Hacker News Reader

Comment by OfSanguineFire | Hacker News Reader

If life is suffering, but nothing comes after death, then suicide is a means to escape suffering. But Buddhism has always proscribed suicide, usually for the very supernatural reason that suicide victims would be reborn at some lower level of existence where they are even more miserable.

Moreover, if attachment brings suffering, but there is no rebirth, then the insistence on continuing to live is the ultimate attachment. I actually think that this is one possible solution to the Fermi Paradox and supports a pseudo-Buddhist view: eventually civilizations might transcend the biological impulses that keep them attached to life, and then deliberately choose extinction.

View on HN

It's very difficult to have such a discussion when we are trying to group a massive spread of beliefs and practices under one umbrella. I can't speak for any 'Buddhism' besides my own, but mine does not proscribe suicide at all.

For some; it is clearly the most compassionate action even assist with suicide.

We tend to lean towards compassion.

That's why it is so important to read the man himself. After all it's BUDDHism, not SOMESECTism

From your other comments, you seem to subscribe to one of those movements to restore some pure ur-Buddhism separate from its actual historical tradition. As I said up top, I find this dubious and I personally am not interested in discussing that kind of Buddhism.

You say “my practice does this” and “my practice does that” and you are certainly entitled to follow whatever approach you want. However, I think it would be more honest to label the collection of practices you very deliberately chose as something you could be comfortable with from a contemporary skeptical perspective, as something different from Buddhism.

I'm an ordained soto zen practitioner and study under a transmitted teacher; most of my views quite closely follow what our founding teacher (Eihei Dogen) wrote.

If that doesn't make me a buddhist, I'm not sure what would :}

Zen is certainly a 'back to basics' movement; but you're quite incorrect so think that zen is separate from historical traditions of buddhism. The buddha sat Shikantaza just as we, all the 'fluff' came later. We are perhaps a 'back to basics' movement, but one that has a several thousand year lineage. Unless you feel Bodhidharma was a dubious modernist? :}

I say 'my practice' as I do not wish to speak for others even inside my group, let alone buddhists as whole.

> all the 'fluff' came later.

Believing certain stuff is “fluff” is precisely the dubious attempt at reconstruction that I was talking about.

In terms of their own practices, the Japanese practicing Zen in their own country, and the teachers who came to the West, had the excuse of being born into an existing cultural tradition that had evolved the way it had. First-generation Westerners taking on Buddhism, but only such things as they can feel comfortable with, and then claiming that what they put together is the authentic core Buddhism, just look like cultural appropriators.

That's hilarious.

Do you think the Indians accused the Chinese of cultural appropriation in the 5th century also?

Even more bizarre to think that chan buddhism (which later became zen) dropped a bunch of stuff they weren't comfortable with when buddhism arrived in china.

Is there some cut off date you think is the high water mark for authentic buddhism? Anything after 1260 need a new name? Buddhism-3? :}

buddha was written as having been fairly clear that his teaching would disappear in the world after 1-2k years. It's an entire meaning behind why the wheel of the dharma needs a buddha to turn it.

But.. meditation, I hate to break it to you, is not how Buddha was enlightened. It was merely when he calmed down that he realized he had already attained it long ago. After that he thought deeply as to how to skillfully lead such ignorant and arrogant beings to his knowledge. that was his purpose in life. He didn't spread the meditation you learned and practice. If it were not the case then there would be even one to have achieved perfect, supreme enlightenment and to have come from your practice, but there are none who have. Buddhism means Buddha's teaching. If what you know doesn't contain any ways for living beings then that's dead Buddhism. A living teaching always has the ways in it. If you ask me the difference btwn Buddhism today and Buddha's teaching I can say that Buddha taught us to save ourselves through the truth of the world and to live forever, whereas most people who think they learned Buddhism have learned to throw away their own self and to die forever.

> ... but nothing comes after death

Rebirth being untrue does not imply nothing comes after death. Even Buddha knew that he did not know what came after death. His teachings were about how to live, not about how to win at death.

> But Buddhism has always proscribed suicide ...

Not true. Himsa is proscribed, because it causes harm, and self-harm is still technically himsa, so a simplistic reduction might interpret suicide as proscribed. But such a reduction would also ignore all nuance.

Suicide causes harm. Not just to you, but to your loved ones, and possibly even strangers. Even if we restrict ourselves to an entirely aelfish point of view — where we ignore any auffering we may cause to others — unless you know, for a fact, that there is nothing after death, you cannot believe that you will not have suffering after death.

> Rebirth being untrue does not imply nothing comes after death.

Yes, the best way Vedantists as well as Buddhists scholars explain this is that even if there is no rebirth, you need to understand that a lot of us agonize ourselves in this life over our own deaths. I have seed devout christians who lived good life just feeling terrified about hell when the moment of death comes near.

The Buddhist and also Hindu doctrine while does address life after death also provides you very actionable advice to avoid suffering in this life itself before death too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com