this post was submitted on
141 points (74% like it)
212 up votes 71 down votes
shortlink:

atheism

subscribe1,149,768 readers

971 users here now

Help Atheist Organizations!

The Secular Student Alliance, Camp Quest, and Foundation Beyond Belief were all nominated for the Chase Community Giving program, which awards grants based on the votes of the public. Everyone gets 2 votes on Facebook, plus an additional one if they share a CCG page. The links for them are:

SSA | CQ | FBB

Voting runs from September 6-19

Welcome to r/atheism, the web's largest atheist forum. All topics related to atheism, agnosticism and secular living are welcome here. Please read our FAQ.

Please link directly to any images or use imgur to avoid being flagged as blogspam
New posts: New Rising
Self posts: New Relevant
Non-image posts: New Relevant

Recommended reading and viewing

Thank you notes

Related Subreddits <--the big list
GodlessWomen YoungAtheists AtheistParents
BlackAtheism AtheistGems DebateAnAtheist
skeptic agnostic freethought
antitheism humanism Hitchens
a6theism10 tfbd AdviceAtheists
Events
10/5-6 NAPCON2012 - Boston
08/11 Regional Conference - St. Paul MN
Giving
DWB/MSF fundraiser
Kiva lending team
FBB's Appeal to Freethinkers to Fight Cancer
Camp Quest
Ex* Groups
ex-Muslim ex-Catholic ex-Mormon
ex-JW ex-Jew ex-SistersinZion
ex-Bahai ex-Christian ex-Adventist
Assistance
Coming Out
Atheist Havens
Start an Atheist Club at Your School

Chat: #reddit-atheism on irc.freenode.net

Watch: #/r/atheism on reddit.tv

Read The FAQ

Submit Rage Comic

Submit Facebook Chat

Submit Meme

Submit Something Else

a community for
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...
message the moderators

MODERATORS

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

140
141

obligatory Buddhism repost. (imgur.com)

submitted ago by boggart777

all 112 comments
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]mksmothers 12 points13 points ago

Thank goodness someone wrote this. I actually practice American Zen Buddhism and don't believe in anything supernatural. For Americans practicing ZEN Buddhism this isn't an issue. For the first time in ten years, someone brought up the concept of god in a talk. I spoke up and said I don't believe any of that stuff, and no one really cared. Its not that we don't believe in god, it is just that we don't think of him that much. But this is purely an American phenomenon. It is a different world in Asia.

We Buddhists in the United States get a pass because we don't actively try to recruit you, nor do we try to get laws passed to force kids to meditate every morning like the ahem other religion in the United States does.

This doesn't excuse the bullshit that American Tibetans believe or how the supernatural aspects of Buddhism in non-Western states are used as a club to keep other people in line. It isn't considered a mortal sin to pick and choose what to believe. We can ignore the Buddha abandoning his wife and kid and concentrate on the good bits.

[–]Maxwells_Equations 5 points6 points ago

I am also a Chan/Zen Buddhist. I have not experienced any person trying to assert a dogma to take the six realms as absolute facts. That is not to say that my Taiwanese monks don't believe it, but it's not a huge deal to them. It is just kind of presented and then brushed aside quickly. The main topic is always craving, desire, and suffering.

I do not buy into the cosmology of ancient Buddhism. I've never felt forced to do so, nor do I feel it is particularly relevant in any more than allegory. It is a premise Chan that -to put in philosophy talk- one cannot have access to the thing-in-itself. Thus, Chan stress metaphysical realism and linguistic anti-realism.

In contrast, when you look at events in Asia, like the casting out of Muslims in Burma, I feel sad. I have studied Buddhism for over a decade, taken the 3 Gems, the Five Precepts, and have spent two years of my life in Asia. Even with my study and experiences, it is hard to reconcile the Buddhism taught here and the events that happen over there.

[–]mksmothers 1 point2 points ago

I think it has more to do with political power than with Buddhism.

[–]boggart777[S] -1 points0 points ago

thank you for knowing what you're talking about.

[–]letsgocrazy 5 points6 points ago

Why are you congratulating mksmothers for having the wisdom to differentiate between different types of Buddhism - secular and non secular, when you yourself do not?

[–]boggart777[S] -3 points-2 points ago

you've got to remember, i am making an argument. specifically as a reaction to all the dali lama posts. if you get that some buddhists (the lama) believe this shit, that's good enough for me. i never meant to generalize all Buddhists. American Zen Buddhists? yeah, not real Buddhists, agnostics inspired by Buddhist teachings, mostly.

[–]ixrs 3 points4 points ago

not real Buddhists

No true scotsman.

[–]boggart777[S] -5 points-4 points ago

yeah, i had an American zen Buddhist tell me as much. while technically they do fall under the umbrella term, they are very much outliers.

