Home > Ape Mind, Critical Thinking, Dystopia, Musings, Philosophy sans Sophistry, Reason, Secular Religions, Skepticism, Technology, Thoughts on Economics, Zero Sum > Buddhism Is Just Another Worthless Rationalization Of The Status Quo

Buddhism Is Just Another Worthless Rationalization Of The Status Quo

The last 30-odd years have seen a considerable increase in the popularity of Buddhism in western countries. While it does look quite good when compared to Judeo-Christian religions because it does not encourage things like burning heretics, killing unbelievers and believing religious books too literally, it also has some of the same major flaws as other religions and a few peculiar to it.

For one, Buddhism is fatalistic like all other religions. A feature peculiar to all religions, traditional and secular, is that they encourage believers to accept the general shit of existence for some illusory reward in the next life, grand cosmic purpose or because that is the ‘cosmic normal’. However progress can never occur unless a few believe that things can change and are willing to try. Worthless cocksuckers from ‘elite’ universities may try to argue on the definition of progress but none of them are willing to give up indoor plumbing, electricity or even more recent innovations such as the mobile internet.

Buddhism encourages detachment from the physical world in order to attain moksha. While some may argue that buddhism does not preach true detachment- it is hard to argue that in practice detachment from the world is most optimal life choice to attain moksha. Paradoxically, Buddhism does not condone suicide for “selfish” reasons- thereby making it logically inconsistent.

If you do not live long enough to commit sins, would it not logically increase your odds of attaining moksha?

Why should people suffer through a painful, meaningless existence with many opportunities to commit sins if you don’t want to? Why would any entity that made moksha or rebirth possible want his/her creations to suffer?

Let us turn to one problem somewhat particular to Buddhism.. the idea of non-violence. While a distaste for senseless violence is shared by many belief systems, most accept a degree of purposeful violence. However Buddhism and a couple of other Indic religions condemn all violence. This translates into people not defending themselves and not eating meat- neither of which are good for you in the long run.

However these same nonviolent religions are perfectly OK with people and animals dying painful deaths as long as the causes are ‘natural’ according to the priests of that religion. Ever noticed that Indians supposedly consider the cow sacred but make no attempt to feed or care for starving and diseased cattle. What about a person suffering from a painful terminal disease? It it ‘sinful’ to help such a person kill themselves? Buddhism, in practice, spends too much time talking about various forms of ‘sinful’ behavior and nonviolence while exhibiting little concern for human welfare.

Buddhism also has a peculiar and fairly unique internal self-inconsistency. While it talks at great length about fragility of the body and impermanence of physical reality, it accepts that the soul is real, immortal and with a unique traceable ID. How can a belief system with a reasonable objective view of the observable world still harbor such a primitive and magical belief in the unobservable. Is it really that different from other religions?

While Buddhism is a step up from heretic burning, infidel killing belief systems supported by magical thinking aka other religions- it is still just that.. a step up.

Comments?

  1. Ryu
    July 7, 2011 at 6:35 pm

    That’s a good article.

    I find that buddism is incompatible with the spirit of western man. If nothing matters and everything is transitory, why build or do anything?

    The western man has no spirit.

  2. July 7, 2011 at 9:04 pm

    Mr. Diablo—

    I was told Buddhism is a philosophy…..

    Anyways, why don’t you write about Selective Service and how misandrist it is….

    http://stonerwithaboner.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/end-selective-service-now/

  3. July 8, 2011 at 12:53 am

    Buddhism condems violence. But how do you explain the Shaolin monks?

  4. July 8, 2011 at 10:45 am

    Buddhism doesn’t condemn violence in the same way as Christianity does: it’s not a “sin”. It’s just discouraged for pragmatic reasons. Of course, some followers will blow things out of proportion, just like some followers of the Old Testament think it’s actually *sinful* to eat pork (and not that, when the Old Testament was written, there were health reasons to abstain from pork).

    If you’re looking for violent Buddhism, I give you: Ninja Koans http://www.xamuel.com/ninja-koans/

  5. Ray Manta
    July 9, 2011 at 3:53 am

    AD wrote
    The western man has no spirit.

    Maybe, but he sure does some kick-ass science and technology. If that makes him less interested in navel-gazing, so be it. It’s an acceptable trade-off to me.

