Buddhists are hedonists
Cell
New
I've been hearing Buddhists say that, since life is mostly unsatisfactory and consists of much suffering, that they would choose to completely give themselves up, give up all their wants and desires, and fade away from existence for all eternity rather than to continue on living such a life.
But why should they not want to live on? If Buddhists are non-hedonists, then a life of suffering should still be fully satisfactory, completely filled with joy and meaning, and should still be the greatest life ever. So the fact that Buddhists would choose to give themselves up rather than continue on living this life over and over again blatantly says that the only greatest life there can be is one that is free of all suffering. Or, at least, mostly free of all suffering.
This is hedonism. Hedonism is all about the avoidance of pain and suffering and the pursuit of pleasure. So let's pretend that this life somehow became a life where we have cures for all suffering and illness or at least cures for most suffering and illness, would the Buddhists think differently now? Would they choose to continue on living such a life now time and time again?
Also, I've been hearing Buddhists say that the "I" (self) does not exist and does not matter since it is an illusion. But if that were the case, then all other of our mental experiences would not exist either since "I" is connected to all of them. For example, "I can hear," "I can see," "I am suffering," etc. Therefore, if the "I" does not exist, then this means that suffering does not exist, sight does not exist, hearing doesn't exist, etc.
Lastly, if living for one's self and having the things you want in life does not matter since the self is illusionary, then this would also mean that living for others and giving them the things they need and want in life also doesn't matter since they are just as illusionary. Both "I" and "You" are illusions that don't exist and don't matter. So for a Buddhist to say that the only way to enter a state of Nirvana is to give up one's self, I find this to be nonsense.
This is because there was never a self there to begin with. So shouldn't a state of Nirvana be entered regardless of if you are someone selfish or not? Since both "I" and "You" are illusions that don't matter, then it doesn't matter what your actions are here on Earth. It doesn't matter if you harm others, help others, live for yourself, or anything else.
Comments
Hello
Indeed it is. It is known as straw man hedonism ...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Your first paragraph describes nihilism not dukkha
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukkha
... perhaps some kindly Buddhist hedonists here will provide some more useful help ...
I wonder how long it will be until this thread gets hit with the stupid stick.
I apologize if my own arguments here were nonsensical. If they are, then go ahead and kindly correct me on them.
I do not agree that Buddhism tells that self is illusion. It is a advaita who tells about illusion.
Otherwise Buddha once said thar he teaches only two things. The reason of sorrows and eradication of it.
Illness is not only sorrow in life. Running after desires by assuming that fulfilment of them will bring etrnal happiness is the farse. Impermanence is the nature of everything therefore clinging to anything will bring sufferings. This is the teaching of Buddha
Neither everything is supernatural. We oneself have to attain that supreme nirvana. Vipassana can be effective for that purpose.
You have such a distorted view on Buddhism, I really don't know where to begin.
All I know is I'm shakin' my head....
I was a hedonist and I lived my whole entire life getting pleasure and I was free of any major life threatening illness. This is the life I desired and it was the most fulfilling, satisfactory, life that was filled with the greatest happiness. I have now lost that life though. So I did feel quite miserable for a time being.
But my question here is that if we had cures for all suffering and illness in a pretend situation and I got to live my hedonistic way of life for all eternity, then that would be the greatest life for me for all eternity. There would be no reason whatsoever for me to enter a state of nirvana. I would not harm and demeaning other innocent people with an eternal blissful life of no more suffering. So I see no problem here.
To me, an eternal blissful life of no more suffering is the only greatest life worth living to me and I would be perfectly happy, fulfilled, and satisfied living such a life just as how I was my entire life in the past when I got to live my hedonistic way of life back then.
Yep that is dukkha. The Buddha was a hedonist too. Did not work out to well for him either ... The problem of dukkha is that conditions of hedonism based on sex, youth, lack of mishaps, well being etc are all well and good ... until the party is over. Conditions, circumstances change.
Sorry to hear your party is over
This is not the case of 'if and else' . We would be old at certain age and we would be unable to take happiness of pleasures due to ill health. Even in younge age it is not necessary that all things will go in our favour and it would make us to behave like criminal who would increase karma and finally person become miserable.
Even though nirvana is not necessarily a thing which human get after death. If you are feeling peace now with your deeds and have no desires then it's ok.
Are you sure you would be happy at end of the life when desires would not be fulfilled. This is not a 'if and else' because nothing is super natural. Cause and effect rule applies to everything. Otherwise there are many faiths are there who promise heaven after death but does not provide peace of mind in present life.
Other belief is that it is not the case that there is no better life beyond earth where you will not be more happy than earth. But those part comes in advance buddhism when person reach to extreme case of enlightment.
Ok. Though I said I wouldn't bit - I'll bite.
PLease give concrete examples of where and when you've heard this.
I mix with a lot of Buddhists, both here and in another forum - and I have never - but NEVER - ever heard a Buddhist even remotely refer to doing such a thing.
Who said this to you, and when?
That also is an extreme view. "There is nothing bad or good but that thinking makes it so."
Extremes are not the tendency in Buddhism. The Middle Way - is.
The object is not to live a life 'Free of Suffering'.
The object is to Transcend suffering, and take it with as much aplomb as one does 'non-suffering'.
Who the heck ARE these so-called Buddhists??
That's Hedonism
Buddhism does not avoid, because such incidences are unavoidable.
Buddhism teaches us that whatever comes, we should deal with it on equal terms.
Is it so bad? Wait awhile. It will blow over. In the meantime, Be Present, and Be.
Is it so good? Wait awhile. It will blow over. In the meantime, Be Present, and Be.
You miss the point.
There is a 'cure'.
But the cure is in you and your all-encompassing attitude.
Not in the lifestyle.
There is the Suffering of the Pain, and there is the Suffering of suffering the Pain.
You need to distinguish one from the other.
'They' might. But it wouldn't go that way for long.
'We' don't.
The Self is not an illusion. Just as the Not-Self is not an illusion.
When you understand that Self- and Not-Self are actually unimportant, then you will be entitled to comment.
Read, mark and inwardly digest.
The word you're looking for, is 'illusory'. If you're going to try to put up an argument, at least get the spelling right...
Secondly, this argument is flattened by my previous comment, and the link therein.
I find it to be nonsense.
What actually, do you know about Buddhism for sure?
Because it seems to me, you've taken bits and pieces and jumbled them up into a right mess....
It sounds like the only good or true Buddhist is a dead Buddhist.
Are you sure you were talking to Buddhists?
It doesn't sound like any I know but maybe they simply aren't the real deal until they quit taking up oxygen.
@Cell There's a lot of confusing and simply wrong stuff about Buddhism out there that people are saying, isn't there? Even so, I'm not sure how Buddhism can possibly be confused with Hedonism, the philosophy that pursuit of pleasure is the ultimate purpose in life. Buddha rejected a life of Hedonism as royalty when he began his search for the answer to the question of why people suffer. He then experienced and rejected a life of asceticism or avoiding all things pleasurable, when he awakened and discovered the Middle Way.
The purpose of Buddhist practice is not to commit spiritual suicide by extinguishing who we are in some consuming burst of Nirvana. Yes, the minute you start talking about reincarnation and past life karma and transmigration and various realms, you lose track of the simple insight that Buddha gave us with the 4 Noble Truths. All that is baggage that might or might not be useful to you in your practice, but Buddhism is about what you're doing right now to eliminate suffering in your life and the lives of others, not where you might end up after you die.
If you really want to know what makes Buddhists tick, there are lots of practicing, down to earth Buddhists here able to tell you what's going on in their heads. In my case, as a Zen Buddhist, if you tried to tell me you didn't really exist, I'd smack you on the head with a stick and ask you, "Who is feeling the pain, then?"
OP, what is your source for these Buddhists who supposedly claim that they're prefer not to live, since life is suffering? There are no such Buddhists, AFAIK; this sounds like a misunderstanding. The point of the Buddha's teachings is to overcome maladaptive thinking and behavior, so that one can get to joy.
You also somehow conflate hedonism, which you define as seeking pleasure, with Buddhism, which is about non-attachment to pleasure, about morality and virtue, and about cultivating virtuous discipline via the precepts and insight into the nature of life.
You've gotten off on the wrong foot, or several wrong feet. Please spend some time learning more about Buddhism before mis-characterizing it in this way. There are many misconceptions about Buddhism floating around out there, you're not the only one to go astray. It's easy to do. Hopefully, that's why you chose to join a Buddhist forum: to learn.
If I may add to what Dakini just said, Buddhism also includes non-attachment to suffering.
Sorry guys.
This member is a previously banned member. Banned previously for making inflammatory, argumentative and troll posts. Thanks for all input.