Thoughts on Buddhism

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

The pure consciousness - without ego - is nothing - no thoughts, feelings, judgments, emotions - nothing.

Many Buddhists would disagree,arguing the death of ego results in pure awareness ,Nirvana (Samadhi for Hindus)


Me? I think ego is probably a product of mind,which in turn is merely the dynamic of the living brain. However, I don't actually know,so am unable to assert what is or is not IS the case. I'll be thrilled to see your definitive proof.

[Bgood]

You come off as delusional if you think you can retain your mind after letting go of your ego. It is your ego that gives rise to your cognitive abilities. It is ego that has been the cornerstone of every progress made. Your philosophy is self-defeating. You advocate destruction of ego by merging its identity with something else and call it transcendence. True transcendence for an egotistical entity would mean going beyond what its ego currently is - encompassing more, not less. You cannot make the ego greater by cutting it down and merging it with nothing.

Tell me, since ego is what brought us where we are and surrendering it has never been shown to work, why would we do so? On your assertions?

These are not just MY assertions. This is eastern philosophy. So YOUR claims are better than over 2,500 years of all Asian knowledge and practice? Now That sounds delusional, that sounds egotistical. You don't even know what you are talking about. Ego is nothing but an abstract relative term. It is not even real. Where in the brain is ego? According to Buddhism, the ego is in itself a delusion. Ego causes suffering because it craves, it disagrees, and it creates denial. Ego will get you by in life, but it will not enlighten you.

[The Grand Nudger]

2,500 years of asian knowledge and practice also gave us "chi", acupuncture, feng shui, and side sweep bangs. Long story short, they're hilariously wrong about as often as anyone else. You're suffering from asian fixation...I've mentioned this before.....

Now, you do realize that you fly off at the handle about people and ego fairly often yes? You may need to tend to your own at some point (that's if you plan on droning on about others, obviously). These are your assertions, it doesn't matter much where you borrowed them from. Handwaving them away in this manner ala "Some really smart asian people totally believe this" isn't going to get you very far. If you cant justify them, assign a truth value to them, then what are you peddling? Platitudes.
(which is honestly all that grinds my gears about buddhism in the first place)

[genkaus]

These are not just MY assertions. This is eastern philosophy.

And you are the one asserting that bullshit.

So YOUR claims are better than over 2,500 years of all Asian knowledge and practice?

They are not my claims but yes, they are better.

Now That sounds delusional, that sounds egotistical. You don't even know what you are talking about. Ego is nothing but an abstract relative term. It is not even real.

So something abstract is not real? Get real.

Where in the brain is ego?

We are still trying to find that out.

According to Buddhism, the ego is in itself a delusion. Ego causes suffering because it craves, it disagrees, and it creates denial. Ego will get you by in life, but it will not enlighten you.

And that is why, Buddhism is wrong. If ego was a delusion then it wouldn't be able to cause anything, since it would not be a part of causal chain. Further, "enlightenment" is the carrot of your religion, like heaven is of Judeo-Christian ones - equally false and baseless promises.

[Creed of Heresy]

I quote Hitchens:

"I find it interesting that the sign before the [buddhist] monastery said 'leave your shoes and your mind at the entrace.'"

You call it enlightenment. I call it ignorance. We both call it bliss.

---

Also, Buddhism states that Buddha was born from a slit in his mother's side and achieved "nirvana," which basically means "annihilation." And yes, 2500 years of Asian studies can be wrong. WILDLY wrong. They used to think the Dynastic Emperors were godly embodiments. CLEARLY they were wrong. They used to think that the trees and rocks and air and everything have their own spirits that you can commune with at will and that demons infest just about everything as well. Clearly, they were wrong. They thought they could bomb Pearl Harbor and in so doing cripple the US Pacific Fleet long enough to win WWII and that the Emperor WAS a god incarnate, and their buddhist priests told their kamikaze pilots that they were dying for a living god. CLEARLY THEY WERE FUCKING WRONG. Get over your obsession with the east, they're no better than anyone else.

