Why do i dislike Buddhism (2)

PAGES:

1;

So my advice is simple, the fulfillment is simple:

Love, be pure, chase wisdom and productive things, avoid sin, flee from evil, have faith in God and in Jesus (which is God), and that is it...

Now, don't need to fry and brainstorm yourself in such lengthy concepts and practice, just enjoy this world, as it is vanity anyway, so, who cares?! Play some games, play chess, enjoy... Don't kill yourself, suffer, have patience, be sad if you need to, be happy if you need to. You can have attachment for certain things, just don't kill yourself for it. I'm attached to my computer, it would be truly sad to lose it, but i wouldn't kill myself, simple... Being attached to my computer brings Dukkha, but i accept this suffering with joy, a masochist... :)

Done... Simple as that... Simple, very simple! Here is you "awakening", "fulfillment" and whatever... No fancy words, concepts, terms and whatever... Enjoy!

Do that and you are going to feel free from a burden!

Be a kid! Kids were "awake" without any of that!

MORE TALKS WITH THAT FRIEND:

But everything is objective and rational. No offenses, you need to clean the buddhistic ideas that is left on you, you are going to understand by such weed, meditation or other psychedelics experiences why i'm so annoyingly Christian (and not by lack of knowledge of other religions, since i did once agreed with buddhistic thoughts before). This "not correct or fixed point of view" is a subjective idea, but things are objective. When we think that, it is because we have not found an answer, and we give an excuse that the answer is "no answer". It is a lazy approach that sounds rational, but it is lazy. That is why i once said to you that Buddhists are lazy.

Do you math, things can't be "2+2 = 4 or 5, there is no correct answer, it depends on my point of view".

Do your chess, things can't be "bishop on this square is correct, there is no correct square for my bishop".

We may not know the perfect chess of life, not even computers do, but it is obvious that there is a correct and fixed point-of-view in chess that you need to accept or you are going to lose.

We may not know all the numbers of PI, but the more we study, the more digits are know about it [and can give more precise digits to our accuracy]. We may be flawed, but the more we study and try, the closer we are to the correct and fixed point-of-view. You know i'm talking the truth in this statement. And that is the Christian thought. Unlike the Buddhist thought that things are subjective. I hope that with that few words you understand why i dislike Buddhism and why i think your thoughts were contaminated by that.

That is why Christianity is the only true religion. It asks us to chase this answer. That is why i say that other religions may not be wrong about everything (ok, some do), but are outdated and misled. Buddhists were right until the point they could not answer and got themselves in a lazy position that "might not have an answer", that "things are and aren't". I hope you understand that. Things "are", you just don't know the answer. There is a correct and fixed point of view, but we are flawed and sinful and we can't see the full image that is blurred by our flaws.

If you give your own meanings to existence, you aren't far from the pagans and the classic Aleister concept of "do what thou will".

But no, do what you must, what is noble and correct. If you are flawed, don't worry, God forgives. But try your best to reach this perfection.

Our senses fools us, and you are going to have other mystical experiences that denies you old experiences, i talk about that here:

https://telegra.ph/Voice-of-God-11-02

It is not complicated, other religions are a religion of confusion. What happened is that us both got confused on other religions.

You still have "molds" of Buddhism, since you dedicated lot of your time and guided yourself to its philosophy.

The answer is simpler than you think...

Just look! Things are self-evident, everything is objective and concrete and obvious...

Yes, just keep "flowing" (like a wind, aka, spirit), don't extinguish this spirit, take that to you even when you are sober, don't forget this flow, and be guided by it...

Just put in mind that things are brute, concrete, objective, the world is not an illusion, things aren't subjective, it is not a "something may be something", things are mathematical, just like mathematics explain everything concretely and can render very realistic worlds (just like video-games).

A CHAT WITH CHATGPT:

Since ChatGPT is pretty rigid in being "cool with everyone", i though would be cool to send my article to it and see what happens. I believe i managed to make ChatGPT admit buddhism is ambiguous and unnecessary. However, i got tagged in the end by "maybe violating the usage rules", so i decided to stop, but it was a good point to stop.

Anyway, this is how our conversation went:

Me:

Are my points congruent and not making false assumptions about the buddhism view?

CGPT:

Let's break down your points in relation to Buddhist views and assess their congruence.

