Foreigner
Bluelighter
@RUC4
Buddhism teaches us to let go of desire, ignorance and attachment by following the Noble Eightfold Path. It teaches us that nothing is inherently real (it's all Samsara) and the same Emptiness pervades everything in apparent existence. However, just because nothing is real doesn't mean that things don't feel real, so the other half of the equation is practicing compassion. The compassion becomes the antidote to the emptiness of meaning.
The reason why I found Buddhism nihilistic is as follows. Every person is supposed to adhere to the same precepts of practice and nobility, which essentially erases the individual like any other religion. While nothing has any inherent meaning, we are made to believe that each person is responsible for purifying their individual karma that is ripening from the deeds/misdeeds of a past life. There are proscriptions about how to do so, all of which require a high degree of conformity.
Buddhism does not reconcile that the needs, life path, or "karma" of the individual may conflict with the proscriptions for avoiding attachment. For example, sex is seen as a lustful attachment, but what if it's my true nature to find God through sexuality, a tantric path? They tell you not to eat garlic or onion as these are too invigorating to the fire, and fire is bad. Why is fire bad? Because it leads to passion, lust and attachment. In a word, Buddhism is not holistic. It does not cater to different kinds of choice that lead to enlightenment. In fact, they had a pretty fixed idea of what "spiritual" and "enlightened" looks like. Can an enlightened person exhibit anger or annoyance? Apparently not. So everyone was so upright, like they had a stick up their ass all day.
Everyone I came into contact with who was a devout Buddhist, whether it was the clergy or the lay followers, had no life force. They were pale, dry, cold, wooden people who had suppressed all their desires, passions and "zest" for life. They came across as hollowed out people. Buddhism, if taken to its ultimate destination, is a life of surrender and abdication. Which makes sense given its history in Tibet... a country turned state turned fiefdom that had been conquered and oppressed countless times, first by its own people and then by the Chinese. Abdication makes sense when you can't be who you truly are, when all control has been removed from you. It is the path of the conquered and defeated.
Buddhism revolves around abdication of the individual to the Absolute, with little acknowledgment of the inherent truth that the individual, in all their messiness, is part of that Absolute. Sure, they will pay lipservice to individuation, but ultimately they expect you to conform to the grand Buddhist plan and forget who you are. Just become another automaton who says, "I am not this person, I am not this place, I am not this time." Self-negation to the nth degree. That's why it's nihilistic.
I mean... whose karma is this anyway if we're all just God? How does the karma attach to the person? How is karma "stored?" Isn't it all just God's karma? After all, we are all God, so am I really the one doing anything here? And the idea that you can "accumulate merit" to erase bad karma is utterly laughable. There's nothing in here that accumulates anything. It's just God.
I think the basic precepts of Buddhism are useful to modern people, like being able to instantly access inner peace by quieting the mind. However, if you really want answers about the bedrock of reality, Buddhism is not it. They teach you to abandon yourself, which is pure nihilism. Other paths, like Vedanta and Tantra, make way more sense to me because they acknowledge that the Atman, the real self, the core existence-consciousness-bliss, is God individuated-as-you and therefore the independent arising of the mind-body is actually meant to do what it does and is not a mistake that needs to be negated with endless self-suppression.
If you deny who you are on the path to enlightenment, you will end up in existentialism nihilism. You won't become enlightened.
Buddhism teaches us to let go of desire, ignorance and attachment by following the Noble Eightfold Path. It teaches us that nothing is inherently real (it's all Samsara) and the same Emptiness pervades everything in apparent existence. However, just because nothing is real doesn't mean that things don't feel real, so the other half of the equation is practicing compassion. The compassion becomes the antidote to the emptiness of meaning.
The reason why I found Buddhism nihilistic is as follows. Every person is supposed to adhere to the same precepts of practice and nobility, which essentially erases the individual like any other religion. While nothing has any inherent meaning, we are made to believe that each person is responsible for purifying their individual karma that is ripening from the deeds/misdeeds of a past life. There are proscriptions about how to do so, all of which require a high degree of conformity.
Buddhism does not reconcile that the needs, life path, or "karma" of the individual may conflict with the proscriptions for avoiding attachment. For example, sex is seen as a lustful attachment, but what if it's my true nature to find God through sexuality, a tantric path? They tell you not to eat garlic or onion as these are too invigorating to the fire, and fire is bad. Why is fire bad? Because it leads to passion, lust and attachment. In a word, Buddhism is not holistic. It does not cater to different kinds of choice that lead to enlightenment. In fact, they had a pretty fixed idea of what "spiritual" and "enlightened" looks like. Can an enlightened person exhibit anger or annoyance? Apparently not. So everyone was so upright, like they had a stick up their ass all day.
Everyone I came into contact with who was a devout Buddhist, whether it was the clergy or the lay followers, had no life force. They were pale, dry, cold, wooden people who had suppressed all their desires, passions and "zest" for life. They came across as hollowed out people. Buddhism, if taken to its ultimate destination, is a life of surrender and abdication. Which makes sense given its history in Tibet... a country turned state turned fiefdom that had been conquered and oppressed countless times, first by its own people and then by the Chinese. Abdication makes sense when you can't be who you truly are, when all control has been removed from you. It is the path of the conquered and defeated.
Buddhism revolves around abdication of the individual to the Absolute, with little acknowledgment of the inherent truth that the individual, in all their messiness, is part of that Absolute. Sure, they will pay lipservice to individuation, but ultimately they expect you to conform to the grand Buddhist plan and forget who you are. Just become another automaton who says, "I am not this person, I am not this place, I am not this time." Self-negation to the nth degree. That's why it's nihilistic.
I mean... whose karma is this anyway if we're all just God? How does the karma attach to the person? How is karma "stored?" Isn't it all just God's karma? After all, we are all God, so am I really the one doing anything here? And the idea that you can "accumulate merit" to erase bad karma is utterly laughable. There's nothing in here that accumulates anything. It's just God.
I think the basic precepts of Buddhism are useful to modern people, like being able to instantly access inner peace by quieting the mind. However, if you really want answers about the bedrock of reality, Buddhism is not it. They teach you to abandon yourself, which is pure nihilism. Other paths, like Vedanta and Tantra, make way more sense to me because they acknowledge that the Atman, the real self, the core existence-consciousness-bliss, is God individuated-as-you and therefore the independent arising of the mind-body is actually meant to do what it does and is not a mistake that needs to be negated with endless self-suppression.
If you deny who you are on the path to enlightenment, you will end up in existentialism nihilism. You won't become enlightened.
Last edited:
