Venting Buddhism and no earth

[esse_est_percipi]

Buddhism has this elaborate theoretical structure of existence, suffering, craving, karma, samsara, samskara, impermanence, no-self (anatta) etc.

Although the writings found in Buddhism on the philosophy of perception, descriptions of transcendent phenomenological states and psychology are insightful and remarkably 'modern', I still can't help seeing the system as a whole as just another way to trap humans within a mental structure (a structure which then tells them to let go of the structure itself, let go of desires, thoughts, accept all paradoxes but then transcend them, etc in a strangely recursive way, as if all of the behavioral and mental effects of accepting the buddhist doctrine aren't part of the buddhist algorithm itself...you're becoming trapped deeper and deeper within a machine's program but made to think that you're freeing yourself ..).

I tend to find all religions anxiety-inducing and stifling, and although Buddhism seems to have some good principles and precepts like non-violence, compassion, kindness to all creatures etc, I am troubled by what it seems to say on suicide (i.e. that it's not a solution, but leads to reincarnation, more suffering etc.., though I would appreciate if someone could point me to any buddhist texts which are more ambiguous on the topic of ctb.)

Anyway, I was just curious about how buddhism would deal with a scenario in which the earth was wiped out by an asteroid or nuclear war or whatever? Because surely there is nothing special about the earth or the life on it with respect to the whole of the universe.. What if there was no life or anything organic in the universe at all? How would the oppressive process of samsara and suffering and reincarnation etc find an outlet?

Surely a universe with no life would be better on the buddhist model?

The point I'm trying to get across is that Buddhism (like any other religion) seems guilty of anthropocentrism (or geocentrism), and of thinking that the earth and life on it is necessary or special in some way, an important stage where the whole process of buddhist ideas can play out.

When in fact life is contingent, a chemical fluke, the earth is a fluke (or just a statistical likelihood based on the size of the universe), and if it were wiped out by a meteor tomorrow it would make no difference at all for the rest of the universe or for the rest of time.

I'm not sure I've got my point across very well. Maybe I had no real point. Maybe I have misunderstood some things. dunno

 

[Lostandlooking]

In my opinion it's another answer for humans how to deal with the human condition and existence. And a valid and effective way to do so for some.

My personal philosophy is existential and humanistic. So that influences how I think about this. I think you can choose to view these buddhist concept any way you'd like. You can study them, look at different buddhist schools, be informed about the beliefs and intricacies and ultimately take something from them that works for you.

I live in Europe and I find it very hard to grasp the concept of re-incarnation. But if everyone on earth were to die, I guess there wouldn't be a way for anyone to re-incarnate. At least for a while. In any case, I imagine the buddhist would not be too concerned about this. My imagined buddhist would say they simply allow things to be as they are. If that means there will be no consciousness then that's how it will be.

My imagined buddhist will also point out that the sun is going to blow up in a couple of billion years. So the scenario you're describing is just part of the grand scheme of things. Think about impermanence. After our sun goes boom, could it be that life develops on another planet eventually? I think that's a reasonable possibility. If it happened once it can happen again.

Even if impermanence is essentially true I don't feel the need to attach special meaning to any religion or a higher truth. This can all be imagined and found out by humans, on earth and in their present situation.

I think I agree with you. It's basically 'just' another religion. I have never experienced enlightenment or anything close to it. Someone else might have a different experience and some insight into things I personally cannot grasp. For me, there just isn't one truth. There's many.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

The thing about Buddhism for me, is that it makes sense. But...isn't that just retro-fitting the facts to fit a desirable paradigm? Isn't that what all religion or philosophy does? It seems there is no reason the truth has to make sense; indeed, if we assume we understand next to nothing, then it could be argued that it follows logically that the reality of the situation would be something we have no way of understanding.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

I think the two main questions in the OP were: what does Buddhism say about suicide, and what if there were no earth? Also, thoughts about geocentrism.

First, there are different types of Buddhism. I have only studied the earliest texts, mostly the Pali Canon and a few other texts, which are the closest one can get to Gautama's actual spoken words, and are foundational in all Buddhism. That's primarily what Theravada Buddhism is based on. Other schools such as Mahayana and Tibetan have additional discourses and outside influences. I haven't studied those other schools at all, so I don't know what they say.

In what I studied, suicide was mentioned in three different incidents. First, there were monks who went too far in Gautama's teaching to be disgusted by the body in order to be unattached. They got so disgusted, some of them committed suicide, and some convinced another monk he would earn karmic merit to kill them. Gautama came back from a retreat, found out what happened, and seemed to kind of shrug it off. He gave an antidote to too much disgust so that one would not give in to a desire to annihilate themselves, and was like, "Yeah, that was all their karma to go through that. But anyone else who kills a monk for some shit like this is heading to a hell realm."

It seems that there is no negative karma for suicide. It's more a matter of desiring annihilation is just another way of clinging to pleasure. Until one has liberated themselves from the neverending cycles of samsara, including death and rebirth, they're just going to get born somewhere else according to the fruits of their karma and what they are attracted to. There are hell realms, heaven realms where the devas and gods live for eons, realms where one can be formless, animal realms, and earth. Earth is supposed to be desirable, because we have the opportunity to have some free will and to spiritually advance, but our karma dictates if we get born into a good existence or a shit existence. If you were an ugly person in a previous birth, then you may have an ugly face. If you killed someone, you may die young. One has to really fuck up to have their next birth in a lower realm than earth and a lower condition than human. The point of the realms is how much easier or harder it is to get to liberation. One can still head toward liberation in a hell realm, but it's really difficult. It's easiest in a heaven realm, there are no impediments, less suffering, and there is more support for achieving liberation. If there were no earth, there are other realms and other forms and conditions.

I do agree that Gautama's views were geocentric. There is nothing that says there are other earth-like realms, earth is the only one, and is considered one of the best possible realms for rebirth except for heaven realms. That reminds me of other religions which considered earth the center of the universe and humans to be made in the image of God. Religions always seem to think humans and our planet are the best and the most favored.

The other two examples of suicides were arhats in Gautama's sangha who committed suicide when they were dying. Gautama basically said, "They were already enlightened (as arhats are) and were not attached to their bodies/life, so no worries, they're out of the cycle, they're not going to be reborn. They're liberated." It seems, then, that not being attached to living is what's important. But if one hasn't yet achieved liberation, then they're going to have a rebirth, they're not out of the samsaric cycles of suffering, death and rebirth. Depending on the fruits of their karma, they could end up back on earth but in a better situation, or head to another realm.

There may be others who can correct what I said here. That's my understanding. I admit I didn't retain everything I read, but there's enough that you can research and follow up, like about the arhats and the mass suicide, and that may give you more information on Gautama's view of suicide. Other schools may have different views, but they aren't necessarily Gautama's, and that doesn't mean he wouldn't have validated them. He tended to not answer some questions because they took the focus from the main point of his teaching, how to be liberated from suffering. Any of the big questions since humanity, he supposedly knew the answers to but refused to tell. Once one had achieved liberation, it would be moot anyway, so it was an unnecessary distraction, and time is of the essence when seeking to escape from suffering, and requires great concentration and effort. Mental gymnastics? Withholding? Evasion? Or clarity of purpose? I don't know.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

Thanks for taking the time to reply and for your knowledge.
So the essential point is not the act of suicide itself, but the intentions and existential condition of that which suicides.

I guess that strictly speaking, according to buddhism, there really is no such thing as suicide, or at least suicide has no 'special status' as opposed to any other actions. There are only degrees of attachment which cause certain perceptions and desires to occur rather than others, some of which lead to different types of rebirth.

But for the enlightened one, the 'self' has revealed 'itself' to be an illusion, and all craving towards the skandhas has been eliminated, and everything is seen within the aspect of impermanence, so all that really happens (in trying to analyse suicide from a purely phenomenal perspective) is that there are changing perceptions/sense impressions that occur, which in a particular causal chain, lead to a total loss of sense impressions, and never again any sense impressions (only 'nirvana').

In other words, there is no 'self' which kills 'itself', just permanently changing sense impressions which lead to an eternal loss of perspective from that particular spacetime slice of the universe, and which others would incorrectly label (since language cannot 'capture' the ever-changing and non-essential nature of perceptions) as 'suicide'. But I guess you could use that same type of descriptive word-play to analyse away anything that anyone ever does(i.e. no such thing as murder, but just permanently changing sense impressions with no subject etc).

 

[esse_est_percipi]

To make my last point clearer about analyzing away the act of murder using (probably a perverted version of) buddhist thinking: in a video on youtube slavoj zizek claims that D.T. Suzuki justified the act of killing in buddhism (although he was a zen buddhist, so I'm not sure exactly how much zen differs from other modes of buddhism) using the following logic:

in become enlightened through buddhist practices, you come to realise that you have no self. Therefore, the act of killing is only a "cosmic dance" that leads the other 'person' (or constantly changing sense impressions which appear as a person in your perceptions) to stumble upon your knife, and you are merely a self-less observer of this event, or a conscious perspective upon it. There is 'no one' responsible, and 'no one' is really a victim (the 'self' is an illusion, remember). What do you think of this type of 'reasoning' using buddhism @GoodPersonEffed?

I don't know where d.t.suzuki said this though. He probably said it when he was a japanese nationalist and japan was being aggressive towards china in the 1930s, to justify japanese soldiers killing chinese people. maybe.

 

[LittleJem]

In my younger days - I have experienced Samadhi (bliss) through meditation. I didn't like it as it was quite intense - like having a cosmic orgasm. The most comforting line from both Buddhism and Hinduism IMO that doesn't get shared enough is Sat Chit Ananda (the truth of consciousness is bliss). I believe that pure consciousness is peaceful and at peace.

However, in my state of being mentally unwell for so many years, I am not able to meditate. When I felt better (which lasted maybe a week) I was getting up and doing yoga and meditation and it felt so good. Doing it with being mentally ill is a different kettle of fish.

If I was to believe in reincarnation anymore (which I definitely did when I was younger...) then to me it is like a giant computer game. You get reincarnated over and over again (Hinduism sees the reincarnation as you being reincarnated, while Buddhism says that you don't really exist and there is no real connection between your incarnations, so it is not so relevant in Buddhism). The more you get reincarnated, the closer you get to being Buddha. When Buddha attains enlightenment, he remembers all of his past lives and that is why he sees all of the suffering inherent in being alive and desiring. That is why he says the escape is to stop wanting anything and to see it all as impermanent. However, the majority of people who practice Buddhism are (with no offence to them) not that close to enlightenment.

The worst story I read was the story of a physical and violent fight in a Tibetan Tantric Buddhist monastery about who was going to lead the monastery next after the death of their (leader). I have also read tales of sexual misconduct or simply sexual relationships that people have had with Buddhist monks. As ever they are human, and hypocrisy abounds.

I find mindfulness, which is taken a lot from Buddhism, to be some kind of cult. Or at least something that doesn't help me. If I am in a suicidal/agitated state, then 'being in the present moment' is both unpleasant and impossible. Especially in the moments where I have constant loud suicidal thoughts and a feeling of abject misery. The advice is to detach somehow from these thoughts and observe them. Yep. You try that! However, I have also heard that the do not recommend meditation for those in such a hard mental state.

I went on a vipassana retreat a while ago, and there was a man travelling there who kept going back, and yet his suffering continued. He didn't know what to do about it. You could argue that he should keep detaching and keep going back, but how long does he need to suffer for with no respite. Meditation is not a magic bullet!!! It doesn't cure mental illness.

I don't know what Buddhism says about suicide, but there would be no justice to cursing people with misery (which in my opinion is simply statistical - i.e. a certain percentage of people get mental illness, get cancer etc...) and then cursing them for CTB when it is the natural impact of their misery. Most people who CTB have mental illness and is already suffering torment. What virtue is there in continuing suffering. What does it earn you in the next world? How many years of it do you have to suffer? (I have personally suffered now for 26 years - isn't that sufficient?).

This article on a Buddhist approach to mental illness is IMO a total lot of shit: https://fpmt.org/mandala/archives/o...99/may/a-buddhist-approach-to-mental-illness/

But this one is moving: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5914243/ Though it reads like a fairy story.

Excuse me ranting a bit off-topic!

 

[esse_est_percipi]

I find mindfulness, which is taken a lot from Buddhism, to be some kind of cult. Or at least something that doesn't help me. If I am in a suicidal/agitated state, then 'being in the present moment' is both unpleasant and impossible

I feel the same about mindfulness. If I am feeling really bad then I don't want to 'be in the present moment'...

Most people who CTB have mental illness and is already suffering torment. What virtue is there in continuing suffering. What does it earn you in the next world?

Yes, this is a relevant point.
You have to take into account the extreme mental anguish that some have to go through.
I don't see the point in prolonging existence just for the sake of existing. It really should be up to the person concerned as it is their life, no one else's

I have personally suffered now for 26 years - isn't that sufficient?

I'm sorry :( Surely there have been periods when you were better though?

That is why he says the escape is to stop wanting anything and to see it all as impermanent.

Doesn't that mean that you should learn to stop wanting even eating or drinking according to buddhism? Which would lead to death (i.e. suicide)?

 

[Deleted member 1465]

I find mindfulness, which is taken a lot from Buddhism, to be some kind of cult. Or at least something that doesn't help me. If I am in a suicidal/agitated state, then 'being in the present moment' is both unpleasant and impossible.

/agree.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

in become enlightened through buddhist practices, you come to realise that you have no self. Therefore, the act of killing is only a "cosmic dance" that leads the other 'person' (or constantly changing sense impressions which appear as a person in your perceptions) to stumble upon your knife, and you are merely a self-less observer of this event, or a conscious perspective upon it. There is 'no one' responsible, and 'no one' is really a victim (the 'self' is an illusion, remember). What do you think of this type of 'reasoning' using buddhism @GoodPersonEffed?

To me this mental gymnastics.

Buddhism says to not blame anyone, therefore there is no accountability. Yet one of the main tenets of karma (whether bad, good, or the kind that transcends them because it is directed toward liberation) is volition -- what one wills in thought, word or deed. That means one is responsible for their own karma and the conditions of their rebirth, or completely getting out of the cycle of death and rebirth. Therefore how can they not be responsible for murder, and what is the purpose of having the five precepts if there is no other to kill, to steal from, to lie to, or to have sexual relations with, and no self that can get intoxicated? What is the point of taking responsibility for not harming others, and for not getting intoxicated so that one doesn't become uninhibited and cause harm to others, if they do not exist, or if the one harmed is doing it to themselves through another? There is a contradiction between agency and not existing. Gautama himself said that he had achieved liberation but still had to be in the residual karma he'd brought to that incarnation, so there are rules for form and condition that cannot be changed just because one is liberated, as long as they have form and condition they are not completely liberated and there are still rules they have to live by.

A side note:

Karma, by the way, has a dual meaning: karma is action, and karma is the fruits of action.

To me, shrugging something off as one's karma is akin to saying God works in mysterious ways.

 

[LittleJem]

I think there is Karma, but by the time you reach enlightenment you see it all as illusion - every lifetime is an illusion, every karmic debt is an illusion - because there is nothing but the self.

I'm writing this as someone who is currently getting stoned after a hard day. I'm more into this kind of thing when stoned.

 

[woxihuanni]

buddhism is the worst mental prison among all religions. I feel too sick of it to go into deeper analysis here.

 

[Wayfaerer]

It doesn't make any sense at all, there are just too many logical inconsistencies.

Why do some people live idyllic lives all the way through? What were they suppose to learn? Are they demoted or promoted and to what?

How does buddhism reconcile the fact that we very likely have no free will, seeing how it's necessary to have it in order to be judged?

Where did all the f'ing people come from?! They'd say that they were promoted from animals but that's just weak. How could one judge possibly an animal's action as "good" or "bad?" I actually heard a hindu physicist claim that the dictators from the 20th century came from violent predatory animals. If that's so, then why so few predatory animals that have been promoted relative to the amount of people on earth? It's just laughable.

It's pure rationalization from people who didn't know anything about reality, that's what it is.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

Retro fitting select facts to support a desirable narrative is common in any religion, philosophy or world view. It doesn't make it incorrect per se, but the psychology behind the need to re write that narrative has more logical consistency to me than the cherry picked facts themselves.
Karma though, to me, is much misunderstood and misappropriated. I see it very simply: actions have consequences that can't be escaped. Negative actions yield negative results and positive actions yield positive results.
This would on the face of it appear to be logical, even Newtonian, however, I have experienced things in my life where positive action has been taken and negative results have been the result. I've also seen great positive things come out of overwhelmingly negative actions.
For example, a question at the heart of this site: at the end of life, is it a positive or a negative thing to preserve that life as long as possible? Is it a positive or a negative thing to face that situation with euthanasia? Will enduring painfully or dying peacefully produce a positive or negative result? How can it be either? Can it be both simultaneously?
Or the spider and the fly. Do you save the fly from the web? Is that good? But the spider might starve. Or do you let the fly get eaten? So Spidey is okay but the fly gets it's juices sucked out of it slowly.
Whatever you choose is both good and bad karma.
I've heard it said that it's intent that is relevant.
Yet I've acted with pure intent and caused hideous suffering.
And do we intend to save the spider AND the fly? We have to choose one, where is the intent there? We must both save and condemn in the same action, if we act or if we do nothing.
Things are far more complex than a simple duality and within each opposite appears to be contained the seed of the other.

Sorry, got a bit carried away there, hey at least I'm sober tonight.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

buddhism is the worst mental prison among all religions. I feel too sick of it to go into deeper analysis here.

yeah, it gives this kind of window dressing impression of being a morally and spiritually advanced philosophy, far wiser and more compassionate than the 'vulgar' and judgmental monotheistic religions of the west with their notions of heaven and hell and dictator god etc. This superficial understanding of it has been exploited by unscrupulous and cynical new age gurus to make a profit out of an unsuspecting spiritually bereft western public in need of deeper meaning.

But then, by a bait and switch tactic, it reveals itself upon closer analysis to be one of the most tyrannical and crushing conceptions of existence and life ever devised. The basic message is: 'you will never escape the torture chamber that is existence until every last desire and emotion and aspiration and dream has been squeezed out of you, even if it takes a million lifetimes. Only then will you have the privilege of experiencing absolute nothingness forever. Now, we good?'

Um, no.

 

[woxihuanni]

yeah, it gives this kind of window dressing impression of being a morally and spiritually advanced philosophy, far wiser and more compassionate than the 'vulgar' and judgmental monotheistic religions of the west with their notions of heaven and hell and dictator god etc. This superficial understanding of it has been exploited by unscrupulous and cynical new age gurus to make a profit out of an unsuspecting spiritually bereft western public in need of deeper meaning.

But then, by a bait and switch tactic, it reveals itself upon closer analysis to be one of the most tyrannical and crushing conceptions of existence and life ever devised. The basic message is: 'you will never escape the torture chamber that is existence until every last desire and emotion and aspiration and dream has been squeezed out of you, even if it takes a million lifetimes. Only then will you have the privilege of experiencing absolute nothingness forever. Now, we good?'