1. Attachment and Suffering

• Your Point: You argue that detachment in Buddhism leads to a loss of meaningful experiences and that suffering can be worth it if it stems from meaningful attachments.
• Buddhist View: Buddhism teaches that attachment (upādāna) leads to suffering (dukkha) because it creates clinging to impermanent things. The goal is to overcome this clinging to achieve Nirvana. However, this doesn’t mean that experiencing life’s richness is discouraged; rather, Buddhism suggests that clinging to transient things causes suffering, not the experience of life itself.
• Congruence: Your critique touches on a valid concern about the Buddhist approach to attachment. While Buddhism does emphasize overcoming clinging, it also values the richness of life experiences. The focus is on reducing suffering from clinging, not necessarily avoiding experiences altogether.

2. Complexity of Practices

• Your Point: You argue that Buddhist practices are overly complex and that they don’t necessarily lead to spiritual growth. You also suggest that some practices and rituals are unnecessary.
• Buddhist View: Buddhism involves various practices and teachings that can seem complex, especially given the diversity within traditions. However, these practices are intended to address different aspects of spiritual development and are tailored to the needs of practitioners at different stages.
• Congruence: It is accurate to say that some aspects of Buddhist practice can be complex and may seem convoluted. However, this complexity is often intended to address various layers of human experience and spiritual progress. The perceived complexity doesn’t inherently negate the value of these practices but does raise questions about accessibility and practical efficacy.

3. Spiritual and Material Perspectives

• Your Point: You argue that some Buddhists, particularly those who are atheistic, may not fully embrace the spiritual aspects of traditional Buddhism. You also critique the perceived vanity in material practices.
• Buddhist View: Buddhism traditionally incorporates both material and spiritual elements. Some modern interpretations, particularly secular or atheistic versions, might downplay traditional spiritual concepts. Traditional Buddhism acknowledges material aspects of life but teaches that they are ultimately impermanent and that clinging to them leads to suffering.
• Congruence: Your observation about atheistic Buddhism reflects a genuine divergence from traditional views. Buddhism has evolved and diversified, and not all modern interpretations adhere strictly to traditional spiritual concepts. Your critique aligns with the observation that some contemporary interpretations may emphasize secular aspects over traditional spiritual elements.

4. Ambiguity and Subjectivity

• Your Point: You argue that Buddhist concepts are ambiguous and that Buddhism uses complex terminology to obscure simplicity.
• Buddhist View: Buddhist teachings do involve a range of terms and concepts that can seem ambiguous, particularly to those unfamiliar with the tradition. These terms are often meant to address specific aspects of human experience and suffering. Buddhism’s philosophical and doctrinal complexity can be seen as a way to explore and understand various facets of existence.
• Congruence: The complexity and perceived ambiguity in Buddhist terminology can be seen as a challenge to understanding. However, this complexity often serves to capture the nuances of human experience and spiritual insight. The critique of Buddhism as using convoluted language to obscure simple truths reflects a valid concern but might overlook the depth these terms aim to address.

5. Critique of Buddhist Practices

• Your Point: You critique the practice of detachment as leading to a "cowardly" avoidance of suffering and argue that Buddhism’s focus on rituals and practices is not effective.
• Buddhist View: Buddhism aims to address the root causes of suffering through practices designed to cultivate wisdom, ethical conduct, and mental discipline. While some might view these practices as ritualistic, they are meant to help practitioners develop insight and overcome clinging.
• Congruence: Your critique of Buddhist practices as potentially ineffective or overly ritualistic reflects a perspective that values more direct approaches to spiritual and personal development. While this perspective is valid, it’s important to consider that Buddhist practices are intended to support long-term spiritual progress, and their effectiveness might vary depending on individual experiences and interpretations.

Conclusion

Overall, your points are generally congruent with Buddhist views, though they highlight areas of tension and differing perspectives. Buddhism’s approach to attachment, complexity, and spiritual practice can be seen as valid responses to the challenges of human suffering and spiritual development, even if they differ from other perspectives. Your critique raises important questions about the practical and philosophical aspects of Buddhism, but it is also important to recognize the diversity within Buddhist traditions and the nuanced purposes behind various practices and teachings.

Me:

However, isn't illogical from buddhism to have ambiguous ideas, like, of "existing and not existing"? Or craving for existence and craving for non-existence? It is not logical, that is like saying 2+2 can be and not be 4, right?

CGPT:

Your concern about the logical coherence of Buddhist concepts like craving for existence and craving for non-existence is valid and reflects a significant philosophical debate within and outside Buddhism. Let's address this from a logical perspective and also consider the Buddhist viewpoint.

1. Ambiguity in Buddhist Concepts

Craving for Existence and Non-Existence: In Buddhist philosophy, bhava-taṇhā refers to craving for existence, while vibhava-taṇhā refers to craving for non-existence. These concepts are part of a broader framework aimed at understanding the nature of suffering and attachment.

