Is Buddhism a Failure?

[Tyler]

Sam's not done with her ego just yet!

If someone takes an interest in Buddhism, ought you not to encourage them on that path? Is not Buddha a prophet of Allah? As you said - is it not religiosity, acceptance of divine will and greatness, rather than what one specific book says, that is the key of importance?

Michael's comment was about the theory of Buddhism, not about the history of it's use. You're arguing on two distinct points. And yours seems to be motivated by little more than dissuading people from liking a religion they're attracted to; by petty ego-driven desire to ensure everyone is aware that Buddhists have been evil, too. It's telling that you rarely, if ever, make such comments on the history of Islam and it's use by some individuals in not exactly the most holy of ways.

Although I must ask, why do you think Buddhism leads to a fascist mindset? I would agree with you about Confucianism, but I'm not clear on how that comes from Buddhism.

 

[S.A.M.]

I haven't studied that yet, but its a consistent theme in Buddhist societies [see swarm as an example of intolerance through Buddhism ]

In whatever countries Buddhism has became official ideology—whether Theravada Buddhism in Southeast Asia or Tantric Buddhism in Tibet or East Asia—war has often been zealously waged. At present, the Buddhists of Sri Lanka, for example, have openly taken up the struggle against the Tamil freedom fighters. What is true of Japanese Zen holds equally for other forms of Buddhism. 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

If someone takes an interest in Buddhism, ought you not to encourage them on that path? Is not Buddha a prophet of Allah? As you said - is it not religiosity, acceptance of divine will and greatness, rather than what one specific book says, that is the key of importance?

Is being aware of history a hindrance to faith? Or as I said earlier, is ignorance a point of view?

 

[Tyler]

These countries where Buddhism is an official ideology were confined mostly to one geographical region. Have you considered that there might be other factors at play?

Is being aware of history a hindrance to faith? Or as I said earlier, is ignorance a point of view?

Fair enough. I just wish you'd be a bit more even handed.

 

[S.A.M.]

These countries where Buddhism is an official ideology were confined mostly to one geographical region. Have you considered that there might be other factors at play?

Aren't there always other factors at play?

Fair enough. I just wish you'd be a bit more even handed.

Sure I can when I am addressing something more meaningful than monotheists/Islam/Muslims are xyz.

At least I base my opinions on constructive facts rather than "islame" arguments.

 

[Tyler]

Aren't there always other factors at play?

Yes, exactly.

Sure I can when I am addressing something more meaningful than monotheists/Islam/Muslims are xyz.

I'm still not sure I see the point in lowering oneself.

 

[Arsalan]

Actually I was referring to the argument between DH and SAM on who is and who isn't considered Allah's special little children.

You can find that in every religion or belief system. People disagree about who is what.

I agree totally, people are people, but, there does seem to be enough insight built into your general purpose Buddhism that it is relatively civil about keeping people from trying to cut the heads off other people something most other religions, if anything, TRY to get people to do!

One only has to look at India and Chinas violent history to find that even where Buddhism prevailed, people killed eachother by the bucketload. Im always surprised when people bring out Buddhism as an example of peaceful coexistence: the hisory of countries where Buddhism prevailed points to quite the contrary.

 

[Arsalan]

These countries where Buddhism is an official ideology were confined mostly to one geographical region. Have you considered that there might be other factors at play?

Fair enough. I just wish you'd be a bit more even handed.

Why should we consider other factors when no one seems to consider any factor besides religion when it comes to islam for example?

 

[DiamondHearts]

Oops, they didn't. You seem to be lying.

Provide their statements and proofs here, if you are truthful. Otherwise cease your deceptions and lies.

The Quran is quite clear concerning this. If anyone wants to prove me wrong through the Quran's statements, they are welcome.

 

[(Q)]

Unfortunately, people like to pass judgment on Islam without consulting the Quran, the word of Allah swt.

The Quran is there for all to read. It's the contents within that is being criticized. They are the words of Muhammad.

Just because a few people have opinions does not give them any credibility, especially in direct opposition to the established scholars of Islam representing more than 90% of Muslims.

Argument ad Populum. Your so-called scholars have as much credibility as anyone else who discusses myths and superstitions.

The ultimate criterion for judging a Muslim is the Quran, regardless of what anyone may think, their opinion is of irrelevance.

Hence, the problem. You place myth and superstition above all else. That is not only ignorant, but extremely dangerous. And it shows.

Islam is the religion decided by Allah swt, and not the whims of human beings. God has truly blessed us with the complete and final religion. Nothing needs to be added to it, nothing taken away. subhanallahi wa bihamdihi wa subhanallahil azeem.

Skoo-bee-doo-bee-doo... shoo wahhh...

 

[Michael]

Again, you ignore the history of Buddhist violence and oppression.

And this after I have given many many examples several times.

Now why would you ignore history to make a false representation of your POV?

At least swarm is honest [besides being an excellent example of how Buddhism creates a fascist mindset, just read his responses to posters on sciforums.]



Ignorance is a point of view?

I already said in another thread that yes, Buddhist can be very violent (example Samurai). I'm not even going back into that circle because it's a waste of both of our times. I agree with swarm's assessment it's clear and logical.

In the modern age Buddhist are generally considered the most peaceful people and Muslims the most violent. I don't care if you go to communist China or Aruba - that's the perception.

 

[DiamondHearts]

Q, I have yet to see you pursue such a vilification campaign against any other religion except Islam. Your hatred seems severely limited to Muslims and Islam, while Muslims have very little effect in your personal life. A hatred born of the propaganda machine.

Islam cannot be judged according to Western norms of discussion or even Western ideals of debate. The consensus (ijma) of the authentic scholars Of Islam is necessary to take into account in all subjects in Islam. This is the most common problem with Non-Muslims attempting to discuss Islam, it always seems foreign to Muslims because of the lack of knowledge of the methods by which Islamic scholars real agreements and decide which views are acceptable in the religion. It is far more complex and complicated that you can imagine. Our scholars have done an astounding job protecting the Islamic world from heresies and division. Allah swt bless them.

 

[S.A.M.]

In the modern age Buddhist are generally considered the most peaceful people and Muslims the most violent. .

Yes isn't that odd? When you consider the Buddhist states [China, Japan, Burma, Sri Lanka] all have a history of extreme violence which continues to this day [Japan was forcibly demilitarised and is not even allowed a military], while the Islamic nations [even the most "backward"] have fostered diplomacy over war.

 

[Arsalan]

Its to do with the Western attitude I've found. They are very into mystical things. So they redefine Buddhism and portray it as something mysterious and mystical, and dont focus on the countries that are Buddhist and carry out atrocities. But if Muslim countries do that, somehow all Muslims and Islam get blamed for that.

 

[wise acre]

Yes isn't that odd? When you consider the Buddhist states [China, Japan, Burma, Sri Lanka] all have a history of extreme violence which continues to this day [Japan was forcibly demilitarised and is not even allowed a military], while the Islamic nations [even the most "backward"] have fostered diplomacy over war.

I support the general point but to simply characterize japan as Buddhist is very misleading, especially calling it a Buddhist state. China also is hardly a Buddhist state, nor was it, even pre-communism.

 

[S.A.M.]

I support the general point but to simply characterize japan as Buddhist is very misleading, especially calling it a Buddhist state. China also is hardly a Buddhist state, nor was it, even pre-communism.

You surprise me. While I admit the Chinese I have met are not the temple going Buddhists [or maybe they are, but don't talk about it] I was under the impression that the primary "religious" influence in China was of the Buddhist tradition.

 

[Michael]

I have to say one thing, DiamondHearts is the only person (so I think) on these boards that is a true Muslim as is traditionally defined. I speak with many Muslims and most would probably agree pretty much 100% with DH.

- killing infidels can be justified
- Allah loves his polygamists
- only the Qur'an is true
- Allah's speaks Arabic (ironically, in 6th century dialect)
- Allah's likes when people pray towards His magical moon rock in mecca
- Allah wants DH to prevent any conversions out of Islam
- killing a convert out of Islam can be good
- Allah will roast homosexuals in hell fire for eternity (and Americans)
- Allah inspired the Muslim crusades against the Persians (therefor those murdered were so with Allah's blessing)
- Allah loved when the singing girl was beheaded - that was so so good for Allah to hear her scream, gurgle and collapse. Yes, all the blood just warms Allah and makes Allah smile and say something in 6th century Arabic, like: Allah is Great!
- Allah inspired the murdering of polytheists in mecca - that was just
- murdering people who preach "false" Islam is yum yum good to magical sky-Allah.
- tribal identity is yum yum good too, especially if you are a 6th century Arab.
- There's only One Allah and all the other Gods are just silly things for "little small minded people".
- Only Mohammad is the "Last" Prophet, Allah hates when other people say they are a Prophet - Allah sends them to Hell fire to burn for eternity.


Yes, DH is the perfect example of a Muslim.



And a prime example of why Buddhism, while flawed as are all human endeavors, is soo soo sooo much better in the modern multicultural world.

 

[S.A.M.]

You're welcome to your opinion. :shrug:

 

[Michael]

Yes isn't that odd? When you consider the Buddhist states [China, Japan, Burma, Sri Lanka] all have a history of extreme violence which continues to this day [Japan was forcibly demilitarised and is not even allowed a military], while the Islamic nations [even the most "backward"] have fostered diplomacy over war.

These nations didn't do so under the Banner of Spreading Buddhism. Was WWII to spread Buddhism ... to China? to Korea? How stupid.

Christians and Mohammadians justified their killing crusades by claiming they were Gods special widdle peepo. Oh, I forgot, Mohammadians never harmed an anyone they just handed out candy as the Persians rejoiced at finally getting a chance to excommunicate their Zoroastrian brothers and sister, mother and daughters, and let the Arabs rule over them.


whatever... Every time you see a Jew claim he has a right to land because YWHA gave it to him, you can think to yourself, right on brother, I'm wichya, only it's Allah and that dar's me land yoo standin on.. Allah is Great! "runs into crowd"



I'm back on hiatus.

 

[wise acre]

You surprise me. While I admit the Chinese I have met are not the temple going Buddhists [or maybe they are, but don't talk about it] I was under the impression that the primary "religious" influence in China was of the Buddhist tradition.

Religious influence gets even vaguer. But less than 20% consider themselves affiliated with Buddhism. While this is more than other religious affiliations - unless one takes into account my caveat below - it is not close to a majority.

If you want to base your case for the violence of Buddhism and use China as an example, you'll need to somehow connect up this 20% with the violence. And while it's a shifty point to make, Israel is 16% muslim, but it would be a joke to refer to Israel as a Muslim state. Of course in that instance you have another religion dominating. I think this is the case in China.

China as a state is not Buddhist, unless you consider communism a religion. Which I think one should - along with neoconservatism, for example.

And then if we go into 'influence' Taoism has a very powerful role as does confucianism. I'll bet among the peasants older religions are still in sway in a lot of areas.


Oh, yes. Most of the Chinese I met from Shanghai seemed to be rabid capitalists. (not necessarily neo-cons, because then you have to have ideas about how countries relate to each other, while these people were focused on chasing the yaun.

Is pragmatism a religion?

 

[S.A.M.]

What do you base your figures on?

Today the most popular form of Buddhism in both mainland China and Taiwan is a mix of the Pure Land and Chán schools. More recent surveys put the total number of Chinese Buddhists between 660 million (50%) and over 1 billion (80%)[9], thus making China the country with the most Buddhist adherents in the world, followed by Japan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_in_China#Modern_Chinese_Buddhism

Is pragmatism a religion?

Materialism certainly is. Its one of the false idols we are warned against.