Most Annoying Non-x-tian Religion

[Evolution_beyond]

Who mentioned Stalin?

 

I did.

 

My point was that you can't judge a worldview by what one individual does.

 

Stalin was an atheist. But he didn't do what he did because he was an atheist - it was for other reasons.

 

Likewise, criticising Buddhism because of what some Buddhists do or say doesn't really wash either. It's not because of Buddhism that they do or say these things, in fact in most cases their actions or words are in direct contradiction to the teachings of Buddhism.

 

I understand that similar apologetics have been used when people criticise the atrocious track record of the christian faith. But it's clear in many of those cases (crusades, witch-hunts, inquisition) people were doing what they did in the name of christianity and the bible actually encourages that kind of behaviour.

 

So it's different.

[Rev R]

I wanted to repond to these particular things as Gramps and Deva responded to the other points as well or better than I.

 

Oda Nobunaga was alarmed at Japanese warrior monks.... http://www.geocities.com/azuchiwind/monks.htm

"Warrior Monks" or sohei, are a bit of a cultural myth. If you are interested, I would recommend Adolphson's Teeth and Claws of the Buddha.

It is true that temples engaged in acts of violence, but most often these acts were no different than acts the warrior clans of the time. There was no separation of church and state in those days, the temple systems were firmly entrenched in the politics of the Imperial court as well as politics within and between various religious orders.

 

 

You miss the point I'm trying to make If a religion teaches PEACE and HEALING, and to remove oneself from bad Karma, and suffering. Why inflict this on someone? even in self defense?

 

This is a very interesting question and one I've heard a couple of times.

 

A couple points of clarification.

The first noble truth is that "life is dukkha." Dukkha is a difficult word to translate into English. The word actually refers to a wheel that is out of round, but "suffering" is the most common translation. Figuratively speaking dukkha refers to the truth that life is impermanent, and there are things that we will find unsatisfactory. Basically you could say that dukkha is existential angst.

 

Second karma in Buddhism is volitional action. What we do coupled with our intent when we do it.

 

In practicing the Buddhadharma, we do not seek to remove ourselves from anything. I would suggest that it is in fact the exact opposite, that practice teaches us to fully engage ourselves in life.

 

The ethical component of practice, the precepts, is conjoined to the notion of karma as volitional action. The precepts are not carved in stone as commandments but rather serve as guidelines to mindfulness of our own actions. The Buddhist worldview is not black and white, good and evil, all the time. Seeking to do as little harm as possible does not preclude that I must be completely passive in all situations.

 

For example, a man breaks into my home with the intent to kill me, my wife and my son. The killer and I fight and I break his arm and his leg in the process. This is self-defence and perfectly in line with the Dharma. My intent was to save three lives, and my actions saved four. Had I killed this man the action would still be in accordance to the Dharma since the intent to save three lives was there. Had I not acted and my family had been killed that action would have not been in accord with the Dharma since I placed more importance to words on paper than to life itself.

[MesaGman]

I must step in and go on record as saying that there are violent and destructive people who are members of all religions. There are hypocrites everywhere. Is that reason in itself to reject a religious philosophy that has truth and value at its core? I don't think so, and I did not deconvert from Christianity because of destructive people in that religion. MesaGman, I don't think the historical record shows nearly the level of violence in Buddhism as in other religions such as Islam and Christianity.

 

You seem to be ignoring the other posters who have made the point that Buddhism has been overlayed by the cultures it is in. Now you are attacking the Dalai Lama, who does not represent the whole of Buddhism by any means. Also, I really think the Dalai Lama has many positive qualities which of course you fail to mention. You just want to zero in on one objectionable thing one Buddhist leader said and use it to condemn the whole of Buddhism. This is unfair. It would be roughly the equivelant of your saying the Pope's offhand comment at a press conference represents the views of all of Christianity. Your comparison with the Raelians is specious and irrelevant.

 

I don't see your objections to the underlying philosophy of Buddhism. If you have any, I would be interested in hearing them.

 

 

>>> no I object to ANY religion.... even the "peaceful ones", on grounds of their hyprocratical nature. maybe, this Jesus person, or Buddah or Mohammad were really peaceful thinkers, and the followers are the screwed up ones still. But, I'm just pointing out to not put Buddism on a pedistal as a magical religion of peace.... when the Dali Lama is just as bigoted as the pope... Hollywood tends to glamorize the Tibetans as a peace loving people, when they like any other human society, used violent means to expand their territory. This goes TRIPPLE for my Chinese race. people, stop glamorizing us as some harmonic race, of immortal beings, we're believe in Irrational beliefs that promote machivellian methods to achieve that mythical peace.

 

The First Emperior of China was a mad tyrant, just as much as Henrich I was (unifer of Germany). The Dali Lama is just as narrowminded as Ghandi. (who refered to blacks as Kafirs).

 

My objections to Buddhism, is put that belief where it belongs, a flawed up delusional belief system. Just like Communism, just like Pan American Democracy, and Pan France Democracy, and Chinese Jingonistic..... and let's evolve from these narrow ideologlies, and live in the contemporary world of technologly and enlightenment. Let's stop valuing single human leaders as they are flawed.

 

So I have a question for you. Why is it ok for the Dali Lama to be homophobic, but not ok for the Pope to be Homophobic, of Fred Phelps. Sure the Dali Lama isn't doing perverted things like organizing rallies at funerals of homosexuals. But he's STILL a homophobe. Why the homosexuals arn't doing anything bad..

[MesaGman]

For example, a man breaks into my home with the intent to kill me, my wife and my son. The killer and I fight and I break his arm and his leg in the process. This is self-defence and perfectly in line with the Dharma. My intent was to save three lives, and my actions saved four. Had I killed this man the action would still be in accordance to the Dharma since the intent to save three lives was there. Had I not acted and my family had been killed that action would have not been in accord with the Dharma since I placed more importance to words on paper than to life itself.

 

 

>>> This would mean that the war in Iraq is justified.... because. We're killed 3 tyrants, Saddam and his two sons, and we're bringing democracy to Iraq, and that George Bush shouldn't be held accounted for his crimes, because he did it to protect the Iraqi people. Or that the Vietnamese war was justified because and all that death was warrented because they tried to again promote democracy in Vietnam.

[MesaGman]

Ashahara isn't buddhist in any recognizable sense. It's like claiming the David Koresh was a representative Branch Davidian with the incest,killing people and claiming to be Jesus returned, or Jim Jones is a typical Baptist with the poisoned Kool Aid, rapes and punishment beatings...

 

There have always been nutters, and there always will be nutters... as you point out, the Aum teaching diverged so wildly from the teaching of Siddartha Gautama as to be unrecognisable...

 

I'm not sure i follow your point the all Buddhists are bastards based on one Japanese version of Charles Manson (with the charm and looks removed)

 

 

>>> Yet we post lots of stuff against Christianity, based on what their individual pastors had said. We call Christian war mongering haters, and often make posts about individual sects ie. Warren Wells, or the Pope and call ALL Catholics child abusing pedophiles.... interesting.

[Rev R]

Anything can be justified through hindsight.

[Grandpa Harley]

For example, a man breaks into my home with the intent to kill me, my wife and my son. The killer and I fight and I break his arm and his leg in the process. This is self-defence and perfectly in line with the Dharma. My intent was to save three lives, and my actions saved four. Had I killed this man the action would still be in accordance to the Dharma since the intent to save three lives was there. Had I not acted and my family had been killed that action would have not been in accord with the Dharma since I placed more importance to words on paper than to life itself.

