buddhism ideas are depressing?

[joekerr31]

anyone familiar or have some basic knowledge of buddhism? im taking a class on buddhist literature, and so far the buddhist philosophy is FULL of negativity, that life is all suffering and stuff like that.
am i missing something? buddhism always struck me as a religion of greatness and inner strength (enlightenment) but how can anyone live with so many negative thoughts??!

their thoughts aren't negative. they are simply stating the reality of life. it is full of suffering.

you have to keep studying it because the next step is realizing that the suffering comes from our attachment to life.

when you detach from life your suffering subsides.

its kind of like unplugging from the matrix. when you NEED women all they bring is pain and suffering to you. but when you can take em or leave em, suddenly everything works out just fine. even if you lose a woman its no big deal, you just 'go with the flow'

buddhism is merely viewing the practical nature of life (that its finite, that you grow old and die, that you lose loved ones, etc.) and then supplimenting it with a detached perspective.

buddhism can pretty much be summed up with "accept that with you cannot change."

 

[Obsidian]

What would you say if someone said that the idea of morality is a hollow path as well though? It helps society on the whole (as does asceticism)...

Well, I don't really agree. As a general rule, I don't think asceticism helps society at all. Morality can help society in any number of ways: For example, don't steal a pie because it will promote distrust in society. In contrast, asceticism isn't really good for anyone. If you stay away from the pie because you gave up pies for Lent, how does that benefit you, or society, or God, or anyone else?

I don't think the elimination of desire is a particularly good thing either. Eliminating BAD desires can be good. For example, if I desire female or societal approval of all my actions, that's a desire I probably want to eliminate. But pretty much all religions believe in eliminating bad desires. It's primarily the eastern religions that seem to clump all desires together, without differentiating between bad and good.

 

[Microphone Fiend]

Well, I don't really agree. As a general rule, I don't think asceticism helps society at all. Morality can help society in any number of ways: For example, don't steal a pie because it will promote distrust in society. In contrast, asceticism isn't really good for anyone. If you stay away from the pie because you gave up pies for Lent, how does that benefit you, or society, or God, or anyone else?

Well, Lent teaches its followers to make sacrifices and be aware of the struggles other go through. This helps society because surely these people become more empathetic and understanding.

On the whole, I think ascetics helped the world we live in immensely. Ascetic beliefs like abstaining from eating Pork saved millions because pork was not as properly prepared back then as it is now. Telling people to abstain from sex until marriage no doubt saved the world from overpopulation centuries ago. Telling people to abstain from homosexuality stopped the spread of disease because it was such a high risk for disease without protection, sexual education and KY Jelly, lol.

The way I see it, ascetics for the most part are guidelines that were put into place centuries ago. While they made sense back then and shaped the world we encounter today, they are starting to be questioned in the post-modern world we live. We are outgrowing the need for ascetic values or at least we think we are...

I don't think the elimination of desire is a particularly good thing either. Eliminating BAD desires can be good. For example, if I desire female or societal approval of all my actions, that's a desire I probably want to eliminate. But pretty much all religions believe in eliminating bad desires. It's primarily the eastern religions that seem to clump all desires together, without differentiating between bad and good.
Hmm... what about the western Christianity? The religion of ultimatums. What ever happened to self-control and allowing to take part in the most innate human desires?

Nietzsche says that Christianity is Platonism watered down for the masses and when I think about it, it really starts to bother me how alike the two are. Plato, through Socrates, is known for eliminating the world's impartiality to bodily pleasures and casting them in a negative light; instead, choosing to focusing on the 'next world' a la Christianity.

 

[Obsidian]

You make an interesting point, comparing asceticism to legitimate reasons for self-denial. Nonetheless, I don't consider sexual purity the same thing as asceticism because sexual purity (abstaining from pre- or extra-marital sex) promotes family life and serves a legitimate purpose. Asceticism, on the other hand, glorifies self-denial as an end in itself. You are right that the lines between the two can seem blurred at times, but the important thing to remember is that self-suffering, simply for its own sake, is never good.

