Give me your critique on Buddhism

terrible comparison. a better one would be "just because people write books on history doesnt mean this is where we discuss it".

THEN WHO CREATED BUDDAH?

Yeah, it gets really driven home when tech billionaires are Buddhists.

Whether you are interested in moksha, liberation, freedom, transformation, you name it, you are interested in happiness without one moment of unhappiness, pleasure without pain, it is the same thing. Whether one is here in India or Russia or in America or anywhere, what people want is to have one without the other. But there is no way you can have one without the other. This demand is not in the interest of the survival of this living organism.

Veeky Forums are retarded children though, buddhism threads are a Veeky Forums tradition

don't let the 'spirituality isn't Veeky Forums' user bully you, he's probably a tortilla spitting corncobber

Its just utilitarian pessimism with some unecessary spiritual bullshit that will be exploited to discredit your position in intellectual discourses.

If pleb meme reincarnation, as in precious individual souls going through different lives, isn't real, then the logical reaction to the problem of suffering Buddhism recognises is simply suicide or perhaps large scale antinatalism applied to all species.

I don't know much about buddhism but the whole ego death thing while compelling always struck me as a little problematic for good living. It seems suspiciously close to depression or avolition. Isn't being a human vegetable or even straight up dead the most separated from desire and ego you can get? Doesn't sound very ideal to me. You should want to embrace life. As someone that's struggled with lazy burnout side of depression Buddhism seems to be idealizing the wrong path.

I like a lot of the ideas of Buddhism but I've never been able to shake this. Maybe I misunderstand?
.

Wholesome states can't be reached until Buddhahood. Until then you are suffering just as much as non-bhikkus. Nothing arises other than suffering, so practicing Buddhists should stop pretending that they feel equananimous and detached.

not so much ego death as none atachment and being constantly present

The goal of non-desire is self-contradictory and an illusion.

In order to be attained, non-desire must be set as a desire, but once set as a desire, it cannot be attained.

A person can strive to desire objects which are permanent (e.g. contemplation) rather than temporary (e.g. wealth), but desire objectively remains intrinsic to the self/will. The self is, as it were, a desiring machine. There is ultimately a conservation of desire.

this juxtaposes the paradigm with itself

go get them. that will pop up in their next 'meditation' and they will be forced to face their delusion.

>destroys an illusion
>doesnt replace it with a new one

he will only be heard by those who can build a new one by themselves, which is like 0.1% of the population. at best they will make his calamity a new delusion, but theres not really much to make out of it.

we need illusions to live man. deal with it.

Are issues related to overpopulation and sustainability illusions?

no, they're their concrete manifestations.

Buddhism isn't a monolith.

i know. it is just a litmeme

Reminds me of this Freddy quote:

>The falseness of a judgment is for us not necessarily an objection to a judgment; in this respect our new language may sound strangest. The question is to what extent it is life-promoting, life-serving, species-preserving, perhaps even species-cultivating, and we are fundamentally inclined to claim that the falsest judgments (which include the synthetic judgments a priori) are the most indispensable for us, that without accepting the fictions of logic, without measuring reality against the purely invented world of the unconditional and self-identical, without a constant falsification of the world by means of numbers, man could not live—that renouncing false judgments would mean renouncing life and a denial of life. To recognize untruth as a condition of life: that certainly means resisting accustomed value feelings in a dangerous way; and a philosophy that risks this would by that token alone place itself beyond good and evil.

Meditation has real and scientifically documented benefits. In that, it's at least more worthwhile than most religions.

That came out sounding really fedora-ish but it's true. Buddhism comes with a practice that has real benefits attached although you can practice mediation and not be Buddhist at all.

there is something about the morals in buddhism that i don't like.

Bassically you can be a sociopath and be enlight with no karma.

The English word desire can have two major meanings: volition and craving, wanting and urge. You are equivocating.

These two ideas are two words in Buddhism, tanha (craving) and sankhara (volitional formations, emotions).

This is why one an have wholesome wants which lead to the end of craving.

Not contradictory at all

So you believe, lets see you prove it

While I understand this post to be mainly a criticism of certain western Buddhists, I would press you on your assumption that existential frustration is mainly socially caused.

From the Buddhist point of view, this is false. Existential frustration is caused by our very minds and our very human existential situation. Even if the most socially utopian state you can think of - dukkha will still be there in full force. It is rooted deep in the human psyche. That is the radical standpoint of Buddhism, you cannot just manipulate your external circumstances and reach happiness that way alone.

Can't prove a negative silly.

not logically or empirically, but actually put forth an argument instead of just stating something

If the Guatama became enlightened, then how come nobody doing what he told them to has become enlightened since? What made him different?

What does it even mean to be "Buddhist"? Isn't "Zazen (seated meditation) itself enlightenment"?

Does it even matter?

Probably there are enlightened people, but they may not call themselves Buddhists and likely they are not interested in being known to others as enlightened.

* it can't account for the self

* the "win conditions" for buddhism would be fulfilled by the destruction of all life in the universe... that's bad

* it's pantheistic, and if we know one thing, it's that there are many, many, numberless things that we don't know, infinite depths in others which we can never plumb but must love nonetheless &ct.

detachment is very soothing but it's not as noble, not as human as 100% investment and LOVE. there's no love in buddhism, so it can go fuck itself, better to battle in violence for billions of years for the sake of something than to give up and retreat into nothingness, delete yourself and fall asleep, why not just fucking secretly kill yourself? if nobody found out, karma wouldn't be effected...

it's absolutely elegant, but completely soul-less (literally), and ultimately unfulfilling in the deepest sense possible.

Modern people like it because science is also dispassionate and science has worked out, we get a warm feeling when we think about science because of this, beacuse it gives us miracles and lets us live longer, we confuse science with Buddhism... but science is just a method of learning about the world, buddhism is an all-encompassing perspective, it's a little more involved and therefore worse for the reasons listed above

Buddhism is if nothing else absolutely blindingly unparalleled in how reasonable it is. it's perhaps the least mystical religion ever created, it doesn't require an ounce of faith from anybody, only disavowal, only withdrawal, only an overabundance of skepticism... it's a religion for robots, see zenyatta and asians in general (known for their warmth?)

i can say i agree with you but youre mixing two quite different levels. yeah dukkha is inherent to the human condition, but that doesnt mean for instance that ancient greek society didnt impose different conditions on slaves and citizens. and you are not gonna tell me a slave and a philosopher were at the same level or lived a similar life only cause they were humans.

my point was not a metaphysical or existential statement about humanity in a timeless way, but about todays western societies and the use given to these eastern 'spiritualities' in them. to put it clearly: ancient greek or indian society allowed (some of) its humans members the freedom to face the human condition and try to reach a way to live it, and all those philosophies or spiritual ways were the result of those experiments. the people in low society just had to be salves and their humanity was no ones concern, not even theirs. today such an exploration is no less than banned or punished, and if someone tries it it is a private matter. on the other hand, the average worker is given all kinds of physical and psychological toys to be kept in his place. and one of these toys is all this new-new-age junk presented as eastern spirituality, but it can be music, food, porn, parties or whatnot.

my point is not about buddhism but about the people who consume it. their whole humanity is drained in their work and family life, anything they do outside it will be a mere pastime to equilibrate the shit they take at work or home. no matter if it is the last movie or bestseller or some spiritual practice.

Read Siddhartha

Why would you even think lasting happiness without one moment of unhappiness is even possible?

The Creator made all things out of nothing.

Christians return to the Creator, Buddhists return to the nothing.

Before enlightenment, chop wood carry water.

After enlightenment, chop wood carry water.

That is good to know, however I don't see that this successfully rebuts the objection. As you say, we can have sankhara to end tanha, but:

1) Why should I see such an essential separation between sankhara and tanha? Must there not still be a tanha which precedes and causes sankhara?

2) Sankhara is clearly essential to the individual's being, but must it not be accompanied by tanha? That is, all volition aims at an end, but what can choose that end except some tanha?

this.

Buddhism is a great explanation of why people suffer and why suffering is inevitable. But if you can't manage to believe in rebirth -- and really, why would you? what evidence is there for it? -- then it doesn't provide any "final" answers, only coping mechanisms. Non-existence and the prevention of new life is the final solution to the suffering problem.

Zizek has done it for us
youtube.com/watch?v=lAtUPfF1R_s

>the "win conditions" for buddhism would be fulfilled by the destruction of all life in the universe... that's bad

explain why or be a joke

Co-opted by middle class western liberals to the extent it is now McDonalds tier

the cessation of all form would be the cessation of all dukkha right?

dukkha stems from your hedonism + ignorance of the stupidity of hedonism to be happy

but if there was nothing alive, there wouldn't be any hedonism right?

no, i meant explain why the destruction of all life in the universe is bad. Good luck.

oh.. it's bad because I don't like it, why don't you go first if you're so jazzed about nonbeing

It's constantly popping up, like every other religion/philosophy/cult/whatever, beckoning my attention while pretending to have all the answers to the universe.

I suppose I should start having a sense of humor about it.

bump

looks like this thread ruined your entire day

>then how come nobody doing what he told them to has become enlightened since?
Only one single Perfectly Enlightened Buddha (Tathagata) arises in the world as long as the dharma is not forgotten. That was the historical Buddha.
"Regular" Enlightened people, which can also be called Buddhas but not Tathagatas, are generally called Arhats. Plenty of them existed back in the time of the Buddha and since then, and surely still do, but they're not the kind of people who write books talking about how great they are and go on to found their own mini cults. So you can't just google a list of modern day Enlightened people.

The difference between these 2 types of Buddhas is that the Tathagata rediscovers the dharma and teaches it. He is also endowed with all the faculties that make him a captivating figure from looks lo speaking ability, and possesses omniscience with regards to the four noble truths and karma. Arhats follow the Tathagata's teaching and become liberated, but if for example they didn't have good speaking ability before they won't gain it after enlightenment. So they won't necessarily make good teachers and do not have the same breadth of knowledge that a Tathagata has.

>the "win conditions" for buddhism would be fulfilled by the destruction of all life in the universe... that's bad

Nope, Buddha was clearly against annihilation as well as eternalism

>detachment is very soothing but it's not as noble, not as human as 100% investment and LOVE. there's no love in buddhism...

There are positive qualities in Buddhism, which are comparable to the conception of love (not romantic love here, but universal love). Look up the four immesurables. Buddhism is not dispassionate, it promotes compassion, friendliness, sympathetic joy.

Buddhist also requires faith (saddha).

Why do you think it isn't?

>1) Why should I see such an essential separation between sankhara and tanha? Must there not still be a tanha which precedes and causes sankhara?

They are not essentially separated, nothing is essentially separated according to the theory of dependent origination. The point is that one can end craving through volitional formations even if the very being of that volition is rooted in a process which began with craving (as per the DO formula). Samskaras arose from a process that began with tanha, but they are not the same event in that process as tanha, thus it is not contradictory.

>2) Sankhara is clearly essential to the individual's being, but must it not be accompanied by tanha? That is, all volition aims at an end, but what can choose that end except some tanha?

All mental formations are accompanied by some form of the three poisons until the moment of final liberation. This does not mean that all volitional formations desire the same end.

Incoherent rambling filled with personal anecdotes, the usual Zizek drivel.

>precious individual souls going through different lives
Buddhism does not recognize this. It doesn't recognize reincarnation actually, but rebirth.

>Isn't being a human vegetable or even straight up dead the most separated from desire and ego you can get?
"Ego death" is the death of the concept of an "I", a Self. It is to obtain great compassion for all living beings and recognizing equality, as well as becoming impervious to suffering caused by the eternal conflict between the desires of the I and the shit that gets dumped on it by Samsara. "End of desire" is the end of desires based on that false assumption of a Self, not the end of neutral desires like drinking water when one is thirsty or taking a walk among the trees, or good desires like learning more of the dharma. If the Buddha actually advocated for a "state of death", he wouldn't have bothered devoting 45 years of his life constantly advising and teaching people who came to him, and things like the gathas would never have been uttered by disciples. Buddhism leads to ultimate happiness, not depression.

False, only PERMANENT wholesome states cannot be reached until Buddhahood. Cultivating them is part of practice.

>* it can't account for the self
There is no self, just thoughts that take the afterimage of their movement to be self.
>* the "win conditions" for buddhism would be fulfilled by the destruction of all life in the universe... that's bad
First, this universe is temporally not the first universe. It's not the only universe either. Innumerable universes have already underwent destruction (and the beings living in them went with them), but that didn't fulfill the win condition because they just took rebirth in newly forming universe(s). We cannot know if or can the win condition will ever be fulfilled permanently. But supposing it would, then it's true that there would be no more life. There'd be no more existence in fact, not just of beings, of anything. But we wouldn't be left with nonexistence, we'd be left with what is beyond existence and nonexistence -nirvana.
>* it's pantheistic, and if we know one thing, it's that there are many, many, numberless things that we don't know, infinite depths in others which we can never plumb but must love nonetheless &ct.
Where's the problem? The Buddha never pretended he held the answers to physics problems, just to the problem of suffering. Whether we plumb the other depths is not an issue here.
>detachment [...] karma wouldn't be effected...
Kek. Love in Buddhism is greater than the love other profess because it's equal and universal. That's why while others wish for happiness for themselves, their friends and their family, Buddhists wish for the happiness of all sentient beings with no exception. And certainly the path does not lead one to be nothingness or sleep (this line of thought is the very reason why Mahayana scriptures were written and they make such a big deal about "non-static" Nirvana). Also karma is not a matter of anybody finding out, I don't know where you got that from.
>it's absolutely elegant, but completely soul-less (literally), and ultimately unfulfilling in the deepest sense possible.
And yet serious practitioners with some ability say otherwise. Aside from the literally soul-less part that is :^)
>it's a religion for robots, see zenyatta and asians in general (known for their warmth?)
The Japanese are a billion times warmer than most European peoples and they're not even the warmest of Asian peoples. Furthermore, Buddhism was spread all the way to Persia, if not Greece, at one point. So either all those people were robots as well, or Buddhism is not for robots, since it actually didn't spread by the sword.

>But if you can't manage to believe in rebirth -- and really, why would you? what evidence is there for it?
There are studies done on rebirth claims. Unlike belief in eternal paradise and hell or annihilation, it actually has SOME data going for it. Also you're supposed to be able to develop your meditation for the recalling of past lives if you want that so much (and have the ability).