Is Buddhism a Failure?

well what I am trying to say is that only Buddha himself is to trust, not later renditions/interpretations of his words after his death.

Why? because other people were incapable of reaching the same conclusions as he did?

Taken on their own merit, there is nothing wrong with Buddhist beliefs, they are useful to some people.
 
If no one but Gautama could be enlightened, Buddhism would be a pointless exercise.
 
If no one but Gautama could be enlightened, Buddhism would be a pointless exercise.

yeah you are right, I guess I am wrong.

But how could people who were enlightened arrive at different conclusions about nature of being? Which in turn caused different branches of this religion to form?
 
yeah you are right, I guess I am wrong.

But how could people who were enlightened arrive at different conclusions about nature of being? Which in turn caused different branches of this religion to form?

And what different conclusions would these be?

Buddhism works well at the individual level for those who yearn for spiritual fulfilment without going into the details of an all encompassing consciousness or reason for being. It provides enough mysticism in the form of devas and do overs in the form of reincarnation to satisfy those who wish there was more to it than just accepting suffering as a way of life. Different people have different needs and everyone sees into any doctrine exactly what they need from it.

It would be impossible to have a fixed doctrine that would be true for everyone under all conditions. In fact, it would be downright dangerous.

You have to remember that religion is the means, its not the goal.
 
It is certainly not about accepting suffering as a way of life. That's what religions do, they proliferate myths about the great happiness you will recieve in the afterlife. Buddha's enlightenment happens here and now.
 
Then it must have an expiration date because it seems that Buddhists tend to find enlightenment a very transitory state of being.
 
Can you please prove that:
- Pakistan is more open than Canada

For Pakistanis, people of all skin tones and colored, they are equal. In practice and in application. People of all faiths have the right to give speeches and all political spectrums. This is done openly. In the West, Muslim political activity is discouraged and thousands of Imams have been jailed (without any proof of any wrong doing, usually deported to be tortured based on minor immigration violation, etc.). People like George Galloway would never be banned in Pakistan. The people wouldn't allow it.

- Pakistanis enjoy more freedoms than Canadians

Pakistanis are for more free in Pakistan than in Canada. There is no discrimination on the state level. They may say whatever they want and voice their political views, they don't have to fear being jailed for it as they do in the West.
- Living in Pakistan is safer than living in Canada

Prior to 2001, this would have been correct. The uS bomb attacks have frightened the populace and US allied Afghani (Karzai) and Indian agents are laying bombs and carrying shooting sprees in residential neighborhoods.

Yet a Pakistani can still walk at night and not be molested, unlike in the West. Children can be left to play outside, no problem. Public misconduct is punished severely. Rape in Pakistan means the death penalty, in the West it is usually 15 years of jail. There are no brothels, and dirty images and movies are banned.

- Pakistanis are wealthier than Canadians

Wealth in what, physical or in spirit? Real wealth is an equal society where people treat each other like human beings. An environment which enlightens the human mind and encourages him to reach his creator and live a life of humility. Many people in Pakistan chose to live simply lives, so they can devote it to helping others and the poor. This si real wealth. Peace fo mind and submission to one's creator.

What will wealth do to stop a depressed billionaire from committing suicide? What will wealth help in raising one's children with good and wholesome manners?

Wealth is not the ultimate criterion of a good and bad society, unfortunately few people can see that.

Yes!
And if the Taliban stopped taking over swaths of land by force, then this would help the civilian security problem, wouldn't you agree?

You mean TTP (read: pseudo-Taliban). Let the people of the region deal with their problems. They only make matters worse by killing on average 100 civilians a month in Pakistan/Afghanistan with drone missiles. It's none of the business of foreign countries. The sooner they leave the better.
 
I think you'll find that the religion has been apostasised to become prolific. As a religion, it is a failure. It did exist for 1000 years in India, before it was pushed aside as incompatible with the society that most people desired. Desire being the main purpose of living, apparently and antithetical to Buddhist values.
christianity would certainly be a failure then too. Who manages to live up to Jesus' upping the ante of adultery prohibitions and the implied upping of all antes related to morals?
Islam seems to have a hard time finding leaders for its governments who act morally. Likewise Judaism.

In fact pretty much every religion is damned by the societies surrounding it: it's either a perpetrator or a victim group or both.
 
There's gumdrops, lollipops and beheadings too!

Besides the beheading. We all know this is Israel's department. Beheading little children in the hundreds and thousands, starving a civilian population of its water, food, and medical supplies, using illegal white phosphorous chemical weapons on UN shelters, and stealing the rightful land of the Palestinians by European immigrants who claim to somehow have lived on this land 2,000 years ago.

We all know in America, and especially immoral Israel, if the biblical laws against adultery, homosexuality, and fornication were enforced, the majority of the population would be in jail or executed. Israel is the new Sodom and Gamorra, filled with gay nudist beaches, brothels in the hundreds, and openness of all intoxicants. Far from God's 'chosen' people.
 
SAM said:
Human rights are a secularist idea, sammy.
- - -
Sure. Which is why you'll find the notion present in all scriptures.
Bingo.
diamond said:
Yet a Pakistani can still walk at night and not be molested, unlike in the West.
Not only can I walk at night unmolested, but my wife can bicycle as well. Alone.
diamond said:
People like George Galloway would never be banned in Pakistan. The people wouldn't allow it.
Tell that to Rushdie.
diamond said:
Public misconduct is punished severely. Rape in Pakistan means the death penalty, in the West it is usually 15 years of jail. There are no brothels, and dirty images and movies are banned.
And honor killings are almost unknown, etc, as you informed us - and all those feminist websites are liars.

You have a very - how to put it - hopeful view of your favorite country.

I have a casual acqaintance who lived in Islamabad for a time. She can direct you to finding the nearest brothel when you are visiting Islamabad, if you are curious - boys or girls, your preference. She was a nurse then - she is a nurse now, and seems to find her new circumstances preferable to her old ones. Or if you are more interested in the religious festivals in Lahore , you can find your own way.
diamond said:
Wealth is not the ultimate criterion of a good and bad society, unfortunately few people can see that.
When the mosques have golden domes, the wealthy live in palaces, and the poor die of inadequate sewage disposal systems and poorly maintained roads, the matter becomes complicated.
diamond said:
Israel is the new Sodom and Gamorra, filled with gay nudist beaches, brothels in the hundreds, and openness of all intoxicants.
The horror of nudist beaches and open intoxicants is indeed concerning, even to a country famous for exporting opium derivatives by the ton, but surely you don't mean to argue that Israel's sins absolve Pakistan of its own?
 
christianity would certainly be a failure then too. Who manages to live up to Jesus' upping the ante of adultery prohibitions and the implied upping of all antes related to morals?
Islam seems to have a hard time finding leaders for its governments who act morally. Likewise Judaism.

In fact pretty much every religion is damned by the societies surrounding it: it's either a perpetrator or a victim group or both.

Christianity would be a failure if instead of worshipping God, Christians became atheists and still called themselves Christians [e.g atheist Jews]. When you dismiss the core concepts of your religion and transform it into something that contradicts what the core concepts define, thats when its a failure. Its like calling yourself a liberal and then bombing abortion clinics.
 
For Pakistanis, people of all skin tones and colored, they are equal. In practice and in application. People of all faiths have the right to give speeches and all political spectrums. This is done openly. In the West, Muslim political activity is discouraged and thousands of Imams have been jailed (without any proof of any wrong doing, usually deported to be tortured based on minor immigration violation, etc.). People like George Galloway would never be banned in Pakistan. The people wouldn't allow it.
Not according to Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the U.S. State Bureau or a number of other independent organizations.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/rt_pakis.htm
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/nov/07pak.htm
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71443.htm
Due to Ahmadis not accepting that Prophet Muhammad was the final prophet of Islam, a 1974 constitutional amendment declares this self-described Islamic community to be non-Muslim. In 1984, the Government added Section 298(c), commonly referred to as the "anti-Ahmadi laws", to the penal code. The section prohibits Ahmadis from calling themselves Muslims or posing as Muslims, referring to their faith as Islam, preaching or propagating their faith, inviting others to accept the Ahmadi faith, and insulting the religious feelings of Muslims. The constitutionality of Section 298(c) was upheld in a split-decision supreme court case in 1996. The punishment for violation of the section is imprisonment for up to three years and a fine.
How do you call that equal freedom?
Pakistanis are for more free in Pakistan than in Canada. There is no discrimination on the state level. They may say whatever they want and voice their political views, they don't have to fear being jailed for it as they do in the West.
Yes they do.
The Government discouraged and severely restricted public practice of the Ahmadiyya faith both by law and in practice. The 1974 constitutional amendment and 1984 changes to the Penal Code Section 298(c), commonly referred to as the "anti-Ahmadi laws", were used by the Government and anti-Ahmadi religious groups to target and harass Ahmadis. The vague wording of the provision that forbids Ahmadis from "directly or indirectly" posing as Muslims enabled mainstream Muslim religious leaders to bring charges against Ahmadis for using the standard Muslim greeting form and for naming their children Muhammad. An Ahmadiyya Muslim community report claimed that during the period covered by this report, twenty-six Ahmadis faced criminal charges under religious laws or because of their faith: four under the blasphemy laws, seventeen under Ahmadi-specific laws, and four under other laws but motivated by their Ahmadi faith. At the end of April 2006, five Ahmadis were in prison on blasphemy charges and three were in prison on murder charges that the Ahmadiyya community claimed were falsely brought due to their religious beliefs.
Yet a Pakistani can still walk at night and not be molested, unlike in the West. Children can be left to play outside, no problem. Public misconduct is punished severely. Rape in Pakistan means the death penalty, in the West it is usually 15 years of jail. There are no brothels, and dirty images and movies are banned.
1. I find it interesting that you don't include the Taliban in your list of reasons why Pakistan is recently more dangerous.
2. I've never been raped, and I walk the streets of Canada all alone by myself at night and have never once had a problem or felt scared.
Let the people of the region deal with their problems. They only make matters worse by killing on average 100 civilians a month in Pakistan/Afghanistan with drone missiles. It's none of the business of foreign countries. The sooner they leave the better.
Well at least we can agree on one thing.
 
By the way, what I quoted is only a very small sampling of the gross misconduct carried out by State and citizens in Pakistan in recent years. If you'd like me to quote some more I'd be happy to do so.
 
Besides the beheading. We all know this is Israel's department. Beheading little children in the hundreds and thousands, starving a civilian population of its water, food, and medical supplies, using illegal white phosphorous chemical weapons on UN shelters, and stealing the rightful land of the Palestinians by European immigrants who claim to somehow have lived on this land 2,000 years ago.
This is called a diversion. I don't think CptBork's response was particularly serious, but there's no reason to sink to his level.

Too many conversations to this way and it becomes mundane...
"Country X has done some bad things!"
"So what?!??!? Israel did worse!"

Can't anyone discuss anything without it inevitably falling to "Israel does worse"???? How would you like it if every single time you brought up Israel I countered with "Sudan is worse"??? It would be pointless and boring and you know it.
 
I think you need to differentiate between Pakistan the people and Pakistan the US puppet government. US puppet governments have a shady history of human rights almost everywhere, with a majority being right wing dictatorships. When given the choice, Pakistanis elect liberal democratic governments. Even women!
 
There have also been a number of attacks by the people on various minority groups. I'll post reports later if you'd like.
 
Back
Top