  6. July 9, 2011 at 11:29 am

    Buddhism is probably the best way for someone who feels defeated by life to come to terms with it and feel as good about it as he can; that is not without its appeal and value. As a mental hygiene manual it has some good points; Buddhism is also good because of its scientific spirit, its reasoning from cause to effect, and its freedom from hate. But it is ultimately unsatisfying because of its fatalism and anti-life message.

    The Buddha was quite clear and unequivocal about the need to fall out of love with the world, he offered cessation of suffering but the price was a cessation of pleasure as well. It is a bargain many are not willing to accept, but for those who are, it can really be salvation. What bothers me is that many people these days fudge the clarity of the message and pretend Buddhism doesnt *really* encourage falling out of love with the world but is actually in some vague way pro-pleasure. Thats pathetic. The Buddha was crystal clear, if you want a cessation of pain you must agree to a cessation of pleasure. In fact this was THE central point of his message in a nutshell. The rest is technique.

    I will say though that without taking it to an extreme the idea that you should learn to accept that you cannot always have what you want and to accept the world even if it doesnt meet your expectations can be a source of great peace and a first step on the path to happiness, and I think this is where many people find the Buddhas message interesting. Which is fine; but there is no reason to pretend that this is not a watered down version of Buddhism. Buddhism has value as something that cannot be accepted in its final form but only with many emendations.

  7. DoesNotMatter
    July 14, 2011 at 1:40 pm

    Buddhism does not believe that the soul is immortal or some trace-able ID or some such thing. you are thinking Hinduism. Buddhism believes there s no soul

  8. Tony Johnstone
    July 5, 2014 at 3:47 pm

    The feeling of compassion and selfless asatains peace when humanity looks at the Emptyness from within each individual,and each individual finds the peace within and freedom from suffering caused by the mind humanity would be a Betta place,budha found this.I am not one to say who is right or wrong.blessings.budhism is about being an individual,not forcing,controlling

  9. P Ray
    July 6, 2014 at 11:05 am

    I like the bit about karma though.
    Knowing that the alphas and their enabler-sluts will have a reckoning, is a lovely thing to look forward to, while you pass the days building yourself up.

    • July 21, 2016 at 7:09 pm

      Wow, is that all the average man can care about is who women choose? What about concerning yourself with something of greater substance? Karma? The current state of affairs is “karma” for beta males and men in previous generations who have no interest in doing anything with a woman… except finding her and chaining her to his side, thanks to his own insecurity and restriction of resources.

      • P Ray
        July 21, 2016 at 11:12 pm

        The average man needs to care,
        because the chances are … the average man IS BEING CHOSEN LAST.
        Also, don’t forget the delightful diseases he may gain from her + being on the hook as those diseases evolve into greater health complications.

        Let’s face it, the average man has to care very much: because women cost men through taxes – they take more than they give, and are the biggest consumers of goods.

        Plus, men can and have been thrown into jail on a woman’s say-so.

      • July 22, 2016 at 9:03 am

        Well, it’s unfortunate that women have certain men thrown in jail for BS. But what does that have to do with women’s sexual agency and their attraction to alpha males? Secondly, if nobody wants to choose certain men, they don’t have to. Just like men who don’t choose fat women, women don’t have to choose “nice guys”. nobody has to choose you and there’s no karma for a person’s own selective nature.

        So whining about who someone else chooses reveals an unwarranted sense of entitlement.

      • P Ray
        July 22, 2016 at 9:26 am

        So whining about who someone else chooses reveals an unwarranted sense of entitlement.
        Uh … when women choose Chad Thundercock, he doesn’t stick around for the long term.
        Children raised by single mothers are very likely to become criminals.
        That’s the entitlement you want to avoid. And the more criminals a society has … the more unstable it is.

      • July 22, 2016 at 9:32 am

        Uh … when women choose Chad Thundercock, he doesn’t stick around for the long term.
        Children raised by single mothers are very likely to become criminals.
        That’s the entitlement you want to avoid. And the more criminals a society has … the more unstable it is.

        That’s generally true. Chad Thundercock can fuck multiple women and not get them pregnant, just like guys who fuck escorts. That’s ALSO like saying that 70% of black children who are all born out of wedlock have fuck-ups for fathers and “whores” for mothers. Whoever said that also says 70% of black children are criminals. I rebuke it as a god-damned lie. So then, what does that say about “criminal cops” who were brought up in 2 parent households?

        Bottom line, if women (or men) do not want a relationship or sex with you, they have the right to reject that. You are no more entitled to demand relationships than a person is entitled to demand love, friendships or obedience. Just move on to someone else who will share your same interests.

