The premise of Buddhism is that life is suffering (or unsatisfactory) and that we are doomed to repeat it in a cycle of rebirth unless we prevent it altogether through the state of nirvana
So his antidote to suffering is to essentially just avoid being born at all by getting rid of craving and greed so that you will not accumulate the karma necessary for a rebirth. That doesn't relieve suffering in this world though since we will still age, get ill and die but it will prevent suffering by simply not existing in the next world
Why would you want to exit from worldly existence into nothingness? This to me seems like spiritual suicide in the sense that you're endeavoring, upon natural death or otherwise, to prevent yourself from ever having to exist again
I don't understand threads like these. Are they just veiled generals? You can't possibly have a real interest in having this question answered, yet show such disinterest in learning anything about it that you would put forward such an entry-level inquiry.
And I hope you realize there isn't any one "Buddhism." All the sects have different takes on this.
Asher Torres
OPs misunderstanding aside, Buddhism is quite susceptible to lending itself to malevolent social practices aka the 'caste' system due to how karma can be interpreted.
If life is in an eternal cycle of suffering and rebirth then it is so readily able to conclude that the lot of the poorer person or less fortunate is society is due to a 'previous life' or misdemeanors in a previous life. The life now is therefore punishment and the good buddhist should not interfere.
Many people think buddhism would lead to a wonderful fair and peaceful society but one only need to take Tibet (pre-China annexation) to see why.
Jack Jones
>no user you misunderstood, I will now go off on a tangent and ignore the point >see!
Logan Parker
>And I hope you realize there isn't any one "Buddhism." All the sects have different takes on this.
what is the take on the main ones then?
Carson Lee
I've got you desu. I see you came from the same place as me. I have good source about secular humanist buddhism, clearly the closest buddhism to the earliest buddhism, youtube.com/watch?v=yd1rCCWX0bo With a highly edition to cut any pause in the exposition, the videos are cattered for self-diagnosed ADHD-suffering redditors like us, and As the great expert said in the video , Stuff like rebirth and caring about ''completely eradicating defliments'' are not important to be a good buddhist. Please upvote if you find this message helpful. With metta. Namaste.
Alexander Ramirez
It's a religion for atheists that want to feel "spiritual" while they reject God, want to make mom freak, or want to be a special exotic snowflake.
Mason Jenkins
> Why would you want to exit from worldly existence into nothingness?
What is the purpose of your existence? Are you serving a higher power? If so, your purpose is cited in your holy text. Hedonist self-service? Pleasures of the flesh and material pleasures are temporary and usually not very constructive. Kindness and charity? Undoubtedly a good thing to do, but if we are to be reborn until we find Nirvana, human suffering is vast and eternal and your contributions are minimal. Intellectual advancement? Cool, but what does that do for you in the grave?
At the nitty gritty, you're not really here for a reason but you have to continue living until you die until you are born again to do it over. That doesn't make much sense, so the goal is to stop doing that by not being born over again.
Zachary Bennett
cause even if you kill your self you won't get out of the bullshit clusterfuck of life
unlike Christianity which rewards you if you die and thus is more of a suicidal cult
As others have said, different sects have different takes on this. The idea of stepping off the wheel of rebirth by attaining nirvana is not universal. Also, even sects that nominally believe that, interpret it literally to about the same extent that mainstream Christians interpret the Virgin Birth. The most non-supernatural sects (like the Insight Meditation Society) don't talk about anything supernatural, and interpret karma as nothing more than the law of cause and effect. If you do something bad, it affects you and causes you pain later. I follow the Insight Meditation Society teachings, and my take on it now (for all I know) is: You feel bad when you get caught up in fears and desires; meditation and mindfulness in everyday life give you a path toward not getting caught up in fears and desires; it's a long slow road involving meditation every day for years, but it eventually brings you greater peace and joy.
Josiah Morris
Buddhist political quietism might seem preferable when you consider that Asian religious reform movements tended to get violently suppressed or neutered by the state.
as far as the mainstream schools go its not about cosmic suicide as the end of harmful desires and craving
Not really its more about people who have broken ways of thinking and believe that just because mediation gives some cool benefits the rest of it must be real.
It tends to attact a lot of broken people because of its ability to deal with suffering.
Jordan Thomas
I think the problem is you're thinking of things in Eternalist terms of strict being vs non-being. Achieving nirvana is to fully realize emptiness which is not the same as non-being. So for example Buddhists teach that there is no self and on the face of it this might seem absurd, but they aren't saying you don't exist (i.e. non-being) but that "you" don't inherently exist. I put "you" in scare quotes because, and this is the cause of a lot of confusion and misunderstanding, what we mean by "you" is essential to getting the point straight. If by "you" we mean something eternal, independent, and existing from its own side then yes, you don't exist. But if by "you" we mean that constellation of ever-changing conditions that is pragmatically designated as "you" then it wouldn't be said that "you" don't exist; however, it would be merely a conventional existence. In most of the relevant doctrinal discussions, the opposite of existing (ultimately) is not non-existence but existing (merely conventionally). So back to the original point; when its said that life is suffering and we're to get off the karmic wheel, ending the cycle of rebirth, we're to break free from the chain of dependent origination, which is intimately bound up with our clinging to inherent existents, and alleviate the nausea we experience in light of the impermanence of said existents.
Benjamin Hughes
Alan Watts had it right.
Luke Ross
alan watts was a hack
Angel James
I've got you desu. I see you came from the same place as me. I have good source about secular humanist buddhism, clearly the closest buddhism to the earliest buddhism, youtube.com/watch?v=yd1rCCWX0bo With a highly edition to cut any pause in the exposition, the videos are cattered for self-diagnosed ADHD-suffering redditors like us, and As the great expert said in the video , Stuff like rebirth and caring about ''completely eradicating defliments'' are not important to be a good buddhist. Please upvote if you find this message helpful. With metta. Namaste.
Samuel Cruz
This is literally the only response I've ever heard to Watts, either that or he was an alcoholic hack. Someone better come up with a criticism that isn't an adhominem soon because his views seem spot on to me.
Juan Carter
He was a syncretist and bit confused.
His knowledge of Buddhism exceeded average westerners by a mile, but he is careless in his studies and understanding. He conflates ideas too much to fit into his neat paradigm of "eastern religion" theme. This works against him.
James Myers
Mainly in that it's not nothingness, it's just staying a part of the conglomerate everything from which you sprang rather than forming into another individual.
Caleb Walker
it's always been about rejecting God
in ancient India it was for people who rejected "Hinduism" and the caste system and traditions that came along with it
it's still like that
Jonathan Foster
By no means. You reject Buddha and his teachings.
Aiden Walker
I think you may have missed the point.
I don't look at Watts as a Buddhist even if he claimed to be one, he certainly drew a lot from it but in the same way that he drew from Christianity. His ideas are unique, and I consider, a more up to date version of Taoism. That being said I don't think he was a Taoist either, people seem to critisoze him for being a bad follower of these sects but he never was one.
Really what he did was take what he knew of the analytical universe, the Eastern ideal of being one with it, and went from there. I would consider him over confident in his words too if it wasn't for the fact that I had the mystical experience he often talked about before I ever heard of him, and when I heard what he had to say I knew exactly what he what talking about. He just put it into words for me.
Caleb Brown
My point wasn't that he was a bad follower, but the idea he spouted as Buddhism specifically were syncretic ideas.
