Buddhism

[Godron]

Something has been troubling me lately. I've been studying Buddhism in RE for about a year now, and... whenever I think about it, the logical conclusion I always come to is that we should all become Buddhists.

For those who don't know:

Spoiler

Buddhism is basically the belief that suffering can be all but eliminated, or a least massively reduced, by the removal of craving. The concept as I understand it is simple: don't want anything or get attached to anything, and you will be happy. Strangely, it seems to work; all the Buddhists I've seen are very happy, dispite owning very few possetions (the monks at least). Also, they're very kind, gentle people, because one the core teachings of Buddhism is morality. There is no God in Buddhism (the Buddha was a man), the only supernatural concepts are reincarnation and Nirvana, a deathless, painless place outside of the wheel of re-birth which is often described rather... nebulously.

It's the renouncing of craving that I have trouble with. Despite its effectiveness, it always struck me as bloody depressing. If you were to renouce craving altogether, it would be like: Half-Life2? Forget it. Relationships? Forget it. Adventure? Forget it. Aspirations for a decent job? Forget it. Aspirations for anything except happiness? Forget it. That's the kind of lifestyle a Buddhist monk would live. To them, everyone else has a life of ups and downs. Their life is just a massive up. I can complain about how boring a constantly happy life would be as much as I want, but I bet I wouldn't do if I really was depressed.

So yeah... basically I wondered if anyone here could convince me that we shouldn't all become hardcore Buddhists. I'm kind of hoping someone here will have a really simple and obvious reason that will make me look like an idiot.

 

[Smoke]

How can you be happy if nobody knows what it means to be unhappy? There's always a balance.

 

[Godron]

How can you be happy if nobody knows what it means to be unhappy? There's always a balance.

I don't know, but it seems to work anyway. There's this "cafe for world peace" which is run by Buddhists, who all meditate in the back, and they're always smiling. I suppose they all get sad sometimes, when really bad stuff happens.

 

[The Monkey]

Yeah, the Buddhist monks are currently on the way of destroying the dictatorship in Burma.

 

[Smoke]

Nobody who isn't on opium stays happy 24/7. Buddism is flawed.

 

[Reginald]

My best friend's mum is Buddhist and when compared with my mum, she always seems hugely happy and content.

 

[kirovman]

Yeah, the Buddhist monks are currently on the way of destroying the dictatorship in Burma.

Bloody monks.

 

[Sulkdodds]

lol @ spoiler

The thing is, doesn't it rest on the assumption that being 'happy' is the best thing for everyone? It sounds to me like an 'artificial' fix (inverted commas justified considering the philosophical arena which we're in) - don't try to achieve anything, just stop wanting.

Of course if, as Kant says, a 'moral' thing is something that would produce a good result if everyone in the world did it, then everyone becoming Buddhists would probably work quite well. Without craving, I doubt there'd be very much of war or destruction; little of poverty or inequality.

But if everyone in the world does not do it, I can only see it as - inadvisable. Poor, oppressed, beaten, smothered? Don't worry, be happy - why want? That's what western ideology tried for hundreds of years to drill into everyone, and indeed comes close to the general purpose of predominating ideology: to assure everyone there's nothing to worry about.

What is the practical difference between teaching a man to free himself from want, and teaching a man to wait for heaven?

The man would be happy, I suppose, but to me that's not enormously important.

 

[Smoke]

I'd sooner be content to accept life, wants, and needs. It's natural.

 

[<RJMC>]

I guess we will stop being "humans" acording to some ones since we would not feel and just be happy like robots

 

[kirovman]

But while everyone was being buddhist, there'd be some Stalinish guy waiting to take command of an army and rule the world.

 

[Smoke]

Like this?

 

[kirovman]

I would kill myself if I had the suspicion that the majority of people are happy.

I get delight out of other people's misery.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Buddhism (in westerners) attracts people who believe in the Buddhist principles anyway. Becoming a Buddhist doesn't change that person, they were already like that, that's why they became a Buddhist. Also the reincarnation stuff is nonsense.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

It has been said that buddhism is a nice, liberal religion. In the west yes, just like christianity and judaism and islam. But if you actulaly practice buddhism like your sopposed too... :/ .
Thanks, I'd like to keep my want thanks.

 

[Ennui]

I agree with OP. Buddhism is pretty slick.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

I agree with OP. Buddhism is pretty slick.