[Koldaramor]

A total of 60 pictures of Buddhist hell.

Sorry if previously submitted.


http://izismile.com/2009/03/26/buddhist_..._pics.html

It’s been a long time I haven’t seen such a horror. Judging by the clothes of some people – these pictures are modern.
See what tortures are awaiting sinners in the Buddhist hell. It’s better not to get there

etc

[simplexity]

Without a self(ego) how is it you would be aware? There has to be something you are aware of and base your thinking on, this being your ego. Without the ego, there is no consciousness and therefore no awareness.

[Norfolk And Chance]

Here are my thoughts on buddhism...





















































































.

[Reforged]

I'm pretty sure some people would pay for that service. S&M man, seriously hardcore shit.

[Angrboda]

Several śramaṇa movements are known to have existed in India, even before the 6th century BCE, and these influenced both the Astika and the Nastika traditions of Indian philosophy. It was as a Shramana that the Buddha left his father's palace and practised austerities. The Brahmajāla Sutta mentions many śramaṇas with whom Buddha disagreed....

...Though Shramana traditions are associated with ascetism, some shramana traditions were, in fact, peculiar as materialists, in the sense they preached a worldly existence and carried denunciation of brahmanical orthodoxy to the extreme. The Shramana traditions included a range of beliefs, such as the Cārvākas, who on one end of the spectrum lived a luxurious life, to the Jainas, who on the other hand, developed a theory of extreme self-mortification. Some Shramanas were openly critical of the sacrificial traditions of the brahmins and the concepts of Karma, claiming them to be simply a swindle:

Don't believe in them - when you're dead, you're dead. All their talk of Karman is nonsense. One of the materialists said, 'If a man went north of the Ganges and murdered, and tortured, and stole, and plundered and set buildings on fire, he would make no bad Karman. If another man went south of the Ganges and gave in charity, and helped the weak and healed the sick, he would make no good Karman. You live as a combination of the four elements, but when you die, everything is finished. So borrow money and live as happily as you can, for when you're dead, they can't pursue you."

The Cārvāka Lokayatas asserted a purely naturalist position, claiming the world consists of merely working out the elements.

Yet another conflict can be found in the works of Dharmakirti, the eminent seventh-century Buddhist logician from Nalanda:

vedapramanyam kasyacit kartrvadah / snane dharmeccha jativadavalepah // santaparambhah papahanaya ceti / dhvastaprajnanam pancalirigani jadye

The unquestioned authority of the Vedas; the belief in a world-creator; the quest for purification through ritual bathings; the arrogant division into castes; the practice of mortification to atone for sin; - these five are the marks of the crass stupidity of witless men.

While authority of Vedas, belief in a creator, path of ritualism and social system of heredity ranks, made up the cornerstones of brahminal schools, the path of asceticism was the main characteristic of all the heterodox schools collectively called the Shramanas.

It was in Shramana traditions that concepts of Karma and Samsara became central themes of debate, and it has been suggested that this may have been introduced into the mainstream by Kshatriyas [the warrior class -apo]. In Jainism, Karma is based on materialist element philosophy, where Karma is the fruit of one's action conceived as material particles which stick to a soul and keep it away from natural omniscience. The Buddha conceived Karma as a chain of causality leading to attachment of the material world and hence to rebirth. The Ajivikas of Makkhali Ghosa were a third successful movement during this time. They were fatalists and elevated Karma as inescapable fate, where a person's life goes through a chain of consequences and rebirths until it reaches its end. Some famous philosophers of that time, such as Pakkudha Kaccayana and Purana Kashyapa, denied the existence of Karma. It was indeed the creative Shramana generations of the 500 to 400 BCE, in whom Karma doctrine became the centre of attention, who set far-reaching consequences for lifestyle and thought among Indians.