrary social construct; they could have very easily taken a different form. Because manners are so malleable, I cannot rationally use them as a basis for morals. Likewise, what one wants can easily arise from physical processes apart from reason - I might desire food, and it is rational to consume food in order to sustain life, but my desires for food can easily surpass reason so that I desire to eat more than is necessary. Giving in to mere wants can lead to undesirable consequences, so I cannot use wants as a basis for morality either. And so on.

Some Catholics will read the New Testament and see within it a command to go out and stone gay people; I read the New Testament and it gives me the courage to call my Pope flat-out wrong on this particular matter.

I'm not sure if this is what you meant, but after having recently read through some of the teaching of Jesus, I'd say that one can see a command within it to go out and support same-sex marriage. I think that is what you were getting at, but as there is a different between rejecting the Pope and actually supporting homosexual marriage, I thought it might be useful to note.

I'm guessing you thought that list of atrocities I posted earlier that are committed daily is just perfectly normal on this earth.

Actually, they are perfectly normal, which is the entire problem. If they weren't, I suspect you'd be less upset over it. As it stands, not only are the atrocities themselves reprehensible, but the fact that they are common and often ignores is also reprehensible.

Yeah. Several millennia of darkness, rape, theft, violence, war, discrimination, oppression, and evil grown from the tree of religion (which is still bearing fruit) is a real riot.

Meh, it is a good bit more entertaining than the several millennia of darkness, rape, theft, violence, war, discrimination, oppression, and evil grown from the tree of Government (which is still bearing fruit as well).

People just don't seem to get energetic about legislation anymore, which is a shame. The world could use the minds and passion of the Age of Enlightenment again.

[Radical_Dreamer]

While I would agree that Atheists and Theists are both perfectly capable of developing and adhering to equally good moral guidelines, I would object to these being ideally reached through rational thought alone. Perhaps this is part of my own short comings, but I can find no rational reason for intentionally avoiding inflicting physical and emotional pain on others.

If I were to tell someone why one shouldn't do these things, it would involve phrases like: "because it is rude," "because you wouldn't want them to do it to you," etc. All of which I would tend to argue aren't rational reasons. Manners (and thus the infringement of them) are an arbitrary social construct; they could have very easily taken a different form. Because manners are so malleable, I cannot rationally use them as a basis for morals.

It is rational to intentionally avoid inflicting physical and emotional pain on others, and more than that, to create a social context in which such behavior is condemned and swiftly punished, because doing so results in an overall reduction in human suffering. The less people suffer, the more they are able to pursue beneficial pursuits, and the more effectively they may do so, thus leading to a further increase in the quality of life for the society as a whole.

[FaustWolf]

I'm not sure if this is what you meant, but after having recently read through some of the teaching of Jesus, I'd say that one can see a command within it to go out and support same-sex marriage. I think that is what you were getting at, but as there is a different between rejecting the Pope and actually supporting homosexual marriage, I thought it might be useful to note.

I figured that supporting same-sex marriage must be tantamount to rejecting the Pope's absolute moral authority, but I am certainly interested in how more mainstream Catholics who support gay marriage (if there is such a thing) reason their difference with the Pope, and what it means to them exactly.

The really interesting thing about the Pope is that Matthew 16:18 of the King James New Testament -- "...and on this rock I will build My church..." -- should give the Pope the freedom to stray from precedent and support homosexual unions, even in the religious sense, if he (or she...?) so pleases. Or at least that's my interpretation of it. Sort of giving Catholicism some wiggle room, if only a really progressive Pope were put in place.

With regard to the topic of morality from rational thought, Thought does point out something interesting: while many advocate that morality can be achieved through rational thought alone, this is still hypothetical to some degree. I'm completely guessing here, but I'd venture to say that none of us has been reared in a society free of traditional mores, whether those mores come from religion or simple social custom. Critically examining the idiosyncracies of these mores spurs the progressive's wish to transcend those original sources of morality. But the starting point has always been some moral rubric steeped in tradition.

[Jeff Zero]

Drat, I arrived entirely too late to post most everything ZeaLitY already said.

Science. It works. Amen.

