This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Peekaboo20 · 26-30, F
I have serious concerns about Buddhism. First, in terms of violence it ranks third behind Islam and Christianity. If we take into account its size compared to Christianity it ranks as the second most violent. Second, it tries to tread a false middle between faiths and disbelief: this by remaining as silent and obtuse as possible. It promotes this as an inspired improvement. And third, the great aim within Buddhism is to commit permanent suicide upon one having collected enough personal magic. I find these things repulsive.
CopperCicada · M
@Peekaboo20 🤔
Peekaboo20 · 26-30, F
@CopperCicada I spoke the actual truth. The typical Buddhist doesn't really know about Buddhism- apart from a few taught principles and practices.
LifeInMyEyes · 31-35, F
@Peekaboo20 I don't think any of this is true... ?
Peekaboo20 · 26-30, F
@LifeInMyEyes All of it is true. Many will be deceived, but not by me. Consult the world almanac to confirm those beliefs on the watch list and how many times they committed atrocities and attacked personal freedoms. The rest you would have to study philosophy and religion to confirm. Become Buddhist if you wish. I'll keep speaking knowledgeably about it.
CopperCicada · M
@Peekaboo20 I'll let you have the violence part. Every organized religion is fracked.
Your other two comments make no sense.
I have no idea what this means. You could make the call that Buddhists are anti-realists, but it's really impossible to try to get away with the thesis that they are "silent and obtuse". The Indo-Tibetan cannon covers all of the philosophical subjects as Western philosophy-- logic & epistemology (Dignaga & Dharmakirti), ontology (Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti), psychology (Vasubandhu, Asanga)-- and it struggles with all of the same problems as Western philosophy-- the nature of universals, the nature of being, the limits of knowledge, the nature of perception. You have Husserl, Heidegger, Wittgenstein all over it.
I have no idea what this means. Buddhist theory and praxis is based on dependent origination. There is no belief in "personal magic". And there is no "permanent suicide" as there is no permanent anything in Buddhist theory and practice. If one were clever one would realize that both of these things together are an injunction against "suicide".
Your other two comments make no sense.
Second, it tries to tread a false middle between faiths and disbelief: this by remaining as silent and obtuse as possible. It promotes this as an inspired improvement.
I have no idea what this means. You could make the call that Buddhists are anti-realists, but it's really impossible to try to get away with the thesis that they are "silent and obtuse". The Indo-Tibetan cannon covers all of the philosophical subjects as Western philosophy-- logic & epistemology (Dignaga & Dharmakirti), ontology (Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti), psychology (Vasubandhu, Asanga)-- and it struggles with all of the same problems as Western philosophy-- the nature of universals, the nature of being, the limits of knowledge, the nature of perception. You have Husserl, Heidegger, Wittgenstein all over it.
And third, the great aim within Buddhism is to commit permanent suicide upon one having collected enough personal magic.
I have no idea what this means. Buddhist theory and praxis is based on dependent origination. There is no belief in "personal magic". And there is no "permanent suicide" as there is no permanent anything in Buddhist theory and practice. If one were clever one would realize that both of these things together are an injunction against "suicide".
Peekaboo20 · 26-30, F
@CopperCicada Ahem.
Faiths teach of continuation because of magic and Skeptics teach of discontinuation because of nature. They are two completely antithetical poles in belief.
This presents two possible middle beliefs; and at least one of them is certainly false. It's proven to be Buddhism- which teaches discontinuation because of magic- not continuation because of nature.
Buddhism replaces an earlier belief at false middle position: one that taught that we magically receive an infinite series of un-worthwhile lifetimes; a belief akin to pure spiritualism stripped of God and heaven. Buddhism offered them a solution: a finite series of lifetimes where personal magic grows enough to break the cycle (thus permanent suicide).
This is a short explanation. The proofs are overwhelming. Whatever objections you might have is based on smoke created by Buddhism to cover it's tracks.
Faiths teach of continuation because of magic and Skeptics teach of discontinuation because of nature. They are two completely antithetical poles in belief.
This presents two possible middle beliefs; and at least one of them is certainly false. It's proven to be Buddhism- which teaches discontinuation because of magic- not continuation because of nature.
Buddhism replaces an earlier belief at false middle position: one that taught that we magically receive an infinite series of un-worthwhile lifetimes; a belief akin to pure spiritualism stripped of God and heaven. Buddhism offered them a solution: a finite series of lifetimes where personal magic grows enough to break the cycle (thus permanent suicide).
This is a short explanation. The proofs are overwhelming. Whatever objections you might have is based on smoke created by Buddhism to cover it's tracks.
CopperCicada · M
@Peekaboo20 If you don't like Buddhism because you're a theist and believe in God. That's sort of the end of it right there. Buddhism is a false revelation. Done.
But you can't misrepresent Buddhism's core beliefs. There is no space for magic. The Buddha really only taught one thing. Dependent origination. Which in some sense is a break from Aristotle's physics. While Aristotle cataloged "causes" and "effects" Buddha got at what causation actually signifies about the world and ourselves.
But you can't misrepresent Buddhism's core beliefs. There is no space for magic. The Buddha really only taught one thing. Dependent origination. Which in some sense is a break from Aristotle's physics. While Aristotle cataloged "causes" and "effects" Buddha got at what causation actually signifies about the world and ourselves.
Peekaboo20 · 26-30, F
@CopperCicada Wrong on both counts. I'm not what you suspect and I didn't false portray Buddhism. Buddhism false portrays Buddhism. Exactly how this is done is also well documented.
CopperCicada · M
@Peekaboo20 Alright. I'm certainly open to a source of this documentation.