Not if you follow it properly. It contains ludicrous propechies and ridiculous rules just like the other religions.

 

[Septih]

Meh, of course you'll be happy if you convince yourself that there is nothing better, i'd say it's conning yourself but that's a bit harsh...

Personally, I don't see much point in life if you have no aspirations, no ambition (I don't count nirvana as one).

 

[Solaris]

There is no evidence for re-incarnation.

 

[Godron]

lol @ spoiler
The thing is, doesn't it rest on the assumption that being 'happy' is the best thing for everyone? It sounds to me like an 'artificial' fix (inverted commas justified considering the philosophical arena which we're in) - don't try to achieve anything, just stop wanting.

How isn't happiness the best thing for everyone? Isn't it logically the objective of all our actions (unless you're a sadist or something (not implying that Sulkdodds is a sadist BTW (unless he is D: )))? If by "artificial" you mean unnatural or cheating in some way, then yeah, I kind of felt like that too. But isn't naturalism a logical falacy on Mechagodzillah's politics sticky? Anyway, why does it matter if you're happy?

But if everyone in the world does not do it, I can only see it as - inadvisable. Poor, oppressed, beaten, smothered? Don't worry, be happy - why want? That's what western ideology tried for hundreds of years to drill into everyone, and indeed comes close to the general purpose of predominating ideology: to assure everyone there's nothing to worry about.

I don't understand... are you saying that Buddhism is a bit like how Marx described religion, i.e. trying to make people put up with shit?

I'd sooner be content to accept life, wants, and needs. It's natural.

Naturalistic logical fallacy? ...

Buddhism (in westerners) attracts people who believe in the Buddhist principles anyway. Becoming a Buddhist doesn't change that person, they were already like that, that's why they became a Buddhist. Also the reincarnation stuff is nonsense.

I doubt that all the people who go to Buddhist monasteries were just born/raised as naturally kind, happy people. Everyone has to learn morrals from somewhere, and even if you're past the times when you're still learning about the world, people can still be inspired/brainwashed by things...

I agree with OP. Buddhism is pretty slick.

Erm... I wasn't exactly advocating Buddhism, just challenging anyone to prove me wrong. I'm pretty uncomfortable with Buddhism myself, really. It seems to go against a lot of the things that make us human, except that these are often things like anger and craving.

Meh, of course you'll be happy if you convince yourself that there is nothing better, i'd say it's conning yourself but that's a bit harsh...

Personally, I don't see much point in life if you have no aspirations, no ambition (I don't count nirvana as one).

Yeah, Nirvana is a flaw in Buddhism. If the whole concept rested completely on Nirvana, I'd know that it would all be flawed. However, only the theoretical side of it rests on Nirvana. Practically, it still does a pretty good job of making people happy.

Not if you follow it properly. It contains ludicrous propechies and ridiculous rules just like the other religions.

Yes. I believe that Buddhist monasteries (Viharas) currently have 227 rules for monks, 311 for nuns. I don't know what most of those are, but I do know that they have these five "precepts", one of which is to not sleep in too comfortable a bed, to give you a flavour. Monastic life for a Buddhist is, as I understand it, pretty bleak: they study, to chores, beg for food, get up at 5 a.m. in the morning, recite prayers, meditate... not in that order. The extra rules for women are pretty ancient I think; they were put there either because women were though to be more vulnerable to craving, or to keep them away from the monks IIRC. I'm supprised they are still in place, actually.


I had an argument myself, but have forgotten it.

 

[mchammer75040]

There is no evidence for re-incarnation.

absence of proof isnt proof of absence.

Anyways buddhism I believe, like Atomic_Piggy said, in its traditional form is just a ridiculous as any other in my opinion. But meditation does have a positive effect on our brains,all it is really is practicing your ability to focus. And personally I wouldnt throw having spiritual experiences during this time out the window either, I just dont think all that dogma needs to be there to believe it.
As far as the whole desire thing I remember what the legendary songwriter leonard cohen said whenever he went and lived with some monks he said, "it helps you to stop being so occupied with winning all the time and focus on the real masterpiece." Thats paraphrased, but you get the point.

 

[Dog--]

How can you be happy if nobody knows what it means to be unhappy? There's always a balance.