Um, no.

Precisely what I think, even made a similar conclusion in some other thread that I don't remember. I just cannot imagine any worse thing. Bring on the fire and brimstone forever, it is bliss compared to that.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

It doesn't make any sense at all, there are just too many logical inconsistencies.

Why do some people live idyllic lives all the way through? What were they suppose to learn? Are they demoted or promoted and to what?

How does buddhism reconcile the fact that we very likely have no free will, seeing how it's necessary to have it in order to be judged?

Where did all the f'ing people come from?! They'd say that they were promoted from animals but that's just weak. How could one judge possibly an animal's action as "good" or "bad?" I actually heard a hindu physicist claim that the dictators from the 20th century came from violent predatory animals. If that's so, then why so few predatory animals that have been promoted relative to the amount of people on earth? It's just laughable.

It's pure rationalization from people who didn't know anything about reality, that's what it is.

I could try to answer your questions by mentioning all the different realms that buddhism posits, and that free will may not actually be relevant because reincarnation and karma aren't based on some kind of external cognizant judgment which would presuppose freedom of choice (it's more about energy processes and intentions combined with situations and life-contexts), and that animals don't produce karma, but only 'burn it off' until they can be reincarnated as humans again etc.

But to be honest, I don't really believe any of it so would be inclined to agree that it's just rationalization based on ignorance and will to power (and based on what we know of Buddha, I think he exhibited a will to power and desire to (mentally) dominate others, especially after his 'enlightenment'. I wouldn't trust anyone who is so convinced that they are right and have access to the unique 'truth', and who is so willing to transmit their new-found memes so they can infect as many minds as possible.)

 

[woxihuanni]

I could try to answer your questions by mentioning all the different realms that buddhism posits, and that free will may not actually be relevant because reincarnation isn't based on some kind of cognizant judgment, and that animals don't produce karma, but only 'burn it off' until they can be reincarnated as humans again etc.

But to be honest, I don't really believe any of it so would be inclined to agree that it's just rationalization based on ignorance and will to power (and based on what we know of Buddha, I think he exhibited a will to power and desire to (mentally) dominate others, especially after his 'enlightenment'. I wouldn't trust anyone who is so convinced that they are right and have access to the unique 'truth', and who is so willing to transmit his new-found memes so they can infect as many minds as possible.)

That's another good point. It's not possible to quantify, of course, but the vibes of 'I know the truth' from zealous buddhists are just so much stronger than the same from zealous any other religion. The arrogance makes my blood boil. Before I witnessed this, I thought the worst thing to happen to humanity was islam, but buddhism really takes the prize. islam sort of just rips your head off at worst, does not expect you to be happy about it.

 

[Xocoyotziin]

Buddhism seems to have a simplified version of the Hindu reincarnation model, at least in terms of the respective Wikipedia versions lmao which is all I'm familiar with. Potential reincarnations are restricted to six types as opposed to the indefinite amount that's possible in Hinduism, as far as I know, but I think this is forgivable because each can be distilled down to a metaphorical concept, like a state of infinite craving vs one of infinite bliss. As far as I'm aware, reincarnation is not a strictly earthbound phenomenon.

I think Buddhism was also meant to be a retort to Hinduism the way atheism is to abrahamic religions. While it accepts certain Hindu precepts YOU are meant to reject them. It works with certain ideas that were thought to be universal truths and as such, compared to now, its a weak reprisal of religion but it was one nonetheless, even though it turned into one.

In Hinduism the recursion of the universe itself is inevitable and I think its made clear enough that anthropocentric symbolism is only used to make it more accessible

Is it also a trap? Probably, because it was based on one. But I think its intent was fairly close to modern atheism, while acknowledging supernatural phenomena. Karma is meant to be untangled, defeated, and transcended, not believed in, so that you can remember who you really are(n't). Which is the default state of so many these days.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

Before I witnessed this, I thought the worst thing to happen to humanity was islam, but buddhism really takes the prize. islam sort of just rips your head off at worst, does not expect you to be happy about it.

Yeah, the worst that can happen with islam is they just kill you and you end up in one of the many levels of allah's (the merciful and compassionate) hell.
Sure, not pleasant, but look at the company you'd be in:

elephants, pigs, wolves, even some dragon-like creature.
I mean sure, it's monumentally and brutally horrific, but at least you know where you stand.

Jeez, humans are so depraved and evil to invent stuff like this. The human is just a very clever and devious monkey, a contingent evolutionary anomaly/monstrosity which it would have been better had it never existed.

 

[woxihuanni]

Yeah, the worst that can happen with islam is they just kill you and you end up in one of the many levels of allah's (the merciful and compassionate) hell.
Sure, not pleasant, but look at the company you'd be in:
View attachment 44505
elephants, pigs, wolves, even some dragon-like creature.
I mean sure, it's monumentally and brutally and horrific, but at least you know where you stand.

Jeez, humans are so depraved and evil to invent stuff like this. The human is just a very clever and devious monkey, a contingent evolutionary anomaly/monstrosity which it would have been better had it never existed.

I'm down for a nice hell with a bunch of cool animals Want dragon!

A clever and stupid monkey. All our intricate cognitive skills, and then all our mind-boggling cognitive dissonance, denial, avoidance, projection. Being human is so hard. I don't know what compels me so hard to want to keep being it anyway?

 

[Xocoyotziin]

@worried_to_death
I mean it's cool to believe in all of that stuff yourself, that's your prerogative, but when you start trying to force that shit on others, you're fucking up, and when you successfully force it on enough people, you ruin the trajectory of humanity, even if you didn't mean to.

Like I'm a superstitious moron so I believe in all of this stuff but I also believe that it is and is meant to be intrinsically self-directed. You go where you want to go, but sometimes people police and abuse you to the point where you think you should go where you reasonably never would. Given such a superstitious lens, instead of a lie, religion is a malevolent manipulation of the soul.

EDIT: I did not mean to imply anything about you personally. My "you"s were impersonal. I'm bitching about people who use threats of violence to force others to conform to their belief systems, and who successfully do so, and condemn future generations through indoctrination for no good reason.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

I'm down for a nice hell with a bunch of cool animals Want dragon!

yay

All our intricate cognitive skills, and then all our mind-boggling cognitive dissonance, denial, avoidance, projection

it's crazy isn't it.

I don't know what compels me so hard to want to keep being it anyway?

Biological inertia? I guess once you exist as something it's hard to put up enough internal resistance to cease being that thing

 

[woxihuanni]

yay

it's crazy isn't it.

Biological inertia? I guess once you exist as something it's hard to put up enough internal resistance to cease being that thing

It is!

Maybe, and it feels like waste. The irreversibility. How complex you are, a coincidence, then gone.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

Like I'm a superstitious moron so I believe in all of this stuff but I also believe that it is and is meant to be intrinsically self-directed. You go where you want to go, but sometimes people police and abuse you to the point where you think you should go where you reasonably never would. Given such a superstitious lens, instead of a lie, religion is a malevolent manipulation of the soul.

To be honest, no matter how much I try to be rational and logical and appeal to scientific principles, I can't help but be affected by what all these religions say.
My rational mind doesn't believe in hell, but my amygdala is nevertheless affected, hijacked by the irrational memes of religion. I'm fearful that my consciousness will be tortured in hell when I die, or that buddhism is true and the only escape is ascetic renunciation. I know that these are just inventions, ideas which target the visceral, emotive areas of the brain so that groups of humans in the past could be controlled and managed so that they could be effectively organized against other groups so that their genes had a better chance of replicating. This picture is highly likely to be true, yet my mind has been deeply affected by exposure to the nonrational ideas themselves.