
I don't like top-down authoritarian structures. I've written against Catholicism, against Marxism, and against Islam because of their top-down authoritarian structures.
However, possibly the worst of all with regard to the top-down structure is Buddhism. Buddhism is very attractive to the youth of today, who think it's going to offer them something called Enlightenment, whatever that is. It seems to mean not wanting anything, and becoming a vegetable, or a mineral. Buddhists actually consider rocks and stones to be citizens I think this is because they want to be about as inert as a rock. Perhaps rock music is Buddhist to some degree. People become animals, then vegetables, and then minerals, when they listen to it. But in Buddhist monasteries, they sit on pillows and say the same word over and over until their minds disappear into a state called Nirvana. From the outside at least, these people are difficult to discern from geological structures.
Looking around at the Buddhist countries none of them work. Myanmar is a socialist Buddhist amalgam. Calorie counts are very low, and there are no freedoms. Vietnam was Buddhist, and now look. Another socialist quagmire. Most of Southeast Asia is more or less the same. Thailand has no freedoms. Buddhists don't seem to care about freedoms. They don't really even care about freedom of inquiry. They don't invent anything, they don't have any enterprises unless you call sex tourism an enterprise. It's a sell-out, but not of one's mind, but of their wives and daughters, and it's poisoning the children and women of those countries with AIDS and other maladies. As many as a fourth of the prostitutes of Thailand have AIDS, according to one report. This may not be as bad as many countries in Africa where a fourth of the normal population has AIDS, but it's still bad, especially if you're a prostitute.
You never hear about anyone in Thailand who is mad about this. There are no criteria for anger within Buddhism. You are never supposed to be angry. You just stay calm, and focus on your own inner peace. Buddhism doesn't even have moral criteria. The ten commandments has no correlative in Buddhism. Everything just is. If someone chops your leg off, your job is to remain sanguine. If someone kills a child, try to see everything as transience, and stay in the groove. There are no jeremiads in Buddhism. Say om again and get on with nothingness.
Tibet itself was once a martial nation before Buddhism came, but it's become a bunch of marshmallows sitting around on pillows.
Buddhists have gurus, and the gurus give you something called a mantra, which is supposed to be your key to turning off your brain. Even the Dalai Lama has no brain. He was asked if he thought prostitution was ok, and he said, sure, as long as you pay the woman! It's all la-la land in Tibet, except for the fact that Tibet no longer exists.
At Naropa Institute, where I went in the late 1970s, they had a crazy Tibetan guru called Trungpa. He was mentally ill, but people thought of him as wise, because it was claimed that milk buckets had fallen from the sky when he was born. He had weight problems, to put it politely, and he liked to throw his authority around. I suppose he wasn't actually as bad as a Yakuza, but Tom Clark's book on what he did to the poets of that time makes you wonder. He forcibly stripped W.S. Merwin and Merwin's girlfriend. He had no remorse on the matter, but when the gurus do something to you, you are just supposed to go along with it. If you don't, you're some kind of jerk. Tom Clark's book is called The Great Naropa Poetry Wars. It's been out of print for decades, but is one of the great books on how Buddhism looks the other way away from any evil, or reframes it. Buddhists don't have any way to evaluate anything.
Therefore, Buddhists don't have a journalistic tradition. Even if they did have one, they wouldn't have any newspapers, because freedom of the press doesn't exist in any Buddhist countries. We used to have freedom of the press, at least, in the Protestant west, but now that Buddhism and Marxism have combined to wipe out our intellectual class and turn them into followers of the Pied Piper, I don't expect much from that sector any longer. Does journalism still exist somewhere in the world? If so, why hasn't anybody done a report on the evils of Buddhism, and how it turns its practitioners into mental marshmallows? Maybe when you are doing the research, you turn into such a marshmallow you can't finish the report.
I used to think that Buddhism was something good when I was about 12. But at Naropa when I actually went there to see for myself at 17, Americans seemed to think of the Buddhists as preternaturally wise, and fell at their feet, grovelling. It was honestly bizarre. I never did this, and always thought, thank goodness I already have a religion. I did try sitting on a pillow and saying om several times. It made me unable to think critically. Was that the intent? It was definitely the effect. I realized if I went on, I would end up a mushroom, so I stopped, and prayed for deliverance from the Buddhists!
At Naropa Institute, the gurus had sexual rights over their students, both male and female. One guru there, who has now passed on from AIDS, a man named Osel Tenzin, was thought to have passed AIDS on to hundreds of students. He ordered males to sleep with him, even if they weren't gay, in order to receive Enlightenment. But nobody minded. AIDS was wisdom itself, or something, just like everything else you got from these gurus, and so it was something that was reframed as a gift. At least the Catholics realize that they had been abused. Buddhists who got this treatment just fell for it, and thought of it as groovy all the way to the cemetery. Peace, baby!
I never fell for it. Of all the religions and faiths on earth, Buddhism is the dumbest, and the cruelest, precisely because it's the nicest. It turns you into a vegetable, and you like it! In the Odyssey this was the land of the lotus-eaters. This was a particularly seductive land for the Beat poets. Many of them ended up there. Ginsberg did, as did Burroughs, and Gary Snyder, and Joanne Kyger, and even Corso ended up there (Corso was never a Buddhist, and laughed a lot about the Buddhists, but he did do a lot of heroin toward the end which is the same thing). Kerouac thought Buddhism was peaches. There is almost not a single Beat poet of the last fifty years who hasn't been involved in Buddhism (or its correlative of getting stoned) to some degree. These people were all individualists. And yet, Buddhism is the worst of all the authoritarian religions. You are supposed to chop off your head and replace it with a smiley-face button.
I thought it was Jonestown, only the song was, "and put on a happy face." I got grouchier and more paranoid around the Buddhists because they turned people dumber than rocks. A similar thing was the marijuana everybody of that ilk seemed to want to smoke which made them "stoned."
Why did everybody want to be dumb as a rock, and stoned, in a city called Boulder?
87 comments:
hierarchy is a fact of life
it is natural
it happens
the people who want a level playing field tend to orchestrate their own boorish tyranny
now obstensibly the hierarchy of catholicism is structured in terms of service...the actual title of the pope...servant of the servants of the poor...now i know there's all this pomp and solemnity going on all the time but in fact the structure of catholicism is determined by the needs of the people of god...doctrinally speaking the teaching apostalate of the church requires considerable intelligence and that intelligence is always beholden to the best thinking and the best diplomacy worked out in history...i mean we're still working out of the insights brought forth by john henry newman we're still referring back to thomas to augustine and to other "elites" who have helped to direct the best energies for the churchs' service to the world
i don't know about buddhism i think peole are attracted to it because it suggests a sort of non religion relgion...there is no hierarchy...of course we make roshis out to be pop stars in this country which is disgusting and basically the whole arrangement for todays spiritually minded people is about selfbetterment selfatpeacement selfilluminaton enlightenment on one's own terms so that a person can be a selfhappy self....as an antidote to the frenetic nature of life in america i think buddhism does offer people a chance to sit down and let the world go by..there is this danger of a person getting too attached to a roshi i suppose because we want to be with enlightened beings here on earth
at least the catholic world puts out all these terribly flawed people as leaders and they make no boasts ever about greatness until perhaps they're dead or perhaps like mother theresa do something really quite wonderful that the whole world acknowledges anyway
everyone wants a hieracrchy
everyone wanst to know that there arepeople wiser brighter more informed than they are with a hand on the rudder
many a roshi has warned against the american notion of doing soemthing really great doing something o so spiritual...when in fact the teaching is that the path to enlightenment is informed by a natural humility...they say...we are doing nothing special nothing important it is like the frog on the rock waiting for an insect to fly by that is all
the finest critique i've read of the western naive fascination with eastern spiritual stuff is arthur koestler's "the lotus and the robot"
there's always an unconscious movement to appropriate religious insight to an individual or a communal agenda...that's why it is important to have the very learned and the trusted to oversee the working out of religious material for general consumption...that's why protestantism in general is sucha bad idea...too many peopel get to a point where they they thin they know it all or they have the essential goods on theh gospel adn it doesn't correspond with the pastor so they set out to make a new church...luther may not have intended that bute he sure is to blame...christ established one church,,,now which is it going to be...the protestant world has resurrected pelagius and they want to march on on their own terms
insofar as buddhism helps people to be quiet it is a good thing...yet i fear it also shuts down something essential in the human intellect...the buddhists never read thomas aquinas so they are forever less than enlightened they are benighted by their own practice...shame on them
the only reason hitler could come to power in germany was because all these egalitarian lutherans were foundering without a pope and there was this big vacuum and the whack job walked right into the empty room...and they lapped it up like it was the best new thing on the block...the world spins out of control without the benevolent dictator
they who now do not say
they who say do not know
-i think that's a buddhist saying
crucify him
- that's christian
j
they who know do not say
I agree that Aquinas is essential to figuring out if our fingernails will grow in the afterlife, and on other matters, too.
Seriously, his understanding of aesthetics (harmony within multiplicity) is stunning, and -- at least I've read it through Umberto Eco's Art and Beauty in the Middle Ages, essential.
Still don't know about the ex cathedra intelligence of the Pope.
I would rather place my trust in a sharp monk from Wittenberg. The outsiders often have more going on than the insiders. Jesus was an outsider to the Jewish hierarchy in Jerusalem.
If hierarchy is based on merit, then I'm for it, generally.
But merit is difficult to discern.
Wisdom demands that we either discern it, or perish.
Sotomayor is going to cause us all to perish. She is totally lacking in wisdom, or she wouldn't have said the things she's said.
Augustine and Aquinas had lots of wisdom on the other hand.
I don't think Buddhists have any wisdom. I don't think the Buddha himself had any wisdom.
I do want someone in control of a system. Luther was pretty good at setting up a meritocracy.
Hitler and all his top hierarchy were Catholics at least insofar as that was how they were raised. Socialists helped them into power.
Lutherans did make assassination attempts, but were ineffective. They were a part of the problem and insofar as they were, have to take some blame for allowing the Final Solution.
But not all of the blame belongs to Lutherans.
They remained a stalwart force against Hitler. So much so that the Stalinists left their churches intact in E. Germany, in thanks. And then in 1989, the Lutherans led the attack on the Stalinists that led to the crumbling of their power, too.
It was Lutherans all over E. Europe.
In Timisoara, it was a single Lutheran priest that brought down Ceausescu. His name was Bishop Tokes.
He preached faithfully, and Ceausescu's government was overwhelmed. People began to sing a song titled, "God Exists!" And in that moment, Ceausescu fell from his parapet. It was all over but the shooting.
Both meditation and entheogens (that is, getting stoned) are interesting for a specific purpose
to connect with the universe (that is, God) on a holistic level.
Once you have done that, it's time to get up from the tree or off the pot or whatever and preach to people.
Jesus went into the desert for 40 days and vegged out.
Then he changed the world.
That's the pattern to follow -- not the one of the lotos eaters.
Jesus is Lord. Doesn't that make Christian hierarchical in the same sense that Buddhism is?
Steven P. Jobs was raised Lutheran, but converted to Buddhism. It seems to me that he's been a positive creative force in the Computer industry. The Macintosh, the iPod, NeXT computers, maybe you've heard of them?
Japan is 71.4% Buddhist, according to the CIA factbook. They seem to be doing no worse than we are. Singapore is 42.5% Buddhist, the largest plurality. They seem to be doing pretty well. Namibia is >50% Lutheran. Maybe not quite so well.
We're really good seeing the speck in the other guy's eye, of course. I do recall someone mentioning this.
Stu, I wonder at times if you aren't a little bit Buddhist.
Japan is doing well becasue we were nice enough to invade them, change their constitution, and force them to adapt to western ways, something we started in Meiji Period, but had to finish up in the 40s and 50s. Now they're doing very nicely, but they're not Buddhists.
Namibia has been converted by Europeans. It will take two generations to see what happens there.
I'll give you Steven P. Jobs, but I'd argue that the functioning part of his mind is the Lutheran part. That is, he can invent because he grew up Lutheran.
Try it the other way and see if anything comes.
Singapore is a mystery to me. I just bought a book called Can Asians Think? by some guy who is from Singapore. He argues that they can, but they think differently from the west. I don't own the book yet.
I argue that they can't, because they didn't have the Reformation. It is only when freedom of thought is a basic right that people can actually think. Otherwise, it's very hard to do it. It's only happned a few times in the history of the world.
In Greece under Pericles, and in America, and in a few places in northern Europe.
No one else has ever done any real thinking. It's not encouraged in most places.
I'll throw in Israel. Throughout its history, the Jews (I include Jesus) have been doing quite a lot of thinking. I admire them.
Almost no thought has ever emerged out of sub-Saharan Africa or out of South America. Antarctica has a better record.
When I was in China last year I climbed the Thousand Buddha Mountain in Jinan and then took a daytrip down to Qufu to see the Temple of Confucius. It was great. We had a tour guide who said his name was Kevin Garnett because he knew we wouldn't be able to pronounce his Chinese name. I asked him lots of questions about the difference between Buddhism and Confucianism and the impression I got was that the two are deeply intertwined. It was easier for me if I thought of Confucius as sort of like Socrates and Buddha as sort of like Jesus.
Stu, I wonder at times if you aren't a little bit Buddhist.
:-). No, but you do have a point. My background is mathematical logic, and with this comes a willingness to play with formal systems, and to compare them in various ways.
A part of this is that I recognize that the soundness of an argument is not determined by the veracity of its conclusion, let alone by how much we like the conclusion. If you can take the same argument, instantiate it from the other guy's point of view, and end up supporting his position, then all you'll never convince him, and it's time to move on to another argument.
Japan is doing well becasue we were nice enough to invade them, change their constitution, and force them to adapt to western ways, something we started in Meiji Period, but had to finish up in the 40s and 50s. Now they're doing very nicely, but they're not Buddhists.
The CIA factbook entry for Japan is amusing -- they list 80% Shinto, 71% Buddhist, and fragments of others, and then somewhat apologitically note that in Japan, these are not exclusive categories. But I think less of Shinto than Buddhism, and suspect you do too. I'd certainly be reluctant to ascribe any success on Japan's part to Shintoism.
As for their competence, they certainly did a good job roughing up the Russians in 1904-5, and they had a more more powerful and better balanced naval force at the beginning of WW II. We had better crypto, and for one shining day in June '42, better luck when it mattered.
Namibia has been converted by Europeans. It will take two generations to see what happens there.
Indeed. Of course, that happened prior to WW I, so they've had more than two generations already. We live in hope -- I hope Namibia does well.
I'll give you Steven P. Jobs, but I'd argue that the functioning part of his mind is the Lutheran part. That is, he can invent because he grew up Lutheran.
Actually, I think his aesthetics and sense of completion (it's not done when there's nothing left to add -- it's done when there's nothing left to remove) are more informed by his Buddhism than his (long since faded) Lutheranism. It's hard to know, of course, and people of good will can disagree.
Singapore is a mystery to me. I just bought a book called Can Asians Think? by some guy who is from Singapore. He argues that they can, but they think differently from the west. I don't own the book yet.
I had a Singaporean graduate student earn a Ph.D. under me, on convergence of computable real valued functions. Trust me, he could think. I know some very pretty theorems in complexity theory proven by Japanese. Believe me, they can think. I've known a good number of Toyota higher ups (I was an advisor for Toyota Technical Institute in Chicago). They can think. Here's something you would never guess: they love Motown too! You've got to love that. It certainly shows better taste than loving Jerry Lewis.
i've heard that the japanese love tango
and they now love to get married in catholic churches without being catholic
buddhism is a way of learning that it just is not about me
the west grew all these notorious egos and we've yet to come to terms with all that
did the dalai lama actually condone prostitution?
why all those amazing japanese violinists and piano players
and chinese and korean
america has had this wierd love/hate relationship with alcohol to the point now where it is somewhat safe to say that AA is an alternative religion
lives have been ruined cars have been wrecked demon liqour has kiled killed killed
and AA has saved saved saved
but a lot of those people go back to drinking i am told
but the weed smokers they just get a little lazy and dopey
they don't seem to hurt anyone
i mean
i tried it once (OK twice) back in the day and i thought it was sort of nice no hangover
i think what really screwed people up in the 60s and 70s was all the other drugs all the pharmaceuticals and lsd and well OK all the loud music
if it had just been weed it would've been a quiet lazy revolution
but people being people they just had to take it over the edge as it were
scared the hell out of the puritans
thus the right wing reaction in reagan and bushdom
the name luther will for ever be a stumbling block
maybe those folks should just be -"ans"
any religion that can boast
if you see the buddha walking on the road
kill him!!
must be doing some thinking
i mean the whole idea of the koan
c'mon already
does kirby olson have buddha nature
does a bird shit on the windshield
my one koan joke
does a cow have buddha nature?
moo!
what a different world it would be if our young people would sit in meditation for a few hours a week instead of being subliminally sodomized by the media hoax 24/friggin/7
japanese aesthetics
no thought there
buddha praying the rosary
then the world will be at peace
i mean we have all these memorials set up for the dead in wars and holocausts around DC why not just a little buddha shrine right there next to lincoln
nirvana satori just a little breath away
om jesus om
where's ed baker on this one
he's done the reading
he's weighed it in the scales
10 ox-herding stories
it seems clear that the earthly goal for buddhism is compassion
that takes a little thought
boddhitsatva goin take you by the hand
j
Those who seek do not find, those who do not seek are found.
Pretty sure that was Kafka.
I'm here,
I think...
trying to figure out how to get all 5 books of Stone Girl 515 pages
out of a folder and into an
odt
page by page so that I can transport IT All into a pdf
so that I can send it
...willy-nilly....
O U T
cute 10,000 muses....
meanwhile I sit on my deck and watch grass grow and clouds drift...
and wait for a visit from
.....anyboddhi
I think that Buddhism is more an attitude or a WAY TO PROCEED rather than a "Religion"
and I think that your Jesus myth or real spent lots of time in India studying and stealing attitude from Buddhism ... am sure that he and others from his geographical/intellectual local traveled back and forth along The Silk Road
I mean where else did those "Three Wise Men of Orient-are get all that "stuff" to give to Baby..
etc
as it
was then / so it is now
At some point, Human Biodiversity has to play a role in -- according to Kirby -- who thinks and who doesn't.
Political structure determines who can think and who cannot. It's that simple. Galileo thought, and was severely punished.
Try to think in N. Korea.
Try to think in Myanmar. Try to tell a joke in Myanmar and see what happens.
Lutheranism always allowed freedom of thought, therefore, there was also a lot of humor and open-mindedness.
We have to define what it means to think. What it means is changing the whole paradigm.
No one outside of Lutheran circles (historically) was permitted to do that. Now, Americans, outside of colleges of course where free speech is no longer permitted, can think freely, to some degree.
But the communists are doing their best to discourage that trend.
Try thinking freely in Zimbabwe, or Red China, or in any of the Islamic countries.
People are the same the world over. However, political structures vary quite a lot in terms of what's permitted along the lines of human rights.
Your blog is clear enough evidence that Protestanism (or 'Lutherianism' or whatever your allowed paradigm for 'thinking' is) is the only religion smug - yet so fucking STUPID - to think it's oh-so 'objective'.
You seem somewhat obsessed with who can 'think' and who can't, but reading your blog you seem like one of the biggest dumbasses I've ever gave ten precious minutes to! Your writing style belies a serious head injury, your bigotries belie sexual insecurites (and we have your photo for further proof), and your 'religious' convictions belie someone who's too afraid to look out the window in a safari park.
