Is Buddhism a Failure?

What do you base your figures on?
Well, to show the problems of Wiki I got this out of it

Statistics

Under Communist governments which have traditionally suppressed religious freedom and officially (often forcibly) endorsed atheism and due to this at one point the relation between Government with religions was not smooth in the past[6]. But in fact, the people are still holding private worship of popular traditional religions (Buddhism/Taoism) at home freely[7][8][9][10][11]. In recent years, the Chinese government has opened up to religion, especially traditional religions such as Mahayana Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism because the Government also continued to emphasize the role of religion in building a "Harmonious Society," which was a positive development with regard to the Government's respect for religious freedom [12].

According to the old Chinese government estimate, there were "over 100 million followers of various faiths" in China[13]. Other estimates put about 100 million or about 8% Chinese who follow Buddhism, with the second largest religion as Taoism (no data), Islam (19 million or 1.5%) and Christianity (14 million or 1%; 4 million Roman Catholics and 10 million Protestants)[14]. According to the 1993 edition of The Atlas of Religion, the number of atheists in China is between 10 and 14 percent[15].

The accuracy of the religious data in China from census sources is questioned. While official data estimated 100 million religious believers in China, a survey taken by Shanghai University found that 31.4% of people above the age of 16, or about 300 million people, considered themselves religious. The survey also found that the major religions are Buddhism, Taoism, Islam and Christianity, accounting for 67.4 percent of believers. About 200 million people are Buddhists, Taoists or worshippers of legendary figures such as the Dragon King and God of Fortune, accounting for 66.1 per cent of all believers, while Christianity accounted for 12% of believers, or 40 million people.[16][17] The official China Daily called the Shanghai professors' research "the country's first major survey on religious beliefs"[18]. The Chinese government have accepted these new numbers. The wide disparity among these estimates underscores the difficulty of accurately surveying the religious view of a nation of over a billion people and the lack of reliable data.

China is also known to have small numbers of people who follow Hinduism, Dongbaism, Bon and a number of new religions and sects (particularly Xiantianism and Falun Gong).

However, some surveys suggest that the cultural adherents or even outright religious adherents of Buddhism could number as high as 50% to 80% of the population, or about 660 million to over 1 billion[19][20]. Some estimates for Taoism as high as 400 million or about 30% of the total population[21], but Adherents.com argues that these are actually numbers for Chinese folk religion or Chinese traditional religion, not Confucianism and Taoism themselves.[22]

The number of adherents to these religions can be overlaid in percentage due to the fact that mostly Chinese consider themselves both Buddhist and Taoist[23][24][25][26]. However, it was difficult to estimate accurately the number of Buddhists because they did not have congregational memberships and often did not participate in public ceremonies [27].

The minority religions are Christianity (between 40 million, 3%,[28] and 54 million, 4%[29]), Islam (20 million, 1.5%), Hinduism, Dongbaism, Bon and a number of new religions and sects (particularly Xiantianism and Falun Gong).

According to the surveys of Phil Zuckerman on Adherents.com in 1993; there was 59% (over 700 million)[30] of the Chinese population was irreligious and 8% - 14% was atheist (from over 100 to 180 million) as of 2005[6]. There are intrinsic logistical difficulties in trying to count the number of religious people anywhere, as well as difficulties peculiar to China. According to Phil Zuckerman, "low response rates," "non-random samples," and "adverse political/cultural climates" are all persistent problems in establishing accurate numbers of religious believers in a given locality[31]. Similar difficulties arise in attempting to subdivide religious people into sects. These issues are especially pertinent in China for two reasons. First, it is a matter of current debate whether several important belief systems in China constitute "religions." As Daniel L. Overmeyer writes, in recent years there has been a "new appreciation...of the religious dimensions of Confucianism, both in its ritual activities and in the inward search for an ultimate source of moral order"[32]. Many Chinese belief systems have concepts of a sacred and sometimes spiritual natural world yet do not always invoke a concept of personal god (with the exception of Heaven worship)[33].

Notice the bolded portions. Even if the Wiki you quoted is correct, you still have to show that the violence is related to the Buddhist Chinese. To call a country a Buddhist State is even more ridiculous than calling Iraq under Hussein a Muslim one.;) It's a communist state.
Materialism certainly is. Its one of the false idols we are warned against.
Oh, can't these things be parts of us. Me I love nice materials, doesn't mean I can't have religious experiences or see the soul in a tree.
 
I mean the dominant ideology. No one would consider Islam or Christianity as the dominant ideology in China. My point is not that Buddhism itself has elements of fascism, but its practice seems to inevitably lead to states that are fascist. At the individual level it may be suited to some individuals.

Oh, can't these things be parts of us. Me I love nice materials, doesn't mean I can't have religious experiences or see the soul in a tree.

Of course, it just depends which one you worship.
 
I mean the dominant ideology.
But its not the dominant ideology.

No one would consider Islam or Christianity as the dominant ideology in China.
No, they would consider communism the dominant one.

My point is not that Buddhism itself has elements of fascism, but its practice seems to inevitably lead to states that are fascist. At the individual level it may be suited to some individuals.
What ideology does not seem to have led to fascist states? Or totalitarian ones?

Of course, it just depends which one you worship.
Used to be white pines, but recently it's been more birches and beeches.
I think, however, worship, is not the verb for me. I really don't think loving entities want worship, except in brief portions of courtship phases, but it should be mutual.
 
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.

Except that Muslims didnt fight to spread Islam. Its just another lame modern excuse cooked up by the pro-Crusades crowd. The spread of Islam did not go hand in hand with the expansion of the empire. The same thing happened in the Buddhist countries. And the Buddhist countries were also guilty of massacring infidels. Who can forget the massace of the 1000s of Christians in China?
 
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.

Ofcourse, you have no bias whatsoever about what a real Muslim is :rolleyes:
 
And SAM,
if you want to claim that Buddhism led to fascism in China you would need to show how China changed after the introduction of Buddhism. As far as I can tell China had the whole Feudalism version of fascism going strong already.
 
Aside from wise acres point... Confucianism is the dominant ideology of China. That is, of course, if you completely ignore Communism. Which would be strange.
 
SAM said:
Religion builds group dynamics and ensures social stability, which contributes to its own continued existence and survival
Which is in turn the definition of success, for a social institution, apparently - the acquisition of power and the creation of dependence.
SAM said:
My point is not that Buddhism itself has elements of fascism, but its practice seems to inevitably lead to states that are fascist.
The Buddhists have come to blows with the fascist governments of several places in the recent generations - Vietnam, Thailand, Burma, etc. Most everywhere there are both many Buddhists and fascistic governments, apparently.

Meanwhle, fascism seems to coexist with strong Abrahamic theism, by preference and without overt opposition in the clerical elites, in Indonesia and the Philippines and several South American countries and so forth.
arsalan said:
Except that Muslims didnt fight to spread Islam.
Some did, and some do today in northern Africa and Oceana. Or at least that's been the organizational principle and justification.
SAM said:
If the majority of the people "fail to adhere" to the ideals of the religion they claim to follow, it means the religion is no longer relevant to them.
- - - -
Is it any surprise that Muslims have no idea what Islam is? They are too busy deciding who is Muslim to study Islam.
Apparently "success", for a religion, is difficult to define. But the "ideals" of that religion seem only tangentially involved, in any of the operational definitions. Which would make sense - anything else would be a form of institutional suicide, and the great theisms don't hold with suicide in general (barring martyrdom).
 
Apparently "success", for a religion, is difficult to define.

Not at all. Its following the basic precepts of the religion to strengthen society by building a civil and progress oriented environment. You can see the lack of this in the Muslim countries today.
 
SAM said:
Not at all. Its following the basic precepts of the religion to strengthen society by building a civil and progress oriented environment. You can see the lack of this in the Muslim countries today.
Circular.

You can as well say a successful society is one that follows the basic precepts of civility to build a spiritual and progress-oriented religion.

Unless you are willing to, for example, describe Russian Orthodox Christianity as being a failure until the 1920s, a success from then until 1989, and a failure thereafter. It was the dominant religion, or at least the dominant theism, all that time.

The role of the religion seems to be at issue. Off hand, I can think of nowhere with religions whose precepts have been involved in building a "civil and progress-oriented environment" of late. Maybe Iran? They were starting from a low base, so maybe that's been "progress".
 
Its following the basic precepts of the religion to strengthen society

I'm with you on the whole advantage of religion in terms of social evolution part. This is chapter 14 of Guns, Germs and Steel. Religion seems to play a key role in the formation of state-level sociopolitical institutions. And the resulting societies are, materially, stronger for the presence of those institutions. And so they proliferate.

But if you're going to go with this kind of social evolutionary definition of success, you're left with something of a brutal aspect. The title of chapter 14 is, after all, "From Egalitarianism to Kleptocracy." In analogy to biological evolution, success for a society is in this context measured in terms of displacement of competing societies. I.e., religion is "successful" in exactly the same (material, political) sense in which the nation-state is "successful."

So that's why I get whiplash when you conclude that sentence with:

by building a civil and progress oriented environment.

That's not the type of strength you were referring to in the first half of that sentence. Social evolution is about the accrual and deployment of material and political power, to the material advancement of one society and the material detriment of others. Civility and progress only figure into it in so far as they contribute to material and political efficiency.

You can see the lack of this in the Muslim countries today.

If a country lacks adherence to basic religious precepts, as they apply to society, then in what sense can it be called a "Muslim country?"

And who are we to say in the first place? If a majority of people in some country believe that they are, collectively, adhering to said precepts, then isn't that exactly what they are doing?
 
And who are we to say in the first place? If a majority of people in some country believe that they are, collectively, adhering to said precepts, then isn't that exactly what they are doing?

Sure why not? If the majority of people think they are liberating others by invading, occupying and bombing them, thats exactly what they must be doing.
 
Michael, I never stated any of this. Will you people stop attributing things to me which I never stated. You made all those points up yourself.

This is dishonest and manipulative and you know it.
 
Sure why not? If the majority of people think they are liberating others by invading, occupying and bombing them, thats exactly what they must be doing.

For that analogy to work, you'd have to also include the beliefs of your "others." In which case, sure.

Interesting that you'd equate the practical pursuit of Islamic statehood with that stuff, though. Especially right after my point about the nature of the "strength" and "success" bestowed upon societies - as opposed to, say, individuals - by religions.
 
For that analogy to work, you'd have to also include the beliefs of your "others." In which case, sure.

Its the same analogy, because we're presuming that the people of the Hejaz wanted a king, for example, when they campaigned for statehood in the 1900s.
Interesting that you'd equate the practical pursuit of Islamic statehood with that stuff, though. Especially right after my point about the nature of the "strength" and "success" bestowed upon societies - as opposed to, say, individuals - by religions.

It depends on what the collective agrees to. The group could focus, for example on "every man for himself" or on a more socialist framework. Ultimately, the strength and success will depend on the contribution of the individuals to the group. Which can be determined by factors other than religion.
 
Its the same analogy, because we're presuming that the people of the Hejaz wanted a king, for example, when they campaigned for statehood in the 1900s.

Sorry, is that the editorial "we" you're employing here?

Because I'm not aboard this obtusity train.

It depends on what the collective agrees to. The group could focus, for example on "every man for himself" or on a more socialist framework. Ultimately, the strength and success will depend on the contribution of the individuals to the group.

Sure. The point being that, from the standpoint of social evolution, certain of these frameworks will be more "fit" than the others, right? And so their strength and success is manifested as absorbtion, elimination or other displacement of competing frameworks.

But is this really all that religion is supposed to be about? Edging out other societies for control of limited resources? Sounds more like geopolitics than spirituality, to me.

I thought that religion was supposed to have individual value as well.

Which can be determined by factors other than religion.

Of course. No one factor is decisive, on its own. But there are plenty of obvious correlations to examine. The social evolutionary advantages of religion don't seem controversial, nor the general outlines of the mechanisms that religion uses to provide said advantages.

The kicker is that progressiveness, civility, individual liberation, etc. don't appear to figure very prominently in those mechanisms.
 
Except that Muslims didnt fight to spread Islam.
Yes, as I said, they handed out candies and treats to the Persians who rejoiced so much they excommunicated their Zoroastrian fathers and mothers and happily settled down to be ruled by their Arab overlords.

They loved them so so soooo much that they even decided to call Parsi, Farsi as they no longer liked the "p" sound their Arabs masters couldn't pronounce - hell, they changed their whole language they loved their new masters so much.

Yeah, just like in Iraq now. I see Americans handing out candies all the time. Iraqi children love them for being liberated. 200 more years and they'll be right.


But, I wonder, why did the Spanish, I mean the people of Spain, decide to kill or excommunicate or convert every single Muslim living there - after living under Muslim kind occupation for such a wonderfully long time?

It's odd that one.

Almost as if the Spanish didn't want any more Islamic candy? But that doesn't make sense? Candy is yum yum good.
 
Back
Top