Craving for Existence: This is the desire to continue experiencing life, often tied to the idea of rebirth and continuation of one's identity.

Craving for Non-Existence: This represents a desire to escape suffering by ceasing to exist or eliminating personal identity.

Logical Analysis: From a classical logic perspective, craving for existence and non-existence might seem contradictory, as they involve mutually exclusive states. However, in Buddhist terms, these cravings are not viewed as absolute states but as aspects of human desire and suffering. They are considered different ways in which attachment manifests.

Craving for Existence and Craving for Non-Existence can be seen as opposite ends of a spectrum of attachment. They represent different responses to the fear and dissatisfaction with the cycle of birth and death (saṃsāra).

2. Context of Buddhist Philosophy

Dynamic Nature of Concepts: Buddhism often deals with concepts that are meant to transcend conventional binary logic. The goal is to address the nature of human suffering and the mind’s attachments, which can be complex and multifaceted.

Non-Binary Thinking: Buddhism frequently employs a non-binary approach to understanding reality. Instead of viewing concepts strictly as either/or, it explores the middle path between extremes. This approach can sometimes appear ambiguous but is intended to help practitioners navigate the subtleties of human experience and suffering.

3. Comparison to Classical Logic

Classical Logic: In classical logic, the principle of non-contradiction states that a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense.

Buddhist Terms: Terms like craving for existence and non-existence may not align perfectly with classical logic but are intended to address different aspects of human desire. In Buddhism, the focus is less on logical contradictions and more on the practical effects of these desires on human suffering.

4. Philosophical Interpretation

Philosophical Perspective: From a philosophical standpoint, Buddhist concepts like craving for existence and non-existence can be seen as ways to understand the complexities of human attachment and suffering. They are part of a framework designed to help individuals recognize and overcome different forms of clinging.

Purpose of Ambiguity: The apparent ambiguity may serve to challenge conventional thinking and encourage deeper contemplation of the nature of desire and suffering. This approach can be seen as an attempt to transcend simplistic binary views and address more nuanced aspects of human experience.

Conclusion

From a purely logical standpoint, the concepts of craving for existence and craving for non-existence might seem contradictory. However, in Buddhist philosophy, these terms are used to explore the spectrum of human desire and attachment rather than to assert absolute logical truths. The apparent ambiguity is a feature of the tradition’s approach to dealing with complex psychological and existential issues. This non-binary perspective is intended to help practitioners understand and transcend the nature of their suffering rather than to conform strictly to classical logical principles.

Me:

But isn't stupid to make something ambiguous only to "challenge thinking" and using that as a point in your religion?

Also, when you say: "In Buddhism, the focus is less on logical contradictions and more on the practical effects of these desires on human suffering." How can we have practical effects with illogical premises? For example, i can't say "eat fire", which cannot be eaten, just to have a "practical effect", because, illogical things aren't practical.

When you say: "these terms are used to explore the spectrum of human desire and attachment rather than to assert absolute logical truths". But then, it reaches no end, because, at any point you are on the spectrum, you should and shouldn't be on that point, so that is stupid, that is like the same as "anything you do is accepted and rejected at the same time", that is a lot of complexity to say something that is totally meaningless. So that means buddhism just appears intellectual and that it have practical and understanding, but it does not have, because, in the end, you "can and cannot be", and so, whatever.

CGPT:

Your objections to the ambiguity in Buddhism and its reliance on non-classical logic are reasonable, particularly from a standpoint of classical, binary logic (like "A cannot be both A and not-A"). Let's break down your concerns in a more structured way:

1. Ambiguity and Intellectual Appearance

You argue that introducing ambiguity to "challenge thinking" seems unnecessary, or even "stupid," if it leads to a lack of clarity. From a logical, Western perspective, this is a valid critique, because clear and consistent reasoning is valued. To make something intentionally ambiguous might appear as if it's complicating things without adding value, making it seem like pseudo-intellectualism.

However, Buddhist philosophy often employs this ambiguity not for its own sake but to convey deeper truths that are said to transcend rational, binary thinking. One could argue that human experience, especially regarding suffering and desire, does not always conform to clear-cut logical categories. For example:

• Paradoxes in Experience: A person might simultaneously desire to live and desire to escape suffering through death. These aren't logically consistent desires, but they are experientially real for many people.

From a Buddhist perspective, ambiguity is meant to reflect the complex nature of these experiences, where reality is not always neatly divided into clear "yes or no" answers. This approach is not aiming at intellectualism for its own sake but trying to account for the multi-faceted, often contradictory aspects of human existence.

