Post by ava on Feb 4, 2006 4:51:47 GMT -5
Buddhism is based on giving up all desires in order to attain enlightenment. But isn't the want for enlightenment a desire in itself?
going through the wiki article (yeah, I'm a lazy researcher, sue me), Buddhism says that all things are marked by 3 characteristics: impermanence, suffering, and "no-self". Depressing, eh? Call me cynical, but this seems like little more than a defense-mechanism to cope with a reality that isn't as prettyful as one might think it is at first; the knee-jerk disillusionment of an Indian prince who had everything handed to him on a silver platter and then one day looked up and saw violence and misery and so forth and realized that the whole world isnt all ponies and rainbows after all and had no idea how to deal with that fact.
Naturally life isn't purely happiness and fluffy bunnies all the time, but neither is it death and misery and suffering all the time either; this whole religion/philosophy seems like one man's mid-life crisis - a way to keep oneself from being hurt by a sometimes harsh world by erecting barriers of expecting everything to be harsh and painful.
I hate to call Buddha the original emo, but come on. If everything is impermanent, then how is it that Nirvana (the god-head, "unconditioned element", thingy that buddhists seek to become one with via 'enlightenment'), be permanent? If everything is suffering, then how is Nirvana any less miserable than Earth?
I'm not sure how much sense this is making sense it's nearly 4 in the morning and I've too much to drink, so I'll shut up now.
going through the wiki article (yeah, I'm a lazy researcher, sue me), Buddhism says that all things are marked by 3 characteristics: impermanence, suffering, and "no-self". Depressing, eh? Call me cynical, but this seems like little more than a defense-mechanism to cope with a reality that isn't as prettyful as one might think it is at first; the knee-jerk disillusionment of an Indian prince who had everything handed to him on a silver platter and then one day looked up and saw violence and misery and so forth and realized that the whole world isnt all ponies and rainbows after all and had no idea how to deal with that fact.
Naturally life isn't purely happiness and fluffy bunnies all the time, but neither is it death and misery and suffering all the time either; this whole religion/philosophy seems like one man's mid-life crisis - a way to keep oneself from being hurt by a sometimes harsh world by erecting barriers of expecting everything to be harsh and painful.
I hate to call Buddha the original emo, but come on. If everything is impermanent, then how is it that Nirvana (the god-head, "unconditioned element", thingy that buddhists seek to become one with via 'enlightenment'), be permanent? If everything is suffering, then how is Nirvana any less miserable than Earth?
I'm not sure how much sense this is making sense it's nearly 4 in the morning and I've too much to drink, so I'll shut up now.