From The Anti-Christ http://www.fns.org.uk/ac.htm:

20.
In my condemnation of Christianity I surely hope I do no injustice to a related religion with an even larger number of believers: I allude to Buddhism. Both are to be reckoned among the nihilistic religions--they are both decadence religions--but they are separated from each other in a very remarkable way. For the fact that he is able to compare them at all the critic of Christianity is indebted to the scholars of India.--Buddhism is a hundred times as realistic as Christianity--it is part of its living heritage that it is able to face problems objectively and coolly; it is the product of long centuries of philosophical speculation. The concept, "god," was already disposed of before it appeared. Buddhism is the only genuinely positive religion to be encountered in history, and this applies even to its epistemology (which is a strict phenomenalism) --It does not speak of a "struggle with sin," but, yielding to reality, of the "struggle with suffering." Sharply differentiating itself from Christianity, it puts the self-deception that lies in moral concepts be hind it; it is, in my phrase,beyond good and evil.--The two physiological facts upon which it grounds itself and upon which it bestows its chief attention are: first, an excessive sensitiveness to sensation, which manifests itself as a refined susceptibility to pain, and secondly, an extraordinary spirituality, a too protracted concern with concepts and logical procedures, under the influence of which the instinct of personality has yielded to a notion of the "impersonal." (--Both of these states will be familiar to a few of my readers, the objectivists, by experience, as they are to me). These physiological states produced a depression, and Buddha tried to combat it by hygienic measures. Against it he prescribed a life in the open, a life of travel; moderation in eating and a careful selection of foods; caution in the use of intoxicants; the same caution in arousing any of the passions that foster a bilious habit and heat the blood; finally, no worry, either on one's own account or on account of others. He encourages ideas that make for either quiet contentment or good cheer--he finds means to combat ideas of other sorts. He understands good, the state of goodness, as something which promotes health. Prayer is not included, and neither is asceticism. There is no categorical imperative nor any disciplines, even within the walls of a monastery (--it is always possible to leave--). These things would have been simply means of increasing the excessive sensitiveness above mentioned. For the same reason he does not advocate any conflict with unbelievers; his teaching is antagonistic to nothing so much as to revenge, aversion, ressentiment (--"enmity never brings an end to enmity": the moving refrain of all Buddhism. . .) And in all this he was right, for it is precisely these passions which, in view of his main regiminal purpose, are unhealthful. The mental fatigue that he observes, already plainly displayed in too much "objectivity" (that is, in the individual's loss of interest in himself, in loss of balance and of "egoism"), he combats by strong efforts to lead even the spiritual interests back to the ego. In Buddha's teaching egoism is a duty. The "one thing needful," the question "how can you be delivered from suffering," regulates and determines the whole spiritual diet. (--Perhaps one will here recall that Athenian who also declared war upon pure "scientificality," to wit, Socrates, who also elevated egoism to the estate of a morality) .

21.
The things necessary to Buddhism are a very mild climate, customs of great gentleness and liberality, and no militarism; moreover, it must get its start among the higher and better educated classes. Cheerfulness, quiet and the absence of desire are the chief desiderata, and they are attained. Buddhism is not a religion in which perfection is merely an object of aspiration: perfection is actually normal.--Under Christianity the instincts of the subjugated and the oppressed come to the fore: it is only those who are at the bottom who seek their salvation in it. Here the prevailing pastime, the favourite remedy for boredom is the discussion of sin, self-criticism, the inquisition of conscience; here the emotion produced by power (called "God") is pumped up (by prayer); here the highest good is regarded as unattainable, as a gift, as "grace." Here, too, open dealing is lacking; concealment and the darkened room are Christian. Here body is despised and hygiene is denounced as sensual; the church even ranges itself against cleanliness (--the first Christian order after the banishment of the Moors closed the public baths, of which there were 270 in Cordova alone) . Christian, too; is a certain cruelty toward one's self and toward others; hatred of unbelievers; the will to persecute. Sombre and disquieting ideas are in the foreground; the most esteemed states of mind, bearing the most respectable names are epileptoid; the diet is so regulated as to engender morbid symptoms and over-stimulate the nerves. Christian, again, is all deadly enmity to the rulers of the earth, to the "aristocratic"--along with a sort of secret rivalry with them (--one resigns one's "body" to them--one wantsonly one's "soul" . . . ). And Christian is all hatred of the intellect, of pride, of courage of freedom, of intellectual libertinage; Christian is all hatred of the senses, of joy in the senses, of joy in general . . .

22.
When Christianity departed from its native soil, that of the lowest orders, the underworld of the ancient world, and began seeking power among barbarian peoples, it no longer had to deal with exhausted men, but with men still inwardly savage and capable of self torture--in brief, strong men, but bungled men. Here, unlike in the case of the Buddhists, the cause of discontent with self, suffering through self, is not merely a general sensitiveness and susceptibility to pain, but, on the contrary, an inordinate thirst for inflicting pain on others, a tendency to obtain subjective satisfaction in hostile deeds and ideas. Christianity had to embrace barbaric concepts and valuations in order to obtain mastery over barbarians: of such sort, for example, are the sacrifices of the first-born, the drinking of blood as a sacrament, the disdain of the intellect and of culture; torture in all its forms, whether bodily or not; the whole pomp of the cult. Buddhism is a religion for peoples in a further state of development, for races that have become kind, gentle and over-spiritualized (--Europe is not yet ripe for it--): it is a summons 'that takes them back to peace and cheerfulness, to a careful rationing of the spirit, to a certain hardening of the body. Christianity aims at mastering beasts of prey; its modus operandi is to make them ill--to make feeble is the Christian recipe for taming, for "civilizing." Buddhism is a religion for the closing, over-wearied stages of civilization. Christianity appears before civilization has so much as begun--under certain circumstances it lays the very foundations thereof.

23.
Buddhism, I repeat, is a hundred times more austere, more honest, more objective. It no longer has to justify its pains, its susceptibility to suffering, by interpreting these things in terms of sin--it simply says, as it simply thinks, "I suffer." To the barbarian, however, suffering in itself is scarcely understandable: what he needs, first of all, is an explanation as to why he suffers. (His mere instinct prompts him to deny his suffering altogether, or to endure it in silence.) Here the word "devil" was a blessing: man had to have an omnipotent and terrible enemy--there was no need to be ashamed of suffering at the hands of such an enemy.

42.
One now begins to see just what it was that came to an end with the death on the cross: a new and thoroughly original effort to found a Buddhistic peace movement, and so establish happiness on earth--real, not merely promised. For this remains--as I have already pointed out--the essential difference between the two religions of decadence: Buddhism promises nothing, but actually fulfills; Christianity promises everything, but fulfills nothing.--



What think you of these thoughts from the hammering philosopher?

i find them very interesting actualy, but i am going to have to read it through anouther 1-2 times to take it all in and remember it all (i have a habit of rereading alot)


but i would like to point out that it is not the only truley posative religion in history, taoism (daoism) is truley good, im not just saying this because i am basically a daoist, from a non bias opinion (if i can have one bieng one also) taoism is very good and does not misslead anybody i would say it is the most non missleading religion ever to have existed,


i know taoism is classed more of a way of life than a religion but in all honesty arent all religions "ways of life" including buddhism (wich i have studied alot,

i practice shaolin gong fu with a large group of zen buddhist monks at tuffnel park temple, and i actually have long talks with the abbot there about buddhism and i would say that i prefer zen buddhism to any other form of the religion. the realms of samsara along with other sides can be a bit much to place your faith in, taoism does not require you to make leaps of faith like other religions, and at heart i think he knows i am right but will never admit that taoism has suppreme philosophy over buddhism,

but i do agree with alot of buddhist teachings, apart from the bardo and realms of samsara, its just too much of a leap of faith for me, i cant believe things like that wholeheartedly no matter how much i try to comprehend it.


peace.

From The Anti-Christ http://www.fns.org.uk/ac.htm:

20.
In my condemnation of Christianity I surely hope I do no injustice to a related religion with an even larger number of believers: I allude to Buddhism. Both are to be reckoned among the nihilistic religions--they are both decadence religions--but they are separated from each other in a very remarkable way. For the fact that he is able to compare them at all the critic of Christianity is indebted to the scholars of India.--Buddhism is a hundred times as realistic as Christianity--it is part of its living heritage that it is able to face problems objectively and coolly; it is the product of long centuries of philosophical speculation. The concept, "god," was already disposed of before it appeared.
lol - its no coincidence that atheists find buddhism attractive

Buddhism is the only genuinely positive religion to be encountered in history, and this applies even to its epistemology (which is a strict phenomenalism) --It does not speak of a "struggle with sin," but, yielding to reality, of the "struggle with suffering."
its not clear what is the distinction between sin and suffering

Sharply differentiating itself from Christianity, it puts the self-deception that lies in moral concepts be hind it; it is, in my phrase,beyond good and evil.--The two physiological facts upon which it grounds itself and upon which it bestows its chief attention are: first, an excessive sensitiveness to sensation, which manifests itself as a refined susceptibility to pain, and secondly, an extraordinary spirituality, a too protracted concern with concepts and logical procedures, under the influence of which the instinct of personality has yielded to a notion of the "impersonal." (--Both of these states will be familiar to a few of my readers, the objectivists, by experience, as they are to me).
I would argue that christianity also aims for a transcendental state, although people are commonly not interested in such things but prefer material benedictions in an ephemeral world - in my practical experience with many buddhists it is the same, except rather than focusing on acquiring things to "enjoy" they focus on dumpinmg their suffering so they can "enjoy" - either way its all about me me me me

These physiological states produced a depression, and Buddha tried to combat it by hygienic measures. Against it he prescribed a life in the open, a life of travel; moderation in eating and a careful selection of foods; caution in the use of intoxicants;
notice how these things sound moral

the same caution in arousing any of the passions that foster a bilious habit and heat the blood; finally, no worry, either on one's own account or on account of others. He encourages ideas that make for either quiet contentment or good cheer--he finds means to combat ideas of other sorts. He understands good, the state of goodness, as something which promotes health. Prayer is not included, and neither is asceticism.
buddhism doesn't innvolve asceticism?
certainly sounds like the words from an arm chair buddhist

There is no categorical imperative nor any disciplines, even within the walls of a monastery (--it is always possible to leave--).
no matter which monastery you are talking about, people leave all the time

These things would have been simply means of increasing the excessive sensitiveness above mentioned. For the same reason he does not advocate any conflict with unbelievers;
and we wouldn't be talking about this if it wasn't for Maharaja Ashoka
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka

the idea of having some new social paradigm to introduce that doesn't innvolve confrontation (whether it is challenges with the pen or sword) is a hopeless idealism

his teaching is antagonistic to nothing so much as to revenge, aversion, ressentiment (--"enmity never brings an end to enmity": the moving refrain of all Buddhism. . .) And in all this he was right, for it is precisely these passions which, in view of his main regiminal purpose, are unhealthful.
therefore you can see similar sentiments expressed in any religion you care to mention


The mental fatigue that he observes, already plainly displayed in too much "objectivity" (that is, in the individual's loss of interest in himself, in loss of balance and of "egoism"), he combats by strong efforts to lead even the spiritual interests back to the ego. In Buddha's teaching egoism is a duty. The "one thing needful," the question "how can you be delivered from suffering," regulates and determines the whole spiritual diet. (--Perhaps one will here recall that Athenian who also declared war upon pure "scientificality," to wit, Socrates, who also elevated egoism to the estate of a morality) .
ditto here


21.
The things necessary to Buddhism are a very mild climate, customs of great gentleness and liberality, and no militarism;
ditto here

moreover, it must get its start among the higher and better educated classes. Cheerfulness, quiet and the absence of desire are the chief desiderata, and they are attained.
ditto here

Buddhism is not a religion in which perfection is merely an object of aspiration: perfection is actually normal.--Under Christianity the instincts of the subjugated and the oppressed come to the fore:
Given that it operates out of the view that the senses engagement with teh sense object is completely illusory, its not clear how one is free from the onslaughts of oppression (like for instance, seeing what the eye likes to see, tastign what the tongue likes to taste, all awaken and strengthen the attachment between the senses and the phenomenal world, hence they are things that buddhists try not to be into to)

it is only those who are at the bottom who seek their salvation in it. Here the prevailing pastime, the favourite remedy for boredom is the discussion of sin, self-criticism, the inquisition of conscience; here the emotion produced by power (called "God") is pumped up (by prayer); here the highest good is regarded as unattainable, as a gift, as "grace."
the alternative discussion points in buddhism is how the mind is drawn to the inferior - which is the same ball game

Here, too, open dealing is lacking; concealment and the darkened room are Christian. Here body is despised and hygiene is denounced as sensual; the church even ranges itself against cleanliness (--the first Christian order after the banishment of the Moors closed the public baths, of which there were 270 in Cordova alone) .
I think that reflects the ironic nature of civilization rather than religious principles fo rinstance now the dominant christian world views the muslims as dirty ragheads etc, but not so long ago the muslims were leading the world in civility (in other words its not exhaustive to assert the characteristics of a certain class of people in a certain religion at a certain time as being soley religious based, since there is an array of economic/social/political influences)

Christian, too; is a certain cruelty toward one's self and toward others; hatred of unbelievers;
love thy neighbour

the will to persecute.
maharaja ashoka wasn't evangical?

Sombre and disquieting ideas are in the foreground; the most esteemed states of mind, bearing the most respectable names are epileptoid; the diet is so regulated as to engender morbid symptoms and over-stimulate the nerves. Christian, again, is all deadly enmity to the rulers of the earth, to the "aristocratic"--along with a sort of secret rivalry with them (--one resigns one's "body" to them--one wantsonly one's "soul" . . . ). And Christian is all hatred of the intellect, of pride, of courage of freedom, of intellectual libertinage; Christian is all hatred of the senses, of joy in the senses, of joy in general . . .
I could go on and on but it seems this writer is talking not so much about christianity, but a bad example of christianity
I can tell you heaps of stories about crooked buddhists too, but since the issue is essentially about what is the ideal, one shouldn't rely on the example of those that don't reach the mark

22.
When Christianity departed from its native soil, that of the lowest orders, the underworld of the ancient world, and began seeking power among barbarian peoples, it no longer had to deal with exhausted men, but with men still inwardly savage and capable of self torture--in brief, strong men, but bungled men. Here, unlike in the case of the Buddhists, the cause of discontent with self, suffering through self, is not merely a general sensitiveness and susceptibility to pain, but, on the contrary, an inordinate thirst for inflicting pain on others, a tendency to obtain subjective satisfaction in hostile deeds and ideas.
Its not clear, either philosophically or historically, why buddhism is immune to institutional corruption

Christianity had to embrace barbaric concepts and valuations in order to obtain mastery over barbarians: of such sort, for example, are the sacrifices of the first-born, the drinking of blood as a sacrament, the disdain of the intellect and of culture; torture in all its forms, whether bodily or not; the whole pomp of the cult.
i have different memories of sunday school

Buddhism is a religion for peoples in a further state of development, for races that have become kind, gentle and over-spiritualized (--Europe is not yet ripe for it--):
actually buddhism is for people who are over loaded with sensory agitation who can then whole heartedly take the philosophy of ceasing to exist as a positive alternative - the western world is actually the prime recruiting field for this

it is a summons 'that takes them back to peace and cheerfulness, to a careful rationing of the spirit, to a certain hardening of the body. Christianity aims at mastering beasts of prey; its modus operandi is to make them ill--to make feeble is the Christian recipe for taming, for "civilizing." Buddhism is a religion for the closing, over-wearied stages of civilization. Christianity appears before civilization has so much as begun--under certain circumstances it lays the very foundations thereof.
frankly, his perception of christianity is just negative hearsay

23.
Buddhism, I repeat, is a hundred times more austere, more honest, more objective. It no longer has to justify its pains, its susceptibility to suffering, by interpreting these things in terms of sin--it simply says, as it simply thinks, "I suffer."
actually buddhism draws a connection between suffering and karma, with some karma being more likely to induce greater suffering than others, so it works on the same principle of sin - buddhism concedes that teh world is a place of suffering, no matter ho wmaterially endowed you are, which is probably one up on the insincere christian who is clamouring for riches, but then you can also encounter insincere buddhists who think spiritual life means not working so hard, taking drugs and having lots of recreational sex too

To the barbarian, however, suffering in itself is scarcely understandable: what he needs, first of all, is an explanation as to why he suffers. (His mere instinct prompts him to deny his suffering altogether, or to endure it in silence.) Here the word "devil" was a blessing: man had to have an omnipotent and terrible enemy--there was no need to be ashamed of suffering at the hands of such an enemy.
here I would agree that christianity can be excesssively dualistic at times, but then there is still a duality in buddhism (enlightment/illusion)

42.
One now begins to see just what it was that came to an end with the death on the cross: a new and thoroughly original effort to found a Buddhistic peace movement, and so establish happiness on earth--real, not merely promised. For this remains--as I have already pointed out--the essential difference between the two religions of decadence: Buddhism promises nothing, but actually fulfills; Christianity promises everything, but fulfills nothing.--
are people actually attracted to nothing?
(I mean people who are not in the grips of intense suffering that may drive them to suicide)




What think you of these thoughts from the hammering philosopher?

his definitions of christianity are inimical and his views on buddhism are idealistic ... in one part he plays the part of the fly looking for stool and sores to land on and on the other he is like a bumblebee very selectively taking the essence of a flower

lol - its no coincidence that atheists find buddhism attractive


It's no wonder that Hare Krishna's can't see past their biases.


its not clear what is the distinction between sin and suffering


Nieztsche is assuming that those reading the article understand Sin. In Christianity, people (you and I) suffer because of Adam and Eve, which is obviously a story contrived to understand suffering in the world. Buddhism does not contrive such stories and may try to understand the origin of suffering, but it is ultimately unconcerned with it because it is obvious that suffering exists in this world. Simple as that.


I would argue that christianity also aims for a transcendental state, although people are commonly not interested in such things but prefer material benedictions in an ephemeral world - in my practical experience with many buddhists it is the same, except rather than focusing on acquiring things to "enjoy" they focus on dumpinmg their suffering so they can "enjoy" - either way its all about me me me me


Without self-conviction, nothing else can exist. If you do not say to yourself, "I will help these people," then you will not. It does not matter what you religion or philosophy you consider yourself part of, you must take care of yourself first before taking care of others (there are always conditions under which exemplary individuals do not consider their life, but this is not the majority).


buddhism doesn't innvolve asceticism?
certainly sounds like the words from an arm chair buddhist


This must be a Nietzsche misinterpretation. Buddhism does involve prayer - but it is a mantra (read a chant) used for meditation. Buddhism does involve asceticism, the evidence being the several Buddhist monasteries around the world.

Prince James
I would argue that all religions (scripturally) assert love and peace.
Nietzsche sincerely hated Christianity (evidence being the words you posted) and is attributing the actions of people to scripture. If he wasn't, however, and he did have problems with the propositions of Christian scripture, then I believe he should have cited some for his cause.

Buddhism, much like any philosophy has varying degrees of belief and tweaking and has no real doctrine or Church to smoothen the rough edges of it's doctrine. In this light, I do not agree with lightgigantic's post about an "armchair Buddhist" because that is like calling a Roman Catholic a true Christian while saying a Lutheran is not. Lutheran's would assert the opposite, so it is impossible to determine one better than the other.

It's no wonder that Hare Krishna's can't see past their biases.
you think it is a coincidence that many atheists identify and glorify buddhism?



Nieztsche is assuming that those reading the article understand Sin. In Christianity, people (you and I) suffer because of Adam and Eve, which is obviously a story contrived to understand suffering in the world. Buddhism does not contrive such stories and may try to understand the origin of suffering, but it is ultimately unconcerned with it because it is obvious that suffering exists in this world. Simple as that.
Is a person who is suffering free from sin?
Is a person who is sinful free from suffering?

Nieztsche is assuming that those reading the article understand Sin. In Christianity, people (you and I) suffer because of Adam and Eve, which is obviously a story contrived to understand suffering in the world. Buddhism does not contrive such stories and may try to understand the origin of suffering, but it is ultimately unconcerned with it because it is obvious that suffering exists in this world. Simple as that.

Actually The Buddha says our deeds are the cause of everything happening to us. Because of ignorance we suffer, ignorance is the cause of suffering. It is not simply "suffering exists in the world, its as simple as that".

Also Alan Watts started this whole hippie Buddhist movement. If you read the actual Buddhist scriptures its really just like any other religion...there's heaven and hell, do good deeds, supernormal powers, etc...

It is not simply "suffering exists in the world, its as simple as that".


I think it fair to say so.

According to the Dhammapada (vs. 153), Birth is suffering let alone death, and a detachment from Samsara, the cycle of re-birth, is thus the only ultimate refuge, the suggested aim.

Also Alan Watts started this whole hippie Buddhist movement.

What about Jack Kerouac, Allen Ginsberg and Gary Snyder?

Also Alan Watts started this whole hippie Buddhist movement. If you read the actual Buddhist scriptures its really just like any other religion...there's heaven and hell, do good deeds, supernormal powers, etc...

Many Buddhist scriptures were written after Buddha. Read the works that deal primarily with discourse directly from Buddha (whether or not it is reliable is another debate) and you will find that Buddha was non-theist, Gods are used for storytelling, and Heaven/Hell is used primarily as a metaphor (not to mention Heaven/Hell are English words, so you don't know what the original Sanskrit was or the connotations involved).

Buddha didn't care about supernatural powers.

There's nothing wrong with a hippie Buddhist movement because you do not have sole propriety over what proper Buddhism is.

I would say Buddhism on the whole is unconcerned with how suffering began, etc. but you should refer to the Four Noble Truths.
The first is:
Suffering: Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering.

Buddha may have talked about doing good deeds, because hopefully any person would. Good deeds are essential to a peaceful society. When Buddha talks about retribution, it is probably metaphorical. We are responsible for our own problems most of the time. There are always exceptions, but I'm sure Buddha never said their weren't.

Buddha said their are many things that can be neither confirmed nor denied. How sane.

I would say Buddhism on the whole is unconcerned with how suffering began...

Buddhism is concerned with how suffering begins:

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.

Buddhism is concerned with how suffering begins:

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.


Christian suffering and Buddhist suffering from a purely academic point of view are two entirely different things. Suffering in the Christian view was created by someone else, whereas in Buddhism, you create your own suffering due to the limitations of your mind. In Christianity, only death and Heaven provides a reprieve from it, but in Buddhism, suffering can be removed in this life and does not need to exist.

There is a trick known to work well when an infant throws a tantrum: Fetch a full size mirror to show how it looks to everybody else.

With a bit of luck the tears transform immediately to laughter.

Happiness instead of sadness is available here and now, any time, with the right sort of mirror.

I think it fair to say so.

According to the Dhammapada (vs. 153), Birth is suffering let alone death, and a detachment from Samsara, the cycle of re-birth, is thus the only ultimate refuge, the suggested aim.
I don't think its fair to say so, that thats all there is to it. The Buddha does say "life is suffering", but The Four Noble truths go further stating that there is a cause of suffering, and a way to eliminate suffering, not simply that "life is suffering, the end".

Many Buddhist scriptures were written after Buddha. Read the works that deal primarily with discourse directly from Buddha (whether or not it is reliable is another debate) and you will find that Buddha was non-theist, Gods are used for storytelling, and Heaven/Hell is used primarily as a metaphor (not to mention Heaven/Hell are English words, so you don't know what the original Sanskrit was or the connotations involved).
I am talking about the ones dealing primarily with The Buddha (as in the words spoken by The Buddha himself) and the original pali canons....The Buddha said Vedic devas like Indra were real and existed on other worlds, he also said there were billions of world-systems in the universe besides Earth. As for heaven and hell I don't know where you get the idea that its just a metaphor....obviously it wasn't as he states that there is an afterlife, and continous rebirth, some people after death take birth in a heavenly world others hellish, and many other variations in between, however one who has attained nirvana never takes birth again (which is the whole point of Buddhism).


Buddha didn't care about supernatural powers.
Its true that The Buddha didn't care for having them, however he spoke of them as being real and existing, and he forbade his disciples (besides Maha Mogollana) from using supernormal powers, as he said the skeptical will insist that you're performing magic tricks, and faithful will remain faithful, therefore by using them you would create division among people.


There's nothing wrong with a hippie Buddhist movement because you do not have sole propriety over what proper Buddhism is.
Ok....but no one has sole propriety over what proper Buddhism is....I don't see the point of stating this...


I would say Buddhism on the whole is unconcerned with how suffering began, etc. but you should refer to the Four Noble Truths.
The first is:
Suffering: Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering.
Did you read the rest of the Four Noble Truths? The 2nd Noble truth deals primarily with the origin of suffering....:
"Now this, monks, is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: It is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there; that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination"

Like I said its not simply suffering exists in the world. How can you possibly say that Buddhism is unconcerned with how suffering begins when the whole Buddhist philosophy is based around it?


Buddha may have talked about doing good deeds, because hopefully any person would. Good deeds are essential to a peaceful society. When Buddha talks about retribution, it is probably metaphorical. We are responsible for our own problems most of the time. There are always exceptions, but I'm sure Buddha never said their weren't.
Where do you get that everything Buddha says is metaphorical from? The Buddha says that all things happening to us are the direct result of previous deeds, therefore we should always do good deeds....dunno how its metaphorical...

What about Jack Kerouac, Allen Ginsberg and Gary Snyder?
Yeah they contributed to this whole hippie movement and everything that is slightly supernatural lets ignore in Buddhism movement.

Reincarnation, celestial planets, Gods, and other such supernatural attributes cannot be accepted by most people, but such people call themselves Buddhist. Relieve yourself of such trivialities and you are at the heart of Buddhism. All the other dogma about Heaven and Hell, etc. was probably added later (didn't you know that there was probably more than one historical Buddha?) to appease the masses and their growing movement. The grass roots movement didn't have anything to do with such stupidities.

Reincarnation, celestial planets, Gods, and other such supernatural attributes cannot be accepted by most people, but such people call themselves Buddhist. Relieve yourself of such trivialities and you are at the heart of Buddhism. All the other dogma about Heaven and Hell, etc. was probably added later (didn't you know that there was probably more than one historical Buddha?) to appease the masses and their growing movement. The grass roots movement didn't have anything to do with such stupidities.

They probably weren't added in later....

This is the typical narrow-minded intellectual. A fool who is lacking knowledge, unable to understand how a TV works concludes that it is magic, similarly people unable to understand how things like reincarnation, devas, supernomral powers, etc...can exist insist they must be metaphorical, symbolic, etc.......

These same type of people unable to understand how a personal God can exist conclude that he must be impersonal, the universe, nature, etc....to satisfy their intellect....

Where do you get that everything Buddha says is metaphorical from? The Buddha says that all things happening to us are the direct result of previous deeds, therefore we should always do good deeds....dunno how its metaphorical...

Result of previous deeds means that Samsara is entirely metaphorical, a mere resemblance.

Should then the words bring no peace, the Buddha is the first to congratulate your rejection of them.


100. Better than a thousand useless words is one useful word, hearing which one attains peace.

101. Better than a thousand useless verses is one useful verse, hearing which one attains peace.


:)

It is basic to the Buddhist outlook that the words hope for no more than to point to, and if you were not already there, willing to look to see........

:rolleyes:

never mind.