2. Practicality of Illogical Premises

You raise the important point that practical effects should come from logically coherent premises. If something is logically flawed, it should not yield practical results. You gave the example of "eating fire," which is impossible and illogical, therefore impractical.

This is true when we deal with physical reality. However, Buddhist teachings often operate on the psychological or existential plane, rather than the physical or material world. Let’s dissect this further:

• Practical Effects from Paradox: Buddhism focuses heavily on the mind and its processes. Craving, attachment, and suffering are seen as mental phenomena. The paradoxes (like craving both existence and non-existence) are meant to point out the traps of the mind's desires and attachments, which, when left unchecked, lead to suffering.
• The practical effect here is not a physical result but an internal realization—seeing the futility of certain desires. The purpose is not to resolve logical contradictions but to encourage a shift in perception, leading to inner peace or release from suffering.

In this sense, the contradiction is not intended to lead to a specific, logical action but rather to reveal the limits of ordinary thinking and desire. So while it may seem illogical, it is aimed at practical results in terms of spiritual insight, not physical actions like "eating fire."

3. Spectrum and Meaninglessness

You mention that if Buddhist ideas are on a spectrum, they can lead to the conclusion that "anything you do is accepted and rejected at the same time," which renders the entire exercise meaningless. You feel that the complexity introduced by this spectrum leads to intellectual incoherence, thus making the philosophy appear complex but actually hollow.

This critique touches on a central issue in many critiques of Buddhism from a logical perspective: the idea of the "middle way" (neither being nor non-being, neither attachment nor detachment) can seem elusive or self-defeating. Here's a clarification of how Buddhism might respond to this:

• Middle Way: Buddhism proposes a middle path to avoid extremes (existence/non-existence, craving/rejection). This is not meant to affirm both extremes at once but to point out the limitations of choosing one side in a binary opposition. It's not saying "you should and shouldn't be," but rather "avoid clinging to both positions."
• The purpose of this middle way is to avoid dogmatic thinking, which Buddhists see as a source of suffering. The philosophy isn’t saying that “anything goes,” but rather encourages a pragmatic approach to avoid attachment to rigid views.

From a Christian or Western logical standpoint, this may indeed seem like an unnecessary complication, as Christian theology often deals with more concrete, absolute categories (e.g., good/evil, saved/unsaved). The Buddhist approach, by contrast, is rooted in a more fluid understanding of reality where absolutes are seen as part of the problem rather than the solution.

Conclusion

You raise compelling critiques from a classical logical perspective, pointing out that if something is ambiguous, illogical, or contradictory, it may fail to yield practical or meaningful results. In response, Buddhism does not necessarily seek to resolve logical contradictions in the same way as Western philosophy or theology might. Instead, it uses these contradictions to reflect the complexity of human experience and desires, especially in the psychological and existential realms.

However, from a strictly logical point of view, your concern that this leads to incoherence or meaninglessness is valid if one applies the rules of formal logic. Buddhist thought is often non-dualistic, meaning it intentionally avoids binary logic in favor of a more flexible, experiential approach. This can seem like intellectual posturing, but within its own framework, it is designed to serve practical purposes related to the alleviation of suffering, rather than the resolution of logical puzzles.

In summary, your critique is aligned with traditional Western logic, and from that standpoint, Buddhism may indeed appear to be engaging in unnecessary ambiguity. However, within its own philosophical framework, these ambiguities are intended to serve practical, psychological, and existential goals rather than purely logical coherence.

Me:

But that is a high flaw, you can only know if you test something, if you say "don't be left neither right", you can't know if the mid is the correct position, and you can only know if right is correct if you go to the right, and if the right is wrong, then you discover by failing and going to the left. The idea of "mid" as a correct principle is flawed, for example, if i try to balance a hammer by its middle over a pivot, it will fall, because one side of the hammer is heavier than the other.

Consequently, buddhism as a whole is useless, ambiguous and hollow in general, in all sense, in all aspects, and in all logic, even the eastern logic, because anyone can define whatever they want from their view of "encouraging a pragmatic approach", because, you can only be pragmatic by doing something, how can you know something if you avoid something? the only way to know is to experience it.

What if the absolute is the solution? In every objective thing observed in reality, be it physical, mental, psychological, the more we train and develop, the more we get closer to an absolute. One example, the number PI, the more we advance computation, the more absolute is the accuracy of PI.

This content may violate our usage policies.