Likewise, homosexuality violates the natural order of things (at least according to the Bible). Meanwhile, abstaining from pork served the purposes of 1) keeping the Jews separate from the surrounding pagan people, 2) protecting them from foodborne disease, and 3) symbolizing the holiness of their religion (because pigs are dirty). None of those reasons are legitimate anymore so Christians don't abstain anymore. I wouldn't call these abstentions ascetic either because they served legitimate purposes.

In contrast, I would say that Lent definitely involves asceticism. Lent is not a biblical holiday (Colossians 2:16), and it serves no real purpose other than to glorify suffering for its own sake. What you wrote about empathising with the suffering of others sounds good in theory, but in reality, no one really needs to make themselves suffer in order to understand suffering. Everyone has suffered at some point in their lives, and very few people have lives which are entirely comfortable even in the present. A much better way to empathize with suffering while actually HELPING people would be to donate time (or simply money) to help people who are suffering. Giving up chocolate, on the other hand, serves no purpose at all -- so I call it asceticism.

 

[Microphone Fiend]

You make an interesting point, comparing asceticism to legitimate reasons for self-denial. Nonetheless, I don't consider sexual purity the same thing as asceticism because sexual purity (abstaining from pre- or extra-marital sex) promotes family life and serves a legitimate purpose.
Thats all ascetics are: legitimizing self-imposed constraints. When they are no longer seen as valid they are discontinued. You still see sexual purity as valid so you still believe in the ascetic.
Asceticism, on the other hand, glorifies self-denial as an end in itself. You are right that the lines between the two can seem blurred at times, but the important thing to remember is that self-suffering, simply for its own sake, is never good.
Only self-suffering for eternal happiness...right. That is Christianity in a nutshell. Don't worry about this world because in the next one it will all be better.

Likewise, homosexuality violates the natural order of things(at least according to the Bible).

The Homosexual: A homosexual is defined as a person having sexual activity with another of the same sex. Homosexuals cannot have sexual intercourse (sex). The very notion is a fallacy. Sexual intercourse can only exist between two complementary natures and partners. The homosexual act is a deviation and a perversion to the natural order of things. The penis and vagina are naturally complementary to one another - any other combination is unnaturally forced!

To this I ask what about oral sex? What about protected sex? What about anal sex with a female? What about foreplay? Are all of these things mentioned perversions because they are not strictly penis into vagina or sex with the idea of creation?

Meanwhile, abstaining from pork served the purposes of 1) keeping the Jews separate from the surrounding pagan people, 2) protecting them from foodborne disease, and 3) symbolizing the holiness of their religion (because pigs are dirty). None of those reasons are legitimate anymore so Christians don't abstain anymore. I wouldn't call these abstentions ascetic either because they served legitimate purposes.
What process must a Christian go through to decide that a belief is no longer 'legitimate'? When will the view on homosexuals no longer be legitimate?
In contrast, I would say that Lent definitely involves asceticism. Lent is not a biblical holiday (Colossians 2:16), and it serves no real purpose other than to glorify suffering for its own sake. What you wrote about empathising with the suffering of others sounds good in theory, but in reality, no one really needs to make themselves suffer in order to understand suffering. Everyone has suffered at some point in their lives, and very few people have lives which are entirely comfortable even in the present. A much better way to empathize with suffering while actually HELPING people would be to donate time (or simply money) to help people who are suffering. Giving up chocolate, on the other hand, serves no purpose at all -- so I call it asceticism.
For the life of me, I cannot understand how your whole religion is based on ascetic ideals and you cannot see it

 

[Obsidian]

You're missing the point. You can argue with Christian morals all you want -- and actually have an intelligent debate. But you can't argue with someone who believes that suffering is good just because it makes him more "enlightened" or makes him "happier" or brings him "closer to God." And that's what Eastern religions tend to say.

Christian morals sometimes involve self-denial, but they don't glorify the denial simpy for its own sake. If you ask a halfway-intelligent Christian why he doesn't commit adultery, he will tell you that he doesn't do it because the Bible forbids it. But if you ask him why the Bible forbids it, he will probably give you a reasonably intelligent response about why adultery is bad. You might not agree that adultery (or homosexuality) is bad, but you will at least receive an explanation. If he actually understands his beliefs at all, he won't say anything along the lines of, "Denying myself pleasure makes God like me more." He won't say that because pleasure itself is intrinsically good and morally neutral.