RE: Thoughts on Buddhism
January 30, 2012 at 1:16 pm
(This post was last modified: January 30, 2012 at 1:42 pm by Anomalocaris.)
It seems to me that, at worst, Buddhism teaches specific superstitious mumbo jumbo best fitted to maybe 2nd century BC much like the worst incarnation of most religions. At best, buddhism adviocates anesthetizing the urge to workout problems and answer the urge to out do expectation and peers through a crazen obscurantism and intentional obnubulation the mind, again much like the least bad incarnation of most religions.
It reminds me of a Buddhist "teacher" with a load of sycophantic adherets, citing the most atrocious ignorance as scientific support for his mumbo jumbo, including the notion that birs can fly because it is scientifically proven that they have a light soul, insisted Buddhism is not anti-science.
When I represented to him that science does not recognize he, much less bird, having a soul, he replied something to the effect of "just as some people like southern dish, and some northern dish, One should not say northern dish is inedible just because one prefers southern dish, and therefore all dishes are equally good food", as if science and mumbo jumbo are just different aspect of science.
Buddhism is not anti-science in about the same way as a habitual liar is not anti-honesty.
It reminds me of a Buddhist "teacher" with a load of sycophantic adherets, citing the most atrocious ignorance as scientific support for his mumbo jumbo, including the notion that birs can fly because it is scientifically proven that they have a light soul, insisted Buddhism is not anti-science.
When I represented to him that science does not recognize he, much less bird, having a soul, he replied something to the effect of "just as some people like southern dish, and some northern dish, One should not say northern dish is inedible just because one prefers southern dish, and therefore all dishes are equally good food", as if science and mumbo jumbo are just different aspect of science.
Buddhism is not anti-science in about the same way as a habitual liar is not anti-honesty.