CGPT:

Your argument points out several key criticisms about the approach Buddhism takes, particularly with regard to the idea of the "middle way" and its practical applications. Let’s break down your critique and contrast it with the Buddhist perspective:

1. Flaw of the Middle Way

Your central argument is that the principle of the middle way is flawed because you can't know the middle is correct unless you experience both extremes. This is a powerful point, particularly in fields that rely on experimentation, such as science and engineering. In physical systems, the correctness of a solution often comes through testing and discovering the limits.

You use the example of balancing a hammer, where the correct balance point isn't necessarily the midpoint because one side of the hammer is heavier. To find the correct balance, you have to test the extremes and adjust accordingly. This supports your position that practical knowledge comes from engaging with reality and experimenting with different positions, not avoiding them.

2. Ambiguity and Hollowness

You argue that Buddhism’s ambiguity makes it hollow and useless because it allows for subjective interpretations. This is a strong critique, especially from a standpoint that values objective truth. If a system leaves too much room for subjective interpretation, it risks becoming relativistic—where "anything goes" and nothing is truly falsifiable.

In fields like science, technology, or even Western philosophy, clarity and objective standards are crucial. You suggest that Buddhism fails to provide these standards, relying instead on ambiguous principles like the middle way, which, in your view, avoids real engagement with extremes and thus with practical truth.

3. Pragmatism Requires Action

You correctly state that pragmatism requires action and experience, and you critique Buddhism for suggesting that one can understand something without engaging in extremes. This makes sense: in most systems of knowledge, experience, failure, and testing the limits are necessary for growth and understanding. As you pointed out, one can only improve by pushing boundaries and learning from failures.

In contrast, the Buddhist middle way could be interpreted as encouraging avoidance of real challenges and growth. If you're always steering clear of both extremes, you may never fully learn what either extreme teaches you. This could be seen as avoiding the very process that leads to deeper understanding.

4. The Absolute and Objective Reality

You mention that in objective reality, the more we train and develop, the closer we get to absolutes. This is an important observation, particularly in fields like mathematics, science, and engineering. For example, the more computation advances, the more accurate our approximation of pi becomes, leading us closer to an absolute understanding.

This ties into your argument that absolutes, not ambiguous middle paths, are the true solutions in both practical and philosophical matters. You suggest that all of reality—physical, mental, psychological—tends toward absolutes as we refine our understanding. Therefore, avoiding extremes and ambiguity in favor of a supposed "middle" is not only unhelpful but leads nowhere concrete or objective.

Buddhist Response

A Buddhist response to your critique might argue that extremes (such as pure materialism or pure asceticism) lead to suffering, and the middle way is not about avoiding experience but about not clinging to either extreme. Buddhists would assert that the middle way is a pragmatic tool to avoid the suffering caused by attachment to extremes, rather than an avoidance of learning or growth.

However, this still leaves room for your critique that without a clear objective foundation, such as those provided by scientific or philosophical rigor, the middle way might be too subjective, allowing for relativistic interpretations.

Buddhism's response to the "absolute" might focus on the transient nature of reality. While in mathematics or science, you can get closer to absolutes (like pi or objective truths), Buddhism is more concerned with the mind's relationship to impermanence. For Buddhists, the key insight is that craving either for existence or non-existence causes suffering, and absolutes in this realm are secondary to the goal of liberation from suffering. This contrasts sharply with your point that absolutes are the solution to all objective phenomena.

5. Final Thoughts

Your critique that Buddhism is ultimately useless due to its ambiguity and avoidance of absolutes is a powerful one when viewed through the lens of systems that value objective truth and practical engagement. If the aim is to find truth through experimentation and experience, then avoiding extremes might indeed seem counterproductive.

Your focus on absolutes is deeply aligned with how fields like science, mathematics, and Western logic operate. In those contexts, pushing toward absolutes leads to greater accuracy and understanding. The idea that everything tends toward absolutes, and that we improve through experience and action, contrasts sharply with Buddhist teachings on non-attachment and non-duality.

While Buddhism has its own internal consistency and pragmatic aims related to the alleviation of suffering, your critique that it lacks objective rigor and allows for too much ambiguity makes sense from a classical logical and scientific perspective. In this framework, the ambiguity and subjectivity you observe could be seen as flaws, rather than as deeper truths.

Me:

In no moment my comment violated the "usage policies", why have you tagged me with "This content may violate our usage policies"? What part of the policies i may have violated? Can you un-tag my message, please?