[–]Maxwells_Equations 3 points4 points ago

In our circles, we say there are little "b" buddhists who are inspired by the teachings of the Buddha but aren't into all the ritual or renunciation and so on, and there are big "B" Buddhists, who actually go through the rituals, take precepts, and take refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. By definition, those who take the Three Refuges are "True Buddhists." Westerners -thus Americans- fall in to both big "B' and little "b" categories. If it comes to pass that there are more people among the big "B" Buddhists who no longer believe in the cosmology of Buddhism, Buddhism will simply change to accommodate the new understanding. It will be another "Turning of the Wheel" as has happened many times before in Buddhism. There is no drive in Buddhism like Christianity to get to the original teaching - "What did the Buddha say" - rather Buddhism itself changes in accordance with the needs and cultural flavors of its practitioners. The fact is that most of the time, Buddhism simply isn't as dogmatic as you assert it is.

[–]letsgocrazy 1 point2 points ago

That's a good way of looking at it. I was always under the impression that if you were a true Buddhist, you wouldn't have an attachment to the idea of 'being' a 'Buddhist' and so therefore the label wouldn't matter.

However, in regards to the sangha and whatnot I do think it is useful to be able to say 'I'm a Buddhist'.

[–]mksmothers 2 points3 points ago

Whatever. if you don't think I"m a true scotsman, er Buddhist, that's fine with me. From a technical standpoint in all traditions one is considered Buddhist when one goes through a precept ceremony. But that is just an administrative detail that in reality effects nothing.

[–]letsgocrazy -1 points0 points ago

I suggest you go back and read the text of your juvenile little cartoon then. Because you pretty much have been saying exactly that.

[–]Funkenwagnels 0 points1 point ago

I really don't give a shit what people believe as long as it's not forced down my or someone else's throat. you had an interesting post but their beliefs in no way make them horrible people anymore then my lack of belief makes me a horrible person. if someone is comforted by the belief that their dead father is watching over their shoulder or that they are friends with a 2000 year old dead Jewish carpenter, that is fine. but when they start insisting we believe or try to force our children to believe that silliness that's when I get pissed. Buddhists here leave me alone so I feel no need to pick on them. It would be like picking a fight with the Unitarians. it just wouldn't make sense.

[–]boggart777[S] -3 points-2 points ago

you see, 50 people showed up before him, trying to say what he said, and didn't know what they were talking about.

[–]letsgocrazy 3 points4 points ago

You just generally don't know that fucking much about about Buddhism really do you?

So it's a shame that you of all people had to try and school everyone on Buddhism.

[–]Demaestro 7 points8 points ago

My only opposition to religion is based solely on the negative impact they have on society. I don't care if people want to believe in reincarnation, God, Jesus, resurrection or any number of fables.

What I do care about is them trying to convince people that their fable is a more sound explanation than one science provides. I care that based on fables they try to take away people's right to pursue live liberty and happiness.

When Buddhists start denying scientific discovery or start trying to get these realms taught in Geology class then I will start to voice an opinion against them or when they start repressing people's rights then I will speak up. The fact is we are fighting a war of information against most religions and I haven't encountered many, if any, Buddhists standing on the opposite position that I have taken.

Why do you care if people believe in the supernatural? As long as they keep it to themselves I don't know why you would care at all.

[–]namanyayg 3 points4 points ago

As I native Hindi speaker (common words with Sanskrit) and someone who has knowledge of Sanskrit too, I'm gonna correct the pronunciation, and give meanings of words.

Most words here have added 's' incorrectly to state the plural form. I'll try and add those too.

  • Siddharth Gautam - Sidh-haarth Gou-tum (Soft 't')
  • Sanskrit - Sanskrit - Sun-scrit ('k' is pronounced as a 'c', soft 't')
  • Samsara - Sansara - Sun-saar - Literal meaning, world, universe (can be interchanged, depending on context)
  • Asuras - Asur - A-sur ('u' is pronounced as same as 'oo' in look) - Literal meaning - Demon, monster, creature of hell, force of evil.
  • Devas - Dev - Day-v (Soft 'D', as 'th' in 'there') - Gods. Plural is the same.
  • Preta - Pret - Prayt (Soft 't') - Tormented soul, dead people who didn't get peace/satisfaction to be sent in heaven or hell. NOT hungry souls, I don't know how it got there O.o.
  • Naraka - Narg - Nurg - It's a G, not a K ffs! Literally, hell.
  • (Bonus) Swarg - Swurg - Literally, heaven.
  • Karma - Karm - Kurm - Pronounced without the ending a. - Literally, 'work', 'duty'.
  • Nirvana - Nirvan - Nir-vaan - Literally, 'to leave'.

Some more details, yes, the cosmology is interpreted literally. Hell, or narg, resides under the ground. Devta (another term for dev, soft t, literally - "The one who gives") live in heaven, which is in the sky.

Nirvana is a state of enlightenment, achieved when people are free from any material desire. It is said that Siddharth Gautam (or Buddha, as you know him) was the first mortal to achieve nirvana.

I don't know how people put 'a' in the end, but I guess it's something to do with the fact that in Hindi, we say that every consonant (called vyanjan - vyun-jun) is 'joined' to a vowel (Swar - swur). When there is no trailing vowel after a letter (Varn - vurn), it 'defaults' to a (pronounced soft u, something like 'uh'), which isn't actually pronounced. Try and say a consonant WITHOUT a vowel sound. You fail, don't you? That's the philosophy it's built on. Because of this, in English we get a trailing a.

However, in Sanskrit, those words which DON'T actually end with 'a' are clearly MARKED. So, if it was actually Sanskrit, it shouldn't have all those trailing a's.

To be clear, I'm an ex-Hindu (now atheist) and most of the terms here are also of Hindi. Also, the concept in this image is pretty much the same as that of Hinduism, and so I'm doubting the credibility of these presented facts.

[–]Maxwells_Equations 0 points1 point ago

Excellent post. Do you think the extra vowel came from the fact that some texts are translated from Sanskrit and the other half Pali? In my experience, sometimes words from both languages are used in the same dharma discourse. For example: Nirvana and Nibbana, jhana/dhyana, prajna/panna.

[–]namanyayg 0 points1 point ago

Yes, Pali and Hindi both could've added confusion to it. Moreover, people originally might have not been pronouncing the ending a, but now, the romanization got so corrupted that the a started being pronounced.

[–]makemusicguitar5150 1 point2 points ago

This raises some good points, but I think it's a bit off the mark.

For one, as I understand, there is no major belief that Buddhism has no spiritual aspect. The reason one might think this is that Buddhism does NOT have a deity that is worshipped. The spiritual aspect of Buddhism is relatively well known.

Second, being atheist doesn't mean a love for science and reason (there is a very strong correlation) but rather the lack of belief in one or more deities. While I can appreciate your sentiment to support a respect for science and reason, that's not technically what atheism is all about.

Finally, (and this is the big one) the big reason that Buddhism is not commonly targeted by atheists (and is often supported by them) is that Buddhists have (to my knowledge) NEVER forced their beliefs on others, violently or otherwise. Buddhism is one of the only religions, if not THE only, that is mainly composed of followers who actually follow the teachings of the religion. Even if I am wrong in saying that (which I very well may be) how many wars have been fought to spread Buddhism? How many Buddhist movements are there to remove or restrict rights from non-Buddhists? How many Buddhist terrorist organizations are there? Is there a large multibillion dollar organization of morally corrupt rich Buddhists who hold a massive sway in world politics and economics?

Like you said, the basic teachings of Buddhism ARE very similar to those of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. However, there is not a large-scale warping of and disregard for those beliefs being used by the followers to exert control over others.

[–]Clev3r 0 points1 point ago

The statement that Buddhists have absolutely no history of violence is just outright false and frankly is the result of the watered down version of Buddhism that is present in the western world.

Buddhism in the east has had a long history of conflict with followers of Islam. Many monks were and are trained militaristically and monasteries often served as private armies in history. Children are recruited from a very young age to live a monastic lifestyle.

[–]makemusicguitar5150 0 points1 point ago

I didn't say that there is no violent Buddhism, but Islam and Christianity have left a streak of blood across history while most of Buddhism's violence was defensive.

[–]Bartz11 2 points3 points ago

At least the "leader" of buddism is evolving and progressive, he preaches tolerance and understanding, his words at least say we should decide on things only after we have considered the evidence. If other leaders of FAITHS had the same outlook then r/atheism wouldn't be so popular. We don't want all the answers we just despise people telling us not to ask questions.

[–]letsgocrazy 4 points5 points ago

Where you say the cosmology etc. isn't supposed to be taken metaphorically, is just plane wrong. It is, and your petty attack piece is just part of the well of Samsara outdoing circle-jerk that is r/atheism.

[–]mksmothers 1 point2 points ago

The tibetans take the cosmology extremely serious. My first teacher called it ludicrous.

[–]letsgocrazy -2 points-1 points ago

They do maybe, but they don't speak for all Buddhists. In fact tibetan Buddhist is, like Christianity, tacked on top of the local beliefs and superstitions of the area when it took root.

You don't have to agree with them and you don't have to agree with every other Buddhist.

Everyone is moving towards enlightenment. Some people do it in weird ways and go on diversions.

You and I may be Buddhists but there's probably a lot of tibetans who think we're arseholes for wasting our time arguing with people on Reddit.

[–]barberj2 2 points3 points ago

What about secular Buddhism? I haven't been able to do a lot of research in it, but as far as I know, there is a trend in the Western world to follow the moral teachings and meditative aspects of Buddhism but to disregard the supernatural.

[–]ixrs 3 points4 points ago

Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing,

nor upon tradition,

nor upon rumor,

nor upon what is in a scripture

Buddha asserts that a happy and moral life would be correct even if there is no karma and reincarnation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalama_Sutta

I'm totally fine with Buddha's teachings.

[–]boggart777[S] -4 points-3 points ago

yeah that's philosophy based on Buddhism. it's NOT the same thing.

listen, Siddhartha (the bhudda) selfishly abandoned his wife and child to start his quest. his philosophy is NOT water tight. i like it, too though, but this dali lama bullshit, is bull shit. he is not who they say he is.

[–]letsgocrazy 0 points1 point ago

The Dalai Lama doesn't speak for all Buddhism.

I like how you know so much about Buddhism when you want to attack it - but when it comes to hearing things that make your attack pointless you know nothing.

Whether the Buddha abandoned his wife and kids or not is irrelevant - no one really thought it was a good thing to do - it was just part of the experience he went through.

Also, it's probably not even true - it's just an allegory that sets him up as someone who is the "blank slate" when it comes to learning about the world.

The idea being that we have so many preconceived notions about how things are, when we are born into them it's hard to separate out the bullshit.

Hence the constant auto-fellatio in Atheism about people breaking free of their parent's influence.

It's just that - a story designed to pack in the most amount of information in the shortest time.

[–]makemusicguitar5150 1 point2 points ago

What does it matter if he is who they say he is?

The dali lama is a spiritual and moral leader and the current one (from what I've seen) is actually a pretty awesome guy who strives for peace and love regardless of belief.

The pope (as a comparison) leads an organization built around control and growth.

[–]boggart777[S] -4 points-3 points ago

they both claim authority by claiming to be people they are not. that makes them demagogs.

the pope is a far more divisive figure, unless, you know, you're from china, where the lama is seen as VERY divisive.

[–]letsgocrazy 2 points3 points ago

The Buddha had always told people he wasn't divine, and that there were other ways than his.

The idea is that the Buddha is not divine - but he was the first person to realise some of the things he did. If you use the analogy of walking up a hill to the mountain. You can take any path you like - but the Buddha has already trampled a path down so there is logic in follow his.

A Brahman saw the Buddha resting under a tree in meditation. The Brahman was impressed with the Buddha's way.

He asked, "Are you a god?"

"No, Brahman, I'm not a god."

"Are you an angel?"

"No", replied the Buddha.

"You must be a spirit then?"

"No, I'm not a spirit," said the Buddha.

"Then what are you?"

"I'm awake."

[–]boggart777[S] -5 points-4 points ago

so... flying horse? floating up to heaven?

[–]Maxwells_Equations 2 points3 points ago

This is true, he did leave his wife and child. And then came back to them and his son became a follower. There is a whole Sutra dedicated to the advice given to his son from the Buddha called the Rahulovada Sutta.

To say that he "selfishly" left is kind of misleading. Leaving to become an Sadhu was part of the hindu custom of the time (and still is). He left his child as heir to a kingdom and perform a normal social custom of the time. What was unique about his leaving was that he was a prince and becoming an ascetic was "beneath him" and this was a practice of the lower castes.

[–]namanyayg 1 point2 points ago

Agree with you, but in actual, the time when it is allowed is -

  • When the son reaches the age of 16
  • Hair turns grey, skin wrinkles.
  • (Mostly) when the spouse had died.

He left his family too soon. He left it when he was young, around 30 I guess? At that age, it's his duty to care for his parents, his in laws, and his child. Being a kshatriya (Shat-ri-ya) he also had the duty to be a king and look after people and his kingdom.

(edit: formatting)

[–]boggart777[S] -3 points-2 points ago

you're defending the abandoning of his children now. didn't he also take other lovers while he was away? (yes, he did)

[–]Koalachan 1 point2 points ago

So because his society at the time only ate apples, we should fault him because we only eat oranges?

[–]boggart777[S] -5 points-4 points ago

look I'm not saying we should hate anybody, I'm just saying we shouldn't exalt him the way we do

if you were his wife, would that excuse soothe you?

[–]Koalachan 2 points3 points ago

It was the social norm at the time. In most modern societies marriage is one man/one woman. Many places are changing that to one whatever/one whatever. In some places it's one man/many women. If the societal norm back then was to have lovers on the side, then his wife probably wasn't upset by it, simply because that's how things were at the time.

It's pretty much the same with his child. He didn't "abandon" him as much as he honored the customs of the time in that society.

[–]boggart777[S] -5 points-4 points ago

this concept that women don't experience sexually jealously is horse shit chauvinist revisionist NONSENSE. moreover his father told him he should never leave the kingdom, so he had an out.

[–]letsgocrazy 0 points1 point ago

In a thousand years time we'll all be vegetarians. The way they will judge use for eating meat will not be the same way they judge each other.

[–]Maxwells_Equations 1 point2 points ago

Siddhartha wasn't Jesus or Yoda. He was just some guy with a good idea. Even the Buddhists that came after him decided that some of his ideas needed to be changed in order to fit with their culture and values. This is what caused the birth of the Mahayana. Siddhartha wasn't even the Buddha before he "woke up" and until then, for right or wrong, he chose his actions and was heir to them. You say that his actions were wrong, I say they don't matter, but really who cares? It was his bed he made, and his sufferings he had to deal with because of his actions. In what way does the action hurt the tenants of the religion? Your statement about his treatment of his children are just ad hominem about an event taken out of its cultural and historical context about some guy, before he was even acting in his role as a religious leader.

Even if he was wrong in his actions, that he was able to make bad judgements, was youthful and reckless (he was), and was defiant and rebellious as a teenager (he was), make his story more relatable rather than not. That is to say, even if he was wrong, it strengthens his later philosophy rather than defeats it.

[–]boggart777[S] -3 points-2 points ago

look i love herman hess's Siddhartha, but the story the Buddhists tell has a fucking flying horse in it.

[–]Maxwells_Equations 2 points3 points ago

That made me lol. It depends on the Buddhist telling the story. Most of the time, that stuff is left out. The story usually goes something to the effect of, "There was a guy named Sid that was a prince. His father was told he's either going to be a priest or a religious teacher. King keeps prince inside. Prince goes outside and sees three things. Prince goes off and becomes an Sidhu. Being a Sidhu sucks a lot and he was was all hungry, so some girl gave hime some food. He thought about it for a while, and was like 'to hell with all that starving and beds of nail shit, I'm going to do some other shit!'"

But there are at least 20 different versions of the birth of the Buddha, including cool ones of his previous lives. My favorite is the one where he is born, immediately takes seven steps, and starts talking something to the effect of "I am the world-honored one! I will obtain enlightenment."

Sometimes, stories are just stories and are meant to entertain or inform. Many of the stories were embellished as Buddhism was an oral tradition and exaggerations make it likely to be remembered and a better story. It is good practice to start every Chinese story with "Once upon a time" and even the early Buddhists start out their texts with "Thus I have heard,". The fact is that in many oriental cultures, the literal truth of something isn't held as dear as the message the story is meant to express.

[–]boggart777[S] -4 points-3 points ago

uh.. so like... what could the Dali lama due, to like rectify this...

1 recant on samsara 2 apologize for telling fairy tales in the past 3 call on everyone else to re-examine their philosophies and discard bullshit

thing is... he can't, the church couldn't take it, because the church doesn't stand on philosophy alone, it also stands on tribalism and mindless tradition.

[–]Maxwells_Equations 1 point2 points ago

I'm a Chan Buddhist, the Dalai Lama doesn't really have anything to do with my practice. Even if his Church(?) couldn't handle it and collapsed, my own would be unaffected. For example, if the Pope said something messed up, the Baptists wouldn't give a shit. But let's assume he did put out these proclamations, it doesn't change my sufferings, my practice, or my understanding of the Dharma. The Dalai Lama, just like the Buddha, you, and I, is "just some guy". He has his experience, and I have mine. What the Dalai Lama (or anyone else) says that is wise and I understand, I incorporate. If he says something that is unwise, I discard it. I don't see why that is problematic.

[–]boggart777[S] -2 points-1 points ago

"This defines two different kinds of truth, a common one and a higher one, on three different levels. At the heart of this complex theory is an examination of the inter-relationship between existence and non-existence. Truth is complicated by the fact that on the one hand there is physical form or existence and, on the other, everything is said to be illusory or non-existent." is that right? is everything illusory and non existent?

[–]Yuuichi_Trapspringer 2 points3 points ago

Buddhism is a lot less 'in your face' than Christianity is. My guess is that they figure that eventually you will figure it out eventually.

"Oh, you're not Buddhist? We'll get ya next lifetime!"

[–]jjg_denis_robert 2 points3 points ago

It might be so in the West, but it's certainly not true in places like Sri Lanka. Buddhism is as susceptible to fundamentalist dogmatism and fascistic impulses as any other religion. All it takes is a little power.

Let's not forget the example of the current Dalai Lama. Now that he's out of power, he presents himself as a tolerant, "love your neighbour" kind of good guy. When he was in power, he was a full-on dictator. The only difference between the two is power, and very little else.

[–]boggart777[S] -4 points-3 points ago

sure, only white Christians can be racist, or prejudice against outsiders and faith-rejectors. i should have known!

