user11674: I have pondered about the buddhist teaching a little bit and I came to a point where doubt arose in me. It is probably because of my skeptical nature (which the Buddha endorsed).
So here are certain points that needs to be elaborated upon. There are probably more, but maybe experienced practitioners can help to shed some lights on my criticism, but I doubt they can, unless with good arguments (as always)
Critique Buddhism:

Suffering is highly exaggerated portrayed. As if nothing positive or good can happen from a bad event/feeling. Suppose one had a good experience and then the person get's back to his ordinary things, a buddhist would exaggerately call this state dukkha and suffering (because the good event was fleeting and now he is back to shithood) Or simple frustration is seen as suffering or dukkha when in fact it's totally natural to feel both positive and negative emotions. Why? So long they are not extreme (i.e.: anger, depression, unhealthy jelousy, self/other depreciation) emotions like concern, frustration, sorry, disappointment, regret, give one feedback. These emotions are less intense and consequently  give one more room to act and think rational.
People don't learn to act assertively both in speech and deeds
Unrealistic goals:  "purifying the mind" -> Being always good. No bad tendencies.
Buddha is seen as all perfect
Was the Buddha really enlightened? Evidence? l
Ethics are "too rigid". They might be optional, but trying to be kind all the time will not happed, since humans tend to be fallible
Sensual desire. Dropping of sensual desires? No sex? Quite inhumane. See pt. 3
8.While anicca is/might be true, impermanence shouldn't be used as an excuse to avoid wealth or pleasure. Everything is transient but to have the experience is still better, for one has a life to experience it (imo)
Denegration of sex and the body (see: meditation of the parts of the body)
Buddhism isn't wholly tolerant. Look up all the rules bhikkus and especiall bhikkunis have to undertake. Btw, bhikkunis have much more rules to follow. That's sexist and completely contrary to his loving-kindness doctrine(s).
Anger or frustration is seen as all bad when they can, perhaps rarely, have benefits, especially the latter emotion. It drives one to act differently to change certain situations and it displays that certain conditions are contrary to our liking which is human. Why? Because we all have preferences (like/dislike)
Black and white thinking in the satipatthanna sutta: If one is mindful one is  "alive" if one is not "one is like a corpse". No gray zone there. "This path is the only path to liberation" (all or nothing thinking).
Absolute thinking: Nirvana. Endless, permanent and absolute absence of dukkha. But all or never conditions are rarely true.
The end goal (in this case: Nirvana/Enlightenment) that makes every religion worth striving .Similar to heaven (and avoiding hell). But where really is the evidence?
Economic effects of not killing animals or not working in butchery etc. (Right livelyhood, Precepts..)
Not killing pesky insects?
According to the Buddha the superior live is to be a monk. How will society run if no one is working and rather wants to go for alms?
Meditation and/or mindfulness is seen as a panacea. While it has benefits this won't change underlying faulty cognitions (i.e. beliefs, schemas, thoughts) and it can easily be used as a "run away tool".
Monks and nuns are not allowed to have sex, dance, sing, the have to look down at certain points in a conversation... that's inhumane and life denying and against our nature!
It doesnt teach you how to deal with negative thoughts. It just says observe it or replace it with an opposite. But this rarely works long term! One needs to question the old, to see its irrationalities, that it's illogical and not helpful, and then to replace it with a positive but realistic (that is balanced) new belief which is -again- conform with empirical evidence which helps the practitioner in the long run.
Doesnt teach you with other life obstacles that cause the "holy suffering" like divorcing, social problems, money problems etc.. The buddha taught the cessation of dukkha and if these basics arent met, how is buddhism going to work then?
How can delusion be a "poison" ? We humans have cognitive distortions on a daily basis. It's a constant in human experience. It's literally wired in our brain to think both rational and irrational and both can be trained individually, in society and is also to an extent biologically determined.


user151: You don't nessasarily have to have much intellectual faith in the teachings but you do need a little bit. Just enough for you to realise or believe the truth that you need to practice the teaching of the Buddha so that you can witness the teaching of the Buddha. The practice of the Buddha is generally "The Eightfold Path".
  Yeah,  too much intellectual thinking can blind a practitioner making them think they have true wisdom when they are really just thinking too much. 

user-1: I'll try to give some quick pointers for each of the items. Like I suggested in a comment, you might be able to get more in depth answers (and more answers) if you post questions on their own.


Suffering is highly exaggerated portrayed. As if nothing positive or good can happen from a bad event/feeling. Suppose one had a good experience and then the person get's back to his ordinary things, a buddhist would exaggerately call this state dukkha and suffering (because the good event was fleeting and now he is back to shithood) Or simple frustration is seen as suffering or dukkha when in fact it's totally natural to feel both positive and negative emotions. Why? So long they are not extreme (i.e.: anger, depression, unhealthy jelousy, self/other depreciation) emotions like concern, frustration, sorry, disappointment, regret, give one feedback. These emotions are less intense and consequently  give one more room to act and think rational.


Dukkha is highly misinterpreted, see here for a summary of this subject from the pali canon. It's also not true that the Buddha taught exclusively to all people that they should abandon worldly pleasures (e.g. there are texts describing him teaching people how to be good husband and wives, instead of telling them to divorce, abandon sex and become monk/nun). 


Was the Buddha really enlightened? Evidence?


The Dharma is the evidence for buddhists, the texts are the evidence for historians (note, evidence ≠ proof). If historians find it almost impossible to prove past events, proving something like the attainment of Nirvana by a person who lived 2500 years ago is certainly not easier -- so there's no proof for the skeptics.
His attainment is taken by buddhists as an act of faith. Such faith is understood to be, with training, gradually substituted by knowledge, exactly as it happens in any teacher/student relationship.


Ethics are "too rigid". They might be optional, but trying to be kind all the time will not happed, since humans tend to be fallible


Being fallible is not forbidden. Buddhist ethics are not commandments.


Sensual desire. Dropping of sensual desires? No sex? Quite inhumane. 


See 1 for what Nirvana is and why sensual desires can never lead to Nirvana.

8.While anicca is/might be true, impermanence shouldn't be used as an excuse to avoid wealth or pleasure. Everything is transient but to have the experience is still better, for one has a life to experience it (imo)

See 1 for what Nirvana is and why it can't be found in worldly pleasures.


Denegration of sex and the body (see: meditation of the parts of the body)


See 1 for what Nirvana is and why it can't be found in the body or in sex.


Buddhism isn't wholly tolerant. Look up all the rules bhikkus and especiall bhikkunis have to undertake. Btw, bhikkunis have much more rules to follow. That's sexist and completely contrary to his loving-kindness doctrine(s).


Tolerance ≠ absence of rules or guidelines. The buddhist doctrine instructs to be tolerant against other people's transgressions. The meaning of tolerance does not extend to do whatever one pleases.
Furthermore, the rules the monastics undertake are a choice. Also, the role of such rules is of enabling the buddhist practice and make progress easier. Just like athletes choose to undertake a strict diet, to enable their practice and make their progress easier -- that does not make them intolerant people.
I'm not super familiar with the distinctions of vinaya for male and female monastics, but still, the rules are not mechanisms of oppressing people. Part is to enable people subject to mistakes who have a shared goal in mind to live together for a long time without killing each other, and part is to make their practice easier.


Anger or frustration is seen as all bad when they can, perhaps rarely, have benefits, especially the latter emotion. It drives one to act differently to change certain situations and it displays that certain conditions are contrary to our liking which is human. Why? Because we all have preferences (like/dislike)


Anything, even something terrible as the holocaust, can be seen as having "positive benefits" by someone with imagination. However, benefits interpreted a posteriori are not the point. The point is that the characteristic of anger is that of disturbing, obstructing and weakening the very faculty of discernment.
One may argue that that is not always the case. In analogy, a frequent unhealthy diet may also not be an obstruction to someone who needs to lift some boxes every other day. But it will be a severe obstruction if one is a weight lifting athlete.


Black and white thinking in the satipatthanna sutta: If one is mindful one is  "alive" if one is not "one is like a corpse". No gray zone there. "This path is the only path to liberation" (all or nothing thinking).


I'm not sure how you came to this interpretation of that sutta.


Absolute thinking: Nirvana. Endless, permanent and absolute absence of dukkha. But all or never conditions are rarely true.


It's quite common, actually. I'm absolutely not physically at your side right now. And I'm absolutely not angry, thirsty or sad right now.
Rarity is not proof, nor is unlikeliness. For centuries, it was absurd to think that we are in motion, much worse, spinning at the speed of 1600 km/hr, and yet that seems to be the case for us in this planet. It was also absurd that invisible living things exist -- until microscopes were invented. And so on...


