Eastern religeon as bad as western.

[Universal Struggle]

People on here and on the left in general seem to think Buddhism is progressive and less reactionary than Christianity.

Yet it is not.

The problem is that Buddhism says that you are reincarnated based on your actions in a previous life.

This means peasents, poor workers are hardly going to fight to change their conditions if they feel it is of their own doing and not the political system.

If they stand up and say they want to be treated with dignity and want an end to their exploitation, well hey, you must have done something bad in a previous life to deserve the situation your in.

But over 2/3rds of the world live in abject povert, while 1/3 live in prosperity, so in a past life, most people must have been terrible while the good few remained virtuous.

Fuck that.

[ed miliband]

I don't think people on here think that way, but it's pretty much a liberal hallmark.

Slavoj Zizek has some fairly interesting things to say on the matter, anyway.

[Palestine]

that does sound fucked up somehow, but hey all religions are fucked up in their own way

[Robocommie]

Christ. That's not what Buddhism teaches. But this shouldn't be in Politics anyway.

[Universal Struggle]

yes it does.

Of course, as with all religeons there are good parts, but it is oppressive in the way i stated.

[Invincible Summer]

To be fair, there are various forms of Buddhism, not all of which talk about re-incarnation.

But I think the point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a great lack of critical analysis of Eastern religions. Atheists in the West - myself included - are much more easily hung up on Christianity. Heck, I don't think I've read many criticisms of Judaism either. Islam is criticized mainly for its radical adherents, but there are fewer criticisms based on the actual religion itself.

It's easy to see other religions as the "greener grass" when they're not prominent where you live.

[Robocommie]

Yeah, that's exactly what we need, even more judgemental bullshit from people who don't understand religion, just to suit an agenda.

[Universal Struggle]

why are you being so hostile, face it Buddhism is just as backwards as any religeon.

Buddhists are not inherently reactionary, but some Buddhists are.

I take it you are a Buddhist?

Alot of people quote great passages in the Quoran or the Bible, yet there are tonnes of horrific stuff in their, you cant be progressive while believeing in the bible, as you cannot be progressive but think the poor are poor because of bad kara


But do not think i want to seperate religeous comrades and atheist nes, unity is the key, i am just being critical of all religeons.

Peace.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Buddhism has a popular level and a more philosophical level. Technically Buddhists don't believe in a reincarnation of the self because there is no self to be reincarnated. The "self" is made of a collection of personality attributes, "skanda", which themselves are products of attachment. The idea is to understand this, "let go" and realize one's union with the "All". On a popular level though much of Buddhism comes close to being a reincarnation based religion. Like any religion or belief systen Buddhism has evolved according to material conditions of society. In Sri Kanka Buddhism has been a deeply reactionary, nationalist force. Taken strictly as a way of life, and w/some philosophical modifications, I think the "teachings" have a lot to offer.

Zizek seems to favor Christianity but not like Buddhism.

[Crusade]

why are you being so hostile, face it Buddhism is just as backwards as any religeon.

Buddhists are not inherently reactionary, but some Buddhists are.

I take it you are a Buddhist?



I don't think Robo is a Buddhist, but I might remember a post of his where he said he's a bit on the religious side. I might be confusing him with someone else, however. I apologize to Robo if I'm wrong.

[Robocommie]

I don't think Robo is a Buddhist, but I might remember a post of his where he said he's a bit on the religious side. I might be confusing him with someone else, however. I apologize to Robo if I'm wrong.

I am in fact Buddhist.

[Robocommie]

why are you being so hostile, face it Buddhism is just as backwards as any religeon.


Because you're just the latest in a long line of people who are so matter-of-factly certain of religion's failings and yet don't actually seem to have a nuanced and mature appreciation of the immensity of the subject.

I've come to have a complete lack of patience for the incredible arrogance and smug self-assurance about how other people should think, act and feel about religion, which is an inherently personal matter, let alone their views on the validity of other people's entirely subjective viewpoints and experiences.

It's childish, it's unnecessary, it's incredibly tiring.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The Marxist view of religion is misunderstood by many . Its more complicated and nuanced than "you deluded fools, don't you know you're being lied to!" There are threads where thus is discussed.

As for Buddhism, Ken Knabb has an interesting take on Engaged Buddhism

http://www.bopsecrets.org/recent/buddhists.htm

The New Buddhism by David Brazier is an attempt to reconstruct a sort of "revolutionary Buddhism". I don't think its historically accurate, but it does deal with some of the philosophical contradictions within the branches of Buddhism and its a fun read.

http://www.amazon.com/New-Buddhism-David-Brazier/dp/0312295189

[Universal Struggle]

Robo,i am sorry you feel that way, but the fact is, religeon is not personal, because it is used to subjagate the workers and is often forced upon people.

Buddhism, if kept personal, is fine, but if you treat others differently than you would if you were not religeous is not fine, it is wrong.

The reason i made this thread is because alot of people act as if buddhism is a "Good" religeon, though when my auntie went to China, she said that when she asked someone about the poverty she encountered a buddhist said it was a result of them trangressing in a previous life.

This guy might not be practicing his religeon riht, but the fact is HIS Buddhism is keeping people down and making him feel superior and keeping him in ignorance.

Of course all people, religeous or not must never be left out of the revolutionary movement, they are the workers.

Sorry for any offence Friend.

[Robocommie]

The reason i made this thread is because alot of people act as if buddhism is a "Good" religeon, though when my auntie went to China, she said that when she asked someone about the poverty she encountered a buddhist said it was a result of them trangressing in a previous life.

This guy might not be practicing his religeon riht, but the fact is HIS Buddhism is keeping people down and making him feel superior and keeping him in ignorance.

Is this really the basis for saying this? Your auntie met a Chinese guy once who blamed the poor for poverty? What about all the people who aren't religious at all, and still blame the poor for their poverty? They're extremely common among Libertarians.

Give credit where credit is due, social consciousness is just as much a struggle within the religious community as it is outside of it.

[Universal Struggle]

yes you are right, but you must see religeon as a somewhat negative force, as alot of people will not support socialism ecause of their book that was written by a nutcase who had not ate for days and thought he saw some angel in a cave,or something or the sort.

[mikelepore]

The problem is that Buddhism says that you are reincarnated based on your actions in a previous life.

Generally, practitioners of Ch'an Buddhism (China) and Zen Buddhism (Japan) do not believe in reincarnation. They speak of "rebirth" as a metaphor getting trapped in a cycle when your attitudes about life remain unenlightened. Most other denominations believe in reincarnation literally.

[RedStarOverChina]

I am in fact Buddhist.
Sorry to hear that.


Give credit where credit is due, social consciousness is just as much a struggle within the religious community as it is outside of it.
I think you'll have a heck of a time rasing social consciousness in a community that thinks material exsitence is an illusion.

The fact is, Buddhism as a organized religion, if taken seriously, would be as reactionary as any of the Abrahamic religions.

Even when it plays a "background role" it encourages nihilism as well as submission towards temporal establishment.

We East Asians are just lucky that Buddhism was "tamed" through successive efforts to destory Buddhists' political and economical muscles in Medieval China, otherwise we could be living under Buddhist theocracies even today.


And don't give me any of that "Buddha-said-this-and-that". It's not about him. Siddhattha Gautamahas nothing to do with Buddhism as a organized religion.

Or you are one of those "academic Buddhists" who argue that the Buddhism they adhere to is a philosophy/education instead of a religion? Either way, it's a pretty crappy choice.

[RedStarOverChina]

Generally, practitioners of Ch'an Buddhism (China) and Zen Buddhism (Japan) do not believe in reincarnation. They speak of "rebirth" as a metaphor getting trapped in a cycle when your attitudes about life remain unenlightened. Most other denominations believe in reincarnation literally.
Hmm, yes they do believe in reincanation. To achieve enlightenment is to escape from reincarnation in Zen Buddhism, and to obtain a form of eternal existence.



The belief in reincarnation seems to have become an embarrassment among educated Western followers of Buddhism, so that they often attempt to distance Buddhism from the belief in reincarnation.

But seriously, that's what Buddhism is all about! In Asia whenever you see monks talk they talk about newly emerged "scientific proofs that reincarnation happens".

It's funny to see them desperately pulling towards different directions while swearing allegiance to the same faith.

[Robocommie]

Sorry to hear that.


I'm not going to apologize for it to you RedStar, don't apologize to me for it either.

[Robocommie]

The arguments that religion always makes people inherently one way or another, and inherently passive, always reminds me of a lecture one of my favorite professors gave on the causes of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. It used to be that one of the more popular theories (and I'm not sure if this was in Edward Gibbon's writing or not) to explain it's collapse was that after they converted to Christianity, the people in the Empire just became too pacifist to fight the barbarians, and too distracted by Heaven and otherworldly affairs to govern an empire.

And yet, as my professor pointed out, this was nonsense, because there was no end of wars being waged by Christian emperors, and Christian Roman soldiers fought no less hard against their enemies than the pagan soldiers did. The reasons for the Empire's collapse, like all the driving causes of problems in society - was economic.

Assertions that "all people of X group are like this" and "all people of X group think that" is just ridiculous. It's never any different whether you say that all Jews are greedy, all Muslims are violent, or so on and so forth.

[Weezer]

Good topic. The ideas of reincarnation and karma have been used for hundreds of years in India to justify the caste system and to destroy people's scientific spirit. The fight against caste oppression also includes fighting against the backward, feudalistic and unscientific ideas that are used by the casteists. I'm pretty sure this unscientific doctrine was also used by the feudalists in Tibet to justify their slave system and feudal order. These are very important materialist reasons to oppose these "Eastern" religions. In fact, many South Asians considered the egalitarian influence of Islam, an Abrahmic religion, to be a progressive step against the oppressive caste system.

The caste system did not carry on with Buddhism. Casteism is a distinct part of Hindu philosophy.

Tibetian Buddhists may have some good spiritual ideas, but their denomination, needless to say, has become carried away with anti-communism and hierarchy.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

In India the Dalit activist Ambedkar prposed Buddhism as a substitute for the caste ridden Hinduism.

Anyway I think Buddhism as a philosophy/psychological system can be distinguished from the religion of Buddhism. All religions essentially are reactionary. Its not Jesus, or the Buddha, or Muhamot that's to blame its the religious tradition created in their name to justify and prop up a feudal mode of production. The system creates consciousness, not the other way around.

[LimitedIdeology]

Because you're just the latest in a long line of people who are so matter-of-factly certain of religion's failings and yet don't actually seem to have a nuanced and mature appreciation of the immensity of the subject.

I've come to have a complete lack of patience for the incredible arrogance and smug self-assurance about how other people should think, act and feel about religion, which is an inherently personal matter, let alone their views on the validity of other people's entirely subjective viewpoints and experiences.

It's childish, it's unnecessary, it's incredibly tiring.


yes you are right, but you must see religeon as a somewhat negative force, as alot of people will not support socialism ecause of their book that was written by a nutcase who had not ate for days and thought he saw some angel in a cave,or something or the sort.

I wonder if you realize that your argument works both ways. Many of those conservative believes view you as a nutbag, just as much as you view them as one.

The only account I've seen on this board against that is "Well, they're wrong!"

Really now...unless one is willing to give away an appeal to some sort of shared universality, then this argument is moot.

[MarxSchmarx]

Anyway I think Buddhism as a philosophy/psychological system can be distinguished from the religion of Buddhism. All religions essentially are reactionary. Its not Jesus, or the Buddha, or Muhamot that's to blame its the religious tradition created in their name to justify and prop up a feudal mode of production. The system creates consciousness, not the other way around.

Exactly. It's what I've never understood about the "back to the founders" approach of fundamentalists. Even if their ideals were perverted (disputable at least in the case of Jesus and Mohammed), most religious people identify with the authoritarian, hierarchical and self-serving interpretations. Which has more relevance, the unadulterated radicalism of Mohamed or the convenient reinterpretation historically applied? If the latter, who cares what "Mohamed really said" or "What Jesus/Buddha/whatever really meant when they said XYZ?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Because you're just the latest in a long line of people who are so matter-of-factly certain of religion's failings and yet don't actually seem to have a nuanced and mature appreciation of the immensity of the subject.

It's more often the Christians who bang on about rubbish such as "nuance" and "sophistication", but the answer is still the same - the Courtier's Reply (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php).

What it boils down to is that it doesn't matter a stuff how impressive one's theology is, the Emperor is still naked and religious claims are still bollocks.


I've come to have a complete lack of patience for the incredible arrogance and smug self-assurance about how other people should think, act and feel about religion, which is an inherently personal matter, let alone their views on the validity of other people's entirely subjective viewpoints and experiences.

It's childish, it's unnecessary, it's incredibly tiring.

It seems you have missed the point entirely. It's not about subjective experiences, it's about false statements about reality.

[x359594]

...The reason i made this thread is because alot of people act as if buddhism is a "Good" religeon...

In Asia Buddhism has played an oppositional role against the state depending on circumstances, at other times it's been a bulwark of the state.


For example, in Japan the largest Buddhist sect is Jodo Shinshu. The sect started as an anti-elitist movement against the then-ruling religious establishment. It's founders were persecuted by the government and its practice was taken up by the peasantry. During the Sengoku Era when internecine fighting broke out among the feudal ruling class Shin followers declared their independence from their former overlords and set up a federated republic that lasted for 90 years until it was crushed by Oda Nobunaga.


In the Meiji Era Jodo Shinshu was persecuted again; during the 15 Year's War (1931-1945) it supported the state. In the post WWII era it opposed the state on expansion of the Self-Defense Forces, the various AMPO treaties with the USA, visits by politicians to the Yasukuni shrine and overseas deployment of the SDF to Iraq.


Sweeping generalizations about Buddhism (or any other religion) have to be tested against how the beliefs are embodied at any given historical moment. The belief system of anyone religion encompasses a variety of uneven and seemingly incongruous institutional practices, and I think it does a disservice to single out one strand of practice or one particular historical moment to the exclusion of others and declare that one strand or that one moment the defining one, a false metonymy in my view.


Any discussion of Buddhism or any other religion has to be grounded in the socio-economic conditions in which it currently exits. Thus, in the West Buddhism appears to be the religion of choice for a particular layer of the bourgeoisie (I exclude Asian expat practice in the West where the religion is part of an inherited cultural pattern) that promises a comfortable and caring lifestyle, a religion that can function as some sort of positive therapeutic way of living in a decaying capitalist society.


There are exceptions, for example the "engaged Buddhist" movement (although the criticism leveled by Ken Knabb is valid in my view.)

[x359594]

This is for Robocommie:

Buddhism and the Coming Revolution
By Gary Snyder (from Earth Household, 1969)

Buddhism holds that the universe and all creatures in it are intrinsically in a state of complete wisdom, love and compassion; acting in natural response and mutual interdependence. The personal realization of this from-the-beginning state cannot be had for and by one-“self” — because it is not fully realized unless one has given the self up; and away.


In the Buddhist view, that which obstructs the effortless manifestation of this is Ignorance, which projects into fear and needless craving. Historically, Buddhist philosophers have failed to analyze out the degree to which ignorance and suffering are caused or encouraged by social factors, considering fear-and-desire to be given facts of the human condition. Consequently the major concern of Buddhist philosophy is epistemology and “psychology” with no attention paid to historical or sociological problems. Although Mahayana Buddhism has a grand vision of universal salvation, the actual achievement of Buddhism has been the development of practical systems of meditation toward the end of liberating a few dedicated individuals from psychological hangups and cultural conditionings. Institutional Buddhism has been conspicuously ready to accept or ignore the inequalities and tyrannies of whatever political system it found itself under. This can be death to Buddhism, because it is death to any meaningful function of compassion. Wisdom without compassion feels no pain.


No one today can afford to be innocent, or indulge himself in ignorance of the nature of contemporary governments, politics and social orders. The national polities of the modern world maintain their existence by deliberately fostered craving and fear: monstrous protection rackets. The “free world” has become economically dependent on a fantastic system of stimulation of greed which cannot be fulfilled, sexual desire which cannot be satiated and hatred which has no outlet except against oneself, the persons one is supposed to love, or the revolutionary aspirations of pitiful, poverty-stricken marginal societies like Cuba or Vietnam. The conditions of the Cold War have turned all modern societies — Communist included — into vicious distorters of man’s true potential. They create populations of “preta” — hungry ghosts, with giant appetites and throats no bigger than needles. The soil, the forests and all animal life are being consumed by these cancerous collectivities; the air and water of the planet is being fouled by them.


There is nothing in human nature or the requirements of human social organization which intrinsically requires that a culture be contradictory, repressive and productive of violent and frustrated personalities. Recent findings in anthropology and psychology make this more and more evident. One can prove it for himself by taking a good look at his own nature through meditation. Once a person has this much faith and insight, he must be led to a deep concern with the need for radical social change through a variety of hopefully non-violent means.


The joyous and voluntary poverty of Buddhism becomes a positive force. The traditional harmlessness and refusal to take life in any form has nation-shaking implications. The practice of meditation, for which one needs only “the ground beneath one’s feet,” wipes out mountains of junk being pumped into the mind by the mass media and supermarket universities. The belief in a serene and generous fulfillment of natural loving desires destroys ideologies which blind, maim and repress — and points the way to a kind of community which would amaze “moralists” and transform armies of men who are fighters because they cannot be lovers.


Avatamsaka (Kegon) Buddhist philosophy sees the world as a vast interrelated network in which all objects and creatures are necessary and illuminated. From one standpoint, governments, wars, or all that we consider “evil” are uncompromisingly contained in this totalistic realm. The hawk, the swoop and the hare are one. From the “human” standpoint we cannot live in those terms unless all beings see with the same enlightened eye. The Bodhisattva lives by the sufferer’s standard, and he must be effective in aiding those who suffer.


The mercy of the West has been social revolution; the mercy of the East has been individual insight into the basic self/void. We need both. They are both contained in the traditional three aspects of the Dharma path: wisdom (prajna), meditation (dhyana), and morality (sila). Wisdom is intuitive knowledge of the mind of love and clarity that lies beneath one’s ego-driven anxieties and aggressions. Meditation is going into the mind to see this for yourself — over and over again, until it becomes the mind you live in. Morality is bringing it back out in the way you live, through personal example and responsible action, ultimately toward the true community (sangha) of “all beings.”


This last aspect means, for me, supporting any cultural and economic revolution that moves clearly toward a free, international, classless world. It means using such means as civil disobedience, outspoken criticism, protest, pacifism, voluntary poverty and even gentle violence if it comes to a matter of restraining some impetuous redneck. It means affirming the widest possible spectrum of non-harmful individual behavior — defending the right of individuals to smoke hemp, eat peyote, be polygynous, polyandrous or homosexual. Worlds of behavior and custom long banned by the Judaeo-Capitalist-Christian-Marxist West. It means respecting intelligence and learning, but not as greed or means to personal power. Working on one’s own responsibility, but willing to work with a group. “Forming the new society within the shell of the old” — the IWW slogan of fifty years ago.


The traditional cultures are in any case doomed, and rather than cling to their good aspects hopelessly it should be remembered that whatever is or ever was in any other culture can be reconstructed from the unconscious, through meditation. In fact, it is my own view that the coming revolution will close the circle and link us in many ways with the most creative aspects of our archaic past. If we are lucky we may eventually arrive at a totally integrated world culture with matrilineal descent, free-form marriage, natural-credit communist economy, less industry, far less population and lots more national parks.

[Lulznet]

Agreed... Buddhism and other Eastern faiths are just as bad as the Abrahamic ones. Due to their stances on Homosexuality, women and various other things. Lets face the fact-- there is no 'friendly' religion. Due to the fact that every religion is going to have its own set of Dogma that is put in place to hold people down. :cool:

[Robocommie]

It's more often the Christians who bang on about rubbish such as "nuance" and "sophistication", but the answer is still the same - the Courtier's Reply (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php).

What it boils down to is that it doesn't matter a stuff how impressive one's theology is, the Emperor is still naked and religious claims are still bollocks.

It seems you have missed the point entirely. It's not about subjective experiences, it's about false statements about reality.

You can believe what you want, but you're coming at this from a totally different perspective and therefore using different standards of evaluation. If I'm designing an aqueduct in accordance with the contours of the land, or planning a harvest of corn, or performing surgery on a human heart, then the nature of reality is supremely pertinent.

But if I'm trying to conquer that which lies within myself, anger, fear, hatred, and find some resolution in how to live as a human being on a day-to-day level, then the claims about the nature of reality don't matter a damn.

In the end, the press of hardcore anti-theists always seems to rely on a sort of pernicious poke-you-in-the-eye kind of snottiness. "Somewhere, someone on the Earth still has a spiritual approach to life and I hate that. They have to think like I think, value what I value, and approach life like I approach life, or they're wrong." It's incredibly childish.

I choose to follow a path which for me, means the abandonment of selfishness, the abandonment of egoism and the abandonment of pride, for the sake of compassion, selflessness, humility and love. And you're harping on about false claims of reality. It's incredibly boring. It's also incredibly unrewarding to argue about it, because I'm forced to argue subjective truths by objective criteria, which can't work, and I'm also arguing against someone who is completely and utterly convinced that they are right.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

In the end, the press of hardcore anti-theists always seems to rely on a sort of pernicious poke-you-in-the-eye kind of snottiness. "Somewhere, someone on the Earth still has a spiritual approach to life and I hate that. They have to think like I think, value what I value, and approach life like I approach life, or they're wrong." It's incredibly childish.


Unfortunately, communists will label you a reactionary for having such views; they'll call you a danger to the revolution and persecute you, as they did in Soviet Union.

As a communist, you're not supposed to have personal opinions. You're not supposed to have subjective experiences at all; every thought you have, every idea you conceive must be objective and rational. Else, a condescending know-all from the communist party will teach you what's right and what's not, what's good for you, why you are stupid while he is intelligent, and all the rest.

There is simply no place for ideas that contradict the communist (materialist) line.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You can believe what you want, but you're coming at this from a totally different perspective and therefore using different standards of evaluation. If I'm designing an aqueduct in accordance with the contours of the land, or planning a harvest of corn, or performing surgery on a human heart, then the nature of reality is supremely pertinent.

But if I'm trying to conquer that which lies within myself, anger, fear, hatred, and find some resolution in how to live as a human being on a day-to-day level, then the claims about the nature of reality don't matter a damn.

Actually they are of supreme importance, since you are a material being living in a material reality, whether you realise it or not.


In the end, the press of hardcore anti-theists always seems to rely on a sort of pernicious poke-you-in-the-eye kind of snottiness. "Somewhere, someone on the Earth still has a spiritual approach to life and I hate that. They have to think like I think, value what I value, and approach life like I approach life, or they're wrong." It's incredibly childish.

I don't want you to think in exactly the same way I do, that would be boring. I'd just like you to think without your head being muddled by a load of mystical crap.


I choose to follow a path which for me, means the abandonment of selfishness, the abandonment of egoism and the abandonment of pride, for the sake of compassion, selflessness, humility and love. And you're harping on about false claims of reality. It's incredibly boring. It's also incredibly unrewarding to argue about it, because I'm forced to argue subjective truths by objective criteria, which can't work, and I'm also arguing against someone who is completely and utterly convinced that they are right.

What is subjective cannot by definition constitute a "truth". If I'm convinced I'm right, it's only because "spiritual" types like yourself have nothing to offer other than doubletalk and bafflegab that sounds deep and mysterious on a superficial level but when one actually looks closer turns out to be spurious. Like Christianity, Buddhism offers an ideal unattainable by human beings.


Unfortunately, communists will label you a reactionary for having such views; they'll call you a danger to the revolution and persecute you, as they did in Soviet Union.

As a communist, you're not supposed to have personal opinions. You're not supposed to have subjective experiences at all; every thought you have, every idea you conceive must be objective and rational. There is simply no place for ideas that contradict the communist line.

You do talk a lot of shit, don't you? Maybe you should try actually addressing our arguments instead of your histrionic trolling.

[ZeroNowhere]

Unfortunately, communists will label you a reactionary for having such views; they'll call you a danger to the revolution and persecute you, as they did in Soviet Union.

As a communist, you're not supposed to have personal opinions. You're not supposed to have subjective experiences at all; every thought you have, every idea you conceive must be objective and rational. Else, a condescending know-all from the communist party will teach you what's right and what's not, what's good for you, why you are stupid while he is intelligent, and all the rest.

There is simply no place for ideas that contradict the communist (materialist) line.Indeed. As Karl Marx once wrote:

And Culture thus emerges
As soon as Man starts using purges.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

You do talk a lot of shit, don't you? Maybe you should try actually addressing our arguments instead of your histrionic trolling.

You're angry, because you realize what I say is true.;) Communists have no business telling people what to think, but that's exactly what you're doing. You want to control what people think; that's disgusting and even a capitalist wouldn't stoop to that level.

If a worker believes in Santa, why is it any of your business to interfere? You believe it's your burden to enlighten the masses, eh? It is this condescending attitude which antagonizes the masses. Perhaps, you must spend more time addressing workers' plight than making fun of their beliefs (which is none of your business anyway).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You're angry, because you realize what I say is true.;) Communists have no business telling people what to think, but that's exactly what you're doing. You want to control what people think; that's disgusting and even a capitalist wouldn't stoop to that level.

I can't control what people think, don't be so ridiculously melodramatic. I can attempt to convince people using my reasoning abilities, but to suggest that I seek some form of mind control is just wacky.


If a worker believes in Santa, why is it any of your business to interfere? You believe it's your burden to enlighten the masses, eh? It is this condescending attitude which antagonizes the masses. Perhaps, you must spend more time addressing workers' plight than making fun of their beliefs (which is none of your business anyway).

Religious superstition is a yoke around the collective neck of humanity; I'm making a case for throwing it off.

[ZeroNowhere]

You're angry, because you realize what I say is true.http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/wink.gif Communists have no business telling people what to think, but that's exactly what you're doing. You want to control what people think; that's disgusting and even a capitalist wouldn't stoop to that level.

If a worker believes in Santa, why is it any of your business to interfere? You believe it's your burden to enlighten the masses, eh? It is this condescending attitude which antagonizes the masses. Perhaps, you must spend more time addressing workers' plight than making fun of their beliefs (which is none of your business anyway).
Whether or not that is true, it is off-topic, and has no place in this thread.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

I can't control what people think, don't be so ridiculously melodramatic. I can attempt to convince people using my reasoning abilities, but to suggest that I seek some form of mind control is just wacky.

Hmm, let's see! You interfere with people's lives and tell them what to think. You don't respect their privacy; you make fun of their beliefs. You are so arrogant as to believe that it is your burden to enlighten the masses with your wonderful reasoning abilities.:rolleyes: You sound like the atheistic version of Jehovah's Witness.


Religious superstition is a yoke around the collective neck of humanity; I'm making a case for throwing it off.

So is football, TV, and other forms of entertainment. Maybe, you should go around and preach to the football hooligans about the glories of class struggle.:rolleyes:

[Lulznet]

I can't control what people think, don't be so ridiculously melodramatic. I can attempt to convince people using my reasoning abilities, but to suggest that I seek some form of mind control is just wacky.



Religious superstition is a yoke around the collective neck of humanity; I'm making a case for throwing it off.

Why should anyone attempt to convince someone about religious thoughts though however? Isn't it their personal right to believe in whatever they want to believe?

Personally I could care less about religion as long as it does not interfere with my thoughts or daily routine. :cool:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Hmm, let's see! You interfere with people's lives and tell them what to think.

Remind me again how I "interfere with people's lives".


You don't respect their privacy;

I'm sorry, when did I last stalk someone or spy on them for their religious beliefs?


you make fun of their beliefs.

Indeed I do. Maybe they should take as a hint that their beliefs are absurd?


You are so arrogant as to believe that it is your burden to enlighten the masses with your wonderful reasoning abilities.:rolleyes:

Hey, I do my best.


You sound like the atheistic version of Jehovah's Witness.

Since belief in Jehovah is rather central to JW doctrine, and atheism itself is not a religion, this is a nonsensical statement.


So is football, TV, and other forms of entertainment. Maybe, you should go around and preach to the football hooligans about the glories of class struggle.:rolleyes:

Football, TV and other forms of entertainment don't pretend to be anything more than they are. Religions claim that their various conflicting ways are THE TRUTH, but do so on the basis of absolutely no evidence. In fact looking for evidence or what have you is positively discouraged.


Why should anyone attempt to convince someone about religious thoughts though however? Isn't it their personal right to believe in whatever they want to believe?

It's not a question of rights. People can believe the wierdest crap they want regardless of my own wishes, and I can do my best to talk them out of doing so.


Personally I could care less about religion as long as it does not interfere with my thoughts or daily routine. :cool:

Yeah, why should you care if religious doctrine proscribes rights for women? After all, it doesn't interfere with your thoughts or daily routine...

[Lulznet]

Remind me again how I "interfere with people's lives".



I'm sorry, when did I last stalk someone or spy on them for their religious beliefs?



Indeed I do. Maybe they should take as a hint that their beliefs are absurd?



Hey, I do my best.



Since belief in Jehovah is rather central to JW doctrine, and atheism itself is not a religion, this is a nonsensical statement.



Football, TV and other forms of entertainment don't pretend to be anything more than they are. Religions claim that their various conflicting ways are THE TRUTH, but do so on the basis of absolutely no evidence. In fact looking for evidence or what have you is positively discouraged.



It's not a question of rights. People can believe the wierdest crap they want regardless of my own wishes, and I can do my best to talk them out of doing so.



Yeah, why should you care if religious doctrine proscribes rights for women? After all, it doesn't interfere with your thoughts or daily routine...

But what about when they begin to attempt to force their thoughts upon us? :lol:

Respecting someones beliefs, letting them have privacy about them and allowing a religious doctrine to come into law are different things. :rolleyes:

[Mahatma Gandhi]

Indeed I do. Maybe they should take as a hint that their beliefs are absurd?

..

So you win people over to your cause by antagonizing them.:rolleyes: Now I understand why communism has never made any headway.

[x359594]

Lulznet[/LEFT];1776370]Agreed... Buddhism and other Eastern faiths are just as bad as the
Abrahamic
ones. Due to their stances on Homosexuality, women and various other things...

Their "stances on Homosexuality, women and various other things..." are fluid and adaptable. Thus, for example, their is the Metropolitan Community Church for gay and lesbian Christians, the Queer Buddhist network, Sakyadita a Buddhist outfit for feminists, etc.

The reality is that religious dogma is flexible and full of contradictions, and any number of practices can be derived from the various holy books seen as authoritative by the various religions. The cause of revolution is not served by reducing a complex phenomenon like religion to a few simple-minded formulas. That strikes me as a kind of atheist fundamentalism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So you win people over to your cause by antagonizing them.:rolleyes:

I have anecdotal evidence that it actually works on some people. :)


Now I understand why communism has never made any headway.

Because of bolshie atheists? Don't be so silly.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

I have anecdotal evidence that it actually works on some people.

You're free to imagine anything you please.:)


Because of bolshie atheists? Don't be so silly.

History has proven me right. Your anger changes nothing.

[Invincible Summer]

History has proven me right. Your anger changes nothing.

All history has proven is that some guys that called themselves socialists repressed religion. Then eventually the USSR fell. You can't make a link between the two, that's a fallacy.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

All history has proven is that some guys that called themselves socialists repressed religion.

They may have done so at first, but I remember reading that the USSR later had Orthodox priests on its payroll.

It wouldn't surprise me if the Soviet authorities also appealed to religious sentiment during the Great Patriotic War.

[Walt]

In Buddhism, reincarnation is a controversial subject all around. Many different sects tackle the aspect of reincarnation in many different ways. Some say reincarnation simply is something we cannot understand, some Buddhists don't even discuss reincarnation, others believe in it (mostly Hindu sects located around India).

Also, generally in Buddhism, your level of previous life karma only determines your level of life (human, animal) and not necessarily how you are treated in that life.

But the main key in all sects of Buddhism is karma... which, simplified, is how you treat other beings of life. Communism is nothing but equality and generosity, which is why socialism takes a large hold of Buddhists.

[KC]

I'm really disappointed to see so many close-minded prejudicial statements on Buddhism here (although then again this is RevLeft so I'm not surprised whatsoever).

I have been reading a lot into Buddhism and think it is an absolutely wonderful tool for bettering one's self and enhancing one's awareness. I think the best thing about Buddhism is its fluidity. Yes, there are a ton of different Buddhist belief systems, and a ton of Buddhist sects as well, just like any religion. But the great thing about Buddhism is that you can read into it what you want and apply it to your life so it is the most effective in helping you enhance your awareness and improve your self.

I'm currently reading It's Easier Than You Think by Synthia Boorstein (which I would highly recommend as an accessible and down to earth introduction to Buddhism). This is from the very first page of the book:


A few years ago I was teaching in another city, and the person who was to be my host telephoned me in advance to see if I had any special food requirements. I appreciated his concern and explained by eating preferences. I also mentioned that I don't normally eat much for breakfast but that I do like coffee in the morning. He replied, in a very surprised voice, "You drink coffee?" I realized I had just made a heretical confession. I needed to do some fast mind scrambling to ifnd a graceful way to explain to my host (without losing my spiritual stature) that I do, indeed, drink coffee.

Therea re some peculiar notions about what constitutes "being spiritual." I have a cartoon on the wall of my office that shows two people having dinner in a restaurant. One of them is saying to the other, "It's such a relief to meet someone who isn't on a spiritual quest." I agree. There is an enormous possibility of getting sidetracked into self-conscious holiness, of putting energy into acting the part of a "spiritual person."

A dear friend of mine, as he has become more and more established as a meditation teacher, has become less and less hesitant about telling people he loves football games. He even admits he gets very excited about the games, cheering at his television set as if he were sitting in the stadium. No dispassionate attitude of "May the best team win" for him! I know he has a wonderful level of understanding, and he behaves like a regular person in a regular world. Being a meditator and developing equanimity do not mean becoming weird.

I think I chose the title for this book long before the book itself was written. Indeed, I was motivated to write largely because I wanted to tell people that spiritual living does not need to be a big deal. Sometimes people decide to make a lifestyle change in the service of waking up. Some people joine communities or religious orders. Some people change their diet. Some people become celibate. All of those choices are, for some people, very helpful tools for waking up, but they aren't inherently spiritual.

Other people choose other tools. In this book, the principle tool, mindfulness, is invisible. Mindfulness, the aware, balanced acceptance of present experience, is at the heart of what the Buddha taught.

The point of all of this is that while the overall goal is enlightenment, everyone has a different view of how to achieve it. The core tenet of Buddhism is to learn to manage pain, minimize suffering, accept change and to live in the present moment.

Learn about it. Take what you can from it, throw away the rest. Don't be so quick to dismiss. After all, dogma is attachment, and attachment is suffering. :)