[–]Yuuichi_Trapspringer 2 points3 points ago

I don't see how your response has anything what-so-ever to do with what I said. I have never had a Buddhist come knocking door to door to try and get me to join their faith. No religion is perfect, yet I've been bothered by thousands of Christians in my lifetime pounding on my door or screaming in my face to try and get me to drink their fucking kool-aid. The number of Buddhists that have bothered me? 0.

[–]makemusicguitar5150 1 point2 points ago

That's not what he's saying. Comparatively how many incidents of extreme violence or prejudice have been committed in the name of Buddhism versus Christianity?

[–]boggart777[S] -2 points-1 points ago

Christians being more violent through history than Buddhists does not justify their absurd beliefs (samsara).

[–]makemusicguitar5150 1 point2 points ago

No, but it does account for why they are generally targeted while Buddhism is mostly left alone.

[–]letsgocrazy 0 points1 point ago

You're understanding samsara in a completely literal way. Try to understand it more as a cycle of experience. Kind of how any time you speak on this subject you are down voted, even in atheism.

The reason is because you are acting out the same impulses. The same misunderstanding, the same anger, the same criticism, the same inability to listen.

You're just repeating a cycle. Perhaps eventually that cycle will make you more unhappy and you will lash out again etc.

For someone who decries dogma. You are very dogmatic in your mini war on Buddhism.

Try to actually stop and do some research on what the metaphor is supposed to teach us.

[–]DidntClickGuy 2 points3 points ago

I never liked this post because it presumes that all that cosmological stuff amounts to the "core tenets of Buddhism." It most certainly does not.

The core tenets of Buddhism are these, and fuck anyone who tells you otherwise:

  • Suffering is pervasive throughout every moment in life to some degree
  • We cause our own suffering through attachment
  • Suffering can be totally overcome
  • The means to overcome suffering are by practicing a moral life in the areas of perspective, intention, action, speech, livelihood, effort, mindfulness, and meditation.

You can agree with nothing else you ever hear and still be a Buddhist. You don't have to believe in deities, karma, past lives, immaterial realms, Vedic eschatology, or anything else. The Four Noble Truths are it. The end.

If you read the Four Noble Truths and they resonate with you, go ahead and live by them. If not, don't. But don't let religious people define the word "atheism" for you, and don't let non-Buddhists define what the core tenets of Buddhism are.

[–]boggart777[S] -3 points-2 points ago

you got those tenants right. i think the whole "desire is the cause of suffering" is true, but more like a truism, like saying "life is the sole facilitator of suffering"

[–]letsgocrazy 1 point2 points ago

Then you're a fucking sympathetic to Buddhism in all but name, dipshit.

Basically, you're doing what virtually everyone does when they first start to learn about Buddhism - they learn about it, and then get pissed off by the organizational structure that surrounds it (in sects, as they perceive them), and the cultures that have grown up around it.

Listen - there are lots of groups of Buddhists who follow the teachings of the Buddha who don't believe in the "magic", and also,t here are a whole bunch aspects of Buddhism that you may initially agree with, that in actual fact make sense, in spite opf what you may think now.

[–]boggart777[S] -3 points-2 points ago

karma? magic. Samsara? magic. look, i am sympathetic. I'll admit as much. but it's not true, and that bothers me. a lot.

[–]letsgocrazy 0 points1 point ago

Karma doesn't have to mean a magical force that keeps score. (that's the Hindu version of karma). Karma just means your actions, and the results of the actions.

Put in layman's terms. Karma can be the complex or simple reactions to your volitional actions. Ie. What happens as a result of the stuff you do.

Again, reincarnation refers to the cycling of ideas and beliefs and habits. Most Buddhist types don't believe there is an enduring soul, so wouldn't believe in reincarnation as most people think of it. If you aren't the same thing you were when you were a baby, child, teenager or old person what is there to reincarnate?

One of the foundations of Buddhism is that ignorance is a cause of suffering.

You've come here to try and educate people about Buddhism, essentially to spread lies and negativity.

Not cool bro.

I'm seeing a lot of down votes for you. A lot of people are seeing your pointless hostility for what it is.

[–]boggart777[S] -3 points-2 points ago

i'm just not so impressed by truisms as main tenants. it's not enough. also, this "Suffering can be totally overcome" is not true.

[–]TheAlmightyAtheismo -1 points0 points ago

When you realize that you are not your body nor your mind/thoughts and thus the body and mind suffering is not your suffering, then your suffering has stopped.

[–]FriendlyCommie -1 points0 points ago

Find me the Buddhist WBC and then we'll talk.

[–]boggart777[S] 3 points4 points ago

go to sri lanka you'll find one with an AK

[–]FriendlyCommie 2 points3 points ago

Alrighty, I'll concede there are Buddhist extremists that can be pretty nasty. But why are they pretty nasty?

