Why do i dislike Buddhism

There are things i may have said on other pages on this link:

https://telegra.ph/Why-do-I-believe-Christianity-to-be-the-only-and-true-religion-09-25

That i won't repeat here.

PAGES:

Some Buddhists are going to say about attachment and how this can lead to suffering. However, in my belief, we should make our life rich in experiences, a great soap-opera of life, and that means, to live that in the fullest, enjoy what you have, have attachment for certain things, your family, memories, objects that holds a memory and more. It is worth to suffer, if you lose that which you are attached, it is worth to suffer and cry for that. If you suffered and cried for it, it is because it was worth, because it was meaningful for you, to detach from it just to avoid suffering, is to lose the opportunity of something that is worth.

Buddhist puts too much emphasis on their practice, which leads to nothing, as they are somewhat blind spirituality to perceive that the powers of the spiritual resides on the spiritual and not on the materialistic practices. There are even atheistic Buddhists, so they can't perceive the vanity of the things of this world, which, ironically, they preach a lot about.

I said once:

Buddhists says they figured out that things are not from this world, but them they considered the world as an illusion (which is not) and gave two measures, if the world is an illusion and they aren't from this world, so why do they still think the things of the world is what brings spirituality and enlightenment? Why do they think their clothes, positions, techniques, attitudes, detachment and etc means something if all of that is from the world?

Understand? Buddhists are not what they preach, they talk like they aren't from the world, but they are. They care a lot about the world.

The bible says in Colossians 2:20-23:

"If you have died with Christ to the spiritual forces of the world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its regulations: “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!”? These will all perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such restrictions indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-prescribed worship, their false humility, and their harsh treatment of the body; but they are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh".

And this is what i perceive in the acts of Buddhists, i saw lot of Buddhists that struggles with the indulgence of the flesh, and they hope their silly practices, lotus position and mantras will somewhat lead them out, when in fact, you can abstain from all that without the use of any of these fancy-techniques.

I wont say about all Buddhists, but it is a stereotype (and not only, because there are denominations that do that) we can find of a Buddhist that paints himself as a wise humble person, but, to show that, they get bald, use a robe, lives in a temple and bla bla bla... Wow, look at those WISE MEN with all their regulations and all that stuff! Filled with commands and restrictions, they look SO WISE! Then a mere Christian that have faith in Christ leaves the indulgence of the flesh even using an iPhone, a shiny boot and long hair or even if he looks like a complete moron; sometimes, even if he is a complete moron!

The bible is truly the words of truth!

Then the Buddhists have this stuff of "Enlightened Ones", it is a false-humility...

Let's get back to this quote: "If you have died with Christ to the spiritual forces of the world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its regulations".

It is so funny, because, Buddhists claim that this is what they do, but Christianity destroyed all their "Enlightenment" activities, their false sense of humility and their sense that what they are doing is not "from the world" with only four verses.

I BELIEVE:

That Buddhism is a coward religion. A religion that flee from suffering and responsibilities, that hides themselves on a temple and let it go, that are scared of facing and enjoying the world (especially if things in the world is vanity). They keep their lives "cleaning their mind" or their concept of "emptiness", while i think it is more proper to "fill your mind" to solve problems, and cleaning your mind is a lazy surrendering of the chase of truth (and the mind will eventually get clean when you solve such problems by "filling the mind"). They keep on a lotus position on a temple ignoring reality and having a poor life [in experiences], instead of a rich life, that, even if it brings suffering, is worth to live and more desirable to live.

Check "ABOUT ATTACHMENT" and "ABOUT SUFFERING" section.

One comment i made online to a stranger saying about enlightenment:

NOTE: by the nature of a causal talk, it may have typos and grammar mistakes. Take that in mind to all other texts here that are from talks i had.

Yes, but there are main core ideas in both, and like i said, you can test me, so tell me some Buddhism principles and i'll tell what i think about it.

Note: this guy said i don't knew enough about Buddhism, barely he knows i know almost everything about Buddhism.

But we all agree we are flawed, even atheists should agree with that, and so to think a flawed person can lead [himself] to perfection is arrogance.

