Christianity And Buddhism Are The Same Sickness

[camerata]

I came upon this essay by accident. It's pretty negative, but then what can you expect from A.N.U.S. - the American Nihilist Underground Society? It doesn't really make the case against Buddhism, other than repeating the old complaint about Buddhists avoiding external reality:

"Christianity for this reason appeals to neurotic people, and through its mechanism of forcing itself on succeeding generations and isolating those who don't accept its rabid dogma, it has bred the West into a race of slumbering, kow-towing, cowardly, self-obsessed masturbators.

[...]

Buddhism is a similar jerkoff, having the premise that the best way to decrease ego is to devote your life to your own "enlightenment," while taking no part in the world that reminds you that your ego is one tiny part of a large universe. In the name of wisdom, make the world your Self, and worship it, while considering yourself wise and merciful for abstaining from participation in the world at large - oh, except for acts of pity, of course, which modern Buddhists commit as much as Christians do."

Huh? Worship the Self?

http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/buddhism/

[misterman21]

I once wanted to become an atheist, but I gave up - they have no holidays

[toptuan]

I once wanted to become an atheist, but I gave up - they have no holidays

Actually, they do: April 1

[misterman21]

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion

[camerata]

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion

Cute, but you can't be accurately described as a "good person" if you do evil things. From the Buddhist perspective there are just people doing good things and bad things according to how much wisdom they have.

[samuibeachcomber]

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion

good people dont do evil things,they would be disguising thenselves as good(wolves in sheep clothing"

[camerata]

Of course, there are "evil" people who find it convenient to get religion.

Warped Fritzl is now a Buddhist

CELLAR monster Josef Fritzl has converted to BUDDHISM — and invited criminal psychologists to study his warped mind. Fritzl, 74, first discovered the religion — which focuses on personal spiritual development — during a family holiday in Thailand. But he only recently became a devoted follower while in jail.

The Austrian pervert is awaiting trial on March 16 for murder, rape, slavery, incest, imprisonment and abuse. But he hopes to be reincarnated as a decent person in his next life if he can help stop other weirdos copying his crimes.

Continued here.

[Old Croc]

I once wanted to become an atheist, but I gave up - they have no holidays

Actually, they do: April 1

We atheists are quite happy to take all the weird little holidays you people dream up.

We may be non-believers, but we're not stupid.

We even mark your special holidays in very religious ways the same as you, such as spending our money on electronic gadgets at xmas time, and eating chocolate eggs at easter.

[misterman21]

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion

good people dont do evil things,they would be disguising thenselves as good(wolves in sheep clothing"

'Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction'

Edited February 2, 2009 by misterman21

[samuibeachcomber]

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion

good people dont do evil things,they would be disguising thenselves as good(wolves in sheep clothing"

'Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction'

yes that true but my point was that they were evil to begin with,religion did n't make them evil,they used religion to further that evil.

[camerata]

'Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction'

Another unsubstantiated slogan. Take a look at the ideology of Legalism in Qin Dynasty China or the Cultural Revolution in Communist China.

However, the topic is not about all religion being bad, it's about Buddhism being misrepresented. Since when was Buddhism about the worship of Self, in any shape or form?

[OxfordWill]

Congratulations, you have found a weak argument and defeated it. Next time, find a more convincing opponent than some nihilist website

[misterman21]

When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my religion. I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education.

Edited February 2, 2009 by misterman21

[Xangsamhua]

ANUS? American Nihilist Underground Society? Sounds like Chesterton's worldwide Central Council of Anarchists ("The Man who was Thursday"). Website written by uni students, I'd say. Obvious influence from Nietzche there. (Is N. the world's most overrated philosopher, or just a man of his time? Buddhists would find his mentor, Schopenhauer, much more satisfying. Pity N. didn't stick with him.)

There is something valid in what ANUS has to say, though. Buddhism and Christianity, to the extent that they analyze the human condition and find it doomed to suffering and frustration, acknowledge that life as we know it is a terminal illness. The answer - whether it be non-attachment to impermanent things ("representations" in Schopenhauer's terms) or acknowledgment that there is no peace or satisfaction in a life separated from G_d (Augustine: "My heart is restless till it rests in Thee") - may appear to the rugged no-nonsense types to be a form of escapism.

If non-acceptance of the finality of transient, impermanent forms is a dis-ease, then Buddhism and Christianity are both dis-eases. Neither believe that to land in a cloud will break your fall. Neither is satisfied that the mirage of external reality is really Reality. Buddhists question whether there is anything irreducible sustaining phenomena; in that sense they are more nihilistic than ANUS (but deny it, I think). Christians accept (like Schopenhauer, influenced by the Upanishads that he read every day) that there is something. S. called it "Will" and gave it no attributes other than energy; Christians call it God and personify it, while denying that they do so.

I think the ANUS author - brat that he may be (I'm sure it's a "he") - has a point. Religions are weird and their followers are always arguing with each other, and that's because religions flow from the human condition. We don't know the answers; we'd like to know the answers, but in fact we never will. Christians are told to "have faith" and obey the commandments; Buddhists are told to "practise", and keep on practising. Whatever. I can't imagine a world in which religion never arose and is not present in some form. Humanity with religion might be a sorry sight, but human society without religion has usually been at least as bad, and probably worse, as there seems to be no hope, and humanity without hope would be seriously unwell.

[phetaroi]

I think the ANUS author - brat that he may be (I'm sure it's a "he") - has a point. Religions are weird and their followers are always arguing with each other, and that's because religions flow from the human condition. We don't know the answers; we'd like to know the answers, but in fact we never will. Christians are told to "have faith" and obey the commandments; Buddhists are told to "practise", and keep on practising. Whatever. I can't imagine a world in which religion never arose and is not present in some form. Humanity with religion might be a sorry sight, but human society without religion has usually been at least as bad, and probably worse, as there seems to be no hope, and humanity without hope would be seriously unwell.

I agree very much, and the term "brat" is very apt. It's immaturity...sort of like the teen who wants the freedom to listen to "his" music, but then derides old folks who like Perry Como!

Historian Will Durant once wrote sort of the opposite of what you are saying...though in a sense the point was the same: "These church steeples, everywhere pointing upward, ignoring despair and lifting hope, these lofty city spires, or simple chapels in the hills -- they rise at every step from the earth toward the sky; in every village of every nation they challenge doubt and invite weary hearts to consolation. Is it all a vain delusion? Is there nothing beyond life but death, and nothing beyond death but decay? We cannot know. But as long as man suffers, these steeples will remain." Durant, by the way, was an agnostic.

And then there's Voltaire's comment that, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."

For me, religion...or perhaps I should say faith...should be practiced individually, although some activities may be best practiced by groups of like minded people. The sad part is that so many have to believe their faith is the "best" or "real" faith, rather than seeing life as a journey and that there may be many roads to same destination.

[rockyysdt]

Since when was Buddhism about the worship of Self, in any shape or form?

I don't support ANUS or their views in anyway.

To some extent, though, I can see why they suggest Buddhism is a worship of the Self.

Why do people turn to Buddhism?

Although Buddhism teaches "there is no self, as this is conditioned and impermanent", we become Buddhists for many ego based reasons such as elimination of suffering, enlightenment, and nirvana. These are our goals.

As we are currently unenlightened and therefore egocentric our Buddhist path can be viewed by others as being associated with the Self or egocentric.

[LoveBug]

Theism and atheism fall under the realm of duality, which defines the human condition.

What can't be understood by a mere intellectual analysis of the Buddha's teachings is that they take man beyond that condition. It is not escapism, because the true practice of these things leaves no room for any desire. That includes the desire to be free from suffering, the desire to escape the world, etc. Also, Buddhism in its purest form is not moralistic or sentimental. It is beyond all human conceptions of good and evil. There is no need for it because to attain its goal is to know everything a human can't possibly know. It is knowledge of the Infinite.

So far as practice goes, it is the mastery of the mind - which no one can argue, is uncontrolled in the ordinary, human state.

the ultimate goal of Buddhism can't be communicated through language. It is literally impossible. Even if it could be, it is something that will always elude the theist and the atheist who don't experience anything beyond mind.

Edited February 4, 2009 by LoveBug

[camerata]

As we are currently unenlightened and therefore egocentric our Buddhist path can be viewed by others as being associated with the Self or egocentric.

But that's not exactly "worship of the Self." What the author says is "make the world your Self, and worship it," by which I think he means Buddhists worship nibbana. But, let's face it, non-Buddhists commenting on Buddhism usually get it wrong because they haven't studied it in detail. I came across a site yesterday where I guy wrote that when asked about the afterlife, the Buddha said, "How on earth should I know?"

[Smithy31]

I came upon this essay by accident. It's pretty negative, but then what can you expect from A.N.U.S. - the American Nihilist Underground Society? It doesn't really make the case against Buddhism, other than repeating the old complaint about Buddhists avoiding external reality:

"Christianity for this reason appeals to neurotic people, and through its mechanism of forcing itself on succeeding generations and isolating those who don't accept its rabid dogma, it has bred the West into a race of slumbering, kow-towing, cowardly, self-obsessed masturbators.

[...]

Buddhism is a similar jerkoff, having the premise that the best way to decrease ego is to devote your life to your own "enlightenment," while taking no part in the world that reminds you that your ego is one tiny part of a large universe. In the name of wisdom, make the world your Self, and worship it, while considering yourself wise and merciful for abstaining from participation in the world at large - oh, except for acts of pity, of course, which modern Buddhists commit as much as Christians do."

Huh? Worship the Self?

http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/buddhism/

I think Buddhists are wrong - they are self worshipers !! and for the author of this - well i am a christian and i'm not a self-obssed masturbator. I know what i believe and i have faith in Jesus. I am not religous, religion nailed jesus to the cross and causes wars in every nation. But i try to live a right life - and if thats hurting anyone, its not hurting me !! and i have no acts of self pity. If you died tonight - would you go to heaven.

It's people that as never read a bible that comments on it the most. I only comment on things that i know.

God Bless

[phetaroi]

I think Buddhists are wrong - they are self worshipers !! and for the author of this - well i am a christian and i'm not a self-obssed masturbator. I know what i believe and i have faith in Jesus. I am not religous, religion nailed jesus to the cross and causes wars in every nation. But i try to live a right life - and if thats hurting anyone, its not hurting me !! and i have no acts of self pity. If you died tonight - would you go to heaven.

It's people that as never read a bible that comments on it the most. I only comment on things that i know.

God Bless

First, since you are clearly anti-Buddhism, I'm not clear why you want to visit a forum about Buddhism. That is not to say you are not welcome to visit and learn. And, I do think you have a lot to learn about Buddhism. In fact, even those of us who consider ourselves to Buddhist realize that we have a lot to learn about Buddhism.

You have a very confused message. From what I can see, you began by criticizing the wrong poster. Then you say, "I am not religious" and "I have faith in Jesus." You appear to not care if the way you are living your life is hurting others because it's not hurting you. You imply that Buddhists are going to...well, apparently we can't use the actual word here, so I'll refer to it as the ultimate heck. And after all this you say, "God bless."

Why are you so angry? None of us is pushing Buddhist beliefs on you...Buddhists generally see proselytizing as improper because someone must seek the knowledge on their own. Further, you may not realize that you can be a member of most other religions and still be aware of and even practice Buddhist principles.

I might recommend to you the book "Living Buddha, Living Christ".

[Xangsamhua]

I think Buddhists are wrong - they are self worshipers !! and for the author of this - well i am a christian and i'm not a self-obssed masturbator. I know what i believe and i have faith in Jesus. I am not religous, religion nailed jesus to the cross and causes wars in every nation. But i try to live a right life - and if thats hurting anyone, its not hurting me !! and i have no acts of self pity. If you died tonight - would you go to heaven.

It's people that as never read a bible that comments on it the most. I only comment on things that i know.

God Bless

Hi Smithy31. I'm not sure what it is that you know, or what you are commenting on for that matter.

If you believe that Buddhists are self-obsessed then you really said that in your first sentence, didn't you? What does the rest of your post have to do with the topic? Christianity as a disease?

If you say you're a Christian then you should know that the term "Christian" first appeared in the second century in Antioch and was applied to members of an identifiable community. There were no "Christians" that did not belong to a community of people organized under the authority of a bishop supported by presbyters or elders and deacons. In the first century, followers of Jesus also gathered in communities but with various degrees of identification with the synagogue and temple and with a form of organization more closely linked to the personal authority of Jesus' disciples and those the disciples taught. There is no Christianity outside religious forms and individuals who have "faith" in Jesus presumably have faith in Jesus' ethical teachings. If this is not the case, the isolated "christian" has to define himself so others know what he means when describing him/herself that way.

You may be right that many or most people who comment on the Bible haven't read much of it. However, just reading the Bible, unaided by scholarship, is a very tricky exercise. Reading all the books of the Old and New Testaments without knowing when they were written, how they were edited, what motivated their composition, why several authors may be ascribed to one, whether the original text had a "religious" purpose or a secular one or was a product of folklore, why some writers wrote under the name of another (e.g. Paul), what is history and what is imported myth, and so on, is to read the Bible without respecting its richness and its place in the story/ies of the people who produced it and who form the cast and the audience.

There's much more to being a mature "Christian" than just "faith" - but of course you may disagree.

Edited February 11, 2009 by Xangsamhua

[rockyysdt]

As we are currently unenlightened and therefore egocentric our Buddhist path can be viewed by others as being associated with the Self or egocentric.

But that's not exactly "worship of the Self." What the author says is "make the world your Self, and worship it," by which I think he means Buddhists worship nibbana. But, let's face it, non-Buddhists commenting on Buddhism usually get it wrong because they haven't studied it in detail. I came across a site yesterday where I guy wrote that when asked about the afterlife, the Buddha said, "How on earth should I know?"

Sometimes, due to lack of clear thought and time constraint, I may not convey my thoughts clearly.

I indicated that "As we are currently unenlightened and therefore egocentric our Buddhist path can be viewed by others as being associated with the Self or egocentric".

Many, if not most, believe in the existence of a self, and that this self resides inside us. Given this, such people would view meditators as "Self Worshipers" because they dwell in silence inside their minds where presumably their "self" resides.

Naturally Buddhists would not agree as they know that we are impermanent and conditioned and that the self is a delusion, although the Buddha did emphasize acceptance of such teaching through self experience.

Edited February 12, 2009 by rockyysdt

[AYJAYDEE]

Since when was Buddhism about the worship of Self, in any shape or form?

I don't support ANUS or their views in anyway.

To some extent, though, I can see why they suggest Buddhism is a worship of the Self.

Why do people turn to Buddhism?

Although Buddhism teaches "there is no self, as this is conditioned and impermanent", we become Buddhists for many ego based reasons such as elimination of suffering, enlightenment, and nirvana. These are our goals.

As we are currently unenlightened and therefore egocentric our Buddhist path can be viewed by others as being associated with the Self or egocentric.

so by that logic, christianianity is "associated" with hatred because christians still hate?

[AYJAYDEE]

I came upon this essay by accident. It's pretty negative, but then what can you expect from A.N.U.S. - the American Nihilist Underground Society? It doesn't really make the case against Buddhism, other than repeating the old complaint about Buddhists avoiding external reality:

"Christianity for this reason appeals to neurotic people, and through its mechanism of forcing itself on succeeding generations and isolating those who don't accept its rabid dogma, it has bred the West into a race of slumbering, kow-towing, cowardly, self-obsessed masturbators.

[...]

Buddhism is a similar jerkoff, having the premise that the best way to decrease ego is to devote your life to your own "enlightenment," while taking no part in the world that reminds you that your ego is one tiny part of a large universe. In the name of wisdom, make the world your Self, and worship it, while considering yourself wise and merciful for abstaining from participation in the world at large - oh, except for acts of pity, of course, which modern Buddhists commit as much as Christians do."

Huh? Worship the Self?

http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/buddhism/

dont participate in the world? lol! that shud surprise the wat that takes care of the aids sufferers!!

[toptuan]

I once wanted to become an atheist, but I gave up - they have no holidays

Actually, they do: April 1

We atheists are quite happy to take all the weird little holidays you people dream up.

We may be non-believers, but we're not stupid.

We even mark your special holidays in very religious ways the same as you, such as spending our money on electronic gadgets at xmas time, and eating chocolate eggs at easter.

...frankly, two things I wouldn't be caught dead doing.

[rockyysdt]

so by that logic, christianianity is "associated" with hatred because christians still hate?

How do you come to this conclusion????

[sleepyjohn]

I think it would be very useful to stop using the word "religion" in association with Buddhism.

We all know that great ideas deteriorate with social institution and this applies nowhere more than to religions.

Buddhism has likewise deteriorated with institution but I simply don't see why anyone who knows the heart of Buddhism need call it anything other than a science.

[phetaroi]

I think it would be very useful to stop using the word "religion" in association with Buddhism.

We all know that great ideas deteriorate with social institution and this applies nowhere more than to religions.

Buddhism has likewise deteriorated with institution but I simply don't see why anyone who knows the heart of Buddhism need call it anything other than a science.

Religion? Philosophy? Science?

When I read the "definition" of religion in Wikipedia (as good a source as any), Buddhism could very well fit into the religion category. It's just a word that facilitates discussion. As I believe Buddha taught, it's up to the individual to interpret logic.

[rockyysdt]

I think it would be very useful to stop using the word "religion" in association with Buddhism.

We all know that great ideas deteriorate with social institution and this applies nowhere more than to religions.

Buddhism has likewise deteriorated with institution but I simply don't see why anyone who knows the heart of Buddhism need call it anything other than a science.

If what Buddha taught is factual then Buddhism would be a science.

Letting go of, or extinguishing the "self" or "ego" does require an element of faith.

What one finds beyond annihilation of the ego is still for the individual to experience and confirm.

Upon asking a born again Christian, "Which religion do you follow", he replied, "I don't follow a religion, I follow the truth".

Those who maintain that their beliefs are the truth often place their convictions above the status of a religion, which is often viewed as unfounded or unproven.

Edited February 22, 2009 by rockyysdt

[phetaroi]

If what Buddha taught is factual then Buddhism would be a science.

Letting go of, or extinguishing the "self" or "ego" does require an element of faith.

What one finds beyond annihilation of the ego is still for the individual to experience and confirm.

Upon asking a born again Christian, "Which religion do you follow", he replied, "I don't follow a religion, I follow the truth".

Those who maintain that their beliefs are the truth often place their convictions above the status of a religion, which is often viewed as unfounded or unproven.

I think there's even more faith involved.

For example...can anyone prove to me that Buddha existed? Can anyone prove to me that the writings of the Dharma are accurate and are indeed what the Buddha taught?