It's often my belief that a lot religious extremists can be violent in spite of their religion, not in light of their religion.

I mean all I know about Sri Lanka is the tail-end of a 20th century battlefield episode about Tamil Nationalism, so as far as I'm concerned it could be that Buddhism just happens to have found itself lumbered with some crazy people that give it a bad name.

[–]password_is_ent 2 points3 points ago

Lol, the person who made this does not understand any form of buddhism. You aren't actually reborn as a "Hungry Ghost." This picture seems like angry words from someone who is scared of spirituality, IMHO.

[–]boggart777[S] -4 points-3 points ago

huh, maybe you should cite, i don't know, anything you just said?

'lol, as a westerner i can confirm Japanese people don't believe in reincarnation and ghosts"

[–]password_is_ent 0 points1 point ago

I can't confirm what Japanese people might believe in, that's for sure. I can confirm that this is brainless information soaked out of a wikipedia page and that it focuses on discrediting Buddhism rather then objectively looking at it and making scientific claims. The whole bit about "everything is literal" and the "godlike beings being poked with needles" is wrong. I'm not sure where you found that but I'd love to find the source of the misinformation.

[–]mike__scott 1 point2 points ago

but then again buddhism is nothing like abrahamic religions, its pretty much the study of life, and as the buddha himself said you are not to believe others just because, you are supposed to draw your own true conclusions, unlike in christianity there is no "bible" or a set of rules that guarantee you nirvana, its more like buddha studied life and came up with some answers, you are to study life too and see what answers you get, just reading and even believing the texts and all the cosmology has no meaning

[–]Amryxx 0 points1 point ago

Wow.

Have to say, it's not a common occurrence for me to come to r/atheism and actually learn something.

Regardless whether I believe you or not OP, I think you deserve some credit. I have never been too motivated to research for myself the various denominations and core concepts of Buddhism.

[–]justadude23 0 points1 point ago

There's a quote going around from the Dali Lama about how he'll stop believing in any aspect of Buddhism if science proves it false. The problem, of course, is that claiming that the burden of proof lies with people who deny the truth of Buddhism is actually a real problem.

It's absolutely no different to saying that you should believe in Jesus Christ unless you can prove that he didn't walk on water.

Yet somehow Buddhism gets a free pass on things that get people howling, when said by Christians.

[–]Crownowa 0 points1 point ago

For me, no religion is fine. In some way, they all cultivate narrow-mindedness, take scientifically incorrect stances, cause conflict, over-emphasize the good parts of the religion, diminish the negative parts of the religion, and ignore bad deeds done in the name of the religion. Studying religion is great, but practicing religion means one more barrier to coexistence.

One a different note, I like how religion on earth doesn't seem to exist in many futuristic sci fi shows. The writers are really onto something, other than giving us ideas about technology we can develop.

[–]Neo63 0 points1 point ago

Very interesting post. I used to live in China and from what i gathered of Chinese Buddhism, samsara wasn't that major of a concept. At least the notion of vegetarianism and never killing a living thing is certainly mentioned much more frequently.

I guess one of the reasons why Buddhism was never under harsh criticism in Western culture is because Buddhists (most of the time) actually follow and practice the things they believe in. Unlike Christians (and the love thy neighbour) they will actually be vegetarian and the vast majority of them are very kind people. I actually have never met a Buddhist that gave me bad impressions. EDIT: Nevertheless it is a religion by strict standards, though since its introduction to China the particular branch of Chinese Buddhism has changed its focus to be more spiritual, possibly influenced by various Chinese philosophies that were greatly popular.

[–]flotsamideal 0 points1 point ago

Minor nitpick: The chart has Mahayana and Theravada reversed in location and number of adherents. Mahayana is most prominent in East Asia, mostly China and Japan. Theravada is Southeast Asia, Burma, Thailand, that sort of area. Reason demands scrutiny of even things we may inclined to agree with.

[–]fegd 0 points1 point ago

This is amazing. Who drew it? I took an immediate liking to the crab/narrator, and that's no easy feat.

[–]The_Question_After 0 points1 point ago

Honestly, Buddha never talked about metaphysical things in focus. His stance on this kind of stuff was to simply ignore it, because it would hinder your ability to reach nirvana.

You have to realize that when Buddha died he basically said to follow no leader. However, leaders came out all the freaking time and at this time in the world, Hinduism existed. It probably was a lot easier for people to take part in Buddhism while maintaining their hindu beliefs of reincarnation. You can already see the clear influence of Eastern religion on buddhist teachings... Even his statues look Asian. LOL.

Regardless, time has a way with religion. Religions combine, ideas spread, and things change. However, you can look back at what Buddha said and follow Buddha, not religion.

For that reason, many Buddhist ignore the metaphysical ideas of Buddhism and treat them as metaphors in order to learn from Buddha, the teacher. LOL.

