Dubstepforum.com

OGLemon wrote:Buddhism is sick.

True dem. Out to all the DSF Bhikkus on this one.

'If god does not exist, i am god'

so hurry up with my damn massage

you are god too give urself a damn massage

jesslem wrote:I'm not religious or spiritual lol, just don't appreciate atheism.

How come? Do you not appreciate atheism or the stereotypical smart arse atheist who can't help but point out how retarded everybody is because they've watched one hitchens video?

I don't understand whats not to appreciate about the rejection of an idea. If you don't appreciate atheism surely you don't appreciate theism either? Considering all religions reject the idea of any other God but their own, its not far off from atheism.

Now you're getting it.

Kochari wrote:

OGLemon wrote:Buddhism is sick.

True dem. Out to all the DSF Bhikkus on this one.

I bet more than half of us will be crawling to mass every Sunday with a rosary in our teeth by the time we hit 70.

Kochari wrote:

OGLemon wrote:Buddhism is sick.

True dem. Out to all the DSF Bhikkus on this one.

nah
its just shit in different ways

well that's like, your onion dude

OGLemon wrote:well that's like, your onion dude

Nah, I think he's onto something. It's self loathing in a way that is strikingly similar to catholicism.

ye that plus imo it fux with ppls heads by teaching them to become devoid of certain normal human emotional reactions to things

^Yeah, that I can dig. Spent a long time getting all fucked up over detachment and whatnot. In the end I think its all about balance - detachment is not the same as dis-attachment. And anyhoo, who's to say that 'normal human emotional reactions' are the best way to be?

I dunno, my particular take on Buddhism has essentially been a means of analysing and coming to terms with the world around me, and accepting things 'as they are' rather than 'as I want them to be' ... Wether this just makes me a passive mope remains to be seen, but I think its served me well so far.

for the people who are buddhists , do you smoke weed or do any other drugs, including drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes?

I do all of those things, from time to time. But I wouldn't call myself a Buddhist per se - I prefer to say something along the lines of "I'm into Buddhism", or "I find Buddhism to be helpful". Too easy to get hung up or attached to the idea of 'Buddhism' (whatever the hell that is) being the one true way. This Way of the universe that I (sometimes) perceive is not the 'Buddhist' way or the 'Christian' way or whatever - it's just the Way. It sometimes expresses itself in Buddhist forms is all.

Also the abstaining from intoxicants thing is quite an interesting precept, when you get down to it. The great thing about Buddhism is that you're always questioning why we should be following rules. Check this out:

Alan Watts, The Way Of Zen wrote:The sections [of the Eightfold Path] dealing with action are often misunderstood because they have a deceptive similarity to a 'system of morals'. Buddhism does not share the Western view that there is a moral law , enjoined by God or by nature, which it is man's duty to obey. The Buddha's precepts of conduct - abstinence from taking life, taking what is not given, exploitation of the passions, lying, and intoxication - are voluntarily assumed rules of expediency, the intent of which is to remove the hindrances to clarity of awareness. Failure to observe the precepts produces 'bad karma', not because karma is a law or moral retribution, but because all motivated and purposeful actions, wether conventionally good or bad, are karma in so far as they are directed to the grasping of life. Generally speaking, the conventionally 'bad' actions are rather more grasping than the 'good'. But the higher stages of Buddhist practice are as much concerned with disentanglement from 'good karma' as from 'bad'. Thus complete action is ultimately free, uncontrived or spontaneous action, in exactly the same sense as the Taoist wu-wei.

So why did the Buddha want us to abstain from intoxicants? Because they cloud your awareness, and Buddhism is all about awareness. However -- if you can use them without impairing your awareness, I see no reason not to. It's another debate, but I've definitely learned certain things from experiences with drugs and alcohol, especially psychedelics. Not to say that I couldn't have had these experiences otherwise, but they didn't impair my awareness (I think). I also always try to use drugs in a respectful and, I guess, sacramental way, not just dropping tabs left right and centre. As for cigarettes, yeah that's something I need to stop. They haven't helped me learn anything and I carry on through pure attachment. But hey, I'm not enlightened yet

As always, I'm not claiming to represent Buddhism in any way - this is my interpretation of the Dharma and there's a 100% chance on me being completely wrong.

God is a filipino lesbian

http://www.gregproops.com/blog/smartest ... d-podcast/

bigup for the honesty Kochari and for taking inspiration in a non-zealous manner

if only more religious ppl were that open minded

i like the more Schopenhauerian take on buddhist philosophy

bennyfroobs wrote:ye that plus imo it fux with ppls heads by teaching them to become devoid of certain normal human emotional reactions to things

What's a normal human emotional reaction?

No such thing in my opinion, people from different cultures around the world will react differently to different things.

Are you giving a preference to these 'normal emotional reactions' over not normal ones just because you consider them normal? What other advantage do they serve over the alternatives?

I agree with froobs


reaction is instinctual compared with a response

aren't you thinking of 'responding' mason?