Why I'm not Buddhist
You can't be happy if you care too much.
So don't worry. Be happy.
That, seems to me, is at the core of buddhism. If you care too much, you're damned. Because bad things happen to good people.
Doesn't matter how good you are. Doesn't matter how great you are. Bad things happen to good people. Bad things happen to great people, too.
Life's a bitch and then you die. Good thing, too. By the time you've got life figured for the bitch it is, getting away from it all has got to sound good.
That's no problem. Not for me. Last 30 years or so, I been practicin' not carin' too much.
I don't much care bad things happen to good people. Hell. That's life.
No problem. I'm a buddhist that way. I don't care bad things happen to good people. You won't hear me whinin', "Lawdy, lawdy, I be good, why's you always hurtin' me so bad?"
Bad things happen to good people and I don't care. I'm a buddhist that way.
But I started noticin' lately -- it goes the other way, too. Good things happen to bad people. Ever notice that? I mean, never mind nice guys finishing last. I'm talking about assholes finishing first.
It's true. Do your own survey. When it comes to who finishes first, it's assholes all the way down. Guaranteed.
Assholes finishing first is a problem. A definite problem. I don't know if crime pays -- depends how clever the criminal, probably. But injustice sure does pay. Injustice makes the world go -- nevermind which way and in what kind'a handbasket. And it'd be plain wrong not to care about injustice.
Good things happen to bad people -- and I do care. I'm not a buddhist that way.
-------------
Meta-comment: I don't actually believe assholes finish first. I don't believe assholes finish -- or even start. Not in the ways that matter.
So don't worry. Be happy.
That, seems to me, is at the core of buddhism. If you care too much, you're damned. Because bad things happen to good people.
Doesn't matter how good you are. Doesn't matter how great you are. Bad things happen to good people. Bad things happen to great people, too.
Life's a bitch and then you die. Good thing, too. By the time you've got life figured for the bitch it is, getting away from it all has got to sound good.
That's no problem. Not for me. Last 30 years or so, I been practicin' not carin' too much.
I don't much care bad things happen to good people. Hell. That's life.
No problem. I'm a buddhist that way. I don't care bad things happen to good people. You won't hear me whinin', "Lawdy, lawdy, I be good, why's you always hurtin' me so bad?"
Bad things happen to good people and I don't care. I'm a buddhist that way.
But I started noticin' lately -- it goes the other way, too. Good things happen to bad people. Ever notice that? I mean, never mind nice guys finishing last. I'm talking about assholes finishing first.
It's true. Do your own survey. When it comes to who finishes first, it's assholes all the way down. Guaranteed.
Assholes finishing first is a problem. A definite problem. I don't know if crime pays -- depends how clever the criminal, probably. But injustice sure does pay. Injustice makes the world go -- nevermind which way and in what kind'a handbasket. And it'd be plain wrong not to care about injustice.
Good things happen to bad people -- and I do care. I'm not a buddhist that way.
-------------
Meta-comment: I don't actually believe assholes finish first. I don't believe assholes finish -- or even start. Not in the ways that matter.
3 Comments on "Why I'm not Buddhist":
Bertrand Russell said that religion is based primarily upon fear. Reading Quasimodal's comments, one might rephrase this: religion is based primarily upon indifference. And indifference (to again borrow from Russell) is the parent of cruelty.
Sometimes it's a mistake to be too tolerant. often enough, it becomes a concerted way of avoiding responsibility. And even more often, it leads to a world in which your choices are confined to being a predator or a victim. Being too tolerant in such a world is like swilling from skulls at a cocktail party of the damned. At some point it will be your skull that gets drunk from.
There's always the possibility of withdrawing from the world. But you can't do that all the time. And even a keep requires defending. Sometimes to avoid being a victim, you need to kill off predators. Of course, in order to avoid being a predator, you need to know when to stop.
It's often said that it is better to err on the side of tolerance. But when dealing with the world and its rich panoply of multi-hued assholes, you want to be careful about how you turn that other cheek.
I didn't know Bertrand Russell had written an essay titled "Why I'm not Christian." Thanks for pointing it out and for the thoughtful commentary, Muse.
And I fully agree with your perspective. It doesn't qualify as "buddhist", though. Entirely too fierce. I say this only because I was (also) interested in responses from the buddhist perspective.
(join the bandwagon and) Call me naiive, but I've always associated buddhism with wisdom -- and transcendence. So, to obtain buddhist perspective responses, I posted "Why I'm not Buddhist" to the newsgroup talk.religion.buddhism.
Nothing very illuminating came of it. Sigh. If interested, the best of the thread, thus far, is reproduced below.
>>>>>>You can't be happy if you care too much.
>>>>>>That, seems to me, is the core tenet of buddhism.
>>>>>You have walked into an elephant's trunk with your >>>>>eyes closed and
>>>>>declared it to be a snake. Here's the source >>>>>material, just in case
>>>>>your interested in moving beyond being a slapstick >>>>>entertainer.
>>>>>http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/theravada->>>>>writings.htm#suttas
>>>>I sought (not only) entertaining.
>>>>
>>>>Thus, walking into the elephant's trunk and >>>>declaring it a snake.
>>>>That is: with open eyes.
>>>>
>>>>Re. open eyes: see? Get it? It was intended >>>>metaphor.
>>>>
>>>>Regardless how slapstick, how -- intendedly -- >>>>clumsy the metaphor, is it not apt?
>>>Hello PeterPiper,
>>>I don't believe its true that bad people do well. I >>>think you might have
>>>fallen into the trap of using conventional standards >>>as a yardstick.
>>>Wealth, fame and power are false goals.
>>>Once you understand that you won't care any more!
>>>The only truly successful people are those who have >>>learnt how to be happy.
>>>That is the common human goal (which most of the >>>people on the planet don't understand or accept).
>>>Attaining happiness (Nirvana) is what Buddhism is >>>all about.
>>>
>>>Don't hesitate to correct me if I have made the >>>wrong assumptions. :-)
>> Complete agreement, Colin. I was hoping to hear >>other's ideas why
>> wealth, fame and power are false/shallow/empty -- >>and what attainment,
>> by contrast, constitutes genuine happinness.
>>
>> My ideas on the subject are inspired in part by >>Buddhism -- but also,
>> in part, by western (analytical) philosophy. >>Curious whether my
>> fusion of the two would strike declared buddhists as >>convergence -- or sacrilegege :-)
>OTOH, you could both be mistaken.
ayup. could be.
>Comparing one's life to
>another is a mistaken mental exercise.
i believe that too.
>Anyone who enjoys
>fame, fortune, etc, should just be allowed to enjoy >them
>without being considered pursuers os "false goals".
you're missing a couple points (suggested in prior posting).
no one's (here) forbidding enjoying fame, fortune and power. what
we're doing is *asking* whether anyone genuinely enjoys these in
themselves.
>After
>all, how would you know if they suffer or not? Perhaps >their
>happiness and lack of suffering galls your sense of
>righteousness, but you cannot presume (or pretend) >that they
> suffer from their success.
ok. to clarify.
you say "Comparing one's life to another is a mistaken mental
exercise." i agree with that.
next, let's distinguish 'shallow success' from 'genuine success':
'shallow success' is the goal of those who can't stop comparing their
lives to others' -- which, as we both agree, "is a mistaken mental
exercise".
why would anyone be unable to stop comparing their lives to others'?
well, for one, because they don't know who they are and what they
stand for. and if they don't know who they are, their sense of
well-being and well-doing requires their observing that they are doing
better than others they observe -- according to observable criteria.
let's call this 'keeping up with the joneses'.
now, by definition and fact both, 'keeping up with the joneses' is
shallow. and, in fact, it's tragic even.
one tragedy of 'keeping up with the joneses' is that the keeping up
part can be brought about by harming the joneses. right? that would
satisfy observing that one's doing better -- beating -- the joneses.
so: that's 'shallow success'. as a matter of fact, are there people
in the world who can't stop comparing their lives to others' (in this
way)? (not only) i would say yes. (not only) i would say the vast
majority of people in the world can't stop. and (not only) i would
say those who do stop comparing their lives to others' in this
"mistaken mental exercise" way are singular.
finally: why are we talking about the people who can't stop comparing
their lives to others'? in order to compare our lives to theirs? i
should hope not. my interest is not in them directly. i talk about
them to clarify what success which is not shallow might be. that way,
once shallowness is contrasted and identified, we may better
distinguish what 'genuine success' constitutes.
since my understanding of both 'shallow' and 'genuine' success are
(only in part) inspired by buddhism, i'm interested in the views of
declared buddhists.
hope this clarifies..
>Look at your own minds when you
>religiously and righteously make such assumptions. You
>*wish* for their unhappiness. You *wish* for evidence >of it.
>You *wish* for 'nirvana' to refute the idea that >wealth and
> circumstance can bring happiness.
>
>But you've not a clue that 'nirvana' is simply acceptance
>and joy - without comparison or such odious analysis.
Quasimodal,
I read this article first over in the discussion group. I found it here by google searching some of the terms in the article. I couldn't believe how rude some of those people were in that group.
Anyway, I don't think that the kind of "not caring" that your article describes is the same as the type of non-attatchment that Buddhism advocates. The buddhist view, or at least I believe the view of those Theravadin schools centered around Vipassana or insight meditation, is that there should be no attatchment to things. There should still be a recognition of moral truth, and behavior should be chosen based on moral truth, but without attatchment to the success or lack of success of one's effort even if one's effort deals with serious moral consequences in the world. The buddhist view is that one does have a duty to support the good, but not as a result of attatchment to that good, but as a result of recognition of goodness(morality) as part of the truth(the true way of things). The attatchment to good or attatchment to the detesting of evil is contraindicated not as a reflection of the merits of "goodness" or "badness" itself, but due to the bad consequences which will develop as a consequence of attatchment. A shorter way of saying this is: the best you can do is the best you can do. When in support of good that is. Getting bent out of shape when one's efforts to support the good falls short of one's expectations undermines one's ability to see situations clearly and therefore undermines one's ability support the good.
Post a Comment
<< back to .:. fuck decaf .:.