I mean seriously, what do you think Buddha meant?

TLDR; Buddha said to follow no leader and to ignore metaphysical crap.

[–]guitarelf 0 points1 point ago

Agreed. I hate when people talk about Karma...

[–]kivahut 0 points1 point ago

I live just north of Boulder, CO an epicenter of Tibetan Buddhism which is where most of these myths come from. None of the Buddhist I know subscribe to that nonsense. I think they developed their stories because they didn't have cable in Tibet.

[–]Garzaster 0 points1 point ago

It confuses me that people don't know this. Furthermore it seems to assimilate or at least work in concert with other religions much like "Louisiana Voodoo".

My grandfather was Catholic, my grandmother was Buddhist supposedly converted to Catholisicm but really it seems like they simply put whatever aspects of each religion together. My grandmother kept an altar in the house alongside a statuary of Mary. She maintained all kinds of superstitions the most positive of which being a profound respect for nature. They introduced us grandkids to the idea of reincarnation.

I think seeing their harmonious compromise vs the break before it bends ideals of the standard Baptist church I was raised in is one of the experiences that signaled to me that the Baptist church was not the only thing out there and certainly not even a good choice.

[–]punkandkittens 0 points1 point ago

Great piece! I might be a Buddhist myself that belives in learning from teachings of all religions and even by practicing zazen, but that still doesn't mean I believe in anything supernatural. I'm still an atheist at heart.

[–]pconwell 1 point2 points ago

Kinda over simplifies and misrepresents Buddhism as a whole.

[–]My_ducks_sick 4 points5 points ago

If it went into more detail, nobody would read it. As it stands, it already has more info than the average rage comic, quote or facebook screenshot so I doubt it will get close to the front page.

[–]DefenestratorOfSouls 5 points6 points ago

I don't know about other branches of Buddhism, but this is pretty accurate as far as Tibetan Buddhism (the one led by the oft-quoted Dalai Lama) goes.

I've never really understood why Buddhism gets such a free pass here. Sure, it's more tolerant than Christianity, but is that really what we want? The lesser of two evils? I spent a few weeks in Tibet, and what I couldn't get over was the self-deprecation of the people. Their religion has such a hold on their life, and the whole concept revolves around how painful life is, and how to get passed it. It'd be nice to see them try and do something that makes them happy, as opposed to prostrating themselves all day.

Again, I realize other branches aren't like this, but Tibetan Buddhism is definitely a big part of it.

[–]boggart777[S] -2 points-1 points ago

yeah, it's better than claiming they're all skeptics on the front page. maybe cite your complaint so i can fix it.

[–]boggart777[S] -2 points-1 points ago

it kills me how you'll let me tell you you're talking out your ass, because it's easier to downvote than state your complaint. i even want criticism to help reshape this infographic if necessary.

but no, you'd rather just say "uh, that's not right because it's not"

[–]boggart777[S] -4 points-3 points ago

wait, you don't have any? how do you know so much about Buddhism? you mean, you don't? that's nuts! maybe read one of the many iama's to get a clue since you don't trust facts presented like facts.

[–]sultanblender -1 points0 points ago

I don't like you little crab.

[–]Chariots_of_Iron -1 points0 points ago

I think crab is a pretty cool guy. Eh smokes a cigar and doesn't afraid of nething.

[–]warhol451 -2 points-1 points ago

I feel like this is trying to convince the reader to be an atheist. Maybe not "convince" per se, but it's certainly espousing that people should not believe in something. That's just as bad as trying convince people to believe in something.

[–]Grackyeck 1 point2 points ago

I really don't get the attitude of "atheists are just as bad" for trying to convince people towards atheism. Yes, proselytizing is usually annoying, religious or not, but why does the fact that it makes people uncomfortable matter more than whether or not the claims are true?

If you honestly believe something to be true, especially something as important as the reality of existence, why wouldn't you try and convince as many people as possible, regardless of how annoying you might come off? Religious people have no solid arguments for what they believe. (Not to say that they can't be convincing.) THAT is the problem, not that they are trying to get people to believe what they believe.

[–]boggart777[S] -4 points-3 points ago

it's addressed to people who are ALREADY atheists

edit: seriously it says so in the goddamned post

[–]Kindoalkun -2 points-1 points ago

Take your intolerant Dogma Zealotry and shove it up your ass you Gnostic Atheist twit. Next I suppose you are going to make up cute little pamphlets and hand them out door-to-door explaining why your beliefs are superior to everyone else's. Now where have I seen that crap before? The world would be a better place without fucktards like the OP.

[–]Negro_Napoleon -2 points-1 points ago

Thank you OP. I love this post. People keep overlooking the cognitive dissonance inherent in even buddhism to accept unsubstantiated claims.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 4147 on app-170 running cb76245.