Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Buddhism complaint on wikipedia - Buddhism is not 'ethical'

My topic on the 'talk' section for the article 'Buddhism'... does this bent on buddhism that i'm arguing against shit anyone else?

Eliminating Hatred??
The end of the openinig paragraph states "He is recognized by Buddhists as an awakened or enlightened teacher who shared his insights to help sentient beings end suffering (dukkha) through eliminating ignorance (avidyā), craving (taṇhā), and hatred, by way of understanding and seeing dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda) and non-self (anātman), and thus attain the highest happiness, nirvāņa (nirvana)."


Where does this special focus on hatred, as opposed to other merely human emotions, come from? And why is it preseted at the outset of the article on Buddhist thought? I suspect it is making Buddhism out to have a subtle political or 'ethical' bent, which it simply does not. In Buddhism, such a focus on reducing hatred, as opposed to happiness or love, would be a reflection of 'Tanha', which as another wikipedia article states "...is the craving or desire to hold onto pleasurable experiences, to be separated from painful or unpleasant experiences, and for neutral experiences or feelings not to decline". The elimination of hatred is not one of the main tenents of buddhism, any more than eliminating it's opposite all-too-human emotion is. Buddhism is only concerned with human emotions insofar as they represent participation in samsaric existence, the world of becoming. Thus it is only concerned with human emotions in so far as they are to be a target of detachment. It is not concerned with human emotions insofar as one or another particular emotion is to be promoted above the others. Therefore it is arbitrary to write in the introduction of the article on Buddhism that one of its main properties, as a cultural phenomenon and religious, spirital and philosophical movement, is the 'elimination of hatred'. I propose this be deleted, or added to in order to include the contrasting human emotions that also reflect an attachment to samsaric existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.138.216.58 (talk) 04:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


I donīt know much about the various later secterian forms of buddhism. Hatred could be a special vile form of passion to them, perhaps?

On what I have looked on of the first pali litterature, it seems you are right.

In brahmanism, hatred is definitly not more vile than other passions.

Thanks, that's what I would have thought.


Phoenix

Alternatively could it be referring (unclearly) to hatred in general, in the sense of making the world a better place ala why Boddhisatvas choose to re-incarnate?

Thanks guys. I understand what 'hatred' can refer to in the context of Buddhism (i.e. aversion). I was simply concerned with its inclusion in the absense of 'love' (i.e. desire).

Buddhism holds that 'suffering' arises from:

1. ignorance
2. desire
3. aversion

The use of the term 'hatred' as the sense to describe the 'aversion' is perhaps controversial by itself, but when renouncement of its opposite, 'desire', is not even mentioned then it makes Budhdhism out to be a hippy new age religion concerned with peace and love rather than with renouncing attachment in general (to both love and hate).

It can be reduce to say that suffering stems from passion/desires whichever you like best to call the inner drive of our will.

Ofcourse, passion can be broken down in several parts again and again.

Buddhism holds that rebirth is caused by karma, but that our body and thoughts are made of impermanent matter(khanda,) and that there is no such thing as a PERSONAL soul (anatta.) Nirvana means blowing out the desires in order to stop rebirth.

Schopenhauer interpreted this so that COUNSCIOUSNESS should control and prevail over the WILL -- the man over the beast.


In my opinion Buddhism is a false religion, and even more the later secterian forms. Brahmanism, which Buddhism gets its concepts from, in the centuries before Gautama is closer to the universal truths, but it was probably already perverted at his time

In my opinion Buddhism is a false religion, and even more the later secterian forms. Brahmanism, which Buddhism gets its concepts from, in the centuries before Gautama is closer to the universal truths, but it was probably already perverted at his time

Would you care to expand? I study buddhism off and on, and in due time my next movement will be towards its predecessor.

It's simply because Buddhism was absolutely pessimistic towards life. The tool to reach nirvana is to destroy the will to life understood as the most basic instinct that drives all life to action. "Life is suffering" is to be understood literally and is opposite of Nietzsches "blieb die Erde treu."

The optimism of the early Vedas with the prayers for sons and cattle is still an element of the Upanishads and such where we see both an understanding of metaphysics and at the same time an understanding and acceptance of human life and the nature of earthly life : "Go the war with peace in thy heart" saith Krishna. "Be thou just the sword that execute the karma I have prepared for thine enemy" saith Krishna (or something like that.) In brahmanism the goal is complete understanding of Brahma : 

Brahma means the cosmos understood as the monistic, undefineable, selfcontaining whole.

Atma means the reflection of Brahma in the mind.


So the great difference is between absolute nihilism and absolute self denial and  of complete devotion to truth(Brahma).

It's simply because Buddhism was absolutely pessimistic towards life. The tool to reach nirvana is to destroy the will to life understood as the most basic instinct that drives all life to action. "Life is suffering" is to be understood literally and is opposite of Nietzsches "blieb die Erde treu."

I disagree. In fact I did not even read the rest of the post.

Yeah sure you'll find some idiot fatalist buddhists, but if a buddhist in history were really to eliminate the force of living, might as well cut his dick off. But in fact, what we see are impressive feats from buddhists all around the world.

Might as well start with the buddha himself: If you think what he did, abandon luxury, live on extreme poverty, then balance it with less severe practices, then stay on a fucking tree for a week, is denying of living, then what is will? Do you think he was in that tree just, like, waiting to go home and put on HBO? Do you think he was complaining about the insects? No, that was sheer willpower, strengh, spirit and wisdom.

Plus, if some people get killed or severly damaged before old age, and some don't, and some lose what gives them pleasure and some don't, a way of live that encompasses all of those possibilities and still strives for something worthwhile is better than one who only encompasses the successful or lucky cases.
You're quite hostile.

I got a right to be hostile, man, my people been persecuted!

It's simply because Buddhism was absolutely pessimistic towards life. The tool to reach nirvana is to destroy the will to life understood as the most basic instinct that drives all life to action. "Life is suffering" is to be understood literally and is opposite of Nietzsches "blieb die Erde treu."

I disagree. In fact I did not even read the rest of the post.

Touche  ;D

Quote
Yeah sure you'll find some idiot fatalist buddhists, but if a buddhist in history were really to eliminate the force of living, might as well cut his dick off. But in fact, what we see are impressive feats from buddhists all around the world.

Might as well start with the buddha himself: If you think what he did, abandon luxury, live on extreme poverty, then balance it with less severe practices, then stay on a fucking tree for a week, is denying of living, then what is will? Do you think he was in that tree just, like, waiting to go home and put on HBO? Do you think he was complaining about the insects? No, that was sheer willpower, strengh, spirit and wisdom.

Plus, if some people get killed or severly damaged before old age, and some don't, and some lose what gives them pleasure and some don't, a way of live that encompasses all of those possibilities and still strives for something worthwhile is better than one who only encompasses the successful or lucky cases.

I agree with this, as it addresses Buddhuism entirely and not Brahmanism, of which I know little.

It's simply because Buddhism was absolutely pessimistic towards life. The tool to reach nirvana is to destroy the will to life understood as the most basic instinct that drives all life to action. "Life is suffering" is to be understood literally and is opposite of Nietzsches "blieb die Erde treu."

Username, I would not like to make presumptions but it sounds as though your opinion of Buddhism has been lifted straight from Nietzsche, with little exposure to other perspectives (Evola and 'The Doctrine of Awakening' would spring to mind at once).


Bill : I didn't knew Nietzsche was that much discussing Buddhism besides mentioning the extreme pessismism towards life. So no.
My opinions on Buddhism are primarily formed from Ananda Koomoraswamy and reading parts of early buddhist litterature.

Zyklon-B : You seems to be an idiot who cannot formulate a sound point or critique.