The end goal (in this case: Nirvana/Enlightenment) that makes every religion worth striving .Similar to heaven (and avoiding hell). But where really is the evidence?


Just like one believes, in first day of class, that the calculus teacher knows calculus and is not drawing random graphics in the blackboard and at the end, come to the conclusion he/she learned some mathematics, so a buddhist practitioner trains and, upon observing the changes undertaken, concludes the dharma is visible and subject to investigation and scrutiny when put into experience.


Economic effects of not killing animals or not working in butchery etc. (Right livelyhood, Precepts..)


There is no buddhist project or agenda to have every living being becoming buddhist. Buddhism is for those who, looking for long lasting happiness, come to the understand that those things do not lead to their own happiness, and they come to decide by their own that they, personally, won't engage in those things.


According to the Buddha the superior live is to be a monk. How will society run if no one is working and rather wants to go for alms?


See 15.


Meditation and/or mindfulness is seen as a panacea. While it has benefits this won't change underlying faulty cognitions (i.e. beliefs, schemas, thoughts) and it can easily be used as a "run away tool".


The noble eightfold path is not 8 limbs constituted of "meditation". Only one limb, strictly speaking, is focused on meditation. Meditation just happens to be a trendy topic that attracts the attention of a lot of people nowadays.


Monks and nuns are not allowed to have sex, dance, sing, the have to look down at certain points in a conversation... that's inhumane and life denying and against our nature!


It's not that they are not allowed. These are vows, so the meaning is that they chose not to. Furthermore, the community should not be disturbed just because one of them wants to have sex -- they are free to do so, just leave the monastic community. 
Finally, the monastic community functions as a republic: vinaya rules can be changed upon consensus. 


It doesnt teach you how to deal with negative thoughts. It just says observe it or replace it with an opposite. But this rarely works long term! One needs to question the old, to see its irrationalities, that it's illogical and not helpful, and then to replace it with a positive but realistic (that is balanced) new belief which is -again- conform with empirical evidence which helps the practitioner in the long run.


It's not appropriate to say the buddhist doctrine lacks something without having scrutinized it. There are many practices for dealing with these things (e.g. here and here for excerpts from the pali canon -- there's a lot more written about all of it).


Doesnt teach you with other life obstacles that cause the "holy suffering" like divorcing, social problems, money problems etc.. The buddha taught the cessation of dukkha and if these basics arent met, how is buddhism going to work then?


If the root causes are resolved, the derivative symptoms do not manifest.


How can delusion be a "poison" ? We humans have cognitive distortions on a daily basis. It's a constant in human experience. It's literally wired in our brain to think both rational and irrational and both can be trained individually, in society and is also to an extent biologically determined.


it's a poison in the sense that a deluded act (that is, an act that is ignorant of how suffering and happiness works and come to be) is prone to create suffering and misery for us, just like randomly typing keys in the keyboard, ignorant of how words and grammar works, is prone to not create a meaningful message.

11674: <p>I have pondered about the buddhist teaching a little bit and I came to a point where doubt arose in me. It is probably because of my skeptical nature (which the Buddha endorsed).</p>

<p>So here are certain points that needs to be elaborated upon. There are probably more, but maybe experienced practitioners can help to shed some lights on my criticism, but I doubt they can, unless with good arguments (as always)</p>

<p>Critique Buddhism:</p>

<ol>
<li>Suffering is highly exaggerated portrayed. As if nothing positive or good can happen from a bad event/feeling. Suppose one had a good experience and then the person get's back to his ordinary things, a buddhist would exaggerately call this state dukkha and suffering (because the good event was fleeting and now he is back to shithood) Or simple frustration is seen as suffering or dukkha when in fact it's totally natural to feel both positive and negative emotions. Why? So long they are not extreme (i.e.: anger, depression, unhealthy jelousy, self/other depreciation) emotions like concern, frustration, sorry, disappointment, regret, give one feedback. These emotions are less intense and consequently  give one more room to act and think rational.</li>
<li>People don't learn to act assertively both in speech and deeds</li>
<li>Unrealistic goals:  "purifying the mind" -> Being always good. No bad tendencies.</li>
<li>Buddha is seen as all perfect</li>
<li>Was the Buddha really enlightened? Evidence? l</li>
<li>Ethics are "too rigid". They might be optional, but trying to be kind all the time will not happed, since humans tend to be fallible</li>
<li>Sensual desire. Dropping of sensual desires? No sex? Quite inhumane. See pt. 3
8.While anicca is/might be true, impermanence shouldn't be used as an excuse to avoid wealth or pleasure. Everything is transient but to have the experience is still better, for one has a life to experience it (imo)</li>
<li>Denegration of sex and the body (see: meditation of the parts of the body)</li>
<li>Buddhism isn't wholly tolerant. Look up all the rules bhikkus and especiall bhikkunis have to undertake. Btw, bhikkunis have much more rules to follow. That's sexist and completely contrary to his loving-kindness doctrine(s).</li>
<li>Anger or frustration is seen as all bad when they can, perhaps rarely, have benefits, especially the latter emotion. It drives one to act differently to change certain situations and it displays that certain conditions are contrary to our liking which is human. Why? Because we all have preferences (like/dislike)</li>
<li>Black and white thinking in the satipatthanna sutta: If one is mindful one is  "alive" if one is not "one is like a corpse". No gray zone there. "This path is the only path to liberation" (all or nothing thinking).</li>
<li><p>Absolute thinking: Nirvana. Endless, permanent and absolute absence of dukkha. But all or never conditions are rarely true.</p></li>
<li><p>The end goal (in this case: Nirvana/Enlightenment) that makes every religion worth striving .Similar to heaven (and avoiding hell). But where really is the evidence?</p></li>
<li><p>Economic effects of not killing animals or not working in butchery etc. (Right livelyhood, Precepts..)</p></li>
<li><p>Not killing pesky insects?</p></li>
<li><p>According to the Buddha the superior live is to be a monk. How will society run if no one is working and rather wants to go for alms?</p></li>
<li><p>Meditation and/or mindfulness is seen as a panacea. While it has benefits this won't change underlying faulty cognitions (i.e. beliefs, schemas, thoughts) and it can easily be used as a "run away tool".</p></li>
<li><p>Monks and nuns are not allowed to have sex, dance, sing, the have to look down at certain points in a conversation... that's inhumane and life denying and against our nature!</p></li>
<li><p>It doesnt teach you how to deal with negative thoughts. It just says observe it or replace it with an opposite. But this rarely works long term! One needs to question the old, to see its irrationalities, that it's illogical and not helpful, and then to replace it with a positive but realistic (that is balanced) new belief which is -again- conform with empirical evidence which helps the practitioner in the long run.</p></li>
<li><p>Doesnt teach you with other life obstacles that cause the "holy suffering" like divorcing, social problems, money problems etc.. The buddha taught the cessation of dukkha and if these basics arent met, how is buddhism going to work then?</p></li>
<li><p>How can delusion be a "poison" ? We humans have cognitive distortions on a daily basis. It's a constant in human experience. It's literally wired in our brain to think both rational and irrational and both can be trained individually, in society and is also to an extent biologically determined.</p></li>
</ol>
 151: <p>You don't nessasarily have to have much intellectual faith in the teachings but you do need a little bit. Just enough for you to realise or believe the truth that you need to practice the teaching of the Buddha so that you can witness the teaching of the Buddha. The practice of the Buddha is generally "The Eightfold Path".
  Yeah,  too much intellectual thinking can blind a practitioner making them think they have true wisdom when they are really just thinking too much. </p>
 -1: <p>I'll try to give some quick pointers for each of the items. Like I suggested in a comment, you might be able to get more in depth answers (and more answers) if you post questions on their own.</p>

<blockquote>
  <ol>
  <li>Suffering is highly exaggerated portrayed. As if nothing positive or good can happen from a bad event/feeling. Suppose one had a good experience and then the person get's back to his ordinary things, a buddhist would exaggerately call this state dukkha and suffering (because the good event was fleeting and now he is back to shithood) Or simple frustration is seen as suffering or dukkha when in fact it's totally natural to feel both positive and negative emotions. Why? So long they are not extreme (i.e.: anger, depression, unhealthy jelousy, self/other depreciation) emotions like concern, frustration, sorry, disappointment, regret, give one feedback. These emotions are less intense and consequently  give one more room to act and think rational.</li>
  </ol>
</blockquote>

<p><em>Dukkha</em> is highly misinterpreted, see <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/21265/buddhism-is-kind-of-depressing/21268#21268">here</a> for a summary of this subject from the pali canon. It's also not true that the Buddha taught exclusively to all people that they should abandon worldly pleasures (e.g. there are texts describing him teaching people how to be good husband and wives, instead of telling them to divorce, abandon sex and become monk/nun). </p>

<blockquote>
  <ol start="5">
  <li>Was the Buddha really enlightened? Evidence?</li>
  </ol>
</blockquote>

<p>The Dharma is the evidence for buddhists, the texts are the evidence for historians (note, evidence ≠ proof). If historians find it almost impossible to prove past events, proving something like the attainment of Nirvana by a person who lived 2500 years ago is certainly not easier -- so there's no proof for the skeptics.</p>

<p>His attainment is taken by buddhists as an act of faith. Such faith is understood to be, with training, gradually substituted by knowledge, exactly as it happens in any teacher/student relationship.</p>

<blockquote>
  <ol start="6">
  <li>Ethics are "too rigid". They might be optional, but trying to be kind all the time will not happed, since humans tend to be fallible</li>
  </ol>
</blockquote>

<p>Being fallible is not forbidden. Buddhist ethics are not commandments.</p>

<blockquote>
  <ol start="7">
  <li>Sensual desire. Dropping of sensual desires? No sex? Quite inhumane. </li>
  </ol>
</blockquote>

<p>See 1 for what Nirvana is and why sensual desires can never lead to Nirvana.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>8.While anicca is/might be true, impermanence shouldn't be used as an excuse to avoid wealth or pleasure. Everything is transient but to have the experience is still better, for one has a life to experience it (imo)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>See 1 for what Nirvana is and why it can't be found in worldly pleasures.</p>

<blockquote>
  <ol start="9">
  <li>Denegration of sex and the body (see: meditation of the parts of the body)</li>
  </ol>
</blockquote>

<p>See 1 for what Nirvana is and why it can't be found in the body or in sex.</p>

<blockquote>
  <ol start="10">
  <li>Buddhism isn't wholly tolerant. Look up all the rules bhikkus and especiall bhikkunis have to undertake. Btw, bhikkunis have much more rules to follow. That's sexist and completely contrary to his loving-kindness doctrine(s).</li>
  </ol>
</blockquote>

<p>Tolerance ≠ absence of rules or guidelines. The buddhist doctrine instructs to be tolerant against other people's transgressions. The meaning of tolerance does not extend to do whatever one pleases.</p>

<p>Furthermore, the rules the monastics undertake are a choice. Also, the role of such rules is of enabling the buddhist practice and make progress easier. Just like athletes choose to undertake a strict diet, to enable their practice and make their progress easier -- that does not make them intolerant people.</p>

<p>I'm not super familiar with the distinctions of vinaya for male and female monastics, but still, the rules are not mechanisms of oppressing people. Part is to enable people subject to mistakes who have a shared goal in mind to live together for a long time without killing each other, and part is to make their practice easier.</p>

<blockquote>
  <ol start="11">
  <li>Anger or frustration is seen as all bad when they can, perhaps rarely, have benefits, especially the latter emotion. It drives one to act differently to change certain situations and it displays that certain conditions are contrary to our liking which is human. Why? Because we all have preferences (like/dislike)</li>
  </ol>
</blockquote>

<p>Anything, even something terrible as the holocaust, can be seen as having "positive benefits" by someone with imagination. However, benefits interpreted a posteriori are not the point. The point is that the characteristic of anger is that of disturbing, obstructing and weakening the very faculty of discernment.</p>

<p>One may argue that that is not always the case. In analogy, a frequent unhealthy diet may also not be an obstruction to someone who needs to lift some boxes every other day. But it will be a severe obstruction if one is a weight lifting athlete.</p>

<blockquote>
  <ol start="12">
  <li>Black and white thinking in the satipatthanna sutta: If one is mindful one is  "alive" if one is not "one is like a corpse". No gray zone there. "This path is the only path to liberation" (all or nothing thinking).</li>
  </ol>
</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure how you came to this interpretation of that sutta.</p>

<blockquote>
  <ol start="13">
  <li>Absolute thinking: Nirvana. Endless, permanent and absolute absence of dukkha. But all or never conditions are rarely true.</li>
  </ol>
</blockquote>

<p>It's quite common, actually. I'm absolutely not physically at your side right now. And I'm absolutely not angry, thirsty or sad right now.</p>

<p>Rarity is not proof, nor is unlikeliness. For centuries, it was absurd to think that we are in motion, much worse, spinning at the speed of 1600 km/hr, and yet that seems to be the case for us in this planet. It was also absurd that invisible living things exist -- until microscopes were invented. And so on...</p>

<blockquote>
  <ol start="14">
  <li>The end goal (in this case: Nirvana/Enlightenment) that makes every religion worth striving .Similar to heaven (and avoiding hell). But where really is the evidence?</li>
  </ol>
</blockquote>

<p>Just like one believes, in first day of class, that the calculus teacher knows calculus and is not drawing random graphics in the blackboard and at the end, come to the conclusion he/she learned some mathematics, so a buddhist practitioner trains and, upon observing the changes undertaken, concludes the dharma is visible and subject to investigation and scrutiny when put into experience.</p>

<blockquote>
  <ol start="15">
  <li>Economic effects of not killing animals or not working in butchery etc. (Right livelyhood, Precepts..)</li>
  </ol>
</blockquote>

<p>There is no buddhist project or agenda to have every living being becoming buddhist. Buddhism is for those who, looking for long lasting happiness, come to the understand that those things do not lead to their own happiness, and they come to decide by their own that they, personally, won't engage in those things.</p>

<blockquote>
  <ol start="17">
  <li>According to the Buddha the superior live is to be a monk. How will society run if no one is working and rather wants to go for alms?</li>
  </ol>
</blockquote>

<p>See 15.</p>

<blockquote>
  <ol start="18">
  <li>Meditation and/or mindfulness is seen as a panacea. While it has benefits this won't change underlying faulty cognitions (i.e. beliefs, schemas, thoughts) and it can easily be used as a "run away tool".</li>
  </ol>
</blockquote>

<p>The noble eightfold path is not 8 limbs constituted of "meditation". Only one limb, strictly speaking, is focused on meditation. Meditation just happens to be a trendy topic that attracts the attention of a lot of people nowadays.</p>

<blockquote>
  <ol start="19">
  <li>Monks and nuns are not allowed to have sex, dance, sing, the have to look down at certain points in a conversation... that's inhumane and life denying and against our nature!</li>
  </ol>
</blockquote>

<p>It's not that they are not allowed. These are vows, so the meaning is that they chose not to. Furthermore, the community should not be disturbed just because one of them wants to have sex -- they are free to do so, just leave the monastic community. </p>

<p>Finally, the monastic community functions as a republic: vinaya rules can be changed upon consensus. </p>

<blockquote>
  <ol start="20">
  <li>It doesnt teach you how to deal with negative thoughts. It just says observe it or replace it with an opposite. But this rarely works long term! One needs to question the old, to see its irrationalities, that it's illogical and not helpful, and then to replace it with a positive but realistic (that is balanced) new belief which is -again- conform with empirical evidence which helps the practitioner in the long run.</li>
  </ol>
</blockquote>

<p>It's not appropriate to say the buddhist doctrine lacks something without having scrutinized it. There are many practices for dealing with these things (e.g. <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/20444/382">here</a> and <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/21673/382">here</a> for excerpts from the pali canon -- there's a lot more written about all of it).</p>

<blockquote>
  <ol start="21">
  <li>Doesnt teach you with other life obstacles that cause the "holy suffering" like divorcing, social problems, money problems etc.. The buddha taught the cessation of dukkha and if these basics arent met, how is buddhism going to work then?</li>
  </ol>
</blockquote>

<p>If the root causes are resolved, the derivative symptoms do not manifest.</p>

<blockquote>
  <ol start="22">
  <li>How can delusion be a "poison" ? We humans have cognitive distortions on a daily basis. It's a constant in human experience. It's literally wired in our brain to think both rational and irrational and both can be trained individually, in society and is also to an extent biologically determined.</li>
  </ol>
</blockquote>

<p>it's a poison in the sense that a deluded act (that is, an act that is ignorant of how suffering and happiness works and come to be) is prone to create suffering and misery for us, just like randomly typing keys in the keyboard, ignorant of how words and grammar works, is prone to not create a meaningful message.</p>