I agree, it's like when people say you can't experience a great victory without great defeat, same thing, just with happiness instead of victory, unhappiness instead of defeat.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

I don't want to read the responses here at the moment, so I don't know if anyone said this, probably not, but, so I can use a few more commas, I think it stands to reason that Bhuddism is a vice to capitalism, hence why the great majority of people like us are not Bhuddists.

 

[theotherguy]

Because its just as much bullshit as every other religion?

 

[soulslicer]

id say moderate Hinduism is pretty good also..

 

[Raziaar]

Heh...

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Heh...

heh heh. Also as metioned, mediation, yoga etc. are good for you, but getting rid of possisions isn't that great.

id say moderate Hinduism is pretty good also..

Except it isn't technically hinduism, since if your a moderate you pick and choose what YOU want to believe, not what your supposed to.

 

[Tagaziel]

Everyone has his own definition of happiness and should live as he wants. Buddhism is just one of the way.

I know a female Buddhist sex addict, on a side note.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Everyone has his own definition of happiness and should live as he wants. Buddhism is just one of the way.

I know a female Buddhist sex addict, on a side note.

Yeah, I know a christian who isn't married and has had plenty of sex. Talk about liberal

 

[Mr Stabby]

I doubt that all the people who go to Buddhist monasteries were just born/raised as naturally kind, happy people. Everyone has to learn morrals from somewhere, and even if you're past the times when you're still learning about the world, people can still be inspired/brainwashed by things...

I doubt all the people who were born in to it are kind happy people, it's only westerners that become Buddhists voluntarily that are like that anyway. Religion works by appealing to people that agree with it.

 

[Jintor]

absence of proof isnt proof of absence.

You don't say that, because then God exists. Anyway default assumption is that (whatever concept anybody is trying to prove) does not exist, and then we work from there.

Buddhism rules kthxbai. Even if it does have all the ludicrose prophecies and jibber-jabber like every other religion, from my understanding you can safely ignore it and it's not like anyone will strike you with lightning or something.

Take it from me; removing desires is hard.

 

[Mr Stabby]

If re-incarnation were true, then the number of living organisms at any point in history should be constant, it's not.

 

[mchammer75040]

You don't say that, because then God exists. Anyway default assumption is that (whatever concept anybody is trying to prove) does not exist, and then we work from there.

I understand what you're saying, & I agree but the "absence of evidence" argument can be applied when something hasn't been (or cant) be studied at all. For example, you mentioned God that can be interpreted in so many different ways but we can agree we both mean something supernatural right? If its beyond us then how can any of us say it doesnt exist? Now Im not saying I believe in reincarnation or God in the religious sense, but I dont think anyone can show evidence one way or the other for things like this that are way beyond our comprehension.

 

[mchammer75040]

If re-incarnation were true, then the number of living organisms at any point in history should be constant, it's not.

Yea thats true thats always seemed pretty obvious to me, like I said above I dont believe in it Im just saying we cant gather any evidence about what does or doesnt happen to us after death so who knows maybe life carries on in some other corner of the universe. Im not saying I believe that, but we just dont know.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. There.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

If re-incarnation were true, then the number of living organisms at any point in history should be constant, it's not.

Troof dat.

 

[mchammer75040]

ahh well I should have said evidence not proof, cause ofcourse you cant prove anything but since you mention it Sulkdodds when I shank you for trying to make me look like an ass I'll just get rid of the evidence. Hey never happened .

 

[Jintor]

Remember the good old 'absence of evidence means that flying teapot around jupiter exists' theory.

 

[mchammer75040]

lol and finally you get my point

 

[Godron]

I understand what you're saying, & I agree but the "absence of evidence" argument can be applied when something hasn't been (or cant) be studied at all. For example, you mentioned God that can be interpreted in so many different ways but we can agree we both mean something supernatural right? If its beyond us then how can any of us say it doesnt exist? Now Im not saying I believe in reincarnation or God in the religious sense, but I dont think anyone can show evidence one way or the other for things like this that are way beyond our comprehension.

So supernatural concepts or entities are beyond our comprehension and it's therefore impossible to say that they don't exist, you mean? If so, then by the same logic you can't say anything about them at all, meaning
a) no supernatural theory is any more or less valid than any others and
b) it's therefore impossible to accurately describe any supernatural theory, because by its very nature it is impossible for you to understand it.