oh_me_ghost

The buddhists state that everything on earth is suffering. Is being influenced by outside forces the definition of suffering? Or is being influenced by an outside force only painful for an ego that cant tolerate the existance of anything but itself, thus it says all is one, all must be one, because they cant tolerate variety and interdependance and varied opinions and the complexities of things? A buddhist is interested in destroying his ego, not to destroy it, but to ultimately expand it, in order that what they are can become the best, the highest, the most whatever. Yes, physical suffering can be thought of as a force that our bodies exhert upon our consciousness. I guess I can see that. But they're so stuck on reducing everything to one thing, just like Einstein would like, it must be unified and singular, anything more than one is just a horror. How can it be. There is no such thing as two simultaneous states. One must be a lie. Why. Or they say, one must be higher than another. Or more perfect. As if theres one most perfect slice through space-time that is utterly the best, the horizontal slice, where everything appears to happen at exactly the same time. Sure, its a nice slice, but it aint the only slice. Being able to see that slice is probably great, but ultimately its just a slice like another other. Reducing almost every fact to maya, simply because the majority of facts dont allow for unification is like wearing blinders for the sake of eternal meditation. It aint supreme consciousness. Its consciousness of one thing, ignoring all external forces, a kind of free-fall form of conscousness, which Im sure is blissful, but the rock floor that theyre inevitably going to hit is hard as shit. And its not going to care that theyve ignored all the facts they didnt agree with. Now, Im not too knowledgable about a lot of things, and mostly Im just projecting, but it seems the idea that suffering is uniformly felt is wrong. People suffer in different ways and sometimes they dont even suffer at all, and to ignore that is fine, I suppose, because were only human and we cant be aware of everything at all times, but I think that the buddhists major premise is absurd. Maybe it doesnt have to be true, though, maybe its just a starting place for them to proceed on their consciousness expanding journey. The effects of the belief is what is important to the buddhist teacher, not the truthfulness of it. Buddhists have created a system by which a student is supposed to attain enlightenment, not a system that is itself enlightenment. It casts the young person into a kind of darknesss, that they might come to know things eventually, but not necessarily right away. I just totally recoil from it. I dont think a buddha has ever been a buddhist, though thats not to say that good doesnt come from it. It does, Im sure. For many people it probably hits just the right spot, and thats fantastic. And it might be the greatest god damned religion ever invented, but I for one will never understand it. Sigh. I have no idea why i keep posting such shit, why not though, why the fucking hell not. Maybe I should post everyday until the end of the month, just to do it. It'll be ugly. But maybe it won't. Blah, I think I'm going to try the "writing down the bones approach" and just let it be cruel and ugly and natural.