Tuesday, September 03, 2019

Curse God and die!

I'd like to talk a little bit about Buddhism in this post.

  1. When I say Buddhism I mean Theravada Buddhism because (to my knowledge) it's the most conservative and oldest form of Buddhism. The original Buddhism.

    I regard Mahayana Buddhism more like Buddhism if Buddhism were Catholic. Mahayana Buddhism strayed far from any semblance to primitive Buddhism. It's an ostentatious corruption of Buddhism. Like a simple house turned into Elvis' Graceland.

    In fairness, it’s worth dealing with all forms of Buddhism, inasmuch as all have adherents trapped in falsehood, so it’s worth explaining their falsehoods to them so that they might know the truth. However I’ll focus on Theravada Buddhism here.

  2. It seems to me Buddhism is anti-natalist in the sense that anti-natalism is its ultimate goal.

    That's not to say Buddhists are against humans having children and giving birth, per se. That's because Buddhists believe the non-self (anatta) - despite its logical inconsistencies - could be reborn into something besides the human form (e.g. lower animals), which, if so, would perpetuate its suffering. In fact, its suffering may be arguably worse than if it existed in the human form. Nevertheless human birth is a means to a goal in Buddhism.

    The endgame for the Buddhist is to reach nirvana. To reach nirvana is to reach non-being, to extinguish oneself, to annihilate oneself. And therefore to end all rebirths. That's anti-natalistic in the end.

  3. All this plays out in a larger context. Buddhism recognizes evil and suffering, but in order to escape evil and suffering, Buddhism denies desires like joy, love, pleasure. Buddhism denies self. Buddhism denies life. Buddhism denies God. Buddhism escapes evil and suffering by denying everything.

  4. By contrast, Christianity regards God, creation, and the self as good, but we are fallen creatures inhabiting a fallen world. Like a beautiful cathedral fallen into a terrible state of disrepair. Christianity's message is that God the architect has come to redeem and repair this once majestic cathedral in order to rebuild it better than ever.

    However Buddhism's message is the architect will destroy the cathedral, burn it down to dust and ashes, to be swept away by the howling winds, and finally the architect himself will commit suicide. As Ripley said in Aliens: "Nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."

    Both Christianity and Buddhism see life under the curse, but Christianity turns the curse into a blessing, good from evil, whereas the counsel of Buddhism (like Job's wife) is to "curse God and die!" (Job 2:9).

  5. It might be instructive to know Siddhārtha Gautama aka the Buddha called his one and only son Rāhula which is related to a "fetter" or an "impediment". The Buddha considered his son an impediment to reaching nirvana, for his own son would fetter him to love, which in turn would open him to continued evil and suffering. Hence the Buddha dare not love his own son if he is to reach nirvana, non-being, self-obliteration.

    However, in Christianity:

    She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins. All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel" (which means, God with us). (Mt 1:21-23)

    and

    Behold, a voice from heaven said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased!" (Mt 3:17)

8 comments:

  1. Any thoughts on how they would square non-self with any motivation to stop being reincarnated? If life is suffering and not striving to stop reincarnating leads to more suffering, what does that matter if there's no self to experience it? It's also not me in next life. There's no me now!

    I recall someone talking glowingly of a Buddhist monk last month. They said he had seven years experience in meditation. Given Buddhism, there was no one that existed for seven years you could say had that experience.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, TheFlyingCouch. I think that's a good point/question! I mean it sounds like you're alluding to the logical inconsistencies in the non-self which if so I'd definitely agree with you! :) For example, as I'm sure you know, Buddhism says the non-self is a collection of aggregates (khandhas). Also, Buddhism teaches it's possible to cling onto (tanha) these aggregates. Hence, suffering, etc. However, where does this desire to "cling" come from if it is not part of these aggregates in the first place? How can it be our will or volition? And how does this "clinging" knit together these aggregates? If this clinging is strong enough to knit together these aggregates, and if we have to relinquish this clinging in order to achieve nirvana, then where does this clinging itself go? Does it simply evaporate into thin air?

      By the way, some non-Christian acquaintances have been talking to me about mindfulness and meditative practices in general, including watching how we breathe (anapanasati), which has some basis in Buddhism. I might talk about that in a future post, time-permitting.

      Delete
    2. I don't recall the Buddhist terminology (I tend to recall the jist of things, very bad at particulars), but sounds about right. Of course as you keep going it makes less and less sense. Would the Buddha be addressing these desires and telling them to cease since ultimately there's no person to address? Would these desires have to be what gives the aggregate continuity between lives and even during a single life?

      Delete
    3. Good points, TheFlyingCouch! :)

      Delete
  2. Your first point, about Buddhism being anti-natalist, is captured in a very interesting sci-fi novel, Childhood's End. It is almost in dialogue with a few Christian themes too. (Written from the point of view that is sympathetic to Buddhism.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, that's interesting to know! By the way, I recall C.S. Lewis enjoyed the book.

      Delete
  3. Yoda with his Buddhist 'feelings are bad' philosophy directly led to Anakin becoming Darth Vader - it would have cost pittance to buy and rescue his mom, but nooooooooooooooooo love leads to the Dark Side or whatever.

    Luke upended this by disobeying Yoda to go try and rescue his friends, then awakening Vader's fatherly love.

    Source: Not me, can't find the link right now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lol, thanks, Scott! :) As a scifi fan, I always appreciate Star Wars references! :)

      Delete