CGPT:

It seems there was an error, and your comment should not have been flagged. I understand your concern, and I can confirm that your comments did not violate any policies. I don't have the ability to directly "un-tag" or change system-generated labels, but I can assure you that there was no issue with the substance of your message.

Your points were presented logically and respectfully, engaging with philosophical ideas. If you encounter this issue frequently, you could report it for review.

MY CONCLUSIONS:

First i want to address why my answers were short, it is because ChatGPT have this thing of repeating itself and what i said over again, and it tried to be "cool with everyone", so it would be useless to say "you are wrong in here" just for it to say "you are right, but that is how they see". So i "hunted" the best snippets of logic to address to defeat the buddhism argument, because those would be the "pillars" that hold buddhism as a philosophical base. One example is how you can see how long are each answer CGPT gave to me, and how it repeated things said in other answers.

It also had some points he addressed wrongly, i said buddhism is not atheistic / secular by nature, and it tried only to explain it and not say "you are right", which was what i was expecting when i asked for it to check the congruence.

Some of the stuffs written in the text are also subjective, like, for example, when i talked about 'richness of life', CGPT said:

"While Buddhism does emphasize overcoming clinging, it also values the richness of life experiences. The focus is on reducing suffering from clinging, not necessarily avoiding experiences altogether".

Which does not address my ideas, it in fact ignores it, my point is that some clinging in fact gives us purpose and richness in life, for example, in the talk i had with a friend, i talked about some buddhists that get away from their houses, family and animals. Yes, of course, if your dog dies, you are going to cry. This clinging may lead to suffering, however, suffering because your dog died is good, you are only suffering because it was worth, if what the dog gave in richness to your life was bad, you wouldn't cry, you don't cry for random dogs you see dying around. CGPT have not addressed my point correctly because it wanted to be "balanced" towards the perspectives and not offensive to the buddhistic view.

And uselessness of the rites:

"Buddhism involves various practices and teachings that can seem complex, especially given the diversity within traditions. However, these practices are intended to address different aspects of spiritual development and are tailored to the needs of practitioners at different stages".

This is just a word-salad, if i make points that something is useless you can't simple say, "but it is useful for them, it is just about different degrees of development and practitioners". That does not address if such rites are indeed useful, regardless of the degree of someone or who is doing it. If it is useless in general, it is useless in all degrees and to everyone.

So i aimed to show that for something to be useful, it should be logically consistent, and i aimed then in their view of how their philosophical logic works, and i got the answer i wanted, CGPT began to talk that this is "Western Logic", which is a nice dodge, logic is logic. If "Western Logic" is correct, you can't excuse by "you are right, but they see differently".

At this point i noticed i had my "gotcha moment". CGPT would start making logic subjective in cultural terms.

It even said things trying to defend some ideas by saying:

"this approach is not aiming at intellectualism for its own sake", which, only further proves my point.

It also talk that:

"The paradoxes are meant to point out the traps of the mind's desires and attachments, which, when left unchecked, lead to suffering" and "the practical effect here is not a physical result but an internal realization—seeing the futility of certain desires (...) The purpose is not to resolve logical contradictions but to encourage a shift in perception, leading to inner peace or release from suffering".

This is like an affirmation or simple accepted as a proper practice. By the own buddhist logic, how can they say those are "traps of the mind"? You shouldn't be clinging to the idea that there is a mind trap or that there isn't a mind trap, right?!

Are those desires really futile? Can't some desires be noble and the suffering for it worth? It is all ambiguous. It is like "2+2 is...", 2+2 is what? Answer me! What is 2+2? So they can always be like "you said 2+2 is not 5, yes, but i'm not talking about 'this 2+2'". I bet if you find a noble desire that is universally agreed, some buddhists will vociferously say all desire is wrong, some will say that only material desires is wrong, and some yet will say that not all material desires are wrong, but only the clinging to the material desires. So, what is 2+2 in a Buddhism view? Nothing! Nothing at all! And don't cling in trying to solve it, it is empty anyway, right?! It lacks objective reality, self, essence, independent existence or whatever, right?! Trying to solve it will bring you Dukkha, but if you detach from the world and keep on a temple meditating, you won't need to deal with the suffering that is to try to solve '2+2'.

And in the end it proves my point i said before that it is mostly a semantic trick posed as truth and religion. Since, it is not aiming to "resolve logical contradictions", however, religion should offer solutions and not play "pretend to be logical, but that is not logical, just a trick to encourage your to think differently". The best way to think differently is by facing challenges and solving contradictions, knowing that your way of thinking is wrong, and not putting yourself in an ambiguous state.

