A race horse

[S.A.M.]

wtf? cant you follow your own goddamn train of thought? despite the goddamn buddha's injunctions, the tards do something else? have their goddamn principles not been goddamn compromised? wtf!

Something else? The laity are following their noble path. The monks have made the right choices to reduce their own suffering.

It works!

i shall report your goddamn ass to the ayatollah for quoting the heretic, rumi

BFD, I am a fricking Sunni :bugeye:

cool scam

Reality is a bitch

 

[Gustav]

When we hurt one another, we have the right to be offended, feel guilty, be resentful, say mean things to one another. But then we get over it. Caput, finis, move on. THIS is life.

this bit has gotta be a projection of your disposition
yeah gotta be
i doubt if islam could get so....so..... sub humanish

 

[Gustav]

Something else? The laity are following their noble path. The monks have made the right choices to reduce their own suffering.

?
to be called a buddhist, both monk and laity have to follow the 5 precepts and the eightfold path. if you do not (as you imply) you have compromised your faith.

no one really wants to give up the stresses of life, they just pass them on to the underdog in exchange for "alms"

 

[S.A.M.]

this bit has gotta be a projection of your disposition
yeah gotta be
i doubt if islam could get so....so..... sub humanish

Why because patience and forgiveness of the other [as well as the self] are recurring themes? Life is too short to waste on resentment and regrets

?
to be called a buddhist, both monk and laity have to follow the 5 precepts and the eightfold path. if you do not (as you imply) you have compromised your faith.

But..but..accepting Bhiksha is noble. As noble as giving it.

"Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before: 'This is the noble truth of stress'... 'This noble truth of stress is to be comprehended'... 'This noble truth of stress has been comprehended.'

"Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before: 'This is the noble truth of the origination of stress'... 'This noble truth of the origination of stress is to be abandoned' 2 ... 'This noble truth of the origination of stress has been abandoned.'

"Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before: 'This is the noble truth of the cessation of stress'... 'This noble truth of the cessation of stress is to be directly experienced'... 'This noble truth of the cessation of stress has been directly experienced.'

"Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before: 'This is the noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress'... 'This noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress is to be developed'... 'This noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress has been developed.' link​

 

[Gustav]

What I bring to you ma cherie is the reality of the system. Regardless of what Buddha says, no one really wants to give up the stresses of life, they just pass them on to the underdog in exchange for "alms"

i suppose i should have asked you to clarify
so please do

respond to post 84 as well

 

[one_raven]

In my view, Buddha was a guy who couldn't face reality or suffering, he dumped his wife and kid, abdicated his responsibilities as a king and wandered around for forty years after which he told everyone that the basis of suffering was attachment. His idea of enlightenment was detachment from worldly pleasures.

Buddhism seems to me a denial of the human experience.

But don't you see that it doesn't matter?
The analogy, as I said MUCH earlier, makes no value judgements.
He wasn't saying Buddhism was right or Abrahamic religions were wrong.

Simply that Abrahamic religions requires faith in the unknowable and requires faith in what the prophets and masters preach and Buddhism does not.

 

[S.A.M.]

i suppose i should have asked you to clarify
so please do

respond to post 84 as well

Sure, its the same problem that exists in any society where there is an elite and an other. Sooner or later the elite believe they are entitled to the other.

Buddhist societies?

Hmm lets see: Temple monks in Korea, Warrior monks in Japan and Sri Lanka, Aristocrat monks in Tibet and Nepal and whatever they have going on in Burma. I haven't looked into it deeply but the Pashtuns too had a form of warrior Buddhism, made up of warriors on horses.

The history of Buddhism in India [especially its decline] is shrouded in some mystery. No one knows exactly why it was replaced by the old Vedic theologies. There are some who say that it failed due to its own intrinsic weaknesses, but I have no clue what that means. Its my opinion that institutionalised religious order of the kind exemplified by the Shias of Iran [and quite contrary to the tenets of Islam, which does not believe in religious authority or intercession], was probably what led to the demise of Budhism. This is inherently a problem with any institution that stands as an organisation to promote spirituality but ultimately creates disenchantment with the ideology that it purports to represent because of its obvious material corruption

Simply that Abrahamic religions requires faith in the unknowable and requires faith in what the prophets and masters preach and Buddhism does not.

I understand but yet I find Buddhism to be the more unrealistic of the two because it requires people to essentially transcend their humanity to become enlightened. Rather than simply struggle with the challenges of being human. In the monks example then, I see Buddhism as focused on a goal which requires one to overcome humanness, while Muslims [and even Christians] for that matter accept that people, being human, will be wrong and unhappy some of the time. And thats okay.

This is not to imply that the Buddhist way is wrong. But its an idealised existence and better suited for some type of people not all. Its a cerebral religion and its very suited to cerebral individuals who struggle with what they see as the irrationality of existence and of most other people.

 

[Gustav]

Buddhist societies?

Hmm lets see: Temple monks in Korea, Warrior monks in Japan and Sri Lanka, Aristocrat monks in Tibet and Nepal and whatever they have going on in Burma. I haven't looked into it deeply but the Pashtuns too had a form of warrior Buddhism, made up of warriors on horses.

Thats all well and good in theory, but in practice every single society where Buddhism has been the state religion has become fascist. Why?

lets talk causality then
do you still hold this to be true? did tibet go feudal after the advent of buddhism? was the colonization of sri lanka an egalitarian endeavor that turned sour after buddhism reached its shores? was the japanese experience similar?

*Theravadin ethics is sometimes seen as placing absolute value on compassion and avoiding harm. Yet, in practice, Sri Lankan Buddhists reason with a plurality of context-sensitive prima facie duties. The precept against violence is not absolute but can be overridden by more pressing obligations such as defense of one's parents or the dharma itself. The Buddha's account of skillful means suggests, according to this reading, the use of practical judgement or a sense of appropriateness in applying moral principles to any situation. Although the Buddha's precepts are unconditional, conflicts between precepts require contextual reasoning that employs utilitarian (maximizing compassion and minimizing suffering) and virtue ethical (the effects actions have on one's condition) considerations. Thus, Buddhist ethical reasoning is used to justify violence for the sake of nonviolence and the government's ‘war for peace'. The justification of war accordingly requires the fulfilment of certain conditions which Bartholomeusz compares in detail with Christian and western just war criteria.

*These examples raise some significant questions: Given Buddhism’s declared commitment to non-violence and compassion, how could Japanese Buddhists justify an aggressive and offensive holy war against the west and the colonization (in the name of liberation) of Japan’s Asian neighbors? Given that the majority of Zen masters and practitioners did not passively tolerate Japanese policy but actively sought to legitimate it through Buddhism, is Zen—if not Buddhism itself—totalitarian? How is it that Zen—which is often seen as individualistic, irreverent, ironic, undogmatic, and questioning—was used to mold and inspire soldiers and citizens for total war? (link)
​

this is burma....

In September 2007, Buddhists again took to the streets in mass protest against the military government. Thousand of junta military and police forces poured into Yangon to try to control the situation, which rapidly deteriorated. A curfew was imposed and on the 25th of September troops surrounded Sule Pagoda. The protest continued to grow with regular citizens joining to support and defend the Buddhists. Over night junta forces invaded all the Buddhist monasteries in the country and imprisoned thousands of monks. Also, it was reported that Nobel prize winning human rights activist and Buddhist Aung San Suu Kyi was removed from her home where she has languished under house arrest and moved to the infamous Insein Prison. Mass protests erupted over this and junta troops began firing on monks, civilians, and demonstrators in the largest clash since 1988, which left thousands injured and hundreds dead. Images of the brutality were aired worldwide. (link)​

talk about reframing the context of reality. monarchies/civilian/military govts patronizing buddhism are absolved of guilt while said guilt is laid on the religion's feet. how so very orwellian of you. you must be proud

 

[S.A.M.]

Look again at what I said. Every single state where Buddhism was state ideology became fascist. Was it Buddhism? Who knows? But the fact remains that:

Long before its lyrical metaphysical flights exerted their charm, Buddhism took hold first and foremost as a tool for protecting States.

http://www.sangam.org/articles/view/?id=118

 

[one_raven]

I understand but yet I find Buddhism to be the more unrealistic of the two because it requires people to essentially transcend their humanity to become enlightened. Rather than simply struggle with the challenges of being human. In the monks example then, I see Buddhism as focused on a goal which requires one to overcome humanness, while Muslims [and even Christians] for that matter accept that people, being human, will be wrong and unhappy some of the time. And thats okay.

This is not to imply that the Buddhist way is wrong. But its an idealised existence and better suited for some type of people not all. Its a cerebral religion and its very suited to cerebral individuals who struggle with what they see as the irrationality of existence and of most other people.

I can completely understand that.
Thank you for clarifying.

 

[Gustav]

"became" is the operative word and has fixed place in the chain of causation. it is the effect

"Thats all well and good in theory, but in practice every single society where Buddhism has been the state religion has become fascist. Why?" (sam)

again, you fail to show how the events unfold. your imply that egalitarian societies morph into facism with the advent of buddhism without one iota of evidence

Buddhism took hold first and foremost as a tool for protecting States." (faure)

"first and foremost" is unsubstantiated.
faure however correctly places the chicken before the egg unlike you. the implication is that the state already existed. to see buddhism as a propaganda tool already speaks volumes about the nature of these "states"

"Buddhist law often had to bow to reason of State. But in many instances it also provided an ideology for counterforces," (faure)

oops, i guess the tamils did not proof read that part before using faure's polemic as a propaganda tool on their website
a quest for freedom from tyranny is a quest for fascism?
reframe reality much?

lemme rip faure a new asshole

 

[S.A.M.]

"Buddhist law often had to bow to reason of State. But in many instances it also provided an ideology for counterforces," (faure)

oops, i guess the tamils did not proof read that part before using faure's polemic as a propaganda tool on their website
a quest for freedom from tyranny is a quest for fascism?
reframe reality much?

lemme rip faure a new asshole

Remind me again who the oppressed were in the fascist states. You can use the Tamils as an example if you like.

An explanation of the Lankan Buddhists responses to their terrorism would be acceptable.

 

[Gustav]

Pāṇātipātā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.

dear maitreya!
i just used some bug spray
woe is truly me

see? after embracing buddhism, gustav started killing ants. what a homicidal religion! (fake quote)

 

[S.A.M.]

Pāṇātipātā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.

dear maitreya!
i just used some bug spray
woe is truly me

Never mind, its all the bug's fault

Wearing an orange robe and a serene smile, the Venerable Athuraliye Rathana looks the very embodiment of peace, but when the Sri Lankan Buddhist monk talks of the Tamil Tigers, he sounds more like an army general.

"Day by day we are weakening them militarily," he said, cocking his shaven head thoughtfully to one side. "Talk can come later."

Most Buddhist monks are known for their love of peace, harmony and a philosophical acceptance of fate - but as the bloody war that has ravaged Sri Lanka for 25 years enters a new and terrible phase, Mr Rathana and his fellow hard-line monks are urging the president, Mahinda Rajapaksa, to keep the promise upon which he came to power in late 2005: to crush the Tamil Tigers with military force.

The Tigers are fighting for a separate homeland in the north and east for the Tamils, a mostly Hindu minority which has suffered decades of discrimination from the Buddhist Sinhalese majority. In recent months, the Tigers have stepped up a campaign of terror against both Sinhalese and Tamils, with bombings and the forcible recruitment of child soldiers.

The hard-line monks are at the vanguard of Sinhalese Buddhist nationalism, which views Tamils as outsiders. In January, they joined the government with their own party, the Jathika Hela Urumaya or National Heritage Party - pushing its narrow, one-seat majority up to nine.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1554817/Sri-Lankas-Buddhist-monks-are-intent-on-war.html

 

[Gustav]

Remind me again who the oppressed were in the fascist states. You can use the Tamils as an example if you like.

An explanation of the Lankan Buddhists responses to their terrorism would be acceptable.

unlike the burmese, the buddhists in sri lanka have bloody hands. their karma is in the pits

now
your point? does a "just war" necessarily entail atrocities?

 

[S.A.M.]

unlike the burmese, the buddhists in sri lanka have bloody hands. their karma is in the pits

now
your point? does a "just war" necessarily entail atrocities?

Unlike the Burmese? What religion do you think the junta espouses?

 

[Gustav]

When we hurt one another, we have the right to be offended, feel guilty, be resentful, say mean things to one another. But then we get over it. Caput, finis, move on. THIS is life.

And certainly, We shall test you with something of fear, hunger, loss of wealth, lives and fruits, but give glad tidings if you are patient (2:155)

Endure, vie with each other in endurance, and continue your relation with God (3:199)

no it is not, heathen girl
by not turning the other cheek you have failed allah
you have NOT been patient, you have NOT endured

allah's retribution will be horrendous and merciless
nice knowing you

 

[Gustav]

/snicker

 

[S.A.M.]

"Turn the other cheek"?

I have choices buster, this is Islam, not Christianity

I can fight if I choose, forgive if I choose, as long as I understand that there are consequences to my choices/

 

[spidergoat]

because it requires people to essentially transcend their humanity to become enlightened.

No it doesn't.

Rather than simply struggle with the challenges of being human.

It deals with exactly that.

But its an idealised existence and better suited for some type of people not all.

People that want a spiritual life, which is many of them.

Its a cerebral religion and its very suited to cerebral individuals who struggle with what they see as the irrationality of existence and of most other people.

Jesus said, "Whoever does not hate his father and his mother
cannot become a disciple to Me. And whoever does not hate his
brothers and sisters and take up his cross in My way will not be
worthy of Me."

In other words, being perfectly satisfied with things as they are will not trigger any seeking. Non-thinking people should not concern themselves with religion at all. For them, it's just empty ritual designed to pacify their minds.