[Thought]

It is rational to intentionally avoid inflicting physical and emotional pain on others, and more than that, to create a social context in which such behavior is condemned and swiftly punished, because doing so results in an overall reduction in human suffering. The less people suffer, the more they are able to pursue beneficial pursuits, and the more effectively they may do so, thus leading to a further increase in the quality of life for the society as a whole.

Ah, but why is human suffering something that should be reduced? Why should the increase in the quality of life for society as a whole be something that humans should work towards? I agree that these are good, moral things, but again I can find no purely rational basis for preferring this state of being over a world of increased suffering and decreased quality of life. I wouldn't want to live such a world, but what one wants, as I said before, isn't a firm place to build a moral code. Wants are subjective while I would maintain that morals must be objective to be morals (but perhaps that is where I stumble on the road to the claim that morals can be purely rational).

I suppose this relates in part to the discussion in the Frustration thread regarding worth. One might claim that morals are determined by criteria based on worth; it is worth our while to pursue certain things and suppress others, and so those guidelines become morals.

The kind of worth you people are talking about is arbitrary. We define the criteria and the scale. "Worth" does not exist in the physical sense as a general concept. In other words, there is no "worth" particle...it isn't biological, or chemical, or atomic.

To expand that, there is no "moral" particle that gives certain things more right than others, and there is no "moral" energy that gives certain actions more justifiability than others.

I figured that supporting same-sex marriage must be tantamount to rejecting the Pope's absolute moral authority, but I am certainly interested in how more mainstream Catholics who support gay marriage (if there is such a thing) reason their difference with the Pope, and what it means to them exactly.

Well one can reject the Pope's claim in this regard while not actually supporting homosexuals. This isn't a binary decision; one can be undecided, or be partially decided in one way and decided in the opposite direction in another.

For example, one might reject the Catholic stance against homosexuality but believe that the issue of marriage is something government shouldn't be addressing. After all, in America at least, if marriage is a right, then it is a right reserved for the states to determine because it was not specifically addressed in the constitution. Such an individual might not be anti-homosexual, but neither would they be pro-same-sex-marriage, particularly on a national-legislative level.

Alternately, a religious person might accept the Catholic church's rejection of homosexuals but at the same time also reject the secular influence on marriage (particularly those who claim that marriage is a religious institution). Such a person might support equal rights between heterosexuals and homosexuals in a very non-standard way; the abolishing of marriage on the secular level entirely. Pro-equality but anti-same-sex-marriage.

As you said, one can read the same text and  get a variety of messages. Including, as I wanted to point out, a pro-same-sex-marriage stance.

[Uboa]

I originally missed that this was directed at me. I will stand by my earlier assertion--"Buddhism" explicitly and not "nirvanism" discouraging striving in the sense that I described--because my interpretation is that Buddhism genuinely does discourage it. Not all striving--I agree with you there--but certainly the flavor of striving of which I spoke, which, roughly put, includes the shaping of other people and one's surroundings, in addition to oneself. Buddhism would teach us to strive to accept the nature of things, by perceiving and understanding them. I agree with that much, very much: Self-awareness is necessary, and even the best of us don't have enough of it. Beyond the removal of ignorance, however, I advocate striving to change the nature of things, to intervene, to be selective--not willy nilly but with design. Unless I am severely mistaken in my (admittedly limited) understanding of Buddhism, such impulses are discouraged. Indeed, this is part of the explanation as to why Buddhism is less warlike than the Abrahamic religions, which is a fascinating observation in its own right.

I was really trying not to put off answering this, but allergies, work, and other stresses zonked me this week to the point where even a forum debate was too much extra work.  I've never had allergies before this year, and all of the sudden they hit me like swine flu.  No joke, felt horrible for a week straight.

Anyway, as far as core scriptural evidence for Buddhists striving to change the world goes, there is another passage in the Dhammapada that states something along the lines of "Better than a thousand words is one word that brings peace."  The activities of worldwide Buddhists organizations are very reflective of that statement.  Most organized Buddhist "intervention", as you put it, centers around activities which promote peace and making the world a freer place for everyone in general.  That is the aim, at least.

http://www.bpf.org/html/resources_and_links/links/links.php - This will give you some idea of the kinds of peace work typically inspired by the Buddhist Dhamma.

Buddhists and Buddhist organizations do intervene selectively, indeed with design as well.  Now, whether or not your idea of intervention falls in line with theirs is something I'm not really comfortable with postulating.