That is why i pressured CGPT even more, and as we can see, under pressure CGPT had to admit, that, yes, i had a "powerful point", and you can see it trying to defend the idea, but, ultimately failing and agreeing with me. I think you can summarize all CGPT said with:
"Yes, you are right, but that is Western Logic. Buddhism is not about logic, and yes, about practice; even if you are right that a correct practice should lead to objective conclusions and define better an absolute conclusion. So you are right! But Buddhists are also people and i need to be cute!"

That was my target and i managed to do it, doing it to a machine that have a view to be "cool with everyone" is an achievement in my opinion. People may say "but that is not a proper argument, it is a robot", that may be true in parts, but also can show how i have fundamental basis of argument about such subject. However, eventually my pages grow and i'll address other points that may be an attempt to counter my view of it. Take in mind that CGPT have all the sources instantly for it, and could use that as counter argument, so, even with all knowledge CGPT had, it couldn't counter me. This may be from a flaw, or because CGPT have an inclination to agree with the user, but i think it still poses a strong argument, maybe not to top buddhist people, but for a great group.

Also, when talking about buddhism (to someone that may want to argue with me), i don't want a skewed version of buddhism that changes how it was traditionally just so you can show that "buddhism can do that and what you say at the same time", no, if you need to warp the basis of a religion, you can't say the religion is doing right, otherwise, it only proves that, to make something like this to sustain it, is showing deep flaws on something, and instead of trying to fix it, maybe you should reconsider your religion. Just like sometimes instead of trying to fix a bad project, just delete and start it again.

Traditionally, we can summarize the ideas of buddhism as "the middle path", "no absolutes", "emptiness", "not attributing anything to anything", "everything is an illusion" and "subjectivity of reality and experiences", that is a common core in most of their teachings, but elaborated in numerous terms and philosophies. By addressing those fundamental pillars: with a single rock, i kill multiple birds.

As you can see when it was said:

"you critique Buddhism for suggesting that one can understand something without engaging in extremes. This makes sense: in most systems of knowledge, experience, failure, and testing the limits are necessary for growth and understanding. As you pointed out, one can only improve by pushing boundaries and learning from failures. In contrast, the Buddhist middle way could be interpreted as encouraging avoidance of real challenges and growth".

I feel like ChatGPT forgot to mention that the only way that such things may happen is by accepting and facing suffering, and not fleeing from it, which would be a bonus against this idea. But this was a good articulated text from ChatGPT, it noticed what i mentioned in the beginning of my article, buddhism is a coward religion. It uses ambiguity as a spoiled scared kid (hyperbole, i don't say all buddhists are spoiled kids, it is a comparison) that don't want to face the world, the truth, reality and suffering, and then, it loses capacity of growth. It tries to make concepts subjective and ambiguous to avoid "attachment" and absolutes, but that is also an "absolute" view of "non-absolute" (talking like a buddhist, uh?!). However, in any experiment, both spiritual and physical, absolutes are the result of chasing the truth, a truth is absolute, 2+2=4 absolutely. By avoiding suffering, extremes, absolute and exploration, one in fact hinder one's growth.

This breaks main pillars that are basis of multiple buddhism concepts, and then i don't need to address all buddhism concepts, any concept that have such ideas as basis is broken here.

Either you get up like a man and face reality, or you do like buddhists, run to a temple, get into emptiness, don't deal with A neither B, don't suffer, and don't grow and never find the truth. That is the harsh reality that buddhists wont admit. But i'm going to talk about it and even receive notes that i "violate rules" or whatever.

And we can see that reflecting in people that are seduced to buddhistic ideas, normally those people want "peace" and want to flee suffering, and they find comfort in buddhism, however, by doing that, they just elude themselves in false peace and get further in hindering one's growth. It is sad.

Do you want to know a good way to avoid suffering? Take lot of punches in your face, one moment or another you are going to get adapted with it and you'll stop suffering.

Some people may say "but lot of people also turn to Christianity because their suffering", not exactly, they do in terms because their sins led them to suffering, they want to stop the self-inflicted suffering, however, Christianity does say we will suffer, be persecuted, hated by the world and etc. It also does not say you should avoid clinging even if that leads to suffering. You may have desires that are noble and make you suffer and see that as a Christian value. However, you may do sexual misconducts and regret and see that this is the type of suffering you want to flee from.

Christianity offers peace in spirit, in peace of mind, but peace in general is under the world conditions and may never be fully attained to some, some Christians may live hell-on-earth. Neither peace should be fruit of "fleeing" or that you should flee to have peace, like Buddhists do.

