Any Buddhists in 'da house? [Archive]

redstar2000

2nd April 2006, 14:24

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 01:18 AM
Any Buddhists here?

(Please don't move this to religion, as I'm talking about the secular Buddhist philosophy, not the degenerative Buddhist religions, e.g. Therevada, Mahayana sects.)
What is the difference between "secular Buddhist philosophy" and all the routine Buddhist crap?

And suppose someone came here and wanted to talk about "secular Christian philosophy" or "secular Muslim philosophy"?

You can't just "paste a secular label" on a pile of metaphysical shit and make it "stop stinking".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Dyst

2nd April 2006, 15:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 07:33 PM
What is the difference between "secular Buddhist philosophy" and all the routine Buddhist crap?

And suppose someone came here and wanted to talk about "secular Christian philosophy" or "secular Muslim philosophy"?

You can't just "paste a secular label" on a pile of metaphysical shit and make it "stop stinking".
Seems to me like you are not too fond of philosophy at all, as long as it has little to do with the revolution.

Maybe we paste a "secular label" on a "pile of metaphysical shit" to actually (make people) start thinking about it?

Hegemonicretribution

2nd April 2006, 16:19

Redstar, you can put a secular label on it, so long as you dispense with the metaphysical crap. What you are left with is either a institution within which to work, a moral code to affirm, or in the cases of most religion; a bunch "cool" rituals.

I think that this is totally possible, what I would question is why someone would want to do this. The metaphysics is what "justifies" the rest, otherwise you are just being daft. Of course the emphasis in Buddhism is slightly different. No I am not a secular Buddhist. If there is any element that I sought out of the secular side of this religion, then I would adopt it independantly.

violencia.Proletariat

2nd April 2006, 19:12

institution within which to work

I know you already know what I'm going to say about this. :lol: Creating an "insitution" in which to promote buddhist philosophy is POINTLESS. We don't need lessons from an ancient person on how to structure our society. We must look at our PRESENT material conditions to make these decisions.

a moral code to affirm

Pure and simply reactionary. Moralism is something of the past that we must move on from.

a bunch "cool" rituals

:lol: This statement defeats itself

Ol' Dirty

2nd April 2006, 19:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 01:33 PM
]

What is the difference between "secular Buddhist philosophy" and all the routine Buddhist crap?

Quite a bit, actually.

The Buddhist religion believes in spirits, heaven, hell, reincrnation, and karma. The Buddhist philosophy does not. It's really that simple.

And suppose someone came here and wanted to talk about "secular Christian philosophy" or "secular Muslim philosophy"?

They could, but it would be rather difficult. Islam and Christianity were intended to be religious, while Buddhism was intended to be agnostic. Metaphysics are really necessery when talking of Religions, because it is so heavilly tied in with everything else. Buddhism isn't like that.

You can't just "paste a secular label" on a pile of metaphysical shit and make it "stop stinking".

Buddhism was never a pile of "metaphysical shit", it was, at first, secular, until people started making a religion of it.

Rosa Lichtenstein

2nd April 2006, 19:26

As if dialectics wasn't bad enough, we have socialists here falling for an Eastern cut of ruling-class opium!

What next? Spoon bending with Uri Geller, alien abduction, dousing, shape-shifting lizards?

Lenin was right; in times of defeat, radicals seek out and find their own brand of consolation/mysticism: some find it in dialectics (as did Lenin himself), some in Buddhism, others in Daoism. Oddly enough, all of these are very similar (to anyone who disagrees: check out what the Dalai Lama said in the New Scientist the other week: almost pure dialectical 'materialism').

Looks like there is a spectre haunting a few too many socialists at this site: the need to believe that there is a divine/cosmic/Nirvana-induced point to human existence.

How is being told what to believe (by a self-appointed guru), or what 'moral' code to accept, any different from slavery?

Come back Spartacus, all is forgotten....

Delirium

2nd April 2006, 19:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 01:32 PM

The Buddhist religion believes in spirits, heaven, hell, reincrnation, and karma. The Buddhist philosophy does not. It's really that simple.

So what is left?

What exactly is this 'secular buddhist philosophy'?

Without the threat of punishment or perhaps rewards what legitimacy does this moral code have?

Hegemonicretribution

2nd April 2006, 20:16

Don't worry Rosa, I don't think anyone is actually advocating Buddhism, at least I hope not :lol:

Nate, thanks for filling in the blanks in my post ;)

Wonton_soldier, what is the philosophical merit of this discussion? I am being open minded, but it seems that what is being suggested can be viewd as traditionally accepted religious practice, or post-religious lifestylism.

Angry Young Man

2nd April 2006, 21:41

What is wrong with the Buddhist faith? It seems to be the religion with the least crap. Yes it's rules, but it also gives a great amount of autonomy to the follower. Anyway, as I'm sure this will piss off those of you of an amoral disposition, it is ethical rules. If there are no ethics (don't think I'm a moral objectivist), that is, if there are no personal ethics, then surely there is nothing wrong with a man hitting a woman or a child. my Philosophy teacher says that is where people with no belief in ethics stumble and fall.
Anyway, without Buddhiusm, there would be no Nirvana, and where would we be without such songs as "Heart-Shaped Box", "Lithium", "Pennyroyal Tea",etc; and the whole grunge movement would be stationary in Washington, so no Soundgarden, which would be a crime against Humanity. As you may see, I love kurt :wub:

Rosa Lichtenstein

2nd April 2006, 22:57

H:

"Don't worry Rosa, I don't think anyone is actually advocating Buddhism, at least I hope not..."

Looks like they are to me.

ChairmanM:

"It seems to be the religion with the least crap."

Since they all have the same amount, that isn't saying much.

"Anyway, as I'm sure this will piss off those of you of an amoral disposition, it is ethical rules."

Slave talk. [Are you an Uncle Tom?]

We do not need religious nuts preaching ethics to us (especially since they are among the most violent people on earth). We can set up our own rules.

"my Philosophy teacher says that is where people with no belief in ethics stumble and fall..."

Which only goes to show you should not believe everything you are told.

"Anyway, without Buddhism, there would be no Nirvana..."

Another good reason to rid the world of Buddhism.

Thanks for mentioning it.

Ol' Dirty

3rd April 2006, 01:54

Originally posted by Blackflag Skirmisher+Apr 2 2006, 06:41 PM--> (Blackflag Skirmisher @ Apr 2 2006, 06:41 PM)

[/b]

[email protected] 2 2006, 01:32 PM
The Buddhist religion believes in spirits, heaven, hell, reincrnation, and karma. The Buddhist philosophy does not. It's really that simple.

So what is left?

The belief in egolessness; being in the present; meditation; learning to cope with suffering, etc.

What exactly is this 'secular buddhist philosophy'?

The same as above. Here's a quote from Stephen Batchelor's book, Buddhism without beliefs:

The Buddha was not a mystic. His awakening was not a shattering insight into a transcendant Truth that revealed to him the mysteries of God. He did not claim to have an experience that granted him privileged esoteric knoledge of how the univer works. Only as Buddhism became more nad more of a religion were such grandiose claims imputed to his awakening.

Without the threat of punishment or perhaps rewards what legitimacy does this moral code have?

Nothing. What on Earth do either of these things have to do with Buddhism? Do you people know anything of Buddhism?

Wonton_soldier, what is the philosophical merit of this discussion? I am being open minded, but it seems that what is being suggested can be viewd as traditionally accepted religious practice, or post-religious lifestylism.

Nothing of the sort

Perhaps this could be moved to Chit-Chat?

violencia.Proletariat

3rd April 2006, 02:22

Anyway, as I'm sure this will piss off those of you of an amoral disposition, it is ethical rules.

Tell that to those in Thailand, they like to kill.

If there are no ethics (don't think I'm a moral objectivist), that is, if there are no personal ethics, then surely there is nothing wrong with a man hitting a woman or a child.

Sure there is, it's not because it's "wrong", but it is a violation of an individuals safety. Allowing this to happen can create an acceptence to it and therefore destroying your right to safety.

my Philosophy teacher says that is where people with no belief in ethics stumble and fall.

The fact that you listen to your teachers is a very bad thing :(

Delirium

3rd April 2006, 02:33

I dont see the point of adopting the moral code of a religion in which you do not believe. Unless you just want to label yourself to be cool.

Hegemonicretribution

3rd April 2006, 10:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 01:03 AM

Wonton_soldier, what is the philosophical merit of this discussion? I am being open minded, but it seems that what is being suggested can be viewd as traditionally accepted religious practice, or post-religious lifestylism.

Nothing of the sort

Perhaps this could be moved to Chit-Chat?
Alrighty then!

Fidelbrand

3rd April 2006, 10:49

Originally posted by redstar2000+Apr 2 2006, 09:33 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Apr 2 2006, 09:33 PM)
[email protected] 2 2006, 01:18 AM
Any Buddhists here?

(Please don't move this to religion, as I'm talking about the secular Buddhist philosophy, not the degenerative Buddhist religions, e.g. Therevada, Mahayana sects.)
What is the difference between "secular Buddhist philosophy" and all the routine Buddhist crap?

And suppose someone came here and wanted to talk about "secular Christian philosophy" or "secular Muslim philosophy"?

You can't just "paste a secular label" on a pile of metaphysical shit and make it "stop stinking".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
In Asia or other parts of the word, many people don't worship the Buddha or the other boddhisatvas (wrong spelling). Instead, they just like its philosophy , e.g. through reading , but not burning incense for the "gods".

I guess this what is being meant by the original poster.

Angry Young Man

3rd April 2006, 18:47

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 2 2006, 10:06 PM
H:

"Don't worry Rosa, I don't think anyone is actually advocating Buddhism, at least I hope not..."

Looks like they are to me.

ChairmanM:

"It seems to be the religion with the least crap."

Since they all have the same amount, that isn't saying much.

"Anyway, as I'm sure this will piss off those of you of an amoral disposition, it is ethical rules."

Slave talk. [Are you an Uncle Tom?]

We do not need religious nuts preaching ethics to us (especially since they are among the most violent people on earth). We can set up our own rules.

Oh yes because Buddhists are the most violent people on earth, aren't they, that's why they fled the Chinese rather than fought.
Anyway, you missed the crux of what I was saying about Buddhist ethics - they let you follow your free will to my understanding.
Who the fuck is Uncle Tom?
The main reason I hate Capitalism is because it breeds ignorance. The Buddhist religion tries to keep people out of ignorance. Anyway, look on it as another way to piss off Christian fundamentalists!

Guerrilla22

3rd April 2006, 18:49

Angry Young Man

3rd April 2006, 18:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 01:31 AM

my Philosophy teacher says that is where people with no belief in ethics stumble and fall.

The fact that you listen to your teachers is a very bad thing :(
Yes but not all teachers are arseholes. This is a college, not a Secondary School. Anyway, if I didn't, I'd have bugger-all knowledge of Philosophy.

Ol' Dirty

3rd April 2006, 20:52

All spiritual nonsense is bullshit, people need to quit wasting their time meditating or trying to areach zen or whatever and do something constructive with their time, like post on an internet chat forum.

I agree, but it seems as though you're trying to argue against me, and I don't know howour beliefs on the subject differ.

Dr. Rosenpenis

3rd April 2006, 22:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 08:03 PM
The belief in egolessness; being in the present; meditation; learning to cope with suffering, etc.
Do you honestly bgelieve these things?
How the fuck can anyone have no ego?
Do you perhaps mean conceit?

Neither meditation or learning to cope with suffering are philosophies or a philisophical hypotheses.

Ol' Dirty

4th April 2006, 01:53

Originally posted by RedZeppelin+Apr 3 2006, 09:21 PM--> (RedZeppelin @ Apr 3 2006, 09:21 PM)

[/b]

[email protected] 2 2006, 08:03 PM
The belief in egolessness; being in the present; meditation; learning to cope with suffering, etc.

Do you honestly bgelieve these things?

Some more than others.

How the fuck can anyone have no ego?

How can you hold down one fixed, concrete, solid identity in a constantly fluxuating universe? How can you hold on to water as it slips out of your hands? How do you maintain your fluid self? How?

Answer these questions corectly, and you are a real genius.
Good luck on that! :lol:

Do you perhaps mean conceit?

Partialy.

Neither meditation or learning to cope with suffering are philosophies or a philisophical hypotheses.

This statement is a hypocrisy unto itself. Philosophy is the love of learning, and you wrote in that learning to cope with suffering is not philosophy.

violencia.Proletariat

4th April 2006, 02:31

How can you hold down one fixed, concrete, solid identity in a constantly fluxuating universe? How can you hold on to water as it slips out of your hands? How do you maintain your fluid self? How?

Holding water has nothing to do with this. The world changes but you dont change as a person, you maintain your identity your personality, etc. These things might change little over time but nothing significant once you start getting older.

Your personal philosophical quest to end suffering can be w/e the fuck you want it to be. We CAN'T have that. This philosophy is as open to corruption as much as any religion, it's even marketable. "Buy this charm and you will no longer suffer" :lol:

Ol' Dirty

5th April 2006, 01:45

How can you hold down one fixed, concrete, solid identity in a constantly fluxuating universe? How can you hold on to water as it slips out of your hands? How do you maintain your fluid self? How?

Holding water has nothing to do with this.

Holding water is a metaphor for change, for fluidity, for the lack of consitency in the world, and ourselves; it displays our inability to make one truth, to hold on to the fluid universe. It wasn't a material question, but one of how we, as sentient beings comprehend what's around us.

The world changes but you dont change as a person, you maintain your identity your personality, etc.

Can you realy say, in all honesty, that our opinions never change? Can you say that we never grow? That we are just building blocks? Really? We may have preconceptions, but that's hardly something concrete.

These things might change little over time but nothing significant once you start getting older.

Can't teach an old dog new tricks, eh? :rolleyes: So old people can't convert to a new religion?

This philosophy is as open to corruption as much as any religion, it's even marketable. "Buy this charm and