Zen Buddhism

[Random Precision]

I had a class in Asian Religion this past semester, and toward the end among reading pernicious ruling-class tracts like Confucius' Analects and the Lotus Sutra we got to learn a bit about Zen Buddhism. The professor, a Zen practitioner himself, described it more or less as follows.

Zen Buddhists place no importance whatsoever on Buddhist scriptures as a way to achieve enlightenment. For that matter they place importance on nothing whatsoever as a way to attain enlightenment. Everyone has Buddha-nature and so may become enlightened at any time and for any reason. For example one important Zen monk attained enlightenment when he heard a pebble strike a tree.

There is typically a lot of meditation done by Zen practitioners, but there is never any reason why you "should" meditate. The mediation tools are koans, which is basically just something you meditate on, which could be a word problem (what is the sound of one hand clapping? is a famous one), a flower, or a river (the guy who brought Zen to Japan, Dogen, liked natural koans a lot). The idea of a koan is to get you to move beyond the idea that it and therefore the world in general makes any kind of sense.

This is a vast oversimplification, and there are several different schools of Zen, but if what I have learned about it is true, it sounds like a very down-to-earth, nondogmatic, unpretentious religion- if it could even be called a religion. What does everyone think?

[Robocommie]

I could say I was a practitioner of Zen myself... but then, that's not very Zen.

[New Tet]

[...]

Zen Buddhists place no importance whatsoever on Buddhist scriptures as a way to achieve enlightenment. For that matter they place importance on nothing whatsoever as a way to attain enlightenment. Everyone has Buddha-nature and so may become enlightened at any time and for any reason. For example one important Zen monk attained enlightenment when he heard a pebble strike a tree.

[...]

In the West this is referred to an epiphany:


An epiphany (from the ancient Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek) "ἐπιφάνεια", epiphaneia, “manifestation, striking appearance”) is the sudden realization or comprehension of the (larger) essence or meaning of something. The term is used in either a philosophical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy) or literal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literal_and_figurative_language) sense to signify that the claimant has "found the last piece of the puzzle and now sees the whole picture," or has new information or experience, often insignificant by itself, that illuminates a deeper or numinous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numinous) foundational frame of reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference).

[Weezer]

I had a class in Asian Religion this past semester, and toward the end among reading pernicious ruling-class tracts like Confucius' Analects and the Lotus Sutra we got to learn a bit about Zen Buddhism. The professor, a Zen practitioner himself, described it more or less as follows.

Zen Buddhists place no importance whatsoever on Buddhist scriptures as a way to achieve enlightenment. For that matter they place importance on nothing whatsoever as a way to attain enlightenment. Everyone has Buddha-nature and so may become enlightened at any time and for any reason. For example one important Zen monk attained enlightenment when he heard a pebble strike a tree.

There is typically a lot of meditation done by Zen practitioners, but there is never any reason why you "should" meditate. The mediation tools are koans, which is basically just something you meditate on, which could be a word problem (what is the sound of one hand clapping? is a famous one), a flower, or a river (the guy who brought Zen to Japan, Dogen, liked natural koans a lot). The idea of a koan is to get you to move beyond the idea that it and therefore the world in general makes any kind of sense.

This is a vast oversimplification, and there are several different schools of Zen, but if what I have learned about it is true, it sounds like a very down-to-earth, nondogmatic, unpretentious religion- if it could even be called a religion. What does everyone think?

I'm Buddhist myself, but I'm not exactly Zen/Ch'an.

Zen is interesting, no doubt. There is undoubtedly more than one way to achieve nirvana besides the guidelines Buddha preached, but he spoke against dogma and worshiping gods, Zen got it right in the aspect that they disregard Buddha, whereas some Buddhist sects treat Buddha on a God-like status. I don't think Buddha should be worshiped, but he should be revered, like one of those little-known Saints in Orthodox Christianity or something.

[Random Precision]

I'm Buddhist myself, but I'm not exactly Zen/Ch'an.

what kind are you? You sound sorta like a Theravada/Southern Buddhist in the rest of your post. And what are your disagreements with Zen.


Zen is interesting, no doubt. There is undoubtedly more than one way to achieve nirvana besides the guidelines Buddha preached,

Well of course Zen Buddhists would say that he did "preach" their way in the Flower Sermon. :)


but he spoke against dogma and worshiping gods, Zen got it right in the aspect that they disregard Buddha, whereas some Buddhist sects treat Buddha on a God-like status. I don't think Buddha should be worshiped, but he should be revered, like one of those little-known Saints in Orthodox Christianity or something.

Yeah, in class we talked about Zen alongside Pure Land Buddhism, which sounds like the worst superstitious bullshit I've ever run across. Chant the name of Amitabha 10 million times and you'll go to a land of milk and honey when you die... :rolleyes:

[Weezer]

what kind are you? You sound sorta like a Theravada/Southern Buddhist in the rest of your post. And what are your disagreements with Zen.



Well of course Zen Buddhists would say that he did "preach" their way in the Flower Sermon. :)



Yeah, in class we talked about Zen alongside Pure Land Buddhism, which sounds like the worst superstitious bullshit I've ever run across. Chant the name of Amitabha 10 million times and you'll go to a land of milk and honey when you die... :rolleyes:

Yeah, I have a beef with Pure Land. I consider myself a nondenominational Buddhist, but I have tendencies towards Theravada, with some respects for Tibetan(Tantric) Buddhism.

The reason I consider myself nondenominational is because of a mini-epiphany I had at a nondenominational Temple in Hawaii during my family vacation.

Not really an epiphany, but it was a feeling I had never felt at a church or synagogue. It was amazing, I felt so relaxed. There I knew Buddhism was right for now. I read a little bit of The Teaching of Buddha there, I have had Buddhist leanings ever since.

Edit: Did you watch the video I left on your profile? :(

[mikelepore]

For that matter they place importance on nothing whatsoever as a way to attain enlightenment ................
There is typically a lot of meditation done by Zen practitioners, but there is never any reason why you "should" meditate. The mediation tools are koans,


Depending on the particular sect, my impression is that Rinzai Zen considers the koan to be very necessary, and Soto Zen considers (non-koan) meditation to be very necessary.

[Random Precision]

Depending on the particular sect, my impression is that Rinzai Zen considers the koan to be very necessary, and Soto Zen considers (non-koan) meditation to be very necessary.

Yes. We studied mostly Rinzai Zen in class, hence my confusion.

[VientoLibre]

Yes, Zen is very cool. I have heard it described as the path to Enlightenment for the quick-witted or intelligent.

[Random Precision]

Yeah, I have a beef with Pure Land.

What bothers me most about Pure Land Buddhism is the idea that you don't really have to do any work yourself

By which I mean, that the Buddhas and bodhisattvas have done all the meditation you would have to do to reach enlightenment, so you can just heap on some of theirs with a few devotions. It seems very anti-Buddhist at its core.


I consider myself a nondenominational Buddhist, but I have tendencies towards Theravada, with some respects for Tibetan(Tantric) Buddhism.


Cool. Do you use Zen techniques at all? Or just mix and match

[Holden Caulfield]

I think thinks like Zen Buddism and Daosim are looked upon too favourably in the 'West' because people like to have a 'thing' to like and friendly buddism is it. Out of the religions sure Zen Buddism is among the best but as Hitchens says there is the potential for awful acts sown within them all and this is why we must stand against them.

'Fluffy' 'materialist' Buddism may seem a peaceful religion but this was not the case when it was being used by the ruling lords of Japan as a tool to fight their opposition and to fool the masses into obedience.

I'm not a fan of the love of Buddism in the west or Western (pop) Buddists.
To quote Zizek (not specifically on Zen I apologise):


Western Buddhism” is just such a fetish: it enables you to fully participate in the frantic capitalist game while sustaining the perception that you are not really in it, that you are well aware how worthless the whole spectacle is, since what really matters is the peace of the inner Self to which you know you can always withdraw [...] unaware that the “truth” of his existence lies in the very social relations he tends to dismiss as a mere game

[ComradeMan]

Zen thinking (or should I say non-thinking) and dialectics have interested me for many years. Have you ever read Susuki by any chance?
I think Zen is to Buddhism what Jesus was to Judaism.... but no one is going to like me for that comment in either a church or a synagogue!:D

[Raúl Duke]

From what I heard, the Zen-Jesus comparison sounds to be incorrect.

Zen seems to be similar to aspects of Daoism in the sense that it's like a philosophical "type of thing" then a religion (i.e. with deities and/or dogma).

I read that in the East (Asia), religion and philosophy tends to be blurred (although I might be wrong). Thus belief systems like Zen and Daoism could be distilled out of their religious-type beliefs leaving one to, if one desired, to acquire their philosophical-like components. In fact, Zen seems to be just this out of Buddhism.

Jesus, on the other hand, and his followers created a new form of dogma and theological additions such as the concept of "son of god", etc.

[ComradeMan]

.

Jesus, on the other hand, and his followers created a new form of dogma and theological additions such as the concept of "son of god", etc.


No, Jesus did not do anything of the sort- Saint Paul and Constantinian Christianity did that! I recommend you read the Gnostic Gospels and the Dead Sea Scrolls- they definitely change your view of Jesus.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

I think thinks like Zen Buddism and Daosim are looked upon too favourably in the 'West' because people like to have a 'thing' to like and friendly buddism is it. Out of the religions sure Zen Buddism is among the best but as Hitchens says there is the potential for awful acts sown within them all and this is why we must stand against them.

'Fluffy' 'materialist' Buddism may seem a peaceful religion but this was not the case when it was being used by the ruling lords of Japan as a tool to fight their opposition and to fool the masses into obedience.

I'm not a fan of the love of Buddism in the west or Western (pop) Buddists.
To quote Zizek (not specifically on Zen I apologise):

Being a Buddhist in the West doesn't mean you're a ''Western Buddhist'' in the way you're describing. Anything can be used as a justification for evil actions, including communism and anarchism, but that doesn't mean we should just get rid of them because somebody in the past did some bad things under the guise of ''socialism''. You can be a buddhist in the West because you reject the dogmatic approach of other religions, it doesn't mean every practising buddhist is like Madonna with her Kabbalah and New Age materialistic fads.

I lean towards Buddhism, although I call myself an atheist; I suppose it's entirely possible to be an atheist buddhist because it doesn't involve belief in God or a higher power. No, not every piece of scripture is perfect and not every tradition is sensible (e.g. Pure Land :rolleyes:), but there's a large amount of buddhist philosophy that is valuable and that makes sense, you can't just dismiss it.

[ComradeMan]

Being a Buddhist in the West doesn't mean you're a ''Western Buddhist'' in the way you're describing. Anything can be used as a justification for evil actions, including communism and anarchism, but that doesn't mean we should just get rid of them because somebody in the past did some bad things under the guise of ''socialism''. You can be a buddhist in the West because you reject the dogmatic approach of other religions, it doesn't mean every practising buddhist is like Madonna with her Kabbalah and New Age materialistic fads.

I lean towards Buddhism, although I call myself an atheist; I suppose it's entirely possible to be an atheist buddhist because it doesn't involve belief in God or a higher power. No, not every piece of scripture is perfect and not every tradition is sensible (e.g. Pure Land :rolleyes:), but there's a large amount of buddhist philosophy that is valuable and that makes sense, you can't just dismiss it.

I agree with what you're saying but don't be too hard on Madonna, she might be sincere afterall. What you have said reminds me of the saying "the Devil can use scripture to his own ends".

Could you explain what "Pure Land" is please? I don't know about this...

[Raúl Duke]

No, Jesus did not do anything of the sort- Saint Paul and Constantinian Christianity did that! I recommend you read the Gnostic Gospels and the Dead Sea Scrolls- they definitely change your view of Jesus.

Even then, Jesus claimed to be either a)A prophet, which entails continued acceptance/connection to judaism b) "son of god" and/or saviour

Both of these things are theological additions to Judaistic beliefs

Jesus does not spend much time devising a new perspective on the nature of the universe as Buddha might have been trying to do.

Jesus's message still made connections to a deity ('god'). Buddha was more towards an understanding (through enlightenment) of reality/universe.

[Holden Caulfield]

b) "son of god" and/or saviour

are we not told that we are all the sons of god? are we not all told to adress god as father?

nobody can agree about Jesus, not about who or what he was or about his parentage.

Look at things like Arianism for an example.
Arianism which was supressed by Constantinople, ComradeMan is on the money with what he said.

[Robocommie]

are we not told that we are all the sons of god? are we not all told to adress god as father?

nobody can agree about Jesus, not about who or what he was or about his parentage.

Look at things like Arianism for an example.
Arianism which was supressed by Constantinople, ComradeMan is on the money with what he said.

Yeah, it took quite a few centuries to reach any kind of consensus about the nature of Christ.

And I myself don't really see the problem if some individual chooses to believe in theology. I mean really, I myself talk about God even though I mean a more impersonal cosmic force as described in the Dhammapada, or that which is referred to in the Tao Te Ching as Tao, but I was raised in the West and so I call it God.

But listen, there's a lot of ways to be Abrahamic in religion, and it's not all about dogma and hypocritical moralism and hating gays. One of the things that frustrates me most about anti-theists is that they're never willing to consider the perspectives of religious or spiritual people, to consider what they get out of their faith, instead they insist on defining for them what their own beliefs mean to them, which is wrong.

Religion is extremely complex, and within any single religious tradition there is an entire world of concepts, practices, beliefs and attitudes, and I'm frustrated by anti-theism because I don't think I've ever seen an anti-theist demonstrate an understanding of just how nuanced and vast the subject of religion is.

[ComradeMan]

Even then, Jesus claimed to be either a)A prophet, which entails continued acceptance/connection to judaism b) "son of god" and/or saviour.

Where did he claim such things directly?

Why would being a prophet be an addition to Judaism? The Tanakh is full of prophets!:)

The son of God thing is problematic too.

You also need to understand the Jewish concept of God is quite hard to explain and I think it does have similarities to Eastern concepts.

[Raúl Duke]

Why would being a prophet be an addition to Judaism? The Tanakh is full of prophets!You just said it yourself...prophets are a normal occurrence in ancient Judaism.

[ComradeMan]

You just said it yourself...prophets are a normal occurrence in ancient Judaism.

So why did you say that it was a theological addition? I'm sorry, not following here!!!:)

[ls]

Holden's post is the best I've seen so far against western buddhism, it really is true.

There are a lot of right-wing and very nasty little Buddhist sects actually, I knew someone who was involved with one, there were rumours of extremely horrific things going on with them to do with child molesting, I think it was called soka gaki or something. There are also 'semi-buddhist' ones who combine shit like daoism or qigong and whatever else (for instance falun gong), although it's not really fair to say they are buddhist or a detriment to buddhism in general, I just find that they are often come across.

[ComradeMan]

Holden's post is the best I've seen so far against western buddhism, it really is true.

There are a lot of right-wing and very nasty little Buddhist sects actually, I knew someone who was involved with one, there were rumours of extremely horrific things going on with them to do with child molesting, I think it was called soka gaki or something. There are also 'semi-buddhist' ones who combine shit like daoism or qigong and whatever else (for instance falun gong), although it's not really fair to say they are buddhist or a detriment to buddhism in general, I just find that they are often come across.

You evil racist, you obviously hate Tibetans and other East Asian peoples. What a hypocrite! It's all right for you to make ignorant statements like "shit like daoism and qigong" but if anyone dares criticise a facet of Islam they are automatically racists, Zionists and Islamophobes. You then by your own actions are a Buddhaphone racist.

[h0m0revolutionary]

You evil racist, you obviously hate Tibetans and other East Asian peoples. What a hypocrite! It's all right for you to make ignorant statements like "shit like daoism and qigong" but if anyone dares criticise a facet of Islam they are automatically racists, Zionists and Islamophobes. You then by your own actions are a Buddhaphone racist.

And you're a knob.

Go search through these forums, you'll find a sea of anti-Islam sentiment, most of it perfectly just and reasonable. Islam is a backward religion that often manifests itself in reactionary, anti-materialist, anti-communist ways. We're mostly in agreement of that fact, but what most users on this board don't do, is treat Islam as particularly reactionary, which you do.

[ComradeMan]

And you're a knob.

Go search through these forums, you'll find a sea of anti-Islam sentiment, most of it perfectly just and reasonable. Islam is a backward religion that often manifests itself in reactionary, anti-materialist, anti-communist ways. We're mostly in agreement of that fact, but what most users on this board don't do, is treat Islam as particularly reactionary, which you do.

Because many users on this board seem be very ill-informed about Islamic movements- which cannot be defined in one broad monolithic block anyway. Re the post, I was pointing out to Is how hypocritical is was to make comments like those and then attack others for not much different. By the way you state "Islam is a backward religion that often manifests itself in reactionary" but then go on to say "but what most users on this board don't do, is treat Islam as particularly reactionary, which you do." Seems a bit of a contradiction doesn't it?

And if there are elements of a religious movement and sect which are reactionary then why not treat them as such?

[h0m0revolutionary]

Because many users on this board seem be very ill-informed about Islamic movements- which cannot be defined in one broad monolithic block anyway. Re the post, I was pointing out to Is how hypocritical is was to make comments like those and then attack others for not much different. By the way you state "Islam is a backward religion that often manifests itself in reactionary" but then go on to say "but what most users on this board don't do, is treat Islam as particularly reactionary, which you do." Seems a bit of a contradiction doesn't it?


There is no contradiction. I'd say the same of all religions. I was highlighting the fact that if you bothered to look past your own Islamophobia you'd find many examples of reasoned criticism of Islam on this forum. Islam is not placed on a peddle-stool and it certainly doesn't escape criticism.


And if there are elements of a religious movement and sect which are reactionary then why not treat them as such?

We do, what are you on about?

[ComradeMan]

There is no contradiction. I'd say the same of all religions. I was highlighting the fact that if you bothered to look past your own Islamophobia you'd find many examples of reasoned criticism of Islam on this forum. Islam is not placed on a peddle-stool and it certainly doesn't escape criticism.



We do, what are you on about?


You sure about that? Anyway why am I Islamophobic? Surely your comments would make you Islamophobic too? This is the problem, when it suits some it's islamophobia but when it doesn't, it is mere critique of a reactionary form of theism.

[RedAnarchist]

You evil racist, you obviously hate Tibetans and other East Asian peoples. What a hypocrite! It's all right for you to make ignorant statements like "shit like daoism and qigong" but if anyone dares criticise a facet of Islam they are automatically racists, Zionists and Islamophobes. You then by your own actions are a Buddhaphone racist.

Buddhaphone? Do you mean Buddhaphobe?

[ComradeMan]

Buddhaphone? Do you mean Buddhaphobe?

LOL!!! Oops:blushing: That's a typo worth a million!

[ls]

You evil racist, you obviously hate Tibetans and other East Asian peoples. What a hypocrite! It's all right for you to make ignorant statements like "shit like daoism and qigong" but if anyone dares criticise a facet of Islam they are automatically racists, Zionists and Islamophobes. You then by your own actions are a Buddhaphone racist.

There is nothing ignorant about that statement, many sects do combine seemingly incompatible things like that so yeah "other shit like" was a fair thing to say.

I'm not a fucking buddaphobic racist you stupid twat, I never said that buddhism is in any way bad, my point was that White western liberals often take a liking to buddhism, I've said the same thing before, that I think a lot of White western liberal middle-class converts to Islam are vile shits as well so you can piss off you stupid fucking wanker.

[ComradeMan]

There is nothing ignorant about that statement, many sects do combine seemingly incompatible things like that so yeah "other shit like" was a fair thing to say.

I'm not a fucking buddaphobic racist you stupid twat, I never said that buddhism is in any way bad, my point was that White western liberals often take a liking to buddhism, I've said the same thing before, that I think a lot of White western liberal middle-class converts to Islam are vile shits as well so you can piss off you stupid fucking wanker.

When you describe "daoism" a wide ranging and ancient set of philosophies as "other shit" then it does not do much for your powers of debate.

As for your other foul-mouthed rant, ah, so it's different when the boot is on the other foot. In your previous post you didn't mention anything about "white western liberals" taking a liking to Buddhism at all, so we can only go off what you do say. As for your sweeping generalisations, hardly worthy of any serious debate. You then turn around and make inflammatory comments that I would challenge you to substantiate- so Cat Stevens is a western-liberal-middle-class convert to Islam is he? Very bourgeois indeed living above your immigrant family's restaurant. (Nothing wrong with Greek restaurants I hasten to add!!!).

You seem to be very good at denouncing people and making sweeping statements all over the place and I detect in the angry tone of your response that the truth might hurt. When I dared criticise aspects of Islam you sent me highly inflammatory messages denouncing me as a racist and such and such but when you were confronted with a taste of your own medicine the best you could come out with is your usual foul-mouthed tirade more worthy of Stormfront.

You, you..... BUDDHAPHOBE:D

[ls]

When you describe "daoism" a wide ranging and ancient set of philosophies as "other shit" then it does not do much for your powers of debate.

It's religious too you moron, how is it just philosophical?

Ok, so would you like to defend a sect like soka gakkai or western white liberals "trying out" buddhism as some kind of new fashion. Be my guest, you will come out worse for the wear, I promise you.


As for your other foul-mouthed rant, ah, so it's different when the boot is on the other foot. In your previous post you didn't mention anything about "white western liberals" taking a liking to Buddhism at all, so we can only go off what you do say.It's pretty clear this is what I meant, you can see me thanking Holden's post which was about just that in the beginning of it as well.


As for your sweeping generalisations, hardly worthy of any serious debate. You then turn around and make inflammatory comments that I would challenge you to substantiate- so Cat Stevens is a western-liberal-middle-class convert to Islam is he? Very bourgeois indeed living above your immigrant family's restaurant. (Nothing wrong with Greek restaurants I hasten to add!!!).

My immigrant family's restaurant? Was that a xenophobic little gem there?


You seem to be very good at denouncing people and making sweeping statements all over the place and I detect in the angry tone of your response that the truth might hurt. When I dared criticise aspects of Islam you sent me highly inflammatory messages denouncing me as a racist and such and such but when you were confronted with a taste of your own medicine the best you could come out with is your usual foul-mouthed tirade more worthy of Stormfront.Your criticisms of Islam were extremely chauvinistic as I've pointed out in debate a hundred times now, practically the whole board except some of the admins agrees so why don't you do most of us a favour?

[ComradeMan]

It's religious too you moron, how is it just philosophical?

Taoism (or Daoism) refers to a variety of related philosophical (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Philosophical) and religious (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Religious) traditions that have influenced East Asia (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/East_Asia) for more than two millennia, and have had a notable influence on the western world since the 19th century.

Futher to which where do you draw the line between religious and philosophical beliefs? I have often heard Buddhists state vehemently that theirs is not a religion but a philosophy, or to use your words "shit like that".

Ok, so would you like to defend a sect like soka gakkai or western white liberals "trying out" buddhism as some kind of new fashion. Be my guest, you will come out worse for the wear, I promise you.

So when I criticise Wahhabism I am an Islamophobe, but when you attack soka gakkai it's not Buddhaphobia? Seems like double standards here. If these so-called Western white liberals (is it important that they are white?) want to explore a philosophy why not? Weren't you preaching about religious tolerance and freedom a while back?

It's pretty clear this is what I meant, you can see me thanking Holden's post which was about just that in the beginning of it as well.

Pretty clear to you perhaps.

My immigrant family's restaurant? Was that a xenophobic little gem there?

<Sigh>....... the reference was to Cat Stevens' family! Duh!!! They hardly correspond to the bourgeois stereotype about which you generalised in the previous post. I chose Cat Stevens, now Yusuf Islam, to show that your blind hateful statement about whom you perceive to be western converts to Islam ought to be substantiated. Seeing as you don't know, Cat Stevens came from an immigrant Greek-Cypriot family who owned a restaurant and lived upstairs. Hardly the stuff of the bourgeoisie is it? Seeing as Cat is probably one of the most well-known Western converts to Islam it seems to undermine your statement.

Your criticisms of Islam were extremely chauvinistic as I've pointed out in debate a hundred times now, practically the whole board except some of the admins agrees so why don't you do most of us a favour?

Why were they chauvinistic? Saying that wahhabism and certain expressions of Islam are reactionary is no different to your blanket denouncement of Buddhism. All of my arguments were taken from Islamic sources unlike your knee-jerk drivel.

Sorry to burst your bubble here, but you have shot yourself in the foot. As long as they are your idead they are reasoned critique, anyone else's are chauvinism.

Another question in a lot of your posts you seem to deem it necessary to state "white". Why is it necessary to state race unless you are in fact a reverse racist.

[ls]

Futher to which where do you draw the line between religious and philosophical beliefs? I have often heard Buddhists state vehemently that theirs is not a religion but a philosophy, or to use your words "shit like that".

I don't care what you've heard, a larger amount of people seem to consider it largely a religion too, we were talking about Daoism/Taoism not Buddhism here also, you plank.


So when I criticise Wahhabism I am an Islamophobe, but when you attack soka gakkai it's not Buddhaphobia? Seems like double standards here. If these so-called Western white liberals (is it important that they are white?) want to explore a philosophy why not? Weren't you preaching about religious tolerance and freedom a while back?

If white western liberals began to practice Wahhabism I'd criticise them equally, you are an islamophobe because you think "western values" are better than "islamic" ones as I've stated a million times.


<Sigh>....... the reference was to Cat Stevens' family! Duh!!! They hardly correspond to the bourgeois stereotype about which you generalised in the previous post. I chose Cat Stevens, now Yusuf Islam, to show that your blind hateful statement about whom you perceive to be western converts to Islam ought to be substantiated. Seeing as you don't know, Cat Stevens came from an immigrant Greek-Cypriot family who owned a restaurant and lived upstairs. Hardly the stuff of the bourgeoisie is it? Seeing as Cat is probably one of the most well-known Western converts to Islam it seems to undermine your statement.

Oh yeah, well he suffered from terrible depression as some of his best songs probably indicate, then he got "saved by Islam", yeah he's a bit of a twat really, I still like his music though.


Why were they chauvinistic? Saying that wahhabism and certain expressions of Islam are reactionary is no different to your blanket denouncement of Buddhism. All of my arguments were taken from Islamic sources unlike your knee-jerk drivel.

I've never "blanket denounced" Buddhism, there are probably some progressive elements to it as there are from all other religions, however just like all other religions it is reactionary as a monolithic whole. It's practised largely in a lot of countries, so there are not many surprises there. Your denouncements of Islam are based on utter chauvinist moralism.


Sorry to burst your bubble here, but you have shot yourself in the foot. As long as they are your idead they are reasoned critique, anyone else's are chauvinism.

Another question in a lot of your posts you seem to deem it necessary to state "white". Why is it necessary to state race unless you are in fact a reverse racist.


Clearly you are too stupid to understand anything I've said, so this all seems pointless, not that I care anyway as you are a completely vile joke on this forum to practically everyone. I will not respond to any further posts from you in this thread.

[ComradeMan]

@Is

I don't care what you've heard, a larger amount of people seem to consider it largely a religion too, we were talking about Daoism/Taoism not Buddhism here also, you plank.

The words I don't care what you've heard are the classic opening lines of a bigot. You fall over your own words all over the place and then try to defend them. You were the one who brought daoism into a thread about Buddhism and, as you would say "shit like that".


If white western liberals began to practice Wahhabism I'd criticise them equally, you are an islamophobe because you think "western values" are better than "islamic" ones as I've stated a million times.

Why? To be a western liberal you have to be white? Tell that to Barack Obama. I never said I thought that values were "better" than any other, you assumed that. I said, that many Islamic values are in conflict with western elightenment values from which your own professed ideology too springs.

Oh yeah, well he suffered from terrible depression as some of his best songs probably indicate, then he got "saved by Islam", yeah he's a bit of a twat really, I still like his music though.

Very intellectual level of debate you hold here. So no one can criticise Islam but you can call someone who converts to Islam a bit of a "twat".

I've never "blanket denounced" Buddhism, there are probably some progressive elements to it as there are from all other religions,

You don't know what you're talking about do you?

however just like all other religions it is reactionary as a monolithic whole.

But you can hardly define Buddhism as a monolithic whole when it basically isn't a monolithic whole.

It's practised largely in a lot of countries, so there are not many surprises there.

People eat hamburgers in a lot of countries.... what's your point?

Your denouncements of Islam are based on utter chauvinist moralism.

Why? I keep asking you this and you keep avoiding the question. I quoted the Qu'ran and the Haddith and drew my arguments from reformist movements within Islam whereas you have failed to actually point out what was chauvinistic or moralistic about what I said?

Clearly you are too stupid to understand anything I've said, so this all seems pointless, not that I care anyway as you are a completely vile joke on this forum to practically everyone. I will not respond to any further posts from you in this thread.


Clearly you can't seem to debate anything without resorting to insults and inflammatory statements. Your personal opinion of me is of no consequence whatsoever, I couldn't care less if everyone hated me- I didn't come here to make friends but to discuss, exchange ideas and learn- if people are my friends then that is a bonus, but I don't attach anything to it either.

I will not respond to any further posts from you in this thread.

Once again you are writing to inform me that you are ignoring me.:D

[mikelepore]

Could you explain what "Pure Land" is please? I don't know about this...

It's a sect that believes in a deity called the Amitabha Buddha, and if you recite chants to praise him then you will be reincarnated into another world called the Pure Land, which won't be nirvana but a better world where the transition to nirvana will be easier to accomplish.

[Robocommie]

I don't think LS is "Buddaphobic" or anything like that, I mean you know ComradeMan, a lot of the things he said have been said also by a lot of American Buddhists I know, if not in quite that same way.

In the '60s and '70s in the US, a lot of folks started getting turned on to altenate philosophies and religions thanks to increased exposure to East Asian society. While a good number of people took serious effort to be discerning about what they learned, a lot weren't and they created a sortof of "Pop Buddhism" that mixed up all kinds of Native American shamanism and Celtic folklore. The crystal wavers, those types.

It's possible that that is what ls is referring to, in which case I'd have to agree with him, because that kind of New Age pop religion is a disservice to not just genuine Buddhists in Asia and elsewhere, but also does a grave disservice to the Native American tribes who've had their culture viciously attacked by American imperialism, threatening to dilute it and turn it into just another white-owned commodity.

I hope ls doesn't mean that no "westerner" can be a Buddhist legitimately, but if he's simply pointing out that too many westerners turn Buddhism and Daoism into a sort of religious commodity, well, he's absolutely right.

[ls]

I hope ls doesn't mean that no "westerner" can be a Buddhist legitimately, but if he's simply pointing out that too many westerners turn Buddhism and Daoism into a sort of religious commodity, well, he's absolutely right.

Yes, this is essentially it, the same thing isn't really done with Islam so there's no valid comparison. Indeed, I know of people who have actually gone out to majority buddhist countries (no, not hippies) and lived in working-class communities, rather than like those filthy old scummy hippies go out to those idiotic little sects with some leader who "teaches" all those scummy idiots how to be "spiritual", there is a world of difference and I know that some people do legitimately convert - in the West though, they are a minority compared to those that look over it with chauvinistic, idiotic Western-tinted spectacles.

[Holden Caulfield]

It's a sect that believes in a deity called the Amitabha Buddha, and if you recite chants to praise him then you will be reincarnated into another world called the Pure Land, which won't be nirvana but a better world where the transition to nirvana will be easier to accomplish.

The Amitabha Budda is a budda of another dimension.:blink:
Its fairly an insane sect in my opinion

[Robocommie]

Yes, this is essentially it, the same thing isn't really done with Islam so there's no valid comparison. Indeed, I know of people who have actually gone out to majority buddhist countries (no, not hippies) and lived in working-class communities, rather than like those filthy old scummy hippies go out to those idiotic little sects with some leader who "teaches" all those scummy idiots how to be "spiritual", there is a world of difference and I know that some people do legitimately convert - in the West though, they are a minority compared to those that look over it with chauvinistic, idiotic Western-tinted spectacles.

It occurs to me that the situation you describe might be more extreme in the UK than it is here in the US. In the US Buddhism is not very well known but in those areas where it is, it tends to be fairly well understood because we have many Eastern and Southeastern Asian immigrant communities, on the West Coast in particular, many of whom have founded legitimate temples and even monasteries. A lot of this cultural exchange happened after WWII and after Vietnam, with all of the exposure our troops were getting on airbases in Japan or the China Sea, or in South Vietnam. It'd be very similar to how Great Britain has had a great deal of cultural exchange with India and the Middle East, trading cricket and rugby for curry and tea. ;)

[ls]

It occurs to me that the situation you describe might be more extreme in the UK than it is here in the US. In the US Buddhism is not very well known but in those areas where it is, it tends to be fairly well understood because we have many Eastern and Southeastern Asian immigrant communities, on the West Coast in particular, many of whom have founded legitimate temples and even monasteries. A lot of this cultural exchange happened after WWII and after Vietnam, with all of the exposure our troops were getting on airbases in Japan or the China Sea, or in South Vietnam. It'd be very similar to how Great Britain has had a great deal of cultural exchange with India and the Middle East, trading cricket and rugby for curry and tea. ;)

In fairness, curry in the UK is nothing like proper Indian curry, tea was pretty much stolen and yeah, you know basically nothing that is not english here is truly like it is in the other countries. It's pretty much ruined by capitalism saying "culture works like this and you have to make it profitable".

I would imagine that there is some level of watering down of the temples and monasteries along the west coast, I know that seattle has a long heritage of chinese immigrants, but obviously I don't really know much about that so can't comment.

[ComradeMan]

Re the comments about tea and curry, what a stereotypical load of complete trash. How the hell were "tea" and "curry" stolen? Cultural exchanges take place when cultures come into contact, did Native Americans steal "horses"? Did the Indian subcontinent "steal" cricket? How can anyone with a modicum of intelligence come out with rubbish like that.

Proper Indian curry does not even exist. "Curry" describes a whole range of dishes that vary from one place to another. I am sure the people of Brick Lane in the Eastend would be pleased to know their curries are nothing like the "proper" curries in India. The largest Hindu Temple outside of India is in North London so I don't see what "watering down" there has been either.

Back on to Buddhism, what have "tea" and "curry" got to do with Buddhism? Unless you are stereotyping all Buddhists = "Asians" and "Asians" eat curry- that sounds like something straight out of the mouth of a skinhead.


For the record I found this brief history of Buddhism in the UK at:-
http://www.fwbo.org/buddhism/uk_history.html

The earliest Buddhist influence on Britain came through its imperial connections with South-East Asia, and as a result the early connections were with the Theravada traditions of Burma, Thailand, and Sri Lanka. To start with, 150 years ago, this response was primarily scholarly, and a tradition of study grew up that eventually resulted in the foundation of the Pali Text Society, which undertook the huge task of translating the Pali Canon of Buddhist texts into English. The Buddha himself became well known as a moral and spiritual hero with the publication in 1879 of Sir Edwin Arnold’s Light of Asia. Alongside this came the start of interest in Buddhism as a path of practice. This was pioneered by the Theosophists, Madame Blavatsky and Colonel Olcott, and in 1880 they became the first Westerners to receive the refuges and precepts, the ceremony by which one traditionally becomes a Buddhist.
Through the early twentieth century the Theosophical and Theravadin influences continued, particularly with the foundation in 1924 of London’s Buddhist Society. A slow trickle of westerners travelled to Asia to take monastic ordination, mainly as Theravadin monks; and a few Asian monks came to live in Britain.
The rate of growth was slow but steady through the century, and the 1950s saw the development of interest in Zen Buddhism. However, it was not until the 1960s that the trickle of people returning to the West became a flood. In 1967 an Englishman who had spent 20 years in the east as a Theravadin monk founded the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order, the first home-grown Buddhist movement. He was followed by other westerners who had studied in the East, and by Eastern teachers, particularly refugee Tibetan Lamas, and under the influence of these teachers a large and diverse British Buddhist world has emerged. In the mid 1990s academic researchers estimated that there were between 30,000 and 50,000 British people who had become Buddhists, and a large but indeterminate number who felt a significant connection with Buddhism. In addition there were around 100,000 people of Asian origin who practised Buddhism within the context of their ethnic community.

[ls]

Re the comments about tea and curry, what a stereotypical load of complete trash. How the hell were "tea" and "curry" stolen? Cultural exchanges take place when cultures come into contact, did Native Americans steal "horses"? Did the Indian subcontinent "steal" cricket? How can anyone with a modicum of intelligence come out with rubbish like that.

Proper Indian curry does not even exist. "Curry" describes a whole range of dishes that vary from one place to another. I am sure the people of Brick Lane in the Eastend would be pleased to know their curries are nothing like the "proper" curries in India. The largest Hindu Temple outside of India is in North London so I don't see what "watering down" there has been either. [/quote]

I am partly Indian and live in north london so if anyone would know what is stereotypical trash and what isn't, it would probably be me thanks.

On cricket, I heard it was invented in Pakistan originally, but apparently that isn't true so I don't really know/care what to believe.

On curry, well that definitely was taken from not just India, but many other countries because there are like you said, loads of different ones. They are often watered down and nothing like the original here, for instance the persian one dhansak doesn't really taste like a proper one. Chicken 'tikka masala' is a completely english invention that never even had anything to do with India. The cultural exchange is one-sided, the British said they'd "break the cultural backbone of India" in fact, there's a long thread on it by cyu. There was no equality of cultural exchange and Indians were treated like shit, then via the bollocks of "self-determination" were divided up and subverted into killing each other over religion.


Back on to Buddhism, what have "tea" and "curry" got to do with Buddhism? Unless you are stereotyping all Buddhists = "Asians" and "Asians" eat curry- that sounds like something straight out of the mouth of a skinhead.

I didn't even bring the subject of tea or curry up. If you can't even follow the discussion on your own thread.. :rolleyes: Idiot.

On buddhism over here, apparently there are 152,000 buddhists here as of 2001. They don't break them down by ethnicity, but I would be extremely interested to find out how it does break down.

[ComradeMan]

Is- you said tea was pretty much stolen. Those were your words.

As for the other comments, whether you like it or not, the British ruling classes and the Indian ruling classes, maharajhas and aristocracy got on pretty damn well and didn't give a stuff about the "oppressed" Indian plantation workers inasmuch as they didn't give much of one about the "oppressed" cotton workers of the slums of Manchester. This could be demonstrated by the fact that the first prime minister of a free India was Nehru who had been educated at the most exclusive and upper-class schools and universities in England.

As for the India-Pakistan conflict, well they were divided up so they declared war on each other.... if they hadn't been divided up would they not have slaughtered each other the same in the name of reactionary religious belief as by the time Mountbatten was Viceroy fears of an ethno-religious civil war were rife anyway. Who was it killing each other anyway because of religion? You can't make it out into a simplistic "Evil British" vs "Poor Indians".

The original comment was in terms of cultural exchanges not in terms of some perceived socio-economic equality which never existed in either Britain or India- it all depends on class my dear and that's the problem.

Re your other comment "nothing that is not english here is truly like it is in the other countries"- seems a bit odd, that's like saying Italian food outside of Italy is not the same as in Italy- duh, hello, who didn't realise that?

BTW Vindaloo is Portuguese.:D

[ls]

Is- you said tea was pretty much stolen. Those were your words.

And it remains stolen to this day. What is your point? Do you know how tea workers are treated for a 'cuppa tetleys' for some idiot in the UK? Shut up then.


As for the other comments, whether you like it or not, the British ruling classes and the Indian ruling classes, maharajhas and aristocracy got on pretty damn well and didn't give a stuff about the "oppressed" Indian plantation workers inasmuch as they didn't give much of one about the "oppressed" cotton workers of the slums of Manchester. This could be demonstrated by the fact that the first prime minister of a free India was Nehru who had been educated at the most exclusive and upper-class schools and universities in England.

Err, why would I disagree with any of that? I hate the Indian ruling class just as much as the British.


As for the India-Pakistan conflict, well they were divided up so they declared war on each other.... if they hadn't been divided up would they not have slaughtered each other the same in the name of reactionary religious belief as by the time Mountbatten was Viceroy fears of an ethno-religious civil war were rife anyway. Who was it killing each other anyway because of religion? You can't make it out into a simplistic "Evil British" vs "Poor Indians".

You truly are a reactionary cretin. There wasn't ethnoreligious conflict to the extent of that which was permitted when India was broken up, even you can't be as dense as to not see that, you are an utter moron if you think otherwise.


The original comment was in terms of cultural exchanges not in terms of some perceived socio-economic equality which never existed in either Britain or India- it all depends on class my dear and that's the problem.

You telling me that when you support the existence of states is quite something.


Re your other comment "nothing that is not english here is truly like it is in the other countries"- seems a bit odd, that's like saying Italian food outside of Italy is not the same as in Italy- duh, hello, who didn't realise that?

I doubt you'd notice the difference in quality myself.


Vindaloo is Portuguese.:D

Actually, it's the Goan name for a Portuguese dish. Goa was settled in by the Portuguese (that's the part of India I'm partly from). There are a lot of other very nice Goan dishes which are very close to or indeed directly Portuguese as well. Unlike other Indians most Goans are Catholics thanks to the wonderful Portuguese and their civilised ways of civilising those terrible barbarians all the way up to the 1975 Carnation revolution in Portugal itself, therefore they don't have to stick to the usual meats that other Indians eat. Goa was a victim of "peaceful" Portuguese imperialism where they basically got support from Thimayya, out of mutual interests "the enemy of the enemy is a friend" and he had won support from the masses in Goa unfortunately, they then worked to propagate their culture among the terrible uncivilised Goans. There has still been mass slaughter throughout the history of Goa, the Goa liberation struggle was extremely bloody and there were massive repressions if you want something precise, I suppose that was a "cultural exchange" too.

[ComradeMan]

And it remains stolen to this day. What is your point? Do you know how tea workers are treated for a 'cuppa tetleys' for some idiot in the UK? Shut up then.

That is the most bullshit simplistic argument that I have ever heard. The issue is then with Tetleys, in your example, a private company. To say the British "stole" tea is completely ridiculous. Is India the only tea-producing country and is the UK the only consumer of tea and is every tea drinker in the UK some "idiot"- do you refuse to drink tea then?

Err, why would I disagree with any of that? I hate the Indian ruling class just as much as the British.

Well, then we agree on something- but you need to make you arguments less sweeping than you do.

You truly are a reactionary cretin. There wasn't ethnoreligious conflict to the extent of that which was permitted when India was broken up, even you can't be as dense as to not see that, you are an utter moron if you think otherwise.

Why am I a cretin? Love the use of the weasely "to the extent".

The British partitioned India badly, but partition it did. At the end of the day who was killing each other? The British weren't involved at that stage- reactionaries on both sides are to blame. I refer you to Lawrence J. Butler, 2002, Britain and Empire: Adjusting to a Post-Imperial World, p 72 What forced people to feel the need to kill each other based on ethno-religious grounds?

For example, I'm a Muslim and I now live in majority Pakistan so I have to kill a Hindu do I, or vice-versa I'm a Hindu in majority Hindu et al Indian so I have to kick off with the others? Look too to the eactionary elements within these belief systems. There was ethnoreligious conflict brewing but you still fail to answer the basic point- why did anyone have to kill or hurt another person because of their religion?

Abridged from http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/3803.php
After the Mughals took over India, there was relative peace for some time between the Hindus and Muslims. This harmony broke down, with the harsh Muslim rule at the end of the 17th century. Under the strict Mughal leader Aurangzeb, taxes were imposed on all Hindus, after they had previously been abolished, Hindu temples were destroyed, and Hindus were forced to convert to Islam. By the 18th century the Mughal Dynasty had fallen apart, leaving the Indian subcontinent open and defenseless. Consequently the British moved in, yet as the British were gaining control, both Hindus and Muslims came together and fought against British rule. Tensions grew higher as both Hindus and Muslims were refused high-ranking jobs in the government and the military. By the end of the 19th century the Indian National Congress, had been formed. The Indian National Congress was comprised of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs, yet it was dominated by Hindus because of the huge numbers of them. People backed by the Indian National Congress began to make demands for equal rights and freedom from colonial rule. During the 1920’s Hindus and Muslims banded together in a non-violence resistance lead by the head of the Indian National Congress, Mohandas K. Gandhi. In order the stop the resistance the British transferred some political power and more equal representation to the Indian National Congress. In the 1930’s Muslim leaders lead by M.A. Jinnah, felt that the Indian National Congress, which was dominated by Hindus, was making all the choices for British ruled India and were basically excluding any Muslim leaders from the decision making process. The Muslim leaders felt that in order to protect the heritage of Islam, they must have their own state to rule over. In 1940 the All-India Muslim League under Jinnah declared its want for its own state called Pakistan, meaning "land of the pure." Both sides started to become uneasy thus deteriorating the relations between the two. On August 16, 1946 in the demand for separate Muslim state, the Muslim League called for "Direct Action” a day where thousands of Muslims and Hindus clashed violently.


The British administration no doubt leaves a lot left to be desired but don't try to pretend that Hindu Mulsim relations were ever that great until they had a common enemy and as soon as that common enemy was about to leave they deteriorated again. There are reactionary elements in both religions and they must also take responsibility for the terrible loss of life and human suffering caused.


You telling me that when you support the existence of states is quite something.

What is the existence of a state? You should read Malatesta and you might understand what the difference between a country and a state is.

I doubt you'd notice the difference in quality myself.

Yawn...... Sure....

Actually, it's the Goan name for a Portuguese dish.

So it's Portuguese....then.... Carne de Vinha d' Alhos....


So the Hindus sided with the Portuguese against the Mulsims and they won.

Albuquerque and his successors left almost untouched the customs and constitutions of the thirty village communities on the island, only abolishing the rite of sati (widow-burning). A register of these customs (Foral de usos e costumes) was published in 1526; it is among the most valuable historical documents pertaining to Goan customs.Goa was granted the same civic privileges as Lisbon. Its senate or municipal chamber maintained direct communications with the king and paid a special representative to attend to its interests at court. In 1563 the governor even proposed to make Goa the seat of a parliament representing all parts of the Portuguese east but this was rejected by the king.

So Portuguese. French, Spanish and all other Latin speakers other than maybe the Italians, and not all of them, speak their languages due to the dreadful imperialism of the brutal Roman Empire- what's your point? Do we abolish the romance languages as products of imperialism? does it undermine their value?

You truly have a far too binary and crude way of analysing historical phenomena.

[ls]

That is the most bullshit simplistic argument that I have ever heard. The issue is then with Tetleys, in your example, a private company. To say the British "stole" tea is completely ridiculous. Is India the only tea-producing country and is the UK the only consumer of tea and is every tea drinker in the UK some "idiot"- do you refuse to drink tea then?

No, although there was a campaign to tell people not to drink Tetleys, I don't think it will achieve much myself, but it is horribly exploitative for Indian workers.



Why am I a cretin? Love the use of the weasely "to the extent".

The British partitioned India badly, but partition it did. At the end of the day who was killing each other? The British weren't involved at that stage- reactionaries on both sides are to blame. I refer you to Lawrence J. Butler, 2002, Britain and Empire: Adjusting to a Post-Imperial World, p 72 What forced people to feel the need to kill each other based on ethno-religious grounds?

Oh yeah the British bourgeois weren't to blame, for forcing conditions down to such a low level that the people divided themselves, leading to a filthy government of whatever-religious people who just wanted a piece of capitalist pie for themselves, utterly bourgeois thinking, how did you ever call yourself an anarchist.


For example, I'm a Muslim and I now live in majority Pakistan so I have to kill a Hindu do I, or vice-versa I'm a Hindu in majority Hindu et al Indian so I have to kick off with the others?

Are you saying that this doesn't happen? Are you stupid?


Look too to the eactionary elements within these belief systems. There was ethnoreligious conflict brewing but you still fail to answer the basic point- why did anyone have to kill or hurt another person because of their religion?

They didn't, Britain partitioned India on purely ethnoreligious lines because they tthought they knew best, they caused mass slaughter on a scale previously unknown to most Indians, so just cut the shit please.



The British administration no doubt leaves a lot left to be desired but don't try to pretend that Hindu Mulsim relations were ever that great until they had a common enemy and as soon as that common enemy was about to leave they deteriorated again. There are reactionary elements in both religions and they must also take responsibility for the terrible loss of life and human suffering caused.

Ha "leaves a lot left to be desired", you accused me of weasley words :rolleyes: but jesus fucking christ.


What is the existence of a state? You should read Malatesta and you might understand what the difference between a country and a state is.

So you are for nationalism, no surprise there.

Do you like cut and pasting?


So Portuguese. French, Spanish and all other Latin speakers other than maybe the Italians, and not all of them, speak their languages due to the dreadful imperialism of the brutal Roman Empire- what's your point? Do we abolish the romance languages as products of imperialism? does it undermine their value?

No, they are too embedded in the workers and are not in and of themselves particularly reactionary to be of use as languages, they are too widely spoken. I am not saying that this or that should be denounced as a "product of imperialism", I'm just telling you that your views of the great colonisers whereever is complete claptrap shit and completely bourgeois thinking, it was you who gave me shit for simply saying the truth in the first place, so don't even dare to accuse me of derailment - it was a slight aside from the original points about buddhism being discussed with robocommie.

[ComradeMan]

Is- there is no point discussing things with you because you are incapable of looking at things objectively. Whenever there is a fact or view that disagrees with your own opinion you do not address it or you brush over it.

You seem to fail to grasp the idea that 99% of human history has been reactionary in one way or another and trying to be a revisionist, from whatever side, just means you are being subjective and nullifies the validity of your points of debate. The very fact that you say you "hate" the British and Indian ruling classes means that you are thus incapable of any kind of analysis that is not coloured by your own emotions. I try not to let my own emotions come into historical analyses in an attempt to be objective.

As for your insistance on your own view I re-quote

"In 1940 the All-India Muslim League under Jinnah declared its want for its own state called Pakistan, meaning "land of the pure."

No one is defending British Imperialism but to state that the elements present in India 60 odd years ago were completely without blame and non-reactionary is a historical fallacy. You also fail to answer the question. With or without partition why would there be ethno-religious conflict between groups if there were no reactionary elements in the cultures/beliefs of those said groups? I will be the first one to admit the reactionary elements in say, Judaism or Christianity why is it then that others fail or refuse to see the reactionay elements in Islam and Hinduism that also contributed to the slaughter and suffering of millions of people?

As for your final comment-

No, they are too embedded in the workers and are not in and of themselves particularly reactionary to be of use as languages, they are too widely spoken.

How can one language be any more reactionary or revolutionary than another? A language was "embedded" in the workers? What the hell does that mean? Then you say "to be of use" as languages but that they are widely spoken. This whole phrase of yours doesn't seem to make any sense----????

You might question whether Spanish and Portuguese are not "reactionary" or imperialist in South America where they have been used to impose colonial laws, colonial rule and wipe out native/indigenous culture and language. In fact you could argue that all languages that have been "imposed" on another people are reactionary in a sense in which case which languages when spoken by whom are not reactionary? Ha ha. Language is reactionary, abolish language and we can all use telepathy instead. :D

I am not saying that this or that should be denounced as a "product of imperialism", I'm just telling you that your views of the great colonisers whereever is complete claptrap shit and completely bourgeois thinking,

More strawmen? I don't use adjectives like "great" to describe anyone. Who was talking about the "great" colonisers? When you make sweeping generalisations and historically questionable and inaccurate/misleading statements as you seem to do often, you ought not to be surprised by the critique you receive.

it was you who gave me shit for simply saying the truth in the first place, so don't even dare to accuse me of derailment - it was a slight aside from the original points about buddhism being discussed with robocommie.

For saying the truth? What truth? The British "stole" tea from India.... yeah sure. I didn't give you "shit" I criticised your points. But then your complete subjectivity on matters doesn't help either.

[ls]

Is- there is no point discussing things with you because you are incapable of looking at things objectively. Whenever there is a fact or view that disagrees with your own opinion you do not address it or you brush over it.

What haven't I addressed then?


You seem to fail to grasp the idea that 99% of human history has been reactionary in one way or another

Where did I deny this again?


and trying to be a revisionist, from whatever side, just means you are being subjective and nullifies the validity of your points of debate. The very fact that you say you "hate" the British and Indian ruling classes means that you are thus incapable of any kind of analysis that is not coloured by your own emotions. I try not to let my own emotions come into historical analyses in an attempt to be objective.

So, because I hate the Indian and British bourgeois, I also apart from that, can't have an objective view of them?

I guess because you hate Nazis you can't have an objective view on how they came to power either then, nor can anyone else. :rolleyes:


No one is defending British Imperialism but to state that the elements present in India 60 odd years ago were completely without blame and non-reactionary is a historical fallacy.

The "elements present in India" were purely used by the British bourgeois to divide and conquer, can you not get that through your head? Empires learnt how to use "self-determination" ie, get the local bourgeois to become subservant lackeys to them, yet seem like nationalists to the local people.


You also fail to answer the question. With or without partition why would there be ethno-religious conflict between groups if there were no reactionary elements in the cultures/beliefs of those said groups?

Again, where did I say there wouldn't be any ethnoreligious conflict or that any religion wasn't reactionary? Do you fail to grasp the qualitative and quantitative difference between the ethnoreligious conflict that happened pre and post the divide?


I will be the first one to admit the reactionary elements in say, Judaism or Christianity why is it then that others fail or refuse to see the reactionay elements in Islam and Hinduism that also contributed to the slaughter and suffering of millions of people?

All religion is reactionary and I've never denied this.


As for your final comment-

No, they are too embedded in the workers and are not in and of themselves particularly reactionary to be of use as languages, they are too widely spoken.

How can one language be any more reactionary or revolutionary than another? A language was "embedded" in the workers? What the hell does that mean? Then you say "to be of use" as languages but that they are widely spoken. This whole phrase of yours doesn't seem to make any sense----????

It makes perfect sense, the languages that imperialism has made substantial in usage are not worth abolishing, because too many people speak them. No language is 'revolutionary' either and again, I never said any language was, do you love inventing strawmen?


More strawmen? I don't use adjectives like "great" to describe anyone. Who was talking about the "great" colonisers? When you make sweeping generalisations and historically questionable and inaccurate/misleading statements as you seem to do often, you ought not to be surprised by the critique you receive.

Where has anything I said been historically questionable? Go on, point it out and critique it, otherwise keep shut.


For saying the truth? What truth? The British "stole" tea from India.... yeah sure. I didn't give you "shit" I criticised your points. But then your complete subjectivity on matters doesn't help either.

So the British achieved a fair cultural exchange with India I presume?

[ComradeMan]

So, because I hate the Indian and British bourgeois, I also apart from that, can't have an objective view of them?

Well, your outright statement of hate does make one question your objectivity. In response to your question itself- not when you express that hatred and use emotive language in all of your comments. Your hatred and emotive language oozes out of all of your critique and this invalidates it. Especially when dealing with historical analysis you have to be objective and take the Dr Spock/Vulcan approach. If I were writing a biography of Hitler for example, and I peppered it with my own opinion of the evil tittle fucker would it be taken seriously by anyone? No one here is a mindreader and so we can only go off the words that are written. You seem to think that anyone who takes an objective approach is automatically "taking sides" and this seems to be borne out by your crude binary analysis of things. No one is taking sides as that is not an academic approach.

The "elements present in India" were purely used by the British bourgeois to divide and conquer, can you not get that through your head? Empires learnt how to use "self-determination" ie, get the local bourgeois to become subservant lackeys to them, yet seem like nationalists to the local people.

This is a complete historical farce. India was not one homogenous unified country with any kind of democracy when the British moved in. It was exactly those divisions already present in India after nigh on two centuries of Mughal rule that allowed the British in. Whilst at first Islamic rule of India had seemed fairly enlightened- during the 17th-18th century harsh Islamic rule by the Mughal emperors, who were perceived as hated foreigners increasingly by the Hindu majority, had caused deep divisions in Indian society. If anything, British rule did exactly the opposite of divide and rule as it united the previously hostile factions against a common enemy, i.e. the British. It's odd, the British actually proved the point of unite and be defeated as opposed to divide and rule. When the British presence was practically defunct and they were on their way out the old animocities based on ethno-religious tension resurfaced as the common enemy no longer existed.

To speak of a "bourgeoisie" in the sense of Indian society, majority Hindu, with a rigid caste system is in my opinion not very helpful. It has been argued by some that it was exactly the rise of the Indian modernist "bourgeois" that helped the Indian independence movement.

Again, where did I say there wouldn't be any ethnoreligious conflict or that any religion wasn't reactionary? Do you fail to grasp the qualitative and quantitative difference between the ethnoreligious conflict that happened pre and post the divide?

Your analyses are inaccurate and incorrect and your sweeping generalisations serve nothing than to fall into the post-colonial reactionary trap of blaming everything on the former colonial "masters" and not taking responsibility for one's own actions. Whilst colonialism no doubt has its own responsibility so too do the actions of each and every individual involved in successive conflicts.

If I were take the position, which I don't, that all of the Israeli regimes actions were to be excused on the grounds that ultimate responsibility lies at the feet of British mismanagement of Transjordania/Palestine no one would listen. Now, I acknowledge the situations are not exactly the same but the analogy is there.

Your analysis also misses one point. The ethno-religious conflicts that happened immediately prior to divided happened under British India with a colonial army and police force etc etc to stamp out violence in whatever manner it chose whereas after the divide that was no longer the case. I also point you to the facts mentioned above.

All religion is reactionary and I've never denied this.

Therefore when people start to kill each other based on ethno-religious grounds you admit that their own reactionary beliefs play a role?

It makes perfect sense, the languages that imperialism has made substantial in usage are not worth abolishing, because too many people speak them. No language is 'revolutionary' either and again, I never said any language was, do you love inventing strawmen?

I love the way your personify imperialism. To speak of imperialism as if it were one person, metaphorically, or one monolithic movement/religion/ideology is far too simplistic. Which imperialism, what kind, when, from whom etc. Even British imperialism cannot be analysed as one monolithic block or one uniform approach to all Britain's possessions.

I wasn't inventing strawmen, I was asking you to explain what you meant because it wasn't clear. What concerns me is when you use rather reactionary terminology such as "worth abolishing" etc. How do you go about abolishing a language then?

Where has anything I said been historically questionable? Go on, point it out and critique it, otherwise keep shut.

Well I have shown a couple of examples but you won't acknowledge them. Your historical analysis of Goa was simplistic to say the least and your historical analysis of the causes of ethno-religious conflict caused by and at partition of India seems to seek no deeper analysis other than to "Blame the British"- which ignores the complexity of the subject.

So the British achieved a fair cultural exchange with India I presume?

Where did I talk about a fair cultural exchange? What exactly is a fair cultural exchange anyway? Could you define it? Has it ever happened in history? Cultural exchanges happen because of, or adversely, in spite of socio-economic politics. Native Americans got horses from the Europeans and horses became part of the life of the plains tribes- it's a cold fact. To say that "Native Americans" stole horses from the Europeans would be as complete historical rubbish as to say the Europeans stole lacrosse and pemmican. No one would deny the suffering, genocide, of the Native Americans however.

The British ruled India and as colonial expansionists and mercantile imperialism no leftists would ever defend the actions of the capitalists there, but that does not mean you can come out with trite and simplistic statements such as the "British stole tea" from India. I suppose India thus "stole tea" from China by your analysis. Apart from that, your arguments sound like the reverse in a sense of the worst colonial apologists who will use statements like "we gave them penicillin and railways".