Buddhism destroys particularity by definition.
If you don't know what you're talking about, just admit it. Otherwise you're just removing all doubt in us of your incorrect knowledge on the subject. It's fine to not know. Just ask.
Suchness and the realm of Birth and Death are not two hostile empires but two names of the same thing. There is but one world with two aspects describing two opposed phases of one and the same existence. These two aspects form a contrast, not a contradiction. Suchness (or the good law, the normative factor) dominates the realm of Birth and Death, which latter therefore, in a certain sense, belongs to Suchness throughout in its entirety as well as in its details.
But sentient beings [or not-so sentient! -johnq] are apt to overlook the significance of the universal, for the senses depict only the particular. Thus to a superficial consideration of sensual beings, the world presents itself as a conglomeration of isolated objects and beings, and the unity that consists in the oneness of law which dominates all, is lost sight of. It is the mind (or spiritual insight into the nature of things) which traces the unity of being and learns to appreciate the significance of the universal.
Universals, i.e., those factors which constitute the suchness of things are not substances, not entities, but relations, pure forms, or determinants, i.e., general laws. Thus they are not things, but ideas; and the most important one among them, the suchness of man or his soul, is not a concrete self, an âtman, but "name and form."
It is well known what an important role the denial of the existence of the âtman plays in the Abhidharma, and we need not repeat here that it is the least understood and most misrepresented doctrine of Buddhism.
Thus the essential feature of existence, of that which presents itself to the senses, is not the material, but the formal; not that which makes it concrete and particular, but that which constitutes its nature and applies generally; not that which happens to be here, so that it is this, but that which makes it to be thus; not its Thisness, but its Suchness.
Particularity is not denounced as evil, but it is set forth as limited; and we might add (an idea which is not expressed in the Mahâyâna, but implied) that the universal would be unmeaning if it were not realised in the particular.
Absolute Suchness without reference to the world of concrete Particularity is like a Pratyekabuddha, and the Pratyekabuddha, a sage whose wisdom does not go out into the world to seek and to save, is regarded an inferior to the Bodhisattvas, who with inferior knowledge combine a greater love and do practical work that is of help to their fellow beings.
How highly Particularity is considered appears from the Mahayana picture in which it stands contrasted to Universality on perfectly equal terms.
The apparent failure of Buddhism to connect with the demands of reality are there for anyone to see. And yes, I'm sorry, Buddhism was founded by a guy who wouldn't deal with reality and decided that suffering was to good for God to allow -- and ran to self-pity as and ideological resource. Apparently this in not a leap of faith adherents aren't willing to make. Fine, to each his own.
Your ignorance (in the non-pejorative/literal sense) of this is bordering on the intentional.
There is no failure of Buddhism. It is a robust and lively philosophy, one that is appreciate worldwide and mixes well with modern society as well as developing ones and is having fascinating developments regarding it's compatibility with the advanced sciences. It is empowering and cleansing. It is not a pyramid scheme or a lottery like how other religions treat the this life or the afterlife. You don't throw away this life for the promise of a better afterlife. You make this one better out of compassion for all. (Oh how evil and selfish!!)
The Buddha FOUND reality, he didn't flee from it, he ran TO it. He DENOUNCED self-pity or self-mortification (as well as the opposites) as being unbeneficial.
Can your misconceptions of Buddhism be any more complete? Do tell...
Does this mean that Buddists are "BRAINWASHED"?? Evil? Tools?
If I tell a room full of people to think for themselves, use their mind and senses to make their own conclusions - SHOCK!, is that brainwashing?
But this is free thinking?
This is my bible. (This is my bible.) I am what it says I am. (I am what it says I am.) I have what it says I have. (I have what it says I have.) I can do what it says I can do. (I can do what it says I can do.) Today I will be taught the Word of God. (Today I will be taught the Word of God.) I boldly confess. (I boldly confess.) My mind is alert. (My mind is alert.) My heart is receptive. (My heart is receptive.) I will never be the same. (I will never be the same.) I am about to receive (I am about to receive) the incorruptible, (the incorruptible,) indestructible (indestructible) ever-living (ever-living) seed (seed) of the Word of God. (of the Word of God.) I will never be the same. (I will never be the same.) Never. Never. Never. (Never. Never. Never.) I'll never be the same. (I'll never be the same.) In Jesus' name. (In Jesus' name.)
No, it means they are wrong. Not Idiots, not evil robots, just wrong.
Are the blind or deaf wrong too? Their perception of reality is different than yours and mine. Do they get a free ticket to Hell too? SInce the senses all work on a delay, only introspection and awareness of the fundamental illusion of phenomena can we glimpse the reality behind our cloud of delayed, flawed, limited sensory input.
Satan, to me, is non-Nirvana. The ignorance that is all around us right now by our believing appearances to be utterly true, reliable and permanent.
A follower of Jesus should know this. Buddhism is everything Jesus said (but with the benefit of not having been shoe-horned into contradictory, pre-existing Roman/Judaic/Greek traditions). Unfortunately there are movements and interpretations of Jesus today that are actively changing His teachings to be exclusive, divisive, delusional and hostile to surrounding beliefs.
It is this perversion of the Jesus teachings (whether real, partially fictional or entirely mythic) that I complain about. And I'll spare no amount of scorn for those that corrupt it or any other religion for inappropriate ends.
Which is the crucial difference here: I'll tell you that you're wrong, but I get a computer screen full of narrow invective. I can tell you why your wrong, but I suspiciously only get the mantra that I'm (besides when I'm called stupid or unread) vain and judgemental.
Again, trying to make things personal and trying to be the victim so as to get the thread locked while you're behind in answering our questions. Nah-uh. Ain't falling for it. Try again.
Where is the materialist systematic that is more than "leave me alone' and 'let me do my own thing'?
You don't write well when upset, try rephrasing things.
Are you saying that Buddhism is selfish or reclusive? It is compassionate and relies on interaction with the public. It isn't, say, the Vatican, where they live in perverse lavishness and occasionally treat the public to a free show.
Buddhist monks were some of the first to be up to their necks in corpses after the Tsunami, trying to identify them and organize the various aid/relief efforts.
You don't see too many cardinals digging graves these days.
There are plenty of good Christians that do go worldwide for earthquake relief efforts, etc., but they are the stoic quiet types that also bear the burden of the ostentatious corporate landbarons that pass for the typical evangelical preacher these days. One deserves praise, the other loud rebuke.