• I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I always felt like Buddhism was more a philosophy than a religion. It can be used as a religion, but it really boils down to “Life sucks, but you can be happy if you stop thinking about how much life sucks”.

    • rtfm_modular@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      Some sects are more dogmatic than others, with some woo woo metaphysical nonsense and ceremonial practices. Secular Buddhism though is definitely just the philosophy and practice of mindfulness that uses the same allegories but ditches the more problematic stuff.

      • magic_lobster_party@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s also Nirvana, so it’s more like “Life sucks. Rebirth sucks. If you follow the path of Buddha you might be able to break this cycle”.

        • Sordid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Rebirth sucks.

          I never understood that part. Maybe the next life does suck, but so what? I’m not going to be there to experience it, and the next guy won’t have any memory of me, so who cares? Reincarnation as a concept never made sense to me. You get a new body, your memories get erased… what is even left of you?

            • Sordid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Even if I did believe in that, I still wouldn’t care. Trying to destroy your soul by reaching nirvana so that it can’t be reborn seems to me akin to trying to destroy your carbon atoms so that they can’t be recycled into other organisms’ bodies. I mean… you could, I guess, but why on earth would you care about that?

    • Poplar?@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      No offense but I don’t think you’ve read any of the texts or seen any Bhuddist practice if you think so. The corpus of texts that belong to the different traditions are massive and Bhuddists have everything from prayer to pilgrimage. It’s only not a religion if you ignore everything.

    • Sordid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      You could say the same about Christianity. “Life sucks, but you can be happy if you think about the fact that the suffering is temporary.”

      • aspire2493@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Absolutely not. Christianity is “Life sucks and will always suck unless you submit to what we say and only what we say, otherwise you suffer forever”

        • Sordid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Christianity is “Life sucks and will always suck unless you submit to what we say and only what we say, otherwise you suffer forever”

          And Buddhism doesn’t say that? The only difference is that Christianity adds “in hell” at the end of that sentence, Buddhism adds “in the cycle of death and rebirth”.

      • _danny@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s more of “life sucks because the all knowing, all powerful, all loving deity is not so secretly a sadist who is constantly testing you to see if you’re good enough”

        • Sordid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          True, but whether or nor the suffering is caused by a personal god or by impersonal cosmic forces doesn’t really make any practical difference. Both religions claim, without any basis in fact, that the suffering is eternal and that they are the only way out.

            • Sordid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Eh… that depends on which particular sect you’re talking about. Some lean more heavily in to the supernatural than others.

                • Sordid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  You may have asked that, but not of me. More to the point, I didn’t say anything about sects with no supernatural elements, so I’m not sure why you’re asking me to name examples of those. I said some lean more heavily into the supernatural than others. This conversation will go a lot more smoothly if you respond to what I’m actually saying instead of what you imagine I’m saying or what other people in other conversations you’re participating in are saying.

  • DARbarian@artemis.camp
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    To be fair, I wouldn’t lump Buddhism in with other theistic religions. Of course it can be, but a lot of schools avoid any form of theism. Plus, it’s almostvdefinitely the least arbitrary and hypocritical of the Big 5-7

    • Sordid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Eh, it’s still based on completely unfounded, unsupported, and nonsensical ideas. Whether or not there’s a personal god doesn’t make any real difference IMO.

        • Sordid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Reincarnation is not part of that. That’s what I’m talking about, in case it’s not clear.

          • PalmTreeIsBestTree@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            If you think about it, life is cyclical and your remains will eventually be reincarnated into energy for another life form eventually.

            • Sordid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s not what the term means in Buddhism, though, and reaching spiritual enlightenment doesn’t prevent it.

      • TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mostly agree with you, but the act of using meditation to increase one’s mental well being, in particular, is not an unfounded or nonsensical idea. It may have been when it was first described, but we have scientific data now that shows that meditation can be pretty beneficial for people.

  • StormFallen@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    I remember asking my mother as a child how we knew we were right and her answer was “you have to have faith”. That was the beginning of the end for me. I started refusing to go to church when I was about 10 as I couldn’t fathom how we could just “believe” we were right. Plus how could god punish those who weren’t exposed to our church? It just didn’t make any logical sense to me at that age.

    • iHUNTcriminals@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      spiritually speaking they are correct… They just picked Nike brand instead of reality brand, so everything’s bullshit.

      Faith is prayer. Asking is not.

  • kromem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I increasingly find it bizarre when people committed to the idea of an intelligent designer for our universe ignore the fact that the ‘design’ has no absolute frame of reference and is relative, down to the recent trend in physics of recognizing relative facts vs stable facts.

    Especially bizarre are the ones that do this while committed to the idea the intelligent designer is one of light (i.e. 1 John 1:5), given that fundamentally baked into the design is the fact that light when not able to be directly observed can be more than one thing at once.

    But no, they manage to hold fast to the idea it was carefully designed while showing no interest in learning more of that supposed design outside of what they’ve been told to believe within their giant generational game of telephone back to the days when people peed on their hands to clean them and lamented that why it rained was outside the realm of possible human knowledge thus it was futile to try to understand God.

    • 11181514@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sorry what “sciencey story” is a fart in the wind? Because I imagine either you don’t know what a hypothesis is or whatever example you have doesn’t actually follow the scientific method.