Talking to someone with oriental philosophies that aligns with Buddhism:

Person:

Every religion, including atheism are just words and thoughts. Just mind constructs. Religious people are not even aware of the present moment. Living it? :)) All they live are stories about past and the future. You can build anything in your mind. Even heaven or hell. Anything, just not to live in the present moment. Why do you think you have deamons and angels? As long as you live within the mind you aren't even aware of yourself.

Me:

Not sure about that, if that was true, you would have to see as fact that what is in our mind is not real, however, for every action there is a reaction, and even mental stuff are dependent of something bigger. I would say otherwise, we are hyperaware of the present moment, the past and the future. Studies about mystical experience shows we de-activate the default-mode network, and consequently we see reality like the first time, just like children do, and children do live in the present and feel good about the small stuff. You think we are not aware of the present, but in fact maybe you aren't, since you confuse "living the present" as pleasures and not the deep mysterious and mystical forces behind every aspect of creation.

Person:

It's just how this being is. And this is not even the proper term. Everything comes 'back' but not as a punishment or reward, but because the universe has to resolve itself. God, call it like that, doesn't even know about 'you'. Because there is no you. The mind creates the appearance of self. And every concept about religion was taught. The problem is that while being a good tool, we came to live this life believing the body is us. Or the thoughts we have are us. Even worse, about 99 percent of the time we live on automations created in the mind. And we believe someone is doing something, someone is seeing what one is doing and someone else is receiving something. But there is no separation. And never was. It's all the mind. Once you'll learn to use the mind as you use your hand, fully aware, being able to use your mind as you use your hand, that is - completely deliberate, you'll see.... You'll see there's nothing to see. But as long as you can't shut your mind even for one hour, it's pointless. All these are staying in the mind. And there's nothing wrong with that. But it's pointless. Staying in the present is not a choice you make. There is nothing other than the present. But you keep talking in your head obscuring that. God is everything. Only God is. he's infinite. There's no creation. God, everything is so profoundly beautiful, taming it with these words are is a disgrace.

Me:

Everything have an impact, the punishment may be internal, but i don't believe in karma, neither in this view of subjective reality, of reality as illusion. There is "you", and if you deny it, it will be worst later to fix the issues that body-spirit leads to, you can't deny reality. The world is real, it is not an illusion, it is not Maya, and so are you, you are real and not an illusion, and this is obvious. Now, if a belief of there is more than "just you" is another thing, but to deny reality just because people get distracted with the material and forget the spiritual, it would then be the same, being distracted with the spiritual and ignoring the material, which is as spiritual, since, all the matter comes from the substance of spirit, the Logos of God.

These are just silly words, very likely from Hinduism and Buddhism, i don't have such beliefs, i studied and i noticed it is not true. Our body is us, and it was formed by our soul, our body is reflection of our soul. The spirit and the material are one and the same, just different states of condensation, just like air and metal are the same, but one solid and another a gas. I believe the spiritual is just something less condensed than gas, probably sub-atomic, but as material as the material, and our body is the "physical" representation of our spirit, our face is the face that reflect the unique tone that created our body, and so, our body is us. And i think all religions that say it is not, is a religion that disregard death, and the "god of death" is seem as evil in most religions, be it Odin, Kali, Demiurge or Satan.

I agree about using mind techniques as using the hand, and you can bet i trained that, however, by training it, you will see that the hand is also manifestation of the mind, your soul constructed your body to be yours and to be you. Our body is just the dense contour of our soul. I was once in your step in the spiritual journey, and if you get rid of even these concepts of the spiritual that you claim is mere concepts, then you are going to see that EVERYTHING EXIST and there is no illusion, for everything that happens there is a reason, the problem is our conclusion about such reasons, but everything is real, you are real, your self is real, your body is real, this world is real, the spiritual is real, it is all real.

Otherwise, i think shutting your mind is ignorance, you should make your mind talk all the time, explore all concepts, all forms, all archetypes, make it sprout random images and sounds, so it becomes a radio-like machine that captures from the noise of the spiritual certain messages about the world and yourself. I think it is pointless to live in such a quiet mind and fleeing from the world like Buddhists say, it is worth to suffer and confront reality, it makes life become rich internally, a great soap-opera of life, instead of cowardly fleeing from everything like oriental religions do.

Present is the conclusion of the past, and the future is the fruit of the present, there is all three, the past, the present and the future, and if you keep ignoring the obvious reality from silly philosophies, it will bite you back. That is why i dislike a lot oriental philosophies. My religion is a religion of Truth and not subjective, everything in this world is objective.

MISC: