I’d say it’s the other way around. If we were indeed in paradise desires won’t be causing us any suffering. What Buddhism implicitly assumes is that the suffering from our desires is so terrible and their satisfaction is so unlikely that it’s worth abolising them all together. It’s the hell, where Buddhism is most reasonable. Which makes a lot of sense, considering that it was invented in much less pleasant times.
Buddhism indeed encorages less proactive approach than Abrahamic religions. It has its pros and its cons. It’s harder to do something when the world is burning but also harder to be the one who is holding the torch. Historically, I’d say, not actively acting on your religious beliefs and just quitely meditating, showed to be more of a virtue than a vice. But, as a person who at some moment of my life actively tried to become less enlightened, I empathize with your worries about apathetic ideologies.
That kind of thinking is a consequence of the rare modern oasis that we’re living in. Only a being of such times would think that the sufferings from our desires are that terrible. There are things way more terrible. I’d rather have a lifetime of suffering from my desires than 5 minutes of burning to death. Not to mention that there’s distractions from the former, but never from the latter.
So I might be have better said: Buddhism would be right if we lived in an acceptable world, not perfect. Acceptable, as in, the worst sufferings were bearable. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
The difference is that the horrors and the wars of the past motivated by Abrahamic religions were irrational, based on the original, unfounded belief on a few. Whereas the modern altruist crusade is based on reason and takes, on average, way more moderate approaches.
One can also say that Buddhism would work if everyone efficiently adhered to it. No doubt that meditation can make you more compassionate through seeing the futility and the horror of agression (but so can just basic reasoning). But then that’s like Communism, it only works if all the world adopts it, which is extremely unfeasible.
Or even if everyone adopted it, even if it would effectively makes us see that we can’t go on with some technologies, that we can’t go on with nationalism, etc etc, what if some peril beyond our control, say aliens, appeared? Or even just a small group of wicked humans. ,”Just don’t worry bro”? Buddhism is suicide. I’d keep my sufferings from my desires, even to the point of paranoia, if that helps keep my alive and away from way bigger sufferings, which it does. And I can always take half a valium, or take a walk, or decide to forget about it for one leasure day.
I’d say it’s the other way around. If we were indeed in paradise desires won’t be causing us any suffering. What Buddhism implicitly assumes is that the suffering from our desires is so terrible and their satisfaction is so unlikely that it’s worth abolising them all together. It’s the hell, where Buddhism is most reasonable. Which makes a lot of sense, considering that it was invented in much less pleasant times.
Buddhism indeed encorages less proactive approach than Abrahamic religions. It has its pros and its cons. It’s harder to do something when the world is burning but also harder to be the one who is holding the torch. Historically, I’d say, not actively acting on your religious beliefs and just quitely meditating, showed to be more of a virtue than a vice. But, as a person who at some moment of my life actively tried to become less enlightened, I empathize with your worries about apathetic ideologies.
To each paragraph:
That kind of thinking is a consequence of the rare modern oasis that we’re living in. Only a being of such times would think that the sufferings from our desires are that terrible. There are things way more terrible. I’d rather have a lifetime of suffering from my desires than 5 minutes of burning to death. Not to mention that there’s distractions from the former, but never from the latter.
So I might be have better said: Buddhism would be right if we lived in an acceptable world, not perfect. Acceptable, as in, the worst sufferings were bearable. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
The difference is that the horrors and the wars of the past motivated by Abrahamic religions were irrational, based on the original, unfounded belief on a few. Whereas the modern altruist crusade is based on reason and takes, on average, way more moderate approaches.
One can also say that Buddhism would work if everyone efficiently adhered to it. No doubt that meditation can make you more compassionate through seeing the futility and the horror of agression (but so can just basic reasoning). But then that’s like Communism, it only works if all the world adopts it, which is extremely unfeasible.
Or even if everyone adopted it, even if it would effectively makes us see that we can’t go on with some technologies, that we can’t go on with nationalism, etc etc, what if some peril beyond our control, say aliens, appeared? Or even just a small group of wicked humans. ,”Just don’t worry bro”? Buddhism is suicide. I’d keep my sufferings from my desires, even to the point of paranoia, if that helps keep my alive and away from way bigger sufferings, which it does. And I can always take half a valium, or take a walk, or decide to forget about it for one leasure day.