      • P Ray
        July 22, 2016 at 9:52 am

        ^ If you are “chosen last”, you are chosen when she cannot attract the hot guys anymore.
        It will seem sincere, but like the turkey fatted up for thanksgiving, you only find out you’re the chump near the end.
        Of course, society will vilify the man who points this out, since “women must be taken care of no matter their mistakes”.
        That’s why “alpha fucks beta bucks” is something women liek to bury.

        P.S. You can only call them criminal cops only if they are tried and found guilty, how many whitefellas is that?
        Meantime, you have Mr. Liang rotting in a cell due to a ricochet.

  10. Ryan V. Stewart (虚空)
    September 22, 2014 at 2:06 pm

    It’s incredible to me that you wrote an entire article on Buddhism without once quoting or referencing the Buddhist texts or specific Buddhist philosophy. (Touching the surface of anicca and other Buddhist metaphysical concepts while glazing over their inherent meaning and implications does no good.)

    The argument for suicide doesn’t make sense in Buddhism because–and if you had bothered to do our research you’d know this–the attachment to non-being, as well as the attachment to enlightenment, are actually preventative of attaining enlightenment:

    “Now this, monks, is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to re-becoming, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there; that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for becoming, craving for disbecoming.”

    (From the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta.)

    And as the Buddhist Chan master Seung Sahn pointed out in his essay “Wanting Enlightenment Is a Big Mistake”, over-attachment to enlightenment–what you deem “ending sins”–is itself an attachment and thus prevents enlightenment, which exists only in equanimity. His view is also echoed by the Heart Sutra, which stresses the concept of “no-attainment”.

    I am not a Buddhist per se, but I believe Buddhist philosophy is often quite sensible and pragmatic, and can lead a person toward a more fulfilling life, and transcendent experience[s]. Furthermore, I dislike it when people post brash dismissive articles condemning entire systems of thought based on superficial observations.

  11. April 28, 2015 at 9:09 am

    Reblogged this on oogenhand and commented:
    “Let us turn to one problem somewhat particular to Buddhism.. the idea of non-violence. While a distaste for senseless violence is shared by many belief systems, most accept a degree of purposeful violence. However Buddhism and a couple of other Indic religions condemn all violence. This translates into people not defending themselves and not eating meat- neither of which are good for you in the long run.”

    Very good points.

    • hoipolloi
      April 28, 2015 at 3:11 pm

      @ “However Buddhism and a couple of other Indic religions condemn all violence. This translates into people not defending themselves and not eating meat- neither of which are good for you in the long run.”

      Your point is well taken. However, I like to comment on Indic religions and non-violence and call out some disinformation that is out there.

      I understand Buddhism is not against violence as much as people think it is. It is definitely against senseless violence as evidenced by prince Siddhartha’s (Buddha) famous altercation with his cousin about hunting for pleasure when the latter shot a flying bird with an arrow. I am told Buddhists in their original philosophy do not have a prohibition about eating meat as evidenced by Dalai Lama’s daily diet which includes meat.

      One and only Indic religion, that is against any kind of violence against animals is Jainism. No ifs and buts, they are against violence. They are small in number but no fringe group though and are a powerful community in the Indian society and also spread all across the world now.

      Hindu religion is not for non-violence. You heard it right it is not a non-violence preaching religion. For whatever reason, its priest class abstains from eating meat, so it gives the impression that the religion is nonviolent. Its gods and specifically the two gods currently in vogue are known to move around carrying lethal weapons for use against humans and animals. No mistake in that.

      Another Indic religion, Sikhism is born with a sword. No dietary restrictions there. It believes in fair play and tries to avoid senseless violence; so much so you feel secure if a member of the religion is nearby.

      • April 29, 2015 at 9:56 am

        Yes, I know, Shiva and Kali respectively carry a trident and several swords. Himsa in the service of Dharma is Ahimsa.

        The owner of http://www.dissention.wordpress.ccom seems to have some self-hatred issues, as he is South-Asian.

      • hoipolloi
        April 29, 2015 at 3:44 pm

        @ oogenhand: “…Shiva and Kali respectively carry a trident and several swords.”

        Shiva and Kali need no introduction when talking of violence. I meant the two gods, Rama and Krishna who carry lethal weapons then and depicted as such now. That is lot of food for thought.

  1. July 10, 2011 at 1:34 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: