Why are so many Buddhists such self righteous assholes?

What is worship based on? Everybody doesn't like something but every one likes sara lee. What if your concept of god is being without form?

Hung up on or devoted to?

A good one to have in relation to function.

Doesn't matter if your thinking is true or not but it does matter that you cannot escape the effects of your own thought and the quality of our life's experience is organized by our sponsoring convictions which come out in the form of the names we use for things. It is so for you because you insist it is so for you and no one can convince you otherwise without your agreement. This phenomena points to the fact that faith is necessary for the formation of consensual perception. That is you must have confidence in your world model or you will not invest your cognitive energies in the cultivation of it. All of our endeavors arise from the premises we are invested in.

The problem I see in translation is the idea that you can change your behavior and in this you find a better life but it is at the level of reason where our actions or responses are orchestrated. Where your treasure is, or where your sense of rightness is, there is your heart and your effort also. To have a world that appears differently we change our minds about it.

 

All behaviors arise from premise. The thought comes first and one thought can be followed by a different thought. Our behaviors become compartmentalized when we think inconsistently as some thoughts are essentially incompatible with others for example love and fear do not occupy the same space in the mind at the same time and do not functionally know each other, evidenced by what appears to be inconsistent behavior. Where love is there is no fear and where fear is love is forgotten until we find security again.

 

Doesn't speak to the fact that devotion to our sense of rightness or good authority has cosmopolitan distribution. It is true all our endeavors are based on ideas and even to the extent of our biological development we arise in conception, the coming together of male and female creative principle or entity.

The conditions that appear to us are conditional on our own narrative of their condition. The word condition itself coming from the root meaning to speak with. It takes two for a condition to exist. Proposition and agreement. We always choose with a guide. Whether or not you choose to call that guide god is irrelevant to the fact that we lean toward it for arbitration when we seem to have a choice.

 

I believe the most basic assumption in Buddhism is that there is a nirvana which can be reached through practice, and that only Buddhadharma can lead to that state of final peace.

In Xtianity there is an assumption that the Messiah came and went and will come again, but we had better be good or our soul will burn forever.

None of these types of assertions are based in a priori fact and open to any sort of proof. Yet people spend their lives practicing based on their assumptions, and are willing to fight, torture, burn others, kill (with a bit of raping and pillaging to keep up troop morale).

Right now in India the Naga Babas are at war with Sai Baba of Shirdi followers because Sai Baba ate meat and therefore he cannot be an avatar or God-man, and therefore his followers are not practicing true Hinduism. Right now it's a war of words though violence has been promised.

Assumptions, superstitions, non-facts taken as truth - these lead to schisms and destruction, all the way up to destruction of biodiversity and the entire ecology of the planet. Since the Bible said humans are 'master of fish and fowl,' Western religions have given no thought to the real Noah's Ark which is this whole planet. But I'm not going to make my ecology based tirade and tangent off right here. That's a whole 'nother subject.

 

As is christianity at large. Buddhism has it's core terms along with every other religion. Buddhism does not take particular precautions to avoid deception above and beyond what other religions do. This narrative of exceptionalism
I think is the very thing you suggest as problematic when applied from the perspective of religions that you do not have as much respect for. I say not as much respect for because of the fact that you inserted an exceptional qualification to buddhisms commonality with other forms which was superfluous to the central fact that none are immune. Whenever you want to know motive follow where the investment goes.

Religion is a science that ideally teaches access to estates of human consciousness.

These states of consciousness are the common estates of the self of human being and we recognize these states by their fruit. Nirvana and heaven are religion specific vernaculars for the same state of consciousness. These states can only be achieved personally and so the question of why do others behave the way they do cannot be answered unless the dilemma is understood within yourself. We behave the way we do for the sake of our investments and our personal states or level of satisfaction are directly related to the soundness of our investments. Our investments are stored in our world view. Perception is learned and we are vested in being able to securely apprehend the world which is why people feel threatened when they see something that doesn't seem to correspond with or to it. Our world view is memorized or consists of physical pathways and becomes automated or habitual, crystalized creating the prismatic view. If not challenged then previous learning becomes an obstacle to witnessing probabilities in the present. Men can't fly to the moon for example. Personal anxiety on any issue arises from the views you have vested yourself in. You see what you put there when what you see is what you claim it to be. Breath control then, the narrative of the claimant, is key and this is mindfulness or praying without ceasing.

A meditation then beyond symbolical representation.

I think it more a confusion of distinguishing form from content. The content of things is always of like kind regardless the specific form it takes. The unique face of an individual does not separate him from the common being of individuality. Special is a conceptual problem when solution means equal dispersal. One way to avoid this conceptual problem is to take responsibility for your own perceptions in every instance. That is when you project what you see as being engendered by other sources then you become the victim of your own distortions.​

 

And such elements are present in christian terms as well. Example, men teach as doctrines the precepts of men. Doesn't mean all christians are dogmatic.

For the sake of understanding, let's do.

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
Religion is a science that ideally teaches access to estates of human consciousness. A testable explanation in religious science is an axiomatic phrase like the measure you give is the measure you receive. This axiomatic phrase is echoed in the scientific premise that for every action there is an equal and complementary reaction.

I got just a few seconds into the video before he says that nirvana is the extinction of all suffering. Heaven is likened to freedom from disease. The terms themselves are inspired by specific states of conscious and the descriptions come from periodic observations. Having gone in and out myself I can relate to his descriptions and recognize a common estate. Another common term with different form is satori and you may add communion to that list without changing essential content.

One and a secure one in that views are cultivated through description. Be still and know. A wrong view can only be a premature conclusion.

.
I'm talking about mistaking a human being for a stranger based on exterior appearance. Wrong way of apprehending. A red fruit may appear nutritious but in fact be deadly and likely to be if you rely on appearances only leading to the saying do not judge by appearances but rather use right judgement.

 

That feeds my suspicions that Buddhism = nihilism.

But again, I may be wrong, because it comes down to what is meant by ' a view'. If consciousness itself is meant, ie to have a view is to be conscious, I feel there may be some justification in my characterization.

If it means to have a conditioned view, or a relative view I can go with that.

It seems to depend on how we understand the language used.

 

You are speaking in terms. Words of different form can have the same meaning.

The effort here is not to perpetuate varied interpretations but to come to a consensus of definitions so we can discuss the subject meaningfully. Doesn't matter the definition but it matters that it is used consistently or given a consistent value within the hypothetical. Is there something wrong with my definition of science or religion? Something you can't agree to for purposes of discussion? The similarity between science and religious science is in that they are both a systematic enterprises that build and organize knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. That is they test our perceptions of the universe.

What unidirectional forces and what does saying nothing religious about it have to do with what I am saying?
What is religious about the statement that the measure you give , (value inserted,) is the measure you receive? A similar statement in secular terms is you get what you pay for.

 

A similar suggestion from christianity;


all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter;

 

Isn't anybody that thinks they got it all figured out a self righteous asshole?

 

If assholiness is indicative of being. Most humans have assholes but not all are perceived as such. To be self assured doesn't confine anatomical expression to the shitter but in making critical acclamations we attempt to dismember ourselves from common decency.

 

I agree it is sometimes hard to see how things fit together when a specific question is exposed to lengthy consideration as is this conversation over several days.

First is the case of how exceptionalism or specialness plays in the formation of the perception of self righteous assholiness. What should be compared to what is observed. If all philosophies are non essential views then there is no should be.

Then there is the case that perception is of the perceiver and not the perceived. The phenomena observed as described rides only on the description. So the problem is not out there with them but in the way we are parsing our view of the world.

Then there is the case that we are not going to comprehend things in a comprehensive way by trying to separate phenomena of like kind for the sake of our local affections or dislikes, i.e. making a case for the uniqueness of buddhism and this is a distracting part of the overall dialogue here. The reason I address it as germane to this thread is because it appears just another expression of the holier than thou class distinction that he questions about. So I try to make the point that all religions have the same fundamentals but are expressed in culturally specific vernaculars so when looked at by one another they appear to be foreign customs to each other. They confuse the forms or symbols of their religion for the essential content of the spiritual consciousness. The spiritual consciousness or the desire to know more or have more light is universal curriculum expressed in many forms. No form has to be religious as the desire to see something itself is leaning toward light but at the same time we are devoted to it. It is required learning and only the time and place you choose to do it is optional.

 

There has been some excellent writing in this topic and I thank you all for participating. I admit that not all Buddhists are assholes. But I was thinking specifically of Esangha turning me off to Buddhism for about ten years. I got sick of the immoderate and bully mentality of that web-forum. I came away with a bad taste and I think that in two ways that forum has failed to fulfill its purpose of communication about Buddhism. First, the intolerance forces out the unique amongst the group, and second, Buddha doesn't need you, me or anyone else, he's long dead. So I find that people defending Buddhism to any degree, or the 'purity' of the teachings and so on rather condescending.

We go to Eastern teachers and bow, while Western teachers get no respect so they force their views down our throats or demand obeisances and partition levels in their order structure to stroke ego as people level up. Meanwhile the personality cult continues even after people like Trungpa led dissolute lives and whose followers spread HIV and other STDs while dying of liver failure.

But I don't want to diverge this thread into more common nowadays cult abuse theme.