Is Buddhism a Failure?

[S.A.M.]

The kicker is that progressiveness, civility, individual liberation, etc. don't appear to figure very prominently in those mechanisms.

And yet, they seem to figure even less without the religious basis to societies. In fact, one could observe a direct correlation to how far people gravitate from the teachings of their religion to the poor condition of their society.

As has been proved over and over.

 

[quadraphonics]

And yet, they seem to figure even less without the religious basis to societies.

Oh? I hadn't noticed. Where are these societies without religious basis, for starters?

In fact, one could observe a direct correlation to how far people gravitate from the teachings of their religion to the poor condition of their society.

"Poor" in what sense? As in the opposite of the (material, political) "strength" we were discussing?

The opposite of progressivity is not poverty, but regressivity.

And, again, how does one assess whether some group is moving away from the teachings of their religion. Isn't their religion exactly what they believe it is? And isn't it imperialism to suggest otherwise?

 

[S.A.M.]

Oh? I hadn't noticed. Where are these societies without religious basis, for starters?

The ones that are started without any religious ideology as their basis. The Carvakas for instance.

"Poor" in what sense? As in the opposite of the (material, political) "strength" we were discussing?

The opposite of progressivity is not poverty, but regressivity.

Are there societies that have regressed that you consider politically materially or spiritually rich?

And, again, how does one assess whether some group is moving away from the teachings of their religion. Isn't their religion exactly what they believe it is? And isn't it imperialism to suggest otherwise?

Thats easily ascertained by comparing what they say the religion preaches with what they practise.

e.g."It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:24)

 

[quadraphonics]

The ones that are started without any religious ideology as their basis.

Yes, I know what you were referring to. All I asked for were examples.

The Carvakas for instance.

Okay. That seems a problematic example, though, in that it's unclear to me that there was a distinct society associated with Carvakas. That is, it seems to be a movement that was embedded in an existing religious society.

Likewise, it's difficult to gauge the progressivity of that group, existing as it did in a long-gone context. But I'd be interested in learning more about their history, if you know any good sources.

Are there societies that have regressed that you consider politically materially or spiritually rich?

Yeah sure. Or, richer than they were prior to the regression, anyway. For example, pretty much every fascist movement in history has applied social regression to achieve material and political power. That's almost the definition of "fascism." And of course, all of this depends on what you consider to be "progress" in the first place.

But it's a serious problem for progressives, that social progress is often at odds with material and political strength. Utopian fantasies about harmony between progress and power are just that. If it were otherwise, social evolution would already have provided us with such a Utopia.

Thats easily ascertained by comparing what they say the religion preaches with what they practise.

But then, perhaps what is preached is not really the religion at all, or anyway not the whole story. And then, of course, there's the problem of reconciling different preachings, and different interpretations of those preachings. "What the religion preaches," is not available to us in any definitive form, in the first place.

More interestingly, perhaps the real religion lives somewhere in the tension between preaching and practice. After all, there wouldn't be any need for preaching in the first place, if everyone were already in perfect adherence with the precepts.

 

[Carcano]

Buddhism is also a failure as a religion.

Possibly because it wasnt designed as a religion.

Religions revolve around worship and conceptual belief.

The religious aspects that eventually grew up around original Buddhism have been far more popular...which is what religions seek to be.

 

[S.A.M.]

Yes, I know what you were referring to. All I asked for were examples.

Okay. That seems a problematic example, though, in that it's unclear to me that there was a distinct society associated with Carvakas. That is, it seems to be a movement that was embedded in an existing religious society.

They were a society that came up as a challenge to the existing system and disappeared just as quickly, although their adherents are still around, follwing the Lokatya system of philosophy.

Likewise, it's difficult to gauge the progressivity of that group, existing as it did in a long-gone context. But I'd be interested in learning more about their history, if you know any good sources.

They are spread out through the history of India being an atheist branch of Indian philosophy. While I am sure they contributed to the existing society in all times [they were also known to be present in the court of Emperor Akbar for instance], but they were unable to sustain a social framework with their value systems.

Yeah sure. Or, richer than they were prior to the regression, anyway. For example, pretty much every fascist movement in history has applied social regression to achieve material and political power. That's almost the definition of "fascism." And of course, all of this depends on what you consider to be "progress" in the first place.

I would consider progress as anything that leads to a society more inclined to help than to hurt.

But it's a serious problem for progressives, that social progress is often at odds with material and political strength. Utopian fantasies about harmony between progress and power are just that. If it were otherwise, social evolution would already have provided us with such a Utopia.

Then would you say that elements of social progress require a structured framework for them to be sustained?

What do you think keeps utopia from being attained?

We could as well say that what is being preached is not the "real" religion, when it isn't actually practiced. And then, of course, there's the problem of reconciling different preachings, and different interpretations of those preachings. "What the religion preaches," is not available to us in any definitive form, in the first place.

I disagree with that. The idea that practise is what defines the principle would fail for any ideology. I think the standards are usually higher than what most people are willing to comply with, but everyone recognises that the principle itself is pretty clear.

More interestingly, perhaps the real religion lives somewhere in the tension between preaching and practice. After all, there wouldn't be any need for preaching in the first place, if everyone were already in perfect adherence with the precepts.

I think thats true for any human venture.

 

[quadraphonics]

They were a society that came up as a challenge to the existing system and disappeared just as quickly, [...] they were unable to sustain a social framework with their value systems.

So, then, there isn't any distinct "society" here for us to evaluate the progressiveness of, in the first place.

I would consider progress as anything that leads to a society more inclined to help than to hurt.

Well, that sounds agreeable enough. Although I'd skip the "society" qualifier: individuals can also be progressive.

Then would you say that elements of social progress require a structured framework for them to be sustained?

Not sure what you mean by "structured framework" there.

What is required is some counterforce to the craven forces that would roll back progress in order to accrue material and political power. That doesn't necessarily have to be institutionalized, or codified, or whatever (although that can certainly help).

What do you think keeps utopia from being attained?

Didn't I just describe that? The whole conflict between social progress and material/political strength.

I disagree with that. The idea that practise is what defines the principle would fail for any ideology.

Indeed. As does the idea that principle defines the practice. Thus, we must look elsewhere for our definitions.

I think the standards are usually higher than what most people are willing to comply with,

Which begs the question: in what sense are they "standards?"

but everyone recognises that the principle itself is pretty clear.

Hardly. Wars have been fought over these sorts of differences. Entire industries of scholars and preachers employed to figure out what, exactly, the principles are. The world I see is anything but unanimous on these sorts of questions.

I think thats true for any human venture.

Indeed.

 

[S.A.M.]

What is required is some counterforce to the craven forces that would roll back progress in order to accrue material and political power. That doesn't necessarily have to be institutionalized, or codified, or whatever (although that can certainly help).

How would an uninstitutionalised or uncodified system work?

Indeed. As does the idea that principle defines the practice. Thus, we must look elsewhere for our definitions.

That would seem counterintuitive Don't you need to have a principle before you can follow it?

Which begs the question: in what sense are they "standards?"

In the sense that they are defined. The necessity for standardisation is to have a concrete idea of what is both possible and ideal.

Hardly. Wars have been fought over these sorts of differences. Entire industries of scholars and preachers employed to figure out what, exactly, the principles are. The world I see is anything but unanimous on these sorts of questions.

And I see otherwise. Wars have been fought on the same principles of imposing what we consider to be the ideal standards on those who would not accept them. The disagreement has been with what the other person sees as a standard, which is often also based on the same principles. Or similar ones.

 

[Arsalan]

Some did, and some do today in northern Africa and Oceana. Or at least that's been the organizational principle and justification.

Actually, no. Africa is a trouble hotspots because of tribal warfare and territory. Indonesia became Muslim without a single war or conquest.

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.

Ah yes, leave out the fact that the Persians, starting with their leaders, hated Islam and the Arabs and tried to wipe it out. Direct attacks from a neighbouring country with ethnic cleansing as the intended result. Ofcourse, the Arabs should have just sat back and get killed. Or, you know, eaten the Persian candy!

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.

Lets see:

The distance between the US and Iraq is ......

The distance between Arabia and Persia was/is ........

Iraq didnt attack the US

Persia attacked the Arabs, repeatedly...

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.

The Spanish did more than that: they forcibly converted Jews and Muslims to Christianity and if that didnt work then they massacred them. The Spanish Wall is the reason for the West's ignorance about Islam. Their reasoning? How could God make these infidels so successful? Why was God supporting this infidels? Time to take back Europe!

Going back on topic: the success of Buddhism. The main problem with Buddhism is that its very one-note. It does not demand much from its adherents. Its limits are exposed when one compares its teachings to the full spectrum of life. It focuses on 1 aspect, some argue a couple more, while, say, Islam for example covers, and allows its adherents to think for themselves regarding, all the apects of life and demands from its followers to contribute to the advance of humanity in many ways.

 

[iceaura]

In fact, one could observe a direct correlation to how far people gravitate from the teachings of their religion to the poor condition of their society

Circular.

In demographic data, there is an inverse correlation between strongly claimed theistic belief and most societal characteristics commonly regarded as desirable - such as average height, child mortality, class mobility, dietary sufficiency, and so forth.

Some did, and some do today in northern Africa and Oceana. Or at least that's been the organizational principle and justification.
”
Actually, no. Africa is a trouble hotspots because of tribal warfare and territory. Indonesia became Muslim without a single war or conquest.

Your reply has nothing to do with my post. I asserted that Islam had in the past been spread by violence and threat, in places and times, and was being spread in that manner in some places now.

No doubt many of the wars in which Islam has been and is being spread were begun, at root and fundamentally, over resources and wealth - much as the current expansion of Judaism in Israel is, say, or the expulsion of Christians from Iraq, or the assault on the East Timorese by the Islamic government of Indonesia (including massacre and mass rape of non-Islamic civilians, as has been common in such colonial assaults by Islamic forces in recent times - see Pakistan in Bangladesh, various powers in northern Africa, etc.) So?

 

[S.A.M.]

Circular.

In demographic data, there is an inverse correlation between strongly claimed theistic belief and most societal characteristics commonly regarded as desirable - such as average height, child mortality, class mobility, dietary sufficiency, and so forth.

By poor condition, I was referring to moral values, not socio-economic status.

 

[Michael]

Ah yes, leave out the fact that the Persians, starting with their leaders, hated Islam and the Arabs and tried to wipe it out. Direct attacks from a neighbouring country with ethnic cleansing as the intended result. Ofcourse, the Arabs should have just sat back and get killed. Or, you know, eaten the Persian candy!

You are smoking crack. Persians founded almost, if not all, of the cities on the Arabian peninsula. They were the ones who were attacked.

Regardless, you are making up an excuse. First you say Islam was never spread by the sword. Now you say the Persians deserved to be attacked and their country ruled by Arabs, their culture decimated, the loss of their religion, their language, ect....

You sound like an American following 9/11 .... a classic example of brainwashing.

 

[S.A.M.]

You are smoking crack. Persians founded almost, if not all, of the cities on the Arabian peninsula. They were the ones who were attacked.

Regardless, you are making up an excuse. First you say Islam was never spread by the sword. Now you say the Persians deserved to be attacked and their country ruled by Arabs, their culture decimated, the loss of their religion, their language, ect....

You sound like an American following 9/11 .... a classic example of brainwashing.

For the first 100 years only the Arabs were Muslims. Islam was only "spread" after the first madrassa was opened by a woman in Morocco [and still existing today as a university] and people were taught about it.

The conceptualization is dominated by two stereotypes; the first popularized and captured by Gibbon in the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is of a fanatical Arab horseman riding forth from the desert with a sword in one hand and the Qur'an in the other offering victims a choice between one of the two,[3] however such "old notions of forced conversions have been abandoned, at least in scholarly literature."

Ira Lapidus distinguishes between two separate strands of converts of the time: one is animists and polytheists of tribal societies of the Arabian peninsula and the Fertile crescent; the other one is the monotheistic populations of the Middle Eastern agrarian and urbanized societies.[8]

For the polytheistic and pagan societies, apart from the religious and spiritual reasons each individual may have had, conversion to Islam "represented the response of a tribal, pastoral population to the need for a larger framework for political and economic integration, a more stable state, and a more imaginative and encompassing moral vision to cope with the problems of a tumultuous society."[8] In contrast, for sedentary and often already monotheistic societies, "Islam was substituted for a Byzantine or Sassanian political identity and for a Christian, Jewish or Zoroastrian religious affiliation."[8] Conversion initially was neither required nor necessarily wished for: "(The Arab conquerors) did not require the conversion as much as the subordination of non-Muslim peoples. At the outset, they were hostile to conversions because new Muslims diluted the economic and status advantages of the Arabs."

Only in subsequent centuries, with the development of the religious doctrine of Islam and with that the understanding of the Muslim ummah, did mass conversion take place.

The caliphs of the Umayyad dynasty established the first schools inside the empire, called madrasas, which taught the Arabic language and Islamic studies. They furthermore began the ambitious project of building mosques across the empire, many of which remain today as the most magnificent mosques in the Islamic world, such as the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus. At the end of the Umayyad period, less than 10% of the people in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Tunisia and Spain were Muslim. Only on the Arabian peninsula was the proportion of Muslims among the population even higher than this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_of_Islam


Also the Persians lost neither their culture nor their language. Persian culture was adopted by the Arabs [and later the Mongols and the Turks] and the Iranians still speak Farsi.

 

[ili]

Buddhism is the most powerful religion. Whereas all other religions are focused to have you live within the mind realm, Buddhism's goal is to elevate you above the mind realm into the clear awareness realm which includes knowledge of the illusionary fabric of reality that all but the enlightened believe.

 

[Tyler]

I would consider progress as anything that leads to a society more inclined to help than to hurt.

'Help' in which area? Or in some kind of average? This is the difficult question.

For instance China often argues that new policies restricting freedom are progressive in that they create a more 'moral' and wealthy society. Yet we wouldn't really call them 'progressive'.

I think that in English, at least, 'progressive' generally refers to an increase in liberty. Maybe an increase in personal liberty without a decrease in safety, or some other such modification.

 

[S.A.M.]

Unfortunately "increasing liberty" has also been used as a justification for hurting people.

But your point is a valid one.

 

[Arsalan]

No doubt many of the wars in which Islam has been and is being spread were begun, at root and fundamentally, over resources and wealth - much as the current expansion of Judaism in Israel is, say, or the expulsion of Christians from Iraq, or the assault on the East Timorese by the Islamic government of Indonesia (including massacre and mass rape of non-Islamic civilians, as has been common in such colonial assaults by Islamic forces in recent times - see Pakistan in Bangladesh, various powers in northern Africa, etc.) So?

The invasion of East Timor had nothing to do with religion, unlike your post would suggest. It was a reaction to the coup d'état by communists. But again here we see the sly, subtle way that you like to blame Islam for wars and everything bad that results from it. This would be like blaming Christianity for the rapes, tortures and murders during the Iraq war, or Atheism and Communism for the rapes, torture and murders during wars involving Communist countries. And this is also one of the reasons I have to point out BS like this from people like you. There is a reason war is not desirable, and that is that it brings the worst out in humans.

You are smoking crack. Persians founded almost, if not all, of the cities on the Arabian peninsula. They were the ones who were attacked.

Regardless, you are making up an excuse. First you say Islam was never spread by the sword. Now you say the Persians deserved to be attacked and their country ruled by Arabs, their culture decimated, the loss of their religion, their language, ect....

You sound like an American following 9/11 .... a classic example of brainwashing.

I know you dont understand this, but try, at least: the war against the Persians, who were bent on wiping out the Muslims in particular, did not go hand in ahdn with the spread of Islam or the conversion of every Persian. Zoroastrism losing influence was not down to Islam or the Arabs, it was down to its own beliefs, namely that no one can be converted to or invited into Zoroastrism. Only the people that are followers of Zoroaster are Zoroasters, no one else can be converted or invited. That is why his followers have diminished so much. A strongly ethnic religion, for a people, dies with its people.

Buddhism is the most powerful religion. Whereas all other religions are focused to have you live within the mind realm, Buddhism's goal is to elevate you above the mind realm into the clear awareness realm which includes knowledge of the illusionary fabric of reality that all but the enlightened believe.

Much like drugs. Its very one note and doesnt deal with the problems and situations one finds on this plane, let alone another.

 

[S.A.M.]

Zoroastrism losing influence was not down to Islam or the Arabs, it was down to its own beliefs, namely that no one can be converted to or invited into Zoroastrism. Only the people that are followers of Zoroaster are Zoroasters, no one else can be converted or invited. That is why his followers have diminished so much. A strongly ethnic religion, for a people, dies with its people.

Thats the reason why the Parsis, who have intermarried into their own group since migrating into India, are also disappearing.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/indepth/featureitems/parsis.htm

 

[DiamondHearts]

Show me which statement you exactly disagree with. Because I have read your posts and that a summary of you from what I read.

All of it. Your post is pure conjecture. Honesty is too difficult for you.

 

[Tyler]

Unfortunately "increasing liberty" has also been used as a justification for hurting people.

But your point is a valid one.

Thanks. That's true, and exactly why I think it's a difficult question. I think the only way you could make some definition agreeable with our intuition is if you put dozens of clauses onto it. I don't think a simple and strict definition is possible.

Much like drugs. Its very one note and doesnt deal with the problems and situations one finds on this plane, let alone another.

I think you've given as little chance to Buddhism as you accuse others of giving to Islam. It's an extremely different point of view and it addresses these problems with very different methods.