One moment you are going to have a spiritual experience which will make you regret lot of things you did, all the empty practices of those religions and you will see that you can't lead yourself to it.

FOR SPECIFIC DENOMINATIONS / IDEAS FROM BUDDHISM:

FOR BUDDHIST VEGETARIANISM:

Their concepts: https://www.shabkar.org/scripture/sutras/index.htm

My page filled with scientific evidence and facts that we should eat meat:

https://telegra.ph/In-Defense-of-Meat-Eating-11-03

That shows they are not following the truth, and their religion and philosophy should be discarded. A faith based on Appeal to Emotion is a fallacy of a faith. But to be fair, not all Buddhists believe in vegetarianism.

But, anything that is not truth should be discarded, simple as that.

FOR ATHEISTIC BUDDHISM:

A talk i had with one atheistic Buddhist online:

Buddha himself fought against asuras (1, 2).

Buddhism have lot of spiritual concepts, like rebirth, a place where they go in after this life.

Devas are a concept in Buddhism since the early traditions and aren't a psychological aspect, those are considered invisible beings that interact with us, but can be seem once you open the divine eye.

And this is since the beginning of Buddhism iirc, so the modern entity-less version of Buddhism is not the original core of Buddhism.

"Bhavachakra describing the cycle of saṃsāra: illustrated in the wheel are eight realms of existence in which a sentient being can reincarnate, according to the rebirth doctrine of Buddhism. Yama, the god of death, is at the top of the outer rim".

"Saṃsāra is considered permanent in Buddhism, just like other Indian religions. Karma drives this permanent saṃsāra in Buddhist thought, states Paul Williams, and "short of attaining enlightenment, in each rebirth one is born and dies, to be reborn elsewhere in accordance with the completely impersonal causal nature of one's own karma; This endless cycle of birth, rebirth, and redeath is saṃsāra". The Four Noble Truths, accepted by all Buddhist traditions, are aimed at ending this saṃsāra-related re-becoming (rebirth) and associated cycles of suffering".

"Some Buddhist traditions assert that vijñana (consciousness), though constantly changing, exists as a continuum or stream (santana) and is what undergoes rebirth".

By this concept, we can see that the way Buddhism talks seems like there is no entities, but a vijñana existing as a santana would be very much the same as saying that there is a soul / spirit, which would be a type of spiritual entity.

Some Buddhism also believe in the gandhabba, which are celestial beings.

Conclusion:

Buddhism was never atheistic in its early traditions, this atheistic view came later in modern times for some to justify the idea that "Buddhism is wise and aligned with truth, like, the supposedly truth that there is no God".

Buddhism does not preach an "higher God", that does not mean it is atheistic, lot of the concepts in Buddhism are spiritual in nature, and as you can see in the talk i had, i pointed even spiritual beings that are part of the Buddhism traditions.

I believe those are theists-to-be that noticed a power in the spiritual activities they practiced from Buddhism, but, they are too proud to accept that there is something spiritual in such activities, and also, too inside the Buddhism practice to deny Buddhism itself. So, instead of accepting Buddhism as non-atheistic religion, they have to push rhetoric in painting Buddhism as an atheistic religion.

ABOUT ATTACHMENT:

I believe detachment is weird. Of course we should not cry for the spilled milk, but we should try to preserve our arts, images, take pictures, take photos, have memories and save those memories and preserve a piece of us on earth. This is something i have a huge problem with Buddhism, because they seem to avoid lot of good experience of their lives for mere "peace", i think "saudades" (a unique word from Brazil) is the bread of wisdom, and consequently nostalgia and stuff like that.

Also, let's talk about how and why i think they practice it wrongly (look how ironic, i have to even point that in their own Buddhism belief, it is not like how lot of them practice):

The word attachment is not attachment, it is Upādāna, which means "fuel, material cause, substrate that is the source and means for keeping an active process energized".

It is result of Taṇhā, which means: "thirst, desire, longing, greed".

Here we can already see that it is not about "don't have a cellphone and nice pictures of your friends on it", neither "don't feel 'saudades'", neither ignore your arts, destroy you works and material goods for the sake of showing how you don't care about the "impermanence". Those three "Tanha" are unrelated to what lot of Buddhists practice as detachment.

Types of clinging:

In the Sutta Pitaka, the Buddha states that there are four types of clinging:

sense-pleasure clinging (kamupadana)
all views clinging (ditthupadana)
rites-and-rituals clinging (silabbatupadana)
self-doctrine clinging (attavadupadana).

The Abhidhamma and its commentaries provide the following definitions for these four clinging types:

sense-pleasure clinging: repeated craving of worldly things.
view clinging: such as eternalism (e.g., "The world and self are eternal") or nihilism.
rites-and-rituals clinging: believing that rites alone could directly lead to liberation, typified in the texts by the rites and rituals of "ox practice" and "dog practice."
self-doctrine clinging: self-identification with self-less entities (e.g., illustrated by MN 44, and further discussed in the skandha and anatta articles).

Interdependence of clinging types:

Buddhaghosa further identifies that these four clinging types are causally interconnected as follows:

self-doctrine clinging: first, one assumes that one has a permanent "self."
wrong-view clinging: then, one assumes that one is either somehow eternal or to be annihilated after this life.
resultant behavioral manifestations:

a. rites-and-rituals clinging: if one assumes that one is eternal, then one clings to rituals to achieve self-purification.

b. sense-pleasure clinging: if one assumes that one will completely disappear after this life, then one disregards the next world and clings to sense desires.

Manifestations of clinging:

And here i conclude, that when you pay attention to what is Upadana, it basically have almost nothing about having or not material goods, having memories, cellphone, nature vs technology, ignoring modernity, forgetting good things you do, things you invent, being careless and unloving of your creations...

Upadana is about very specific things listed above, and i don't even think the word "attachment" should be used or be linked to it! I think Upadana is an unique word with an unique meaning!

ADDRESSING SUCH THINGS IN A CHRISTIAN POV:

However, i still think their philosophy of de-attachment, even in such terms i explained, is still wrong.

I pointed one in the "BUDDHISM IDEAS ARE AMBIGUOUS AND SUBJECTIVE" section.

In the:

"Repeated craving of worldly things; if one assumes that one will completely disappear after this life, then one disregards the next world and clings to sense desires.".

While i agree that worldly things are also view as futile in the bible perspective. I think Buddhism have a more rigid idea of it, that goes against some bible perspective, bible is not against having small leisure, like, drinking wine, having someone to love, eating and enjoying eating and etc.

The view of the "worldly things" of Christianity also counts that having a rigid control of such things is also a "worldly thing", because, if those are things of the world, why would you care so much about it? I believe that, in the Buddhism sense, is that they don't assume after-life or non-after-life, and so, they are careful in such things. In Christianity, we assume an after-life, so, the worldly things are nothing for you to worry about, unless those are sinful and dirty.

Their view poses as wise, but it looks more like "you don't know, so don't do it", we can see that in the sense of "one assumes that one has a permanent "self"", we Christians assume our soul is permanent unless God kills it, Buddhists are scared of the unknown and rather choose ignorance.

"One assumes that one is either somehow eternal or to be annihilated after this life", the same applies here, they don't know if it is eternal or not, so their style is, "since you don't know, don't try it, live in ignorance, ignorance = peace, non-ignorance = suffering, and you don't want to suffer, do you?".

"If one assumes that one is eternal, then one clings to rituals to achieve self-purification", they talk like such purification is bad. And if one being eternal is true, then they are not doing it and will face the consequences, which, ironically enough, is suffering.

In short:

Christianity does not care if you are attached to this or that, if you assume this or that, in the end, those are things of the world and means nothing. Unless you are doing something sinful, evil, dirty and etc, there is no need to care about de-attachment or attachment or whatever.

I also think those explanation is a way to look wise for something that is very simple to explain. Why do they have such giant word salad doctrine about "Upadana"?

That is another criticism i have for Buddhism, they make everything seems overly complicated, because they want to register and make a term / practice out of everything, that makes all their rhetoric too bloated and filled with "but if" ideas: "what about this?", "well, to understand this, you need to understand those 1000 other terms". All which are useless, and all which, strangely, assume stuff, and then, goes against their own views.

Check the section "BUDDHISM IDEAS ARE AMBIGUOUS AND SUBJECTIVE".

ABOUT SUFFERING:

"That is why, for the sake of Christ, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong".

2 Corinthians 12:10

"Not only so, but we also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope".

Romans 5:3-4

These verses for me, is one of the reasons i dislike Buddhism, they preach the idea of "fleeing from suffering", while Christians preach the idea of embracing it.

As i say to numerous people, people can lie to you with flatter, love, cuteness, and more; but suffering is always true. I rather real suffering than fake peace.

And so, i think suffering is worth. I rather suffer than live an empty peace. I rather true suffering than false peace. I don't think suffering is necessarily bad, it depends of the kind of suffering.

I rather face the world than hide away in a temple forgetting the world only in meditation. This Buddhism concept doesn't seem to be helping and doesn't seem healthy... It turns them into cold robots that feel nothing but their meditation.

I think sitting on a temple with "virtuous" lotus position all day long is foolish and empty, an act of cowardice, i think Buddhists are cowards that flee from suffering like a coward. I think their "peace" is fake, they confuse "emptiness" with peace, their life is poor in experiences.

Imagine living a life fleeing from suffering only to realize later you were coward at a point you can barely call your life a life and end up suffering because you lack worthful suffering? That would be soul shattering realization.

What i love in Christianity is that it seems to be the total opposite of Buddhism, feel love, hate, suffer, joy, all that in a big recipe of a rich life full of emotions, the big soap-opera of life! It is WORTH to suffer for such an incredible master-chef recipe!

BUDDHISM IDEAS ARE AMBIGUOUS AND SUBJECTIVE:

That they think they are wise, but as soon as they don't solve a puzzle, they push that to a philosophy of "subjectivity" and that things "aren't and are" at the same time and that there is no reason to "try to solve it" (literally intellectually cowards). While reality shows otherwise, it shows that things are tangible objective reality. Nothing in the world is an illusion, only what people says to fool us. The world is NOT an illusion, it is very real, even if you believe in other realms, the world AND the other realms are VERY OBJECTIVELY REAL.

Always a "this and not this", and all that poetical word salad. Like in the Upadana explanation:
"first, one assumes that one has a permanent self; then, one assumes that one is either somehow eternal or to be annihilated after this life".

See? Everything in Buddhism is ambiguous, and they have lot of convoluted rules. It just sounds wise, it is for people that confuses eloquence with wisdom, but it is stupid.

About Taṇhā:

"(...) bhava-taṇhā (craving for existence), and vibhava-taṇhā (craving for non-existence)"

Here we can see another ambiguous idea, you can't crave for existence and neither non-existence. People may point "but the idea here is about craving", but that is not true, as you can see above, they have this idea that is wrong to assume it is eternal, non-eternal or annihilated. So, it is an intellectually coward position, "i assume nothing, so you can't blame me for not doing mistakes", which is alike the atheist "i don't know, even if i know the basic rules" idea. I even made a meme:

So we can see that Buddhism is indeed philosophical, but in terms, that they are more prone to accept something as truth if it aligns with rhetorical and semantic tricks. "Assuming it is something and not assuming it is something", in this case, it is a semantic trick to avoid accusations and condemnations, but not to achieve truth.

They always have this "master, master, how do i know that 'i'm' and 'not am' at the same time?", and the master says: "if you don't know, then you have not reached!", and then, they have a fart of mystical experience, and they are like "master, i think now i know what is to be and not to be", and the master goes like "now you found it". And it is ambiguous and foolish, each one have their own "buddhistic revelation", no monk says the same thing, no monk have a pattern, a standard, it is stupid, un-logical, "unscientific".

Buddhism have too much concepts of subjectiveness, that is stupid. For every action there is a reaction, Christianity is about Wisdom and Truth, that is why we became more scientifically developed than they always were.

Check the session "TALKING TO A FRIEND", which i spoke a lot about such things.

SOME BUDDHIST IDEAS ARE SIMPLE CRINGE:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_that_Buddha_would_not_play

"The Buddhist games list is a list of games that Gautama Buddha is reputed to have said that he would not play and that his disciples should likewise not play, because he believed them to be a 'cause for negligence'".

We now know that games are very good to cognition, Buddha is stupid. Christ was not stupid in anything, if Buddha is stupid in something, we already see a flawed pseudo-wise trait. Is that what people call an "Enlightened Person"? He is above Boddhisatva, he is Buddha! And yet we need to take such ideas seriously?

TALKING TO A FRIEND:

I think it is because certain small details that i dislike what they preach [when talking about things that are not about their gods].

Like, i think their concept of "emptiness" (Śūnyatā, which is believed by Hindus and Buddhists) is so ambiguous and alienating.

It is in a resource of a poetic explanation and not a rational true explanation.

For example:

"The nonexistence of duality is indeed the existence of nonexistence; this is the definition of emptiness. It is neither existence, nor nonexistence, neither different nor identical."

This is ambiguous and illogical, not truth...

If 2+2=4 even on non-existence, there is no non-existence, only existence.

Non-existence does not exist, it is paradoxical, non-existence cannot be, as mere existing is proof of the non-existence of non-existence.

Buddhism and Hinduism is filled of "it is and it is not", because they can't explain things, so they put themselves in an alienating position of "clean your mind and don't think too much" so you get on a "mid term" and when you find this "mid term" you "solved the puzzle".

They lose the richness of life by running from things in terms of "emptiness", regardless that everything in life being in vain.

Bible preaches objectivity, truth, logic!

There are things that are different, and things that are identical, even if nothing is truly identical, but there are patterns that should be seem and understood, and not reduced to "not even this and not even that".

It is a lazy approach of truth, a lazy solution to puzzle.

Someone asks "what is 2+2?", and they say "it is neither a number and neither non-number, it is empty and you shouldn't care".

See how illogical it is? How lazy is that?

Something exist? Yes, then it exist! How can be "existence and non-existence" on things if i'm touching my mouse, my computer and the reality, it exist! If it is vanity or not, that doesn't matter, it exists!

The non-existence is the only thing that does not exist, because it makes no sense that in tangible existence a non-existence to be possible, it is paradoxical, and paradox can't sustain logic, it is "either that, or not" and not "that and not-that at the same time" like Buddhism and Hinduism preach. That is why Buddhism and Hinduism lives in a world of poetic illusion, and no Hindu and Buddhists can even understand themselves, it is always a "if you have not understood, then you have not reached the truth", and they never tell the truth, and when you have a minimal spiritual experience and say "i think i found the truth", they say "so you found the truth", and they don't even know what kind of experience you had and what kind of truth this experience brought... It is always ambiguous and never a defined answer, it is lazy...

"According to the theory of emptiness, any belief in an objective reality grounded in the assumption of intrinsic, independent existence is simply untenable.

All things and events, whether 'material', mental or even abstract concepts like time, are devoid of objective, independent existence ... Things and events are 'empty' in that they can never possess any immutable essence, intrinsic reality or absolute 'being' that affords independence."

That is not true at all! See? The same "subjective" philosophy! Always that!

Some things are objective, 2+2=4 , even if you change it to Mayas numerals, or to binary, it is always the same result, you can pick a stone, and another stone, and now you have two stones! That is objective and immutable!

You see your computer, and it is objective, the logic that makes a "rock think" (because computer is silicon, aka, a rock) proves there is tangible objective truth even on dead things!

Reducing it to untenable is a surrendering, laziness! "I couldn't figure why, and i since i consider myself wise, the fact that i couldn't figure represents that it is unattainable".

"All things and events, whether 'material', mental or even abstract concepts like time, are devoid of objective, independent existence".

That goes against all reality of "for each action there is a reaction", there is no random, for everything there is a reason, an objective reason!

Whatever is material, there was a reason behind it, abstracting that a chair can't be done by chance, proves objectively that the chair was made by humans. Every mental thing that happen to us, was triggered by an objective event. Time is objective, as we see that for things to happen, it takes a portion of "awaiting" that can't get back, the only way to understand science and the transformation of artifacts is by adding time on the equation, "sin(time)" make a sine wave to happen.

The same way men at the beginning of times would grunt in an attempt to express things, they figured out words to represent the visible and objective reality.

When in a menace, humans tried to warn other humans with a despair grunt.

When humans noticed the transition of a state and event, let's say, the sunset, they noticed it wasn't happening in an instant, that, the transition for thing to come is "time", and that is an objective reality. They see as "human named, so it is not real", which is not true, human named things that are observed and objectively real, humans have not made time, they observed time and its effect, and to express it, they invented the word "time", not because time does not exist, otherwise, they invented the word to abstract from an objective reality of the nature that things have non-instant transitions.

All those things are objective and existent. Saying that is not is alienation...

We have objectively something for our body to exist and operate, some call it a soul, others call it other things, but we can't say that we are "emptiness" or whatever, it is objective reality that we are alive and texting each other on Telegram.

That is why i abandoned Hinduism and Buddhism completely. And it is not by lack of knowledge or study...

Once again, you have the right of any faith you want to follow...

Just saying that even these other "not related to God" things of those religions was disappointment to me...

The more i have read their concepts, the more i noticed it makes no sense.

It is interpretations of the Śūnyatā, which is the concept of "emptiness" from the Hindu and derived religions (Buddhism and Jainism)...

The problem is that all these concepts are ambiguous, i also though about the idea of "all things are vain", but that is something you make out of it, but not something that is on it already. And that is one of the problems i have with such ambiguous concepts.

As for anything ambiguous, you can make anything out of it and add truth to it, just like you can on any poesy.

"śūnyatā refers to the tenet that "all things are empty of intrinsic existence and nature (svabhava)", but may also refer to the Buddha-nature teachings and primordial or empty awareness"

Not from the talk: That sounds wise when you put yourself in a position below this and as "what i'm being taught is the teaching of wisdom". But when you put yourself above it and read it, you think "who said so?", things are not empty of intrinsic existence, why is that? It makes no sense, it was, sorry the words, taken from the butt. It is just "said so", and it is meaningless. This phrase is meaningless.

The key concept is more of a state of being, which, is also something i dislike.

The "Saṃyutta Nikāya", which is part of the Pali Canon, which is the official source of the main Buddhism, consider even: "cognition is like "a magical illusion" (māyā)". However, cognition is not an illusion, it is the tool of Wisdom and knowledge.

The emptiness as a practice is something that in my opinion kills the joyful fire of our soul, the inner kid. That is why you won't ever see a Buddhist that jumps, dance, sing, make stupid rhymes, does backflip and play joyfully like kids... Their philosophy of emptiness and their silent nature makes them stuck on that single state of being. But the true Lotus blossoming comes with the same energy of a kid, that would spark silver rays of light over the Lotus.

However, i agree partially with the sense, like Buddha himself said:

"Buddha replied, "In so far as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ānanda, that the world is empty".

This seems to be pointing the vanity of the world. However, i don't think that is totally empty. Because it is not just about the things of the self. The world is a reality we live in, regardless of the vanities of the world, it affects us, and consequently affects our souls. The soap-opera of life mess with out conscience and our emotions, and it is a rich history full of lights and jewels that you are going to carry with your soul to the other life.

The practice of emptiness in meditation normally is to live purely on such state, and simple neglect the world, regardless of said vanity.

And some texts points things like the idea of "themeless" and "stress the importance of the impermanence of mental states and the absence of a self". However, normally, in my meditations, it is the otherwise, it is pretty thematic, filling my mind and an extreme awareness of my self. My own self is one of the main cores of my meditations, as the biggest focus is my own understanding, self-understanding... And by the construction that such meditations i have, it creates more constancy, even on the impermanence of mental states, and some mental states does becomes permanent, even if on a fraction. Like, in my last LSD trip, my faith was renewed, i though i had a bigger faith than i had, until God showed me i was still lacking faith about his presence and return, and he assured me that, and now, i have a permanent mental state of faith.

"Ekottara Āgama describes the body with different metaphors: "a ball of snow", "a heap of dirt", "a mirage", "an illusion" (māyā), or "an empty fist used to fool a child". In a similar vein, the Mūla-Sarvāstivādin Māyājāla Sūtra, gives two sets of metaphors for each of the sensory consciousnesses to illustrate their vain, illusory character."

However, by time, i noticed that the body is an important piece for the mysteries of existence, and shouldn't be seem as an illusion. Lot of religions have this thing of "killing the ego" or not caring about the body stuff. However, Our body is real, it is not a mirage, neither an illusion, our self is real (i know Buddhist doesn't exactly say it is not real, but to abstain of it, which i disagree), it exists, if it didn't exist, you wouldn't be trying to absent from it, as you can't absent from something non-existent. Our body is like a kid that asks things to the conscience through the wordily senses, and as a "good father of your body", you should take care of him and listen to him, and not put yourself in an state of emptiness and ignore such "words from the body" as an excuse that these are illusions.

The sensory consciousnesses is also not vain neither illusory, it is just a window to the real and objective material reality. Most of the concepts preached by Buddhists, either you agree or not, either is from Buddha or not, seems to take in consideration an state of meditative emptiness, which seems to be a way to flee from the the world. We should abstain from worldly activities, but the world is real, it is not an illusion, neither Maya, neither a mirage, neither a foolishness, it have something on it, it was not sprouted out of nothing.

But that is the point, i think nothing is meaningless! I think everything have a meaning, even the physical world. Even the vanity...

As, from Logos / Logic, everything was made. So, if you get to the root of the causes, there is a meaning for every single thing, every leaf of grass, every cloud on the sky. Pay attention to everything and ignore nothing, don't put yourself in emptiness, or you are going to lose important information that is passing in front of your eyes pretending to be mere vanity of the world.

Just like today, i'm seeing lot of things related to Italy and France, and i think [personal] in Italy, or it is the [personal] was English and moved to Italy after a failed romance with a Parisian. Today my dog was taking long to smell some pee spot and i was asking him to "come on", and he took longer, and i was wanting to cross the street and my other dog is annoying and was hurried, the moment he came was the exactly moment a car pushing a food truck appeared. It all sounds like stupid empty things of the world. But, the food truck had the Italy flag stamped on it, and i had to wait all that time for the exact moment of a single car to appear in front of me with that "message".

If you ignore the world, the worldly senses, and treat all that with mere illusion, you are going to lose information of numerous whole stuff, even basic things like, the emptiness of playing Doom have a meaning. When we were playing BF, i could consider that empty, a vanity and devoid of anything useful, if i were to put myself on a "empty concept" of buddhism, and see everything in the world as empty, because, it doesn't not pertain to a self, i wouldn't perceive that in fact that game was just a reflection of [a personal experience that i had].

Most of these religions is filled with a constant chase to fulfillment, which never ends, either attaining degrees of enlightenment, or conscience states, or this or that. I noticed some people that are very lay of spirituality found a fulfillment without all that by their simple nature and purity. And then, when i accepted only Christianity, and then i saw the Truth, which is simple, without all these ambiguous thing, i felt fulfilled. Without all the interpretations of such things, ambiguities, do this or that to reach enlightenment, awakening and all those concepts... I just noticed that i should have faith in God and know he exists, and i would notice him, and i did! And it is not a "master skill" i have, even lay people that follows this doctrine end up having visions and voices from God. My friend never used to hear voices, he used to go to parties and stuff, he said he "noticed i [himself] was with the devil", and he knows about other religions, and Buddhism, and he practiced it too, and even when he was not in parties, he was trying to "find a truth" and never finding, it is just confusion. The moment he surrendered to God in a Christian way, he felt fulfilled and began to have visions and messages of God and the truth became clear. Lot of Buddhism sects, you may say they aren't real Buddhism and not preaching the truth, but, dismay the lay, they have the concept of:

"The Buddhist notion of householder is often contrasted with that of wandering ascetics (Pali: Pāḷi: samaṇa; Sanskrit: śramaṇa) and monastics (bhikkhu and bhikkhuni), who would not live (for extended periods) in a normal house and who would pursue freedom from attachments to houses and families."

While i see no problem in being attached to my house and mainly my family. I think it is important to be attached to your family.

But i noticed that the lay sometimes knows the truth mere by their simplicity, while lot of Buddhists monks couldn't even perceive the grace a lay person have in his house with his family and dogs. They have fled from their houses and family to live in monastery, and, that, imo, sorry if offensive, is stupid. All in a false sense from the belief that this path brings to awakening, even if nothing of that is needed. Like they are on a nobler path and on a higher degree from the lay, because, they found the "concepts of truth", which is all ambiguous. You can find "awakening" without all that, even a lay can find.

There is lot of testimony of that, from former Buddhists and other religions, they were all trying to find this "truth", this "emptiness", this and that, and always on a great work for it, and the moment they surrendered to God, the truth was simpler, super simple. God doesn't hide from us and don't need special spiritual trick, meditation techniques, emptiness, this or that, worldly senses or whatever, as God is always with us constantly trying to talk with us, and all these "hard to understand mysteries" of Buddhism and other religions are just a big state of confusion filled with ambiguity. And ambiguity can have any form of truth that you make out of it, you can "add truth" on it. That is why in Buddhism, there is not a single Buddhist that believe on a concrete "same thing", and they have their own vision of everything, they see these poetics ambiguous concepts, and can't understand, and when they "make something out of it" by adding Truth on it, they say "i had a revelation of truth" and conclude they interpreted it, but it had nothing on it to begin, the truth was added by you, but there was no truth on it to begin, only ambiguity and such logic can have truth added to it as simple making it out of it.

I agree, but i also began to study other religions because at first i was also disappointed with traditional Christianity, but i noticed it was noobness of me, and now i see why they are "so annoying", because no other religion teaches right and the way it should be. You can't find the same paths and patterns of religious practice that there is in Christianity in any other religion.

I noticed all the other religions are a lie, or fooled, or outdated, that Jesus came and showed the truth that was missing in all those religions, and people have not accepted, they though there was some "universal religious doctrine" in the mix of other religions. But it is all a lie.

I don't think it is a waste tough, as i had to go all that way to find the truth of Christianity.

There is a pattern in all religions, but the end result of these is all confusing, or led to strange entities and worship of nature (not Buddhism in this case, which is something i respect in Buddhism).

Some religions attribute godliness to wordily things. But religions like Buddhism attribute salvation in fleeing from the world, suffering and all forms of attachment, some even on the extent to avoid attachment from their own family... Let's say you agree with the idea of "at least the family attachment", so consider this, it is worth to suffer for certain attachments, and this is not preached in Buddhism.

Buddhism preach "the doctrine of "non-self" – that no unchanging, permanent self or essence can be found in any phenomenon."

That is also not true, our conscience is permanent, and if they are talking about worldly phenomenon, as there is patterns even on the worldly things that repeats permanently. However, the concept of Anatta is of non-self even on yourself. That does not mean deny the existence of self. However, even in such concepts i think it is wrong.

"the Suttas apply the doctrine to deny self of any person, treating conceit to be evident in any assertion of "this is mine, this I am, this is myself" (etam mamam eso 'ham asmi, eso me atta ti)", which is an illusion, certain things are mine, even if on a virtual reality, i'm Sophia, and this is myself.

Because, they want to live in an illusion to ignore the reality of who they are, so they can focus on the 'non-self' to flee Dukkha (suffering). Even knowing that there is a self, they treat like it doesn't, so they avoid Dukkha.

I could go on and on, but i would have to go through everything i learned and got from Buddhism and etc...

However, i understand what you mean, and the extraction of good values of everything, and that is not wrong, so, don't take me wrong.

And i agree with the picture with that text you showed me.

But we can agree with lot things, and i won't say bad about ALL the Buddhism ideas. It is just that the overall practice is, in my view, an ambiguous confusion, that can be solved in a very simple way and without all these practices and concepts. Even a lay "householder" can reach such fulfillment without any of such concepts and practice, and it is ironic to see so much people on such "path to awakening" of Buddhism and a simple lay person found it without thinking too much.

As soon as i noticed it, i found a fulfillment, as God was warning me all that time that the path is simple and without any fancy techniques and concepts...

The moment i stopped caring about all those elaborated rhetoric and focused on a Christian pathway of life and said "fuck all of that". My life got simpler, no mysteries, no fancy anything, and i'm feeling at peace, better and i don't think i have less wisdom than before.

PAGE 2:

https://telegra.ph/Why-do-i-dislike-Buddhism-2-08-26