Did you study Liberal Arts with the John Birch society? I'm surprised they'd be that smug... but what do I know? I'm sure my distaste for you and similar a-holes is 'ad hominen thinking'. If what you do is 'thinking', please point me to the nearest lobotomy clinic!
Wedge x
galileo got off easy
house arrest
all the wine he could drink
and he went to mass all the time
i think he understood that his research was a bit beyond his critics so he forgave them
thinking happened all over the mediterranean
it happened for at least 1500 yrs before christ in persia and india
the culture of BENIN was a highly advanced culture
the chinese thought wrote great poetry and looked at the stars before the greeks and the egyptians did
wherever there were catholic schools people were thinking
maybe the catholics should be faulted for educating so many people over the years
ah well
what can you do now??
post factum
i think augustine would have liked the buddhist way
he was very aware of the inherent restlessness of human beings
and while he chose christian ritual and the psalms he might've gained from just sitting for awhile
of course the dialogic nature of his thinking is invaluable
i wonder how much actual thinking takes place in america
i mean there are all these folks reacting and responding and striving and getting their phds
but is there thinking goin on
if all modern and postmodern cognitive effort stops short of metaphysics what is there to think about
the mind opens outward to embrace the universe
life suggest thought to the mind
the rc magisterium holds the place of saying to anyone thinking --
your thought may be wrong- check it out
it's an ascent
we should all be willing to experience discomfort and rejection for our conclusions
take it one more step
smile breathe go slow
-thich nhat hahn
the pragmatists and the phenomenists and the existentialists took a lot of the enjoyment out of thinking that's for damn sure
i think any roshi would be very impressed with thomas' cognitive halt...he sensed something greater...it is all but straw
but of course he got there by painstaking cognitive discipline - something they would i suppose eschew - although they do tend to pore over the sutras - must be some cognitive curiosity going on there
so much of buddhism was compromised by the desire for esoteric and exotic things - there must be a better more interesting way than all this crap developed in the west - yeah lets' get buddhist
once on a train i explained to a fellow from L A that i was a benedictine monk he blurted out immediately well i'm a buddhist...as the discussion carried forth it turns out he had a pedestrian knowledge of buddhism but was hardly a practioner and/or a reader in the discipline...i could never simply say i am a benedictine monk simply because i read the rule of benedict once and i like the sound of gregorian chant...no...my life depends on it
but we have hosted buddhists in our refectory from north india...and merton was taken with the "thinking" of the east and the monastic tradition in buddhism in particular...he saw in it something at least as profound as the spiritual traditions developed in the west...that was enough to light the little fire
in one sense i think you're right kirby...in the way that spiritual seekers in america took to the exotic nature of buddhism as a way of freeing themselves from the "constraints" as they were perceived -- very few people ever were able to attain to a depth of discipline in the practice until quite recently -- most who were honest with themselves saw the enormous tradition that led to 20th century interest and knew they could barely scratch the surface so humbly perhaps they attained to something in the manner of "doing nothing very special at all"
now once when i was studying for a masters degree in theology i was also sitting and at one point on one day i was overwhelmed with a deep inner peace and a knowledge that nothing short of death could keep me from my goal i was there i was on the way and i think perhaps i could've gotten the same experience by praying the rosary every day but i didn't so i have to say that i believe the zazen has some merit -- i worked out the whole affair with a good teacher and after awhile i simply stopped sitting - for reciting psalms with my brothers and quietly reading in my cell became sufficient intellectual means for me to continue
but zazen helped no doubt it helped at one crucial point
thank you jesus
j
The Dalai Lama really did condone prostitution. It was in a book whose name I can't recall. It was a book of interviews with a purple cover. I went to look for it, and must have sold it. As I see it,
Really thinking is Kuhnian --
BUT,
Buddhism argues that acceptance of whatever is, is the right way to go. Therefore it has no critical component. The new phrase that's popped up, "It is what it is," is almost certainly Buddhist in origin.
Marxism is an economic reading of whatever, and is always stuck in that mode.
Catholics have laws determined from above, and there is no input from the peanut gallery.
Lutheranism doesn't really have a head, although we do have bishops. We also have different synods that are not in communion with one another.
Congregations are free to switch from one synod to another (ours just switched from ELCA to Missouri).
There is a problem when you ditch tradition, and allow conceptual changes. All kinds of bad and sleazy thinking slips in, and who's to say whether the thinking is ok or not? The Catholics have the Pope, and the Communists have Kim Jong-Il or Pol Pot or some other dictator.
In liberal democracy you have the vote. That helps.
But ultimately communities either fly or else they don't. Many Catholic countries have crumpled into near-starvation. Marxist countries INVARIABLY crumple into total famine. Buddhist societies accept hunger as part of change, they accept anything.
Islamic societies love death and illiteracy.
Lutheran societies are also invariably electoral democracies, and are individualistic, and allow for freedoms of thought, but have at least a loose coalition of truths based on the ten c's, so they may have the best combination of flexibility and structure imaginable.
Really thinking has to be flexible and yet based on some core principles that are sound enough to produce enduring insights into how to behave and how to act wrt one another.
But yes, the Dalai Lama really did condone prostitution. He even appeared to giggle over it.
And I think he's the best of that tradition.
I don't think we can be "nothing," as the Buddhists argue. We are always somethng, which is something fallen, and always a bit monstrous. You see it more in folks like Wedge who show up without any faith whatsoever, no principles or guidelines.
They are just drunk with evil.
We get those folks in from the steppes now and then. Can't figure out how to behave at all, so they just act like wild animals under white sheets of anonymity.
It's part of the culture of the net that it produces poltergeist tumbleweeds of that variety.
The wheel of Buddhist terms poster Velcro modular wall mural game.
PARASITIC SPECIES INFESTATION alien robot telescope spaceship: audiobook first few tracks are good, PALE BLUE DOT as we transition to a knowledge based global society
as computing power increases exponentially and ubiquitous web enabled sensors allow for immersion in context relevant buddhist or ethics perspective, national broadband plan...
www.dharmaprinting.com augmented reality sociology subject index and table of contents Chinese military intelligence genius clones life energy word abacus sustainability transmission measurement context mapping twitter.com/globalcide is me Google for EXTINCTCULTURE please let me know what you think about this topic www.computer.org/pervasive (FOLDING@HOME and BIONIC software's, engineering 450 million new species to make deserts habitable or telepathic ecosystem maintenance) autodesk inventor prototyping software for genetics use the audio book list on audibles.com to build course of life coaching training young orphan people to be CIA certified ethical hackers download free at nowtorrents.com because if the current post world war 2 education system was meant to produce factory workers (not critical thinking curriculum video from best teacher nationally then teachers answer questions and do research while the kids watch, pause for Q+A, the videos podshifter software for iTunesU ) how much worse is this continuation of using the bible koran instead of critical mass ecosystem dynamics physics logistics?
google for flashcard database
subliminal education psychological profiling HDTV prenhall.com/dabbagh/
MIT OCW designing your life. The art of war flashcard deck, wikipedia article audio book the 48 laws of power... RAW stem cells movies: Eagle EYE, Minority Report, (gps and audio recording + all video survelance to DVR on web for all probation and parole ankle monitors, put more people on them and use software to monitor them, the probation or parolee pays for the ankle monitor and then gives it back to the probation office then the next probation pays for it again, thus buying another one) broadcom is makeing new version of these chips every two months now GPS + Bluetooth + WiFi + FM combo chip)
lifehack.org/articles/productivity/the-ultimate-student-resource-list.html
selfmadescholar.com/b/self-education-resource-list
web 2.0 directories: ziipa.com and go2web20.net USE THE TAGS cloud, also lifehacker.com and lifehack.org SHARE 99ebooks.blogspot.com
youtube.com/homeproject
Dear Matthew Tripp:
If you're trying to get others to go to your website, good idea not to make their brains rot with nonsense.
As I've said before, the Roumanian E M Cioran, after his career (along with the incomparable expert in comparative religion at the U of Chicago, Mircea Eliade) in the Roumanian rightist Iron Guard in the 1930s, adopted Buddhism late in life, but found Parisians mostly oblivious to his message about "the enlightenment" to come from its teachings. He writes:
"We all have some mania or other that keeps us from embracing the Supreme Happiness. I ponder my friend Charles, for whom drinkiung in a cafe is the sole reason to exist. One day, when I was excellently vaunting Buddhism to him, he replied: 'Well, yes, nirvana, all right. . . . But not without a cafe!'"
Vive Charles, vivent le roi et la reine de France, et vive la Bastille! A bas tous les Revolutions (1789,1830, 1848, 1870) salaudes!
Our computer tanked over a week ago and we're working to set up a new one soon. Plus my left hand is not working well again due to an old army wound (I'll finally take an army disability pension this time for it). And me mum's required more care of late. Finally, Em and I are still recovering from the effects of the swine flu we caught in Canada and which the Canadian-Paki quack who ran a seedy clinical shakedown racket (his time will come, I've assured him) didn't catch because he didn't take a single vital sign when I had the misfortune to be recommended to him by an equally seedy Canadian-Brit pill-pusher.
Kirby: Ireland (which now for a while has enjoyed a higher std of living than wretched "Protestant" UK) poor? Slovenia poor? Italy poor? Spain poor? Belgium poor? Austria (for God's sake!) poor? And just how tolerant ARE Scandi-Lutheran countries of prostitution, Kirby? And how come Scandi countries have higher per capita incidents of child molestation than in other Western European countries? Try the sublime works of the brilliant Catholic monarchist philosopher, Comte Joseph de Maistre. I count his greatest English translator and biographer, Richard Lebrun of the U of Manitoba, a warm acquaintance of mine. Vivent la Monarchie et l'Eglise!
Matthew: I am looking for a download for a Sanyo USB driver for the internet--can you help? Sanyo hasn't had the driver on their website for some time now. The phone model is 8-100. How DOES one get internet sans cable (we don't want TV) or phene svc?
We can be reached at: v.delater.@att.net
Merci, beaucoup, Matthew!
Buddhism believes in many things. Most of which I do not have time to go into. However, one thing we do go for is simplicity.
so...fuck you you smug simple-minded ass.
One of the things I especially love about Buddhism is its peacefulness. Like when Guru Trungpa forcibly stripped Merwin and his girlfriend. Or this kind of bigoted comment.
for people who have a shallow or ignorant view of Buddhism, i just send them this link and let them process it until it sinks in :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX2f6QHkU-I
enjoy!
~C
I guess Trungpa just was oblivious to "skillful teaching"
here is the Merwin story. I like Gary Snyder's response.
Trungpa was/is the worst thing to have happened to American Buddhism...
http://www.strippingthegurus.com/stgsamplechapters/trungpa.asp
the fundamental tenants of Buddhism are valid...
best way?
practice your own brand of religion
and drop the crap!
I thought Buddhism was about non-attachment to any kind of desire. But desiring to be attached to Buddhism itself may be bad, too.
I don't know. Buddhism doesn't appear to offer moral guidelines of any kind. Mindfulness is actually mindlessness.
I did spend whole minutes on it at one point, and even took some courses, and attended Trungpa's lectures. I'm just glad I don't live in Myanmar.
I'm sorry Kirby. Your arguments about Buddhism are ignorant and your arguments are incoherent. I suggest you educate yourself rather than spreading misunderstanding.
I thought Buddhism was about non-attachment to any kind of desire. But desiring to be attached to Buddhism itself may be bad, too.
The fact is that we all have attachments. Attachments are the basis of suffering. Forming some attachments to Buddhism is to be expected - it's possible that this may be an obstacle to be overcome at some time. But attachment isn't 'bad' - it's the human condition.
I don't know. Buddhism doesn't appear to offer moral guidelines of any kind.
Never heard of Buddhist Precepts?
I undertake to abstain from taking life.
I undertake to abstain from taking what is not given.
I undertake the training rule to abstain from sexual misconduct.
I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech.
etc
Monks can have dozens of these.
But more profoundly that, Buddhism teaches us to be aware of and address the psychological roots of harmful behaviour, rather than just passing judgment on it.
Mindfulness is actually mindlessness.
Get some real experience of your subject matter and then report back. This is just ignorance.
I'm just glad I don't live in Myanmar.
I think you're confusing Buddhism with Communism.
n't it that
greed, anger, desire, want,
and ignorance are causes of all suffering?
and
I suppose Ignorance is worst of the lot...
try to memorize he Flower Ornament Scripture
or/and The Lankavatara Sutra
or, if your mind is too full of junk
just "do" any translation of The Diamond Sutra..
I think that maybe you went to Naropa and into what little bit of Buddhism with a closed mind and some terrible, youthful experiences especially the fun sex stuff and now, me thinks,
that you are just "pissing into the wind"
etc
OH I forgot ... to add to your "summer" reading:
Sahn's The Compassion of Zen
Sahn's Only Don't Know
Reid's The Tao of Health, Sex, and Longevity
Odier's Tantric Quest
then for phun go to
Ikkyu's writings/poems
and
Dogen's
From the Kitchen to Enlightenment
his moon in a dewdrop AND
Dogen's Zen Essays
translated by Ths Cleary SHOBOGENZO
Justin, thanks for telling me about the precepts. They sound pretty good. Who developed them?
Also, Myanmar is a socialist Buddhist country. That is, it's both! I don't know either how this can be.
It seems to take the worst of both and foist it on the population at large. Wikipedia it, and see if you can sort it out.
I think it takes the general passivism of Buddhism, and the centralized economy of Marxism, and tries to make a go of it.
It works for the top ten party members, I'm sure.
For everybody else, they just have to remind themselves that everything is an illusion.
Justin, thanks for telling me about the precepts. They sound pretty good. Who developed them?
Um...The Buddha! But there are many variations of them according for monks or laypeople and different traditions. They don't teach this at Naropa?!
Also, Myanmar is a socialist Buddhist country. That is, it's both! I don't know either how this can be....
I think it takes the general passivism of Buddhism, and the centralized economy of Marxism, and tries to make a go of it.
Yes it is both. But it has been Buddhist for over 2000 years longer than it has been Socialist. That there is any link between the two is your hypothesis and not one with much evidence. I would suggest that it has more to do with geography. Japan, Sri Lanka, Nepal and South Korea are Buddhist and democratic. Sweden and Norway are Christian/secular and social democratic, the USSR was Christian and communist. I don't think you can draw any conclusions about links between Buddhism and communism from that. Anyway, you claim that this link has something to do with Buddhist 'passivism' which I don't think is true either. Remember all those scenes on TV of monks leading the protests in Myanmar? 'Saffron Revolution' anyone? Anyway for a country to become communist requires not a passive people but a people prepared to revolt against the (usually monarchistic) government that preceded it.
It works for the top ten party members, I'm sure.
Quite. We're in agreement that life in Myanmar must be hard for the majority.
For everybody else, they just have to remind themselves that everything is an illusion.
Suffering is very real.
And "everything is an illusion" is a very shallow (mis)understanding of Buddhism
The poetry section at Naropa Institute was at least at that point (late 1970s) officially separate from the Buddhist part. I'm not sure how it worked, but you didn't have to study Buddhism at all in order to study poetry there. I studied in fact with various teachers who actually laughed about Buddhism quite a lot during the classes. We were surrounded by Buddhists, but it wasn't a theocratic department.
Still, Wikipedia Myanmar! The country is officially a Buddhist socialist country. I think that they rebelled against British colonialism (Orwell was in Burma before the changeover and wrote against colonialism extensively). You can get a glimpse of the rotteness of the system through his manageable essays like To Shoot an Elephant, and a few others. The Buddhist monks would spit on him as he passed (he had a job as a soldier-police officer somewhere outside of Rangoon).
I'll need to look up the Buddha and figure out what writings he did. You argue that he wrote down clear rules for the monks.
I didn't think he was a writer, or that he passed laws, or framed a constitution of regulations for the priesthood.
I'll check this out, but it will take me a while, probably.
I thought that the Buddha was a bit like Jesus or Socrates in not leaving any writings of his own.
I also think there are different lineages of Buddhism. Theravada versus some other group.
Perhaps some of them have some ethical guidelines.
Choygam Trungpa certainly didn't have any ethical guidelines that he used. At least he certainly didn't use any ethical guidelines along the lines of the ones that you named with regard to sexual ethics.
He belonged to something called the Crazy Wisdom lineage.
There was no one above him to discipline him, or to throw him out of the order. He was the Pope of that specific lineage, and had total authority. He drank heavily, and had sex with whomsoever he wished.
Buddhism is the official religion of Burma. To be a government official you have to be Buddhist.
So you see that even at the official level Myanmar (as it is now called) is Buddhist.
There are several million Christians especially among the Karen people. This is how I originally came to know something about Burma, or Myanmar. The official government policy is to destroy Christianity, as well as Islam, so that 100% of Myanmar becomes Buddhist, and Communist.
The nobel prize winner who won 90% of the vote in 1990, and who was denied the ability to take office by the military, has been under house arrest since her electoral win in 1990.
Since 90% of Myanmar is Buddhist you can't say that the Saffron Revolution was a popular uprising. It was a small percentage of the overall Buddhists that went against the Buddhist-Marxist amalgam.
Although it's true that Buddhist countries generally had monarchies, that's not the case in Burma. They had a kind of democracy, which they still pretend to have, but it's a one-party state.
Suffering in some places is worse than in others. In most Buddhist countries suffering is far worse than in most Christian countries. For Buddhists in Christian countries, it's not too bad. For Christians in Buddhist countries, however, it's far worse.
try this:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/buddhism1.htm
and this:http://www.religioustolerance.org/buddhism4.htm
Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind and ANGER (Thich Nhat Hahn) are "cool" and easily understood..
OSHO (all of his 10,000 books) who I am sure you'd love-to-hate is fun to read..
and of course
there is always
The Kama Sutra for Idiots...
full moon
I've read The Kama Sutra
but only the good parts
since you seem so concerned about sex, nationalistic religions and dirty toilets try this (don't skip a single paragraph):
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/walshe/wheel225.html
A bit long, Ed. What authority does the author have?
A bit shorter than your piece, Ed, is this piece by Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens hates all religions and thinks of them as dubious at best and stupid at worst.
http://www.salon.com/news/1998/07/13news.html
In it, he also says that the Dalai Lama has forbidden masturbation but condoned prostitution.
Prostitution is a huge part of the economy in Tibet.
For Tibetan women you can either join a nunnery or become a prostitute.
That is, if you aren't married.
And yet, many western women think of the Tibetans as some kind of wonderful place where peace and harmony always reign.
A little research can be good!
Just google "Dalai Lama" and prostitution and you'll get lots of credible reports from credible writers in credible journals.
prostitution makes the world go 'round...
especial in Las Vegas, NYC and SF and Manila, and Hong Kong and Peeking...
nothing quite like a "business" trip to Tokyo
you can buy in vending machines girls' used panties! fer christ's sake!~
Maybe I was to succinct before. Let me expand (although my previous comment still stands firm).
Some bits and pieces of Shaku Soen's (Zen Buddhist) Dharma talks.
...It is not the buddhist ideal to escape worldliness and enter into a realm of eternal stillness. This sometimes misunderstood by individuals who read too much into the concepts of "no-mind" or emptiness. Buddhists do not shun struggle and conflict if the cause is worth contending for or defending. Buddhists will not hesitate to sacrifice for it not only in this life but in all of their future lives (this does not infer reincarnation but rather the concept of individual actions inspiring individuals of future generations - each in essence is an extention of your own life.) ...
...It is not buddhistic to hanker after personal immortality and to construct diversity of theories to satisfy this illegitimate desire. Do whatever you think right and be sincere with it and the work will take care of itself, with or without immotality...
...Some may think that this is fatalism or determinism, but every clearheaded thinker would see in this not a fatalistic conception of life but a hopeful solution of existance, a firm belief in the final triumph of good over evil, and the calm assurance that the individual lives as long as it identifies with a noble thought, worthy work, exalted sentiment, uplifting impulse, in short, with anything that cements the brotherly tie of all mankind...
... The predominant tendency of Buddhism towards inellectuality ...the reason why Buddhism is always ready to stand before the tribunal of science and let her pass a judgement upon its merits or demerits is due to this intellectual tenor...
... the practical side of Buddhism: The aim...is to dispel the clouds of ignorance and to make shine the sun of enlightenment. We are selfish because we are ignorant as to the nature of the self...Buddhist do not recognise any original sin, but acknowledge the existance of ignorance and insist on its total removal as the surest means of enlightenment...
...what the Buddhist practical faith is...1) to cease from wrongdoing, 2) to promote goodness and 3) to enlighten the ignorant...it has nothing mysterious, nothing superstitious, nothing idolatrous, nothing supernatural.
I too love Buddhism's peacefulness. Back to being a marshmallow on my little pillow.
Wait, how can anyone assume to say anything about Buddhism then ignore the Precepts and the Eightfold Path and assume to be an expert...heh...and then tell others to do their research?
oooo...Reading Rainbow is on...I love that show.
Buddhism is the official religion of Burma. To be a government official you have to be Buddhist.
I get it - Buddhism is the official religion of Burma. The official religion of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy was Catholicism. What's your point?
Since 90% of Myanmar is Buddhist you can't say that the Saffron Revolution was a popular uprising. It was a small percentage of the overall Buddhists that went against the Buddhist-Marxist amalgam.
That is some convoluted logic. So, even though the revolt was led by Buddhist monks, it doesn't count because more than half of the population stayed at home from protests in which large numbers of protesters were killed or incarcerated? Has there ever been a protest movement in which the majority of the population were actively rebelling? Also, they were not rebelling against Buddhist but against government policies.
Suffering in some places is worse than in others. In most Buddhist countries suffering is far worse than in most Christian countries. For Buddhists in Christian countries, it's not too bad. For Christians in Buddhist countries, however, it's far worse.
All Buddhist countries are in Asia and hence in the Third World. Again, you are creating unjustified correlations. You're also making unsupported claims without any evidence. There is some evidence that practicing Buddhist meditation improves happiness. I don't know if Buddhist countries are more happy - for the following reason: Buddhism isn't a system of government of way of organising society - it's a path of practice for individuals. And at any one time only a mall percentage of the population will be meditating regularly. The rest of the population will have folk-beliefs and social rituals.
I'll need to look up the Buddha and figure out what writings he did. You argue that he wrote down clear rules for the monks.
I didn't think he was a writer, or that he passed laws, or framed a constitution of regulations for the priesthood.
Buddha lived before writing was widespread. His original teaching were passed orally from the 5th century BCE to the 1st century BCE, when they were written down as the Pali Canon where the basic five precepts are typically elaborated like this:
... There is the case where a certain person, abandoning the taking of life, abstains from the taking of life. He dwells with his rod laid down, his knife laid down, scrupulous, merciful, compassionate for the welfare of all living beings. Abandoning the taking of what is not given, he abstains from taking what is not given. He does not take, in the manner of a thief, things in a village or a wilderness that belong to others and have not been given by them. Abandoning sensual misconduct, he abstains from sensual misconduct. He does not get sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man.
... There is the case where a certain person, abandoning false speech, abstains from false speech. When he has been called to a town meeting, a group meeting, a gathering of his relatives, his guild, or of the royalty, if he is asked as a witness, "Come & tell, good man, what you know": If he doesn't know, he says, "I don't know." If he does know, he says, "I know." If he hasn't seen, he says, "I haven't seen." If he has seen, he says, "I have seen." Thus he doesn't consciously tell a lie for his own sake, for the sake of another, or for the sake of any reward. Abandoning false speech, he abstains from false speech.
In the Abhisandha Sutta, Buddha said that undertaking the precepts is a gift to oneself and others:
... In [undertaking the five precepts], he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings. In giving freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings, he gains a share in limitless freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, and freedom from oppression. This is the ... gift, the ... great gift — original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning — that is not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and is unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives & priests. This is the ... reward of merit, reward of skillfulness, nourishment of happiness, celestial, resulting in happiness, leading to heaven, leading to what is desirable, pleasurable, & appealing; to welfare & to happiness
All schools of Buddhism follow the precepts (usually more than the five basic ones).
Choygam Trungpa certainly didn't have any ethical guidelines that he used. At least he certainly didn't use any ethical guidelines along the lines of the ones that you named with regard to sexual ethics.
He belonged to something called the Crazy Wisdom lineage.
There was no one above him to discipline him, or to throw him out of the order. He was the Pope of that specific lineage, and had total authority. He drank heavily, and had sex with whomsoever he wished.
I know very little about him (just a few stories). But if he behaved irresponsibly or abusively then he wasn't adhering to Buddhist ethics and was perhaps exploiting naive westerners. If this is the case then I'm not surprised that you have such an ignorant and distorted view of Buddhism (although you need to take responsibility for that too.)
Jack Daw is right. You should educate yourself rather than denouncing something from a position of great ignorance.
BTW There is no school of Buddhism called the 'Crazy Wisdom lineage'
I like having you guys to argue with. But you can also learn something I suppose, starting with Trungpa's Wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C3%B6gyam_Trungpa
But beyond that, I am not arguing with the idea that Buddhism may have had a good idea at the beginning, but even in the so-called precepts you mention, there are loopholes big enough for a Panzer division.
You shouldn't go after a woman who is protected by men, it says. Exploit mercilessly other women is the loophole.
Bad.
But beyond that, think instead of the actual existing Buddhist countries and how awful they are in actual conditions. Not just Myanmar, which is horrifying enough, and in which you have to be a Buddhist to be a government official.
Think too of Cambodia. Lon Nol's men were Buddhists.
Thailand is just a shameful site even if you're only thinking aboiut women's rights.
Even in Tibet there has been no history of emancipation for women.
No real history of human rights.
Most of these places are one-kingdom theocracies in which the king is also the Pope. Terrible.
In historical Tibet just a hundred years ago they were free to boil nay-sayers in yak butter.
I'm not saying it's the worst religion on earth. I would reserve that for communism, which pretends not to be a religion, but has all the hallmarks of a religion.
Also, I think if you are a monk and you figure out some of the neat ways to meditate, that's pretty groovy. I did it a few times and it was like being totally stoned on morphine (I had this once for a kidney stone). Completely wonderful! Four stars, baby!
But the actual existing political conditions are awful. They don't even have freedom of speech, or the notion of the right to carry a gun.
What a drawback! Especially when your country has been overrun by communists with very good tanks and flame throwers and divebombers and bayonets. Really, did they expect a bailout from the US like everyone else in the world?
But beyond that, I am not arguing with the idea that Buddhism may have had a good idea at the beginning, but even in the so-called precepts you mention, there are loopholes big enough for a Panzer division.
You can say exactly the same about the 10 Commandments, or about any fixed set of rules. Nobody can force other people to always behave in a particular way. But Buddhism doesn't just have these 'rules' it also gradually addresses the real causes of harmful behaviour.
But beyond that, think instead of the actual existing Buddhist countries and how awful they are in actual conditions. Not just Myanmar, which is horrifying enough, and in which you have to be a Buddhist to be a government official.
I've already addressed this point. Buddhism is not a system of government or a way of organising society. Anyway, I've been to Thailand and Laos - both very beautiful countries - and other than the abjectly poor, the people we met seemed happier than typical westerners.
In most countries you have to belong to the state religion in order to be a government official - including - in real terms - the USA.
Think too of Cambodia. Lon Nol's men were Buddhists.
So what? Has someone claimed that anyone that is nominally 'Buddhist' is immune to any kind of violent or abusive act? What you're doing is cherry-picking a few bad cases in order to try to claim a general pattern. This is bogus logic. In fact, if you compare the histories of Buddhism and the Abrahamic religions, the latter come out far worse in this regard. There have been no significant wars fought in the name of Buddhism. There is no equivalent of the Crusades, the Inquisition, Al Qaeda, Witch Hunts, nor indeed the widespread sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests.
Yes, many Buddhist nations are in the third world and could use some governmental reformation. But as I already said their 'Buddhism' is not directly linked to their system of government, it just happens to be the state religion.
Also, I think if you are a monk and you figure out some of the neat ways to meditate, that's pretty groovy. I did it a few times and it was like being totally stoned on morphine (I had this once for a kidney stone). Completely wonderful! Four stars, baby!
Very good - I see what you did there. You acknowledged the efficacy of meditation with one hand while equating it with opiates with the other, this implying that like opiates, meditation is escapist and produces a drug-like dependency. Nice.
But the actual existing political conditions are awful. They don't even have freedom of speech, or the notion of the right to carry a gun.
Frankly, I don't think the state of society in the US is so hot, and the right to carry arms just leads to more violent crime and people shooting themselves. As developed countries go the US is the capital of murder. But that's another matter.
Really, did they expect a bailout from the US like everyone else in the world?
Do you really think everyone around the world is sitting wishing that the US would bail them out? What a distorted view you have. These days most countries around the world see the US as a heavy-handed and belligerent nation that looks out for its own corporate interests by interfering in other countries. Being 'bailed out' by the US is a bit like being carpet bombed. Again, a different matter and nothing to do with Buddhism.
Ok, Great...I read "Stripping the Gurus" too. Meh. But still I think the point you want to make is that listening to a guru/roshi/yoshi is dangerous and not that "Buddhism" is bad.
Any religion is dangerous in that when said religion is state santioned, political or too hierarchical evil can happen. Evil has happened in the name of Buddhism just as in the name of every other religion. The major difference is that we don't ingore it.
BTY, call me a bigot if you like...those are strong words but I am not that one categorizing an entire religion and all the practitioners of that religion from a stint teaching POETRY.
Good day to you sir and good luck.
Read some of those books suggested previously.
Cheers,
The Stay-puft Marshmallowman
Kirby, you said: "...Of all the religions and faiths on earth, Buddhism is the dumbest, and the cruelest, precisely because it's the nicest."
Since this post is called "Lutheran Surrealism", I'll assume you're a Lutheran. In light of that, your comment makes sense, since the one Lutheran service I went to consisted of the pastor telling us, essentially, that people suck.
I have never been to a more negative church service, ever. The gist of it was that we are all sinners, and that many of us have no hope of redemption. Yeah, real uplifting.
BTW, I'm a buddhist and I've got no problem telling you you're an idiot. You can accept that fact, or you can try to do something about it.
Best buddhist pop-culture meme: It is what it is.
Suck on that.
Yes, I've always known that Wu Wei, that that was a Buddhist meme. It means that nothing can be changed, or there's no point in attempting to do so.
I think it's true that the Lutheran difference is that people essentially suck. This insight is what makes Lutheranism so special, and so functional, and has led to the best countries in the world.
More on this wonderful idea later today at the top of the blog!
Thanks so much for writing in.
Jack, I would appreciate it if you would stick around a bit. We need to add a couple of Buddhist voices to our conversation. But I understand if you have to hit the pillow.
Best, Kirby
"It is what it is"
It means that nothing can be changed, or there's no point in attempting to do so.
Oh no it doesn't it doesn't. Now you are confusing Buddhism with Nihilism. Please please get some understanding before making any more pronouncements about Buddhism.
Kirby said: "Yes, I've always known that Wu Wei, that that was a Buddhist meme. It means that nothing can be changed, or there's no point in attempting to do so."
Au contraire. It doesn't mean nothing can be changed. It means let go of your insistence that things should be only the way you want them to be. That doesn't mean you can't change the way things are, just that you need to be aware of your motivation for changing things (and to be ready to accept if the change doesn't go as you planned).
So, it (the situation) is what it is, but it (the consequence, good or bad, of your attempt to change the situation) is also what it is.
Kirby also said: "I think it's true that the Lutheran difference is that people essentially suck. This insight is what makes Lutheranism so special, and so functional, and has led to the best countries in the world."
If you assume people essentially suck, doesn't that mean that you have to assume that you also essentially suck? Do you have to have low self-esteem to be a good person?
A fundamental buddhist tenet is treating everyone (including oneself) with compassion. You can't love the world if you don't love yourself. (note: this is not an invitation to ego. Buddhism is strongly against ego, but that's a different kettle of fish)
"what does not change
is
the will to change"
Who said t h a t ?
Who's on first... I Don't Know is the
short-stop.
and
isn't "want (desire) one of the fundamental
causes of suffering?
I think
that there are 5 of the causes of all suffering..
and
didn't Freud "invent" ego?
oh Anger, Greed, Desire, Ignorance
and I forget the other one...
on the Mall a few years ago the featured country was Tibet
the Dahli Lama (and many Buddhists were) was there..
In front of me was a lady wearing a neat hat.. "that's a neat hat. Can I take your picture". "Sure."
well from about 4 feet away I got an head/hat shot of Ani Pachen...
The Warrior Nun
well after The Dalhi Lama spoke... I went around to the back of the stage
which was fenced off thinking to get close top take a picture..
so
he and his entourage come down off of the stage...
about 20 feet from me to get into one of about 6 black lemos
AND
he is smiling and waving in my direction to the crowd I was in so shy as I am,
I shouted out "HELLO DOLLY !"
heck he walked over to me and shook my hand and said
"I saw the movie."
well.... I forgot my poin.
I guess
even this point
is
pointless
Well, the only way to find out is to say what I think, and stand (or sit) corrected.
I still think that Buddhism lacks a strong sense of justice (how things SHOULD be).
I don't think that everything is perfectible, but I also don't think that what is, is ever perfect.
Everything's a mess.
You see, I think we can have a productive conversation between Lutheranism and Buddhism, and help shape up each other's thinking.
It is what it is.
I think this could also be a Lutheran phrase insofar that what is can be changed, but NOT that much.
Our nature is bad (I accept this) which allows me to be a bit lenient both on myself and on others (I'm not expecting much, so if I get basic decency, I'm delighted -- however, if I'm expecting other people to be totally enlightened, then I will always be disappointed, since that is humanly impossible).
thanks again!
Hi Kirby
I still think that Buddhism lacks a strong sense of justice (how things SHOULD be).
You're right about that. Buddhist ethics is not based on a notion of how things should be but on a response to how things actually are.
The reason is that in Buddhism, experience is primary, and eveything, including common-sense assumptions are investigated very deeply. It is normal to look on the world and compare it to 'how it should be'. This is true from the most grand religiously-based value system to our mundane preferences and dissatisfactions with how things are. But when 'how things should be' is investigated we can't find an alternate perfect world - what we find are ideas and judgments of a type that we call 'idealisation'. How we idealise things is dependent on personality, personal philosophy and culture. 'How things should be' is just thinking. And in Buddhism, our dissatisfaction (dukkha) is precisely the distance between how things are and how we would like things to be.
This is what the zen koan 'the sound of one hand' is about, as I understand.
Idealism - and on a social scale, ideology - are a big problem. It's why it's can be hard to see things clearly as they are - and why the ides of 'being somebody else' or 'someplace else' make actual reality seem unsatisfactory.
Another fundamental principle of Buddhism is that everything is constantly changing. Nevertheless, we are incapable of changing how things actually are at any given moment - particularly not by wishing them different.
We don't waste time getting frustrated about that. Rather, based on compassion and wisdom, we sow seeds for the future.
Everything's a mess.
It is what it is. The 'mess' is an evaluation of your mind that you're projecting onto the world. To me the world seems beautiful and fascinating.
Our nature is bad
Another value judgment.
KIRBY: "Well, the only way to find out is to say what I think, and stand (or sit) corrected."
You sit corrected, very appropriate when discussion buddhism (since that's how we "correct" ourselves).
KIRBY: "I still think that Buddhism lacks a strong sense of justice (how things SHOULD be)."
A lot of buddhist thoughts on justice are very common-sense (don't kill, don't steal, don't covet other people's stuff, don't use hurtful language, etc.) The main difference is that, before we try to change a situation, we accept the fact that a) the situation is perfectly what it is at that moment (even if that means it is perfectly messed up), and b) that anything we do to change the situation may or may not have the desired effect (in fact, if we're doing it right, there is no "desired" effect, just an optimal one).
KIRBY: "I don't think that everything is perfectible, but I also don't think that what is, is ever perfect.
Everything's a mess."
Too true. Are you sure you're not a closet buddhist? ;^{)>
KIRBY: "You see, I think we can have a productive conversation between Lutheranism and Buddhism, and help shape up each other's thinking."
Indeed. There is no reason buddhists and christians can't have a dialogue. The problem (and the cause of my initial, somewhat vitriolic, response was the misinformation that was in your original post.
KIRBY: "Our nature is bad (I accept this) which allows me to be a bit lenient both on myself and on others (I'm not expecting much, so if I get basic decency, I'm delighted -- however, if I'm expecting other people to be totally enlightened, then I will always be disappointed, since that is humanly impossible)."
That's a pont of contention. Our nature is just that, our nature. It is neither good nor bad, it just is. What makes things good or bad is how we choose to act (and what consequences those actions have). We are all interconnected and interdependent. A stone thrown in a calm pool will send ripples to the edges.
As for being disappointed, that is one of the keys of buddhist thought. It is often translated from the pali word "dukkha" to mean suffering (as in "all life is suffering", a basic buddhist idea), but a better translation would be "discomfort" or "disappointment". Basically, suffering arises from our need to have things go the way we want them to, whether it be a hassle-free commute home from work, or a desire for loved ones not to die. You and I both know, however, that things will never be exactly as we want them (and even when they are, they won't stay that way).
so:
went out with my Buddhist
friend
last Wednesday to my favorite burger joint which also has veggie burgers
The Quarry House
so we get to the order...
I ordered a veggie burger w cheese and mushrooms , onion rings and a coke
thinking he would order similar
He ordered
a 1/3 lb burger medium rare w Munster cheese and mushrooms a pint of
a Japanese beer (Tsingstano?)
and fries with brown gravy!
well he ate with gusto even got some gravey on his orange sheet-like robe drank the beer and ordered another
my veggie-burger tasted like fried saw dust
My friend, Karma< advised me..
"next time get a REAL burger and a Buddha Beer,
just make sure the steer is dead before they cook it"
we're going out again tonight... with a crowd of happy-go-lucky, humorous monks from his sanga!
I guess I drive.
I think that I like Buddhists! OMG!
Buddhism Good?
Buddhism isn't good or bad; neither is christianity. It depends on the person. Put a bad person in a position of authority and he/she will do bad things no matter the religion.
Conversation is possible, however, don't start the conversation by lambasting something you may not understand fully...would be more appropriate to ask openly for clarification on points that may be misunderstood.
point of fact, half of my sangha are christians who have adapted zen to their spiritual routine. They are accepted without question. We practice as we see fit. Some sit in chairs, some are more traditional. In reality all that we ask for is respect from new people when they sit with us. We try to explain how to meditate and practice.
No conversions and no pressure. If you walk out happier, all the better.
Then we drink...yes we drink...drink mindfully and with our fullest focus. Some talk of God or jesus or buddha or zen concepts or gardening...sometimes german pastry and politics.
I liken ourselves (in christian terms) to Quakers. But that is just me...
No Illusions,
Jack
Fair enough.
Lutherans drink, too, although I don't.
Now I have to look up sangha.
sounds nice that you're doing all that, and that you accept Christians in your group.
Thanks for the report!
Still think that we have to think about the OVERALL effect of Buddhism on a population, or on a country. While it may work on an individual basis, Buddhist countries are mostly now overrun by Marxists, who hold the Buddhists down all over Southeastern Asia.
This is quite bad, and I can't help but think that Buddhism renders its practitioners somewhat too pacifist, or passive, and that this allows the Marxists to control them.
No Lutheran countries ever caved in to Marxists.
Finland for instance fought a war against the Stalinists and althought they were outnumbered 50 to 1, they won. They sent home 2 million dead communists in three months, and Stalin decided it was easier to leave them alone, and did.
All over eastern Europe in 1989 it was th eLutherans that drove the relatively bloodless revolutions that knocked the communists out of power.
I can't help but think that there is something in Buddhism that prevents its practitioners from achieving like victories.
Something about a lack of political convictions, or something. If you can, help me put a finger on it. Perhaps there is SOMETHING lacking in Buddhism.
Something like, oomph.
HUH?
maybe "we" should/could/would/give them monks and monkettes some REAL weapons!
like that bomb/missile we call The Peacekeeper..
or
maybe cans of petrol so's they can burn themselves up one by one
in The Village Square?
why don't you go and visit
Plum Village for a week or 12...
and maybe drop all of your abstractionings and non-sense?
you certainly do seem intelligent and credential-ized
however
as Albert Eistein once said:
"Imagination is more important than Intelligence"
and I say:
" (....)" frequently
and with alacrity AND specificity!
besides t h a t :
"Singing birds shouldn't talk." -E.E. CUMMINGS
No, the point I was making was that ANY state religion is bad...no matter what. One a religion becomes state-sanctioned, it is dangerous.
This is why a blanch at the comment that the US is a "Christian Nation"...I would blanch just as hard if it would be called a "Buddhist Nation"...it should be secular.
sangha is a collection of monks...like a gaggle of geese. We use it with more flexibility in the West to also mean a collection of lay-practitioners, like myself. WE have no monk or Roshi with our sangha. We just practice.
I guess it would be similar to a congregation w/o a priest or minister.
cheers,
jack
That's more or less what the First Amendment says: no establishment of a state church.
I would agree with it, but don't think anybody votes or thinks without some kind of metaphysical framework.
And for some reason, the Lutheran framework forces people to do what's right in a circumstance.
I get the feeling that Buddhists are very much permitted to go with the flow of a situation.
Its a misconception that Buddhist go with the flow but most of our "feelings" are. Read up on some engaged or modern/western buddhism and see where its going.
Its a shame we can't compare to Lutheranism but one day...The Buddhist Revolution!!!
The four horsemen of the buddhist apocalypse will ride on silly little ponies!
Viva LA Buddha,
Jack
There's a lot of ways in which I think Buddhism does a better job than Lutheranism -- I think for instance the diet of most Buddhists is better than the heavy meat and potatoes dishes that we see at our potlucks. I also think that active engagement with the body -- is a good thing in Buddhism. We don't do much with ours at all except kneel for a few minutes at a time.
Lots of Lutherans are obese as a result. They choke down unbelievable amounts of meat and cheese, and have no reason to do this.
Some pastors when discussing heaven go on and on about the triple cheeseburgers to be found there.
I prefer the simpler Buddhist diet, and the respect for animal life. Almost no one in a Lutheran church has any vegetarian sympathies whatsoever, or even thinks that hunting might be a bit cruel.
Luther did say we shouldn't kill animals just for sport, but this thought is not considered central.
There's lots of good things about Buddhism. Getting into the moment is a very big thing. We tend to neglect the aesthetics of the moment for a time that is eternally distant when Christ will return and sort things out.
Just the very thought of breathing and paying attention to breathing makes one very aware in a certain way, a way that I think it would pay Lutherans to know more about.
But every religion has a line around itself, and becomes a self-perpetuating monad (Leibniz's term), having no windows into other worlds.
There's also a zany humor within Buddhist circles which we could benefit from. We do have humor in Lutheranism, but it's very different. It's pointed, for the most part. It relies on the disjunction between heaven, and what should be, and the world we currently inhabit, which we regard as terribly disturbing. Around every corner and in every heart we sense the breathing monster of Satan in the form of one attraction after another.
There's good and bad in both systems. Of all systems, I find Buddhism the most sympathetic on personal grounds, and yet, on political grounds, I often wonder why it is so lacking in terms of creating solid societies with deep respect for human rights for which the inhabitants are willing to lay down their lives.
That particular drama of laying down one's life for others doesn't seem to be part of the Buddhist ethos. I don't know why.
Kirby said: "And for some reason, the Lutheran framework forces people to do what's right in a circumstance.
I get the feeling that Buddhists are very much permitted to go with the flow of a situation. "
I disagree with the last part of that comment. Sure, the Lutheran framework (and indeed, much of the Christian framework) forces (good word, btw) people to do what's "right". Buddhists also try to do what's right, it's just not a matter of force. The only thing we, as buddhists, are forced to do is consider what the right course of action is (instead of the "right" one, if you see the distinction).
Sometimes, what is right isn't necessarily what is "right". That doesn't mean buddhists are free to do whatever we please, as we are still held accountable by the precepts and the noble eightfold path. It just means there are no absolutes, every choice we make stands on its own merits.
re Myanmar:
http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=12,8364,0,0,1,0
A short article but it may lead to some larger ones on current comflict.
Jack,
re: Myanmar
Some larger articles: Chronologically.
http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=82
Jack
I don't know if these monks are doing it right but they are doin' it.
I think I'm going to restart the Buddhist thread at the top since the conversation is so excellent, and so needed. I'll have a new post up in about thirty minutes. Thanks for talking to me, in spite of the meanness of my original post.
Still think that we have to think about the OVERALL effect of Buddhism on a population, or on a country. While it may work on an individual basis, Buddhist countries are mostly now overrun by Marxists, who hold the Buddhists down all over Southeastern Asia.
This is quite bad, and I can't help but think that Buddhism renders its practitioners somewhat too pacifist, or passive, and that this allows the Marxists to control them.
No Lutheran countries ever caved in to Marxists.
You talk about Marxists as if they were aliens. As if they were outsiders wherever they appeared. And let's not forget that from the early to mid-20th century Marxism seemed like a very attractive proposition to many people around the world. It's flaws were not fully apparent until later. The success or otherwise of Marxism in a particular country would seem to depend on two key factors: 1. the support for Marxism among the population and 2. external support.
I think that the number of South East Asian and hence Buddhist countries that became Marxist is mainly due to geography - the influence of Maoist Communism (ideas and military support) on China's neighbours. Also, these countries had no history of democracy - they had only experienced democracy from the perspective of victims of Imperialism/Colonialism. They wanted to throw off all of that.
Buddhism isn't pacifist. Self-defence is always permissible. All Buddhist countries have had standing armies and some have been very militaristic and developed advanced military technology (China, Japan).
There is no pattern of Buddhist countries refusing to defend themselves against foreign aggressors. (Although I grant that it doesn't appear that Tibet put up much resistance to China).
So, I don't think it's a case of all those populations reluctantly throwing their hands in the air and waving white flags as 'The Red Army' marched through. I think it's more the case that at that time at least - Marxism was a very popular philosophy promising the opportunity for the people to throw off their Imperialist and Monarchist shackles as part of a world-wide revolution. In other words - shocked as you might be to hear this - they wanted to be Marxist.
Justin, this is a valuable comment, and one that changes my perspective somewhat on what must have happened in SE Asia. You are certainly right that the Red Chinese provided the arms for most of the insurrectionary communist movements (N. Korea, Myanmar, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, Vietnam, to name a few, relied on this).
Now that it's apparent that they backed the wrong horse, however, who's riding who?
Buddhism does offer a lot to its practitioners -- and is probably on an individual basis extremely fulfilling, which is why it has captured so much of the youth market in America and Europe, especially among the intellectuals.
It also offers at least the notion of peace, which I think is an illusion, and a poor trade-off, but it obviously has a lot of appeal, like opiates in general.
(We offer peace but only in the abstract, and only after death.)
For those who think like Marx that there will be no afterlife, this seems like a poor trade-off.
Thanks for arguing with me, and for offering your perspective. I think you are probably right that Maoism seemed like a better alternative to capitalism especially insofar as their colonial experience was a bitter one.
But now of course those countries are colonized by the state capitalism of Marxism, one which brooks no alternative and which allows for no freedoms of liberty, religion, or the other values enshrined in the first amendment.
at any rate, I see this conversation as being something along the lines of the blind men and the elephant, and I hope you guys will continue to argue with me, and show me things I can't see from my perspective, which is why I reconstituted the argument at the top of the blog, since this particular thread is in danger of disappearing from the screen.
I am just amazed that I got several good commentators from the Buddhist tradition in one fell swoop, and hope you'll continue to stick with me, and show me the limitations of my ignorance.
Best, Kirby
are not our Unions directly out of a Marxist/Engels sinapse:
A lecture by David North
in 1998::
In the history of the Marxist movement, there are two political issues, or "questions," that have been the source of exceptionally persistent controversy, spanning more than a century. One is the "national question" and the other is the "trade union" question.
What is the reason for the persistence of these questions and what is the relation, if any, between the two? I think the answer is to be found in a study of the historical conditions within which the modern workers' movement emerged. The bourgeois nation state, as it arose out of the revolutionary-democratic struggles of the 18th and 19th centuries, provided the economic impulse and political framework for the development of the European and American working class. The process of national consolidation was, though in many different forms and in different degrees, linked to general democratic issues of great importance to the working class.
The attitude of the working class to the nation could not but be of a highly complex, contradictory and ambivalent character. On the one hand, the growth of the working class in numbers and power, and the improvement of its standard of living, were generally linked to the consolidation of the national state and the expansion of its economic-industrial might. At the same time, the development of the economic and social struggles of the working class placed it objectively in a position of hostility to the national state, which, in the final analysis, served the class interests of the bourgeoisie.
The vexed character of the national question within the Marxist movement arose precisely from the complexity of the relation of the workers to the bourgeois nation state. Nowhere in the world have we seen a painless and organic transcendence by the masses from national to international soc
wow, your blog is very nice. Here is good information about tv show. But I was searching for the tv downloads then I reached to your blog. But do not find it here. But anyway your blog is very nice...
You have one of the most twisted and Unrelistic views I have ever seen and, you have not stayed on topic at all. Have you ever heard of a monk cutting off ones leg or killing a child? Or have you even looked into Today's form of zen living. It has little to nothing to do with wanting to do nothing.In fact it has a lot to do with living more simple it may be able to help you out a bit. it is a lot like Yoga, its not a religion it is a practice. email I am doing a ten (10) page report on Zen living of today and you may find a lot of resources useful to you in your evryday life.
I was raised a lutheran...so I understand your mental problems...get some help. I live in Thailand...many who claim to be buddhists are confused and follow the buddhist heirarchy here. Your description makes me think you are a republican rightwing wingnut ranting about socialism.
I agree with you to some extent about the sedating quality of Buddhism. In terms of actual body count, however, the dharma, however strange, doesn't come close to the Church of Rome, or protestants, or muslims for that matter. Ergo I would avoid generalizing about Buddhism as a whole--and they have been victimized as well. The maoists had no problem liquidating the old prefectures.
I am sorry for the author's complete ignorance about Buddhism displayed in the original post. While differences of opinion are of course welcomed from the Buddhist world, this post is factually inaccurate and ridiculous. I would suggest that the original post be removed on those grounds.
Please allow me to make some important notes in reply...
1. Enlightenment is not a rock-like or vegetative state. This is an incorrect understanding. Buddha Shakyamuni was enlightened, yet he dedicated his life to teaching the development of morality and wisdom for the benefit of mankind, and he was an exceptionally generous, kind and noble person. This is not 'vegetative' behaviour by any means.
2. The Judeo-Christian Ten Commandments has a correlative in Buddhism. It's called the Five Precepts, and prohibits killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying and taking all intoxicants for all Buddhists. These tenets are the absolute beating heart of all Buddhism.
A brief introduction to Buddhist Ethics
2. Buddhism does have a journalistic and critical scholarly tradition, and it is Communism and military regimes which suppresses this in modern Asia, not Buddhism. In fact, freedom of thought and inquiry is encouraged in Buddhism. This freedom of thought is one of the distinguishing hallmarks of the Buddhist religion.
3. Not all Buddhist countries are impoverished like Myanmar. Take, for example, Japan. An extremely wealthy and also predominantly Buddhist country. However, it is to be noted that a countries poverty or wealth has very little to do with the religion of its inhabitants. Compare Saudi Arabia and Somalia, or the U.S. and Papua New Guinea, for instance.
Buddhists have also invented many useful things. For instance, printing.
4. Anger is not the correct response to AIDS in Thailand. The answer is better education and support. Many monasteries have programmes now for AIDS and sexual health education. Buddhists are saddened and feel pity for those suffering because of AIDS.
5. Buddhism does not encourage prostitution. However, Buddhism is not harsh in its condemnation of those who do it as an alternative to starvation.
More about Buddhism and Prostitution
6. I am deeply sorry to hear about your experiences at the Naropa Institute. I have heard other people say similar things about it in the 70s, and it is saddening. What Osel Tenzin did was not Buddhist and in flagrant violation of the precept against sexual misconduct.
7. The idea of submission to a guru is a Hindu, not Buddhist concept, found only in Vajrayana and some Mahayana Buddhism. Regardless, it's stupid and plain un-Buddhist to just do as your guru says if that's immoral. (again, see Kalamma Sutta). Even Tibetan Buddhists recommend that the disciple be extremely discerning in choosing a guru, and that both parties honour the relationship.
8. Marijuana is prohibited in Buddhism, because it makes you stoned, which is abhorrent to Buddhists.
9. Buddhism encourages critical thinking. However, the aim of meditation is to calm the mind, and so is not a thinking-based process. With a calm mind that results from meditation, one is able to think much more rationally. (=
10. It is very incorrect to describe Buddhism as an 'authoritarian' religion. The ultimate authority in Buddhism is one's own good judgment.
I am Buddhist. The very first thing the monks told me when I started to learn about Buddhism was that I don't have to believe anything if it doesn't make sense to me. This is not at all what one finds in an 'authoritarian' religion.
Please take the time to know what you are writing about before you write. I hope I may be able to respond to intelligent and sensible criticism of Buddhism in the future.
Peace, and much love,
Jacqueline
Jacqueline, if Japan had arrived at its government via a Buddhist paradigm I would take your post very seriously. But McArthur rewrote the Japanese constitution after WWII.
Otherwise, all of Buddhist Asia is a scurrilous mess, let's face.
I appreciated your note, and your kindness.
I hope you will have a wonderful wonderful day.
And reconsider what's wrong with Buddhism.
It certainly promotes very nice people and how can you not like them? But what if they need to fight for a real principle?
there's simply not enough hatred to go around even to clean out the newspaper stack. Buddhists are just as messy as hippies, and both of them are easily put to the torch by Marxists.
I think you should care enough about Tibet and Myanmar to think about HATRED of Marxist regimes.
Replace "Enlightenment" with "Happiness" and the objectives of a Buddhist path become more clear, practicable and reasonable.
I am surprised at in this day and age how intolerant and closed minded you are towards buddhism. It is a philosophy not necessarily a religion and it does teach one to think for themselves. Many practice on their own and never even go to a temple. And if Luther was so great, why was the reformation such a disaster? Don't get me started on Calvinism which has been disastrous to our culture. Yeah churches keep splintering into little sub groups because they do not like something someone said. Such unity and Christian love.
Buddhists for the most part are fucked up. They all think and talk the same. They like to write as if their living in a little fairytale land.It
s about living in a fantasy world in your head, and screw what is happening to the world. Your house could be on fire, and a buddhist won't care. I seriously regret what happened to a friend of mine. She went to a spiritual retreat and turned fucking nuts. Now I never hear the end of it, how much I'm screwed and going down for not joining the cult. All her last msgs to me were unrealistic and seriously looked like something out of a fuckin Disney book.Its like, if you dont get lost in my little fantasy world with me with thoughts and other schizoid shit i see, then your not a good human and thus you will be dammed for eternity....She also told me she hates her cat, and wishes it was dead or gone because she found it to be an annoying creature. She also gave me shit and called me fucked up, because I'm a activist for battered men/women, yet ...she backs up pedophiles.
Everyone has their own "Buddhism". Nowadays, many people misunderstand Buddhism. Some people treat it as a religion, and some people that practice Taoism called themselves Buddhist. This is my belief as a Buddhist. "Neither God or Buddha is needed, if they cannot bring peace and happiness to the world, why not I will be the one that will bring peace and joy to the world." We cannot define the meanings by the word, or by the title. I have a friend, and he told me he is not smart, but at least I know he is smarter than me. Many people called themselves Buddhist and they may not even know what is Buddhism...
Buddhism simply asks you to admit that you perceive the world through a filter and shows you how to clean the filter.
Since when was "don't kill anything" offensive ?
this is probably the most ignorant comment i have ever come across. buddhism has absolutely no hierarchy - every religion in the world does, but buddhism is the first religion in the world to BREAK THAT RULE. in India in during the dominant Hindu religion that oppressed women and formed a caste system that said that all people were not equal and people could only stay in the circles they were born into (slaves, kings) - the first Buddha was the only person to say that all people were EQUAL, that we were all the SAME and had the same RIGHTS as everyone else, that all living creatures deserved RESPECT.That's why it was sensational when it first came out - that is why people all over the world respect buddhism, while christians divide over who is christian or not, buddhists respect all religions and beliefs. in fact the buddha did not intend for his teachings to form a religion - he wanted people to find out the truth about the universe, about life - where we come from and where we go when we die - FOR THEMSELVES. he said DOUBT EVERYTHING YOU KNOW, You HEAR, LEARN - DO NOT EVEN TRUST IN THE BUDDHA HIMSELF - FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF. The Buddha was an Indian prince that left home to study and meditate on why people were Born and Why people died. He left everything behind to learn from the best teachers and find out some truth about the very meaning of life. Buddhists believe that everyone has an energy that is one with the universe and to meditate, we can reflect on these questions on life and find out more about ourselves and why we are here. We make no judgments on people - that is not our right and we do not impose ourselves or even our beliefs on others - buddhism does not have a written book like other religious groups that condemn others or tell them how to live their lives - everything is taken with the understanding that not everything needs to be believed, and that everything should be doubted.
Also about Vietnam and all those "buddhist" countries you are talking about - most of them are not really buddhist countries - most of them are being dominated by ISLAMIC leaders and ideas now. In fact more than 50% of muslims are asian, not middle eastern.
Also unlike other religious people, even if one was a prostitute, buddhists do not judge - what right do we have? We do not know that person's situation or their life. Prostitutes aren't prostitutes because they like prostitution - it's because of the demand and the money - that's how our world society has been built, so if you want to blame anyone for prostitution - blame the assholes who created capitalism, and made sex a commodity - not buddhists who refuse to outcast them like other righteous religious people - that's just stupid
I've been searching for tonight to test my faith in Buddhism. I've been looking for reasons to not think the way I do.
I'm pretty sure this is the most ignorant blog post I've read today. Blogger, please do some research before you form a public opinion... I don't have time to go through numerous false information you've posted. I respect your religion, and I understand Chrsitianity's drive to "Save everyone", but it's very possible your Jesus, was a Buddhist monk (do some research)
Post a Comment