 

 

>>> This would mean that the war in Iraq is justified.... because. We're killed 3 tyrants, Saddam and his two sons, and we're bringing democracy to Iraq, and that George Bush shouldn't be held accounted for his crimes, because he did it to protect the Iraqi people. Or that the Vietnamese war was justified because and all that death was warrented because they tried to again promote democracy in Vietnam.

 

 

You assume democracy is in the Dharma as some sort of superior method... I don't remember politics being a major feature of the Buddha's teaching, and you have to be some form of idiot to assume or even suggest that politics is what is right more than what is expedient... the purpose of the Vietnam war wasn't to help anyone, neither is the war in Iraq, it's about money and power. 'Right' is a maggot corpse in a ditch with two patriotic bullets in his head.

 

Apples and oranges...

[Deva]

>>> Yet we post lots of stuff against Christianity, based on what their individual pastors had said. We call Christian war mongering haters, and often make posts about individual sects ie. Warren Wells, or the Pope and call ALL Catholics child abusing pedophiles.... interesting.

 

 

Sorry this is going so far off topic. I know you addressed this to Grandpa Harley, but in answer to this -I don't. I would never condemn the whole of Christianity just because one of its leaders or someone professing it said something negative and repulsive. This is a gross generalization. I have never seen anyone here call ALL Catholics child abusing pedophiles. So lets please see links or citations of examples where this wholesale condemnation occurrs SOLELY on the basis of what a Christian person said or did.

 

Christianity fails for me and many others here because its core doctrines are repulsive, untrue and immoral.

[Grandpa Harley]

Ashahara isn't buddhist in any recognizable sense. It's like claiming the David Koresh was a representative Branch Davidian with the incest,killing people and claiming to be Jesus returned, or Jim Jones is a typical Baptist with the poisoned Kool Aid, rapes and punishment beatings...

 

There have always been nutters, and there always will be nutters... as you point out, the Aum teaching diverged so wildly from the teaching of Siddartha Gautama as to be unrecognisable...

 

I'm not sure i follow your point the all Buddhists are bastards based on one Japanese version of Charles Manson (with the charm and looks removed)

 

 

>>> Yet we post lots of stuff against Christianity, based on what their individual pastors had said. We call Christian war mongering haters, and often make posts about individual sects ie. Warren Wells, or the Pope and call ALL Catholics child abusing pedophiles.... interesting.

 

Let's pick the bones out of this...

 

1) AUM did NOT have whole states turning a blind eye to it's actions... the Japanese govt were disturbed about it from the get go.

 

2) the AUM cult did not have the political might to move 'erring' Priests from place to place while claiming it was BAU...

 

3) LEARN TO USE THE FUCKING QUOTES PROPERLY

 

Seems to me you're pulling bad logic to exorcise your own issues... and you seem incapable of using the board... it's irritating

[Deva]

My objections to Buddhism, is put that belief where it belongs, a flawed up delusional belief system.

 

Exactly how is it flawed and delusional? Is it incompatable with modern science? I think not, but if so, provide examples. Delusional? Maybe certain aspects of it are. I don't know. Please again cite examples. I am willing to bet these delusional aspects are not applicable to the whole.

 

Why is it ok for the Dali Lama to be homophobic, but not ok for the Pope to be Homophobic, of Fred Phelps.

 

I don't think I ever said it was OK, I think I said it was objectionable.

[MesaGman]

[quote name='DevaLi

 

Christianity fails for me and many others here because its core doctrines are repulsive, untrue and immoral.

 

 

>>> Buddhism fails for me because it's core doctrines are repulsive, untrue and immoral... Even though such as with Islam, or Christianity, it promotes peace and compassion. It's followers however do not.

[MesaGman]

1) AUM did NOT have whole states turning a blind eye to it's actions... the Japanese govt were disturbed about it from the get go.

 

2) the AUM cult did not have the political might to move 'erring' Priests from place to place while claiming it was BAU...

 

3) LEARN TO USE THE FUCKING QUOTES PROPERLY

 

Seems to me you're pulling bad logic to exorcise your own issues... and you seem incapable of using the board... it's irritating

 

 

 

>>>typical reactionary mind you have. You accuse Christians of not thinking logically. Yet here you are, swearing and acting like a ape, throwing insults. If you like Buddhism that's ok with me. I'm just posting why I think it belongs with other faith based superstitious religions, and the world will be better off with humanism being kind to other humans in this contemporary modern age of information.

 

Yet you're the one using point 3 above, screeching like a monkey throwing S, and swearing. All because I refuse to believe as you do. Sounds VERY Christian to me. You claim to be a scholar, but your actions resemble that of the Taiwan parliment, (cranky old men throwing shoes at each other, and one old woman slapping another), you should be more House of Commons debative (pointing fingers across the floor and making points). Be a gentleman, you're English. (your little jib at me being Chinese).

 

Look, all I'm saying is regardless of Buddhism portraying itself as a peaceful religion, and the Dali Lama is a peaceful enlightened man, he's still a man with prejudices (homophobia), and that prejudices are the cause of intolerance, which is INCOMPATABLE with a religion of peace and enlightenment, as people praise Buddhism for.

 

Most people, regard the Dali Lama as the authority on Buddhism. But Lamaism is just a sect from the orginal Buddah. But really I wish westerners would stop having a romantic view of Asians. That we're the Gunga Din noble savages. Asians are human, and have done very inhuman things. What really pissed me off with Christianity, was here comes a new set of religious nuts when we have a religious nuts of our own.

 

If anything I respond to Confucianism. (sp). because, he said it best "why worry about the after life, when THIS life is so messed up". If anything.... I respect the fictional Vulcan world.... over Buddhism.

 

so, if we're so critical for Christianity (in the modern times, as they can't really legally preform the holocaust of dissidents), being a bigoted, "racist" (I'm not sure how Christianity is racist, as Christ claims to have died for ALL MANKIND), when you guys "bone pick" as you said Harley, it's ok, but when I apply these same practices to criticize the Dali Lama as we Criticize the pope, you start swearing at me. Let it be said, I'm not for Christianity, I'm not for Islam, and I'm certainly not for Buddhism.

 

Deva Light asked me why I consider Buddhism for being a delusional faith based religion.... simply based on this, there is "evidence" for the existence of Buddha just as there is for the existence for Jesus of Nazareth. But there are sure as many Idol statues, with people kneeling infront of it (the Guan yun Statue). So.... that's why I equate Buddhism in as the same vein as unscientifically provable faith based belief systems, and as such should not have a white card.

 

And Aum Shirinko, is a SECT of Buddhism, will always be. A twisted sect of course, but if we claim to base our condemnations on Christianity, based on a SINGLE sect (in this case the Roman Catholic Church), then certainly we can do the same with Aum Shrinko as a representative for Buddhism. It's a practice that we often do here. I've read the posts here. We bash Christianity, using whichever single demonination (in my case Mormonism), we were engaged in. Or from the actions of the very vocal and very public Catholic church. But as you pointed out in a post Harley, it's all apples and oranges, especially when we attack Christianity. But logic dictates. facts and figures must and may be applied to all investigations. (in this case, Christianity and Buddhism).

 

anyways enough of my blabbering.

 

here's a thought I want to ask you guys.

 

Buddhism, the Pali Cannon, also has a hell and a demon Maya. Sooo, if we discount the existence of the Christian hell and Satan, why do we not apply these same critical thinking to Buddhism. Those who don't free themselves from self, and ego reliance, are doomed to Buddhist hell (and don't tell me there isn't. I've seen wayyy to many Hong Kong martial arts movies that indicate otherwise). I scientifically refuse to believe in the existence of hell Christian or Buddhism. But, for this reason alone, this fear mongering makes Buddhism equalivent to Christianity no? Infact more on the Buddhist hell (there are 9 levels of it, and there are graphic details of what happens in each of them). So you refuse to believe in the Christian hell, (otherwise you guys would be Christian and since this is EX-Christian website), yet why do you believe in the same unprovable existence of Buddhism hell. You accuse the Christians of having the ability to have selective logic based on faith. But then it's ok in Buddhism. It's just the same this this case. With this example.... Apple=apple (apple being the mannerisms between believers of Buddhism and Christianity).

 

So you can't really claim to be an empirical thinker, as with natural scientific observations, what is IS, is for ALL.

 

I am interested to hear your rebuttal Harley, but try to do it in a mature manner, with no swearing, you are an educated scholar as you point out. Such childish Ad Hominen attacks are not becoming of a man of your intelligence and your age. And my points are very much on point. I got to carried away with ad hominen attacking the Dali Lama. But his statements does make you think though right? What if you were a Buddhist, because the Abrahamic faiths are homophobic, and you hear the Dali Lama say this? As a bi sexual, I would chose to be a Voodooist, because at least with Voodooism, I would be protected by one of the Goddess. But with the Dali Lama saying such conservative statements, is anti to spritual liberation. As I would still a freak in the peaceful Buddhist society.

 

Why is that? (honest question), if Buddhism is such a beautiful belief, why would a bi sexual like me be an abomination? again this sounds very Catholic, very Christian.... I though Buddhism was the better religion.... according to you guys. I'm curious to what you guys think. So a peaceful non violent productive member of society, who gives blood (I haven't engaged in actual bisexual sex acts), and who votes for social progress such as an end to war, (note the Dali Lama is pro Iraq war, while the Pope isn't), and eager to look for a gap year project to do my part in fixing this planet in the humanist, non faith based (including Buddhism), way. But according to Buddhism and the Dali Lama.... I would be an abomination why? I pay taxes, I break no laws, I live the 8 paths of right living. (being excellent to people, including you Harley, treating you like a intelligent person). I would be an abomination according to some material on Buddhism I read in the library. Well I guess I do eat meat.... maybe that's why I'm such a evil person according to Buddhism. lol.

[MesaGman]

I think GMan's argument needs it's own thread. The criticisms do warrant discussion.

 

However, I do find the fact that Steven Segal's movies figure so greatly into your criticism to be a little funny. Should we also judge Buddhism via Jet Li's films, should we judge Paganism through Godsmack's music (Sully is a pagan I hear), should we judge Scientology by Tom Cruise's films?

 

Jet Li is a Vajrayana Buddhist and has been some years. The playing of a violent character does not reflect on the person... unless Westboro had a point that Heath Ledger deserved death for playing a homosexual...

 

 

 

Apples and oranges Harley.

[Grandpa Harley]

oh quite probably... you still can't use quotes... and keep your comments to yourself.

 

and do you know what 'apples and oranges' actually means?

[MesaGman]

oh quite probably... you still can't use quotes... and keep your comments to yourself.

 

and do you know what 'apples and oranges' actually means?

 

 

My my an angry old man. I didn't see that one coming. but at least you didn't swear this time. What's the matter? you don't have a proper rebuttal to the DEBATE? no I will continue to comment to you, as long as you continue to insult me as a PERSON. Insulting my points, is ok, insulting my falllcies, is ok too, that's what a debate is for. but, you insulted me as a person. There is no need to do that... PS I appologize for calling you an angry old man.

[Grandpa Harley]

Which one didn't you see coming? I'm technically agreeing with you, but you do seem incapable of actually using the quote system with any reliability.

 

do you actually know what 'apples and oranges' means?

 

and Keep your fucking (just to live to expectation) comments to yourself... you want to comment on me, do it on thread, not my fucking (again since to enjoy being cussed) on my fucking profile, arse wipe...

 

There... did you enjoy that? I can hand more...

[MesaGman]

comparing two different things. I agree my fallacy of the Iraq and Vietnam war being a battle for democracy and freedom, to compare your point of the thief breaking in, and using self defense was wrong.....

 

My points I'm trying to make Harley is just that people shouldn't praise faith based religions, in this day and age of scientifically provable things. Bankers pray to the money God, for money, in Asia. Instead of knowing they ARE the "money gods", they have the Masters in Business Administration, of Bachelors of Commerce, and that their logical business decisions makes the money. Yet they go to some temple pray for wealth.

 

Hell in Indonesia, Suharto has so much religious trinkets doctors were worried that if they operated, they might cause internal bleeding. I just want my people to stop worshiping imaginary Feng Shui spirits, and regard yin and yan chi, as just Left and Right poles, ie nerves, blood viens, hemispheres of the brain.

 

It's what Buddah would actually want..... not these golden statues. and people praying to a golden statue, it's just like praying to a mother mary statue for healing.....

[MesaGman]

and Keep your fucking (just to live to expectation) comments to yourself... you want to comment on me, do it on thread, not my fucking (again since to enjoy being cussed) on my fucking profile, arse wipe...

 

There... did you enjoy that? I can hand more... --- Grandpa Harley. Age 43

 

 

 

>>> I don't understand... what does (just to live to expectation) comments to myself mean again? And you critique my English comprehension, with a verbal jib of not understanding apples and oranges. (we're talking about Buddhism here).

[MesaGman]

Exactly how is it flawed and delusional? Is it incompatable with modern science? I think not, but if so, provide examples. Delusional? Maybe certain aspects of it are. I don't know. Please again cite examples. I am willing to bet these delusional aspects are not applicable to the whole.

 

>>> Deva, Buddhism is a faith based practice, as is other religions. based on this... the founder Gautama Buddha is just as mythical as Jesus. Perhaps both men existed, and were Gurus with teachings that fundamentally influenced the belief systems of the regions they lived in. But there is no evidence or very dodgy evidence in the life and times of these men. Most of the biographical data we have on them, are from their followers, and potentially altered scriptures. So adherents in this modern world, unless they have a time machine, and can actually see Buddha attain enlightenment under his tree of Bodhi, or see the manger that Jesus was born in, with stars floating around it and angels singing, or actually see Allah step on the rock before being raptured, or actually see and touch the gold plates that were to become the Book of Mormon, or actually touch the noodly appendages of the Spagetti Flying Monster, and see these mythological characters in the flesh, hear and touch them, then they don't exist.

 

Why do you discount the existance of God and Jesus? but don't apply these same logics to Buddha? not trying to insult you. Just letting you know why I consider Buddhism in the same realm of imaginary beings.... Buddha's existance is just as valid as Jesus, based on the ancedotal evidence. Someone could easily plant a tree where Jesus Freed himself.

 

Yes, Buddhism is incompatable with modern science, as Maya and Buddhist hell, and the Western Pure land, and Amitaba and her flying lotus, are not real.... Why is Eden not real, and the magical kingdom of Shambala is? Now like Fox Mulder.... I would be using science to prove that it's real, unfortunatly Tir An Nog, Never Never land (the mythological place, not Micheal Jackson's Ranch lol), Sailor Moon's Moon Kingdom (a take on the Moon Kingdom Godesses lair), Atlantis, Walt Disney's Magical Kingdom (well with Eistner out, maybe it might lol), and Oz, and the magical world of Harry Potter. Seem like fun, where Chi energy can make people immortal, and there would be magical trees that gave out delicious fruits and veggies. But Paradise doesn't exist. Sadly many young Moslem men, realise that.... after blowing themselves up.

 

That's why Buddhism should be included in the realm of religious fantasy, and that Asia would be better off with no religions....

[Grandpa Harley]

My point? I didn't make that point... I don't even agree with that point... If you're going to attribute things, I'd suggest making sure you get the right one... otherwise I just get pissy

 

1) I never mentioned Stalin

2) In didn't make the break in comment.

3) I didn't suggest that one should base their ideas on any one view of Buddhist thought... Buddhism as a philosophy is one of the better ones... soon as you add in the supernatural bull, that is, make it a religion, then I have the same issues. Christianity, out of the box, DOES promote mass murder, second class citizenship of certain members of society etc... I'd be interested to find in philosophical Buddhism the same imprecations to wipe out every other mutha in the room... we're down to cultural ideas, not those espoused by Siddhartha.

 

BTW your comparison of hell concepts is specious too, in Christian thought Hell is for ever, not simply a phase (which was Theravada initially, but features in the later streams of religious Buddhist and lifted direct from Hindu thought... there is little evidence that the Buddha was stating anything other than Allegory... and you're right, the statuary thing is bollocks too... it's a Greek thing that came to India from the West before the rise of Rome...

[Grandpa Harley]

and Keep your fucking (just to live to expectation) comments to yourself... you want to comment on me, do it on thread, not my fucking (again since to enjoy being cussed) on my fucking profile, arse wipe...

 

There... did you enjoy that? I can hand more... --- Grandpa Harley. Age 43

 

 

 

>>> I don't understand... what does (just to live to expectation) comments to myself mean again? And you critique my English comprehension, with a verbal jib of not understanding apples and oranges. (we're talking about Buddhism here).

 

and trolling my profile is just SOOO mature...

[MesaGman]

My point? I didn't make that point... I don't even agree with that point... If you're going to attribute things, I'd suggest making sure you get the right one... otherwise I just get pissy

 

1) I never mentioned Stalin

2) In didn't make the break in comment.

3) I didn't suggest that one should base their ideas on any one view of Buddhist thought... Buddhism as a philosophy is one of the better ones... soon as you add in the supernatural bull, that is, make it a religion, then I have the same issues. Christianity, out of the box, DOES promote mass murder, second class citizenship of certain members of society etc... I'd be interested to find in philosophical Buddhism the same imprecations to wipe out every other mutha in the room... we're down to cultural ideas, not those espoused by Siddhartha.

 

>>> I didn't say you made the Stalin, the self defense against the break in thief argument... The other guy did, Evolution beyond did.

[MesaGman]

NEW ATTITUDES: Old Tibet no Shangri-La

Pre-1950s state was a feudal theocracy short on peace, harmony but not oppression and torture.

 

By Chi-Wen Yao

For the Journal-Constitution

Published on: 04/08/08

 

Recent uprisings in Tibet have raised international attention because of the spotlight on the Beijing Olympics. However, the Tibetan independence movement is nothing new. While we see the Dalai Lama tour the world seeking autonomy for his people, we should define who these people are, and then define Tibetan independence altogether.

 

Prior to the Chinese takeover in 1959, Tibet was a theocratic state based on feudalism. There was a social caste system where people were born into serfdom. The people born into serfdom, then, were taught the Buddhist notion of karma and reincarnation; that they were suffering from the sins of the past life. However, there was a way out of the caste system. One third of the boys in Tibet were forcibly taken by the monastery and could live in the life of harmony, along with a chance for molestation and rape.

 

The lamas and the feudal landlords, who owned the lands of Tibet, did not represent the majority of the population, who were illiterate and poor. The Drepung Monastery was one of the biggest landowners in the world, and it lent money to the peasants at an interest rate of 20 percent to 50 percent. In theocratic feudal Tibet, torturing methods such as eye gouging and amputation were common as punishments for thieves and runaway slaves. This is quite the contrary of the peaceful teachings of Buddhism, isn't it?

 

Most of us in the West have a Shangri-La view of the old Tibet, but that is hardly the case. Old Tibet was not a state based on peace and harmony, but of oppression and torture. We enjoy the religious freedom we have, and therefore should not hypocritically support a sectarian state of Tibet, especially when it is a state that allowed slavery and torture.

 

Reverting Tibet to its old days and restoring power to the Dalai Lama means Tibet will continue to be backward and oppressive. If we continue on the current trend, the Tibetans have only two limited options: live under oppressive Chinese rule or live under oppressive lama rule.

 

Western proponents of Tibetan independence often argue on the grounds of human rights. Well, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights forbids torture and slavery, which were completely legal in the lama-ruled Tibet.

 

If you support both human rights and Tibet's independence, as I do, I implore you to support a democratic Tibet, not a theocracy.

 

 

(this was ) Tibet before the Chinese.

 

Tibet after the Chinese, (modern buildings, a rail line so tourists can visit Lasha, and increase the prosperity of Tibet, schools and hospitals, and improved farming...

[MesaGman]

BTW your comparison of hell concepts is specious too, in Christian thought Hell is for ever, not simply a phase (which was Theravada initially, but features in the later streams of religious Buddhist and lifted direct from Hindu thought... there is little evidence that the Buddha was stating anything other than Allegory... and you're right, the statuary thing is bollocks too... it's a Greek thing that came to India from the West before the rise of Rome...

 

 

>>> How is it specious. When one is in hell, all nine levels of them, one is still in there for a LONG time, and then there's still the many painful reincarnations of sufferance, (hence the caste system, that poor people deserve to be poor, and sickly, and live in the S, because they did something bad in a life time). So therefore Buddhism is a fear based system. It's saying that if you don't free your mind from the Matrix (using modern pop culture references here), if you remain in the the world of illusions (life), and not free your mind, and reach nirvana, subsequently becoming a Buddha yourself. You stuck in the "Machine" of the Wheel of Dharma for yet another life time, until you get it right. So there fore adherents would concentrate on thier meditation and other excercises to break them from this chain of reincarnations, and only the priests and the monestary, can guide them.... a control mechanism.

 

So in this day and age of internet enlightenment we should be focusing on getting rid of such Specious belief systems that instill fear, of it's my way (God, Buddha's), or the high way...... to hell. That's a very big motivator, for a non existant place.

 

So we rag on Catholic nuns freaking out children with stories of hell, but we don't rag on Buddhists freaking out children with graphic pictures of Oni demons torturing them to death.... kind of hyprocritical.

[Deva]

>>> Deva, Buddhism is a faith based practice, as is other religions. based on this... the founder Gautama Buddha is just as mythical as Jesus. Perhaps both men existed, and were Gurus with teachings that fundamentally influenced the belief systems of the regions they lived in. But there is no evidence or very dodgy evidence in the life and times of these men.

 

But whether or not Gautama actually existed or not wasn't my question, I was asking what you found so terrible about the underlying philosophy. Instead I get a long diatribe about whether Gautama existed or not and essentially accusing those of us interested in Buddhism of a kind of hypocrisy for leaving Christianity. I don't accept this relation. The 4 Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path - what's wrong with it, if you care to directly answer this question?

 

Why do you discount the existance of God and Jesus? but don't apply these same logics to Buddha? not trying to insult you.

 

This discussion was not about our reasons for leaving Christianity, but you are trying to turn it into that. I am thinking now that maybe you really are trying to be insulting.

 

Yes, Buddhism is incompatable with modern science, as Maya and Buddhist hell...

 

All these accretions were added over the centuries - I don't think you understand that. And yes, I understand perfectly well that Catholicism added things over the centuries. I still say that at the core of Christian doctrine there is a low view of humanity that Buddhism doesn't have.

 

As far as you holding yourself out as an expert on Tibetan history - sorry, its very hard for me to believe that an invading Chinese army that killed thousands of people and destroyed a centuries old way of life (whether you approve of it or not) is in any way a good thing. That doesn't mean we have a Shangra-La view - you seem to have so many preconceived ideas and prejudices.

 

It is now obvious you have a lot invested emotionally in this subject and I really see no point in continuing it. I don't think anything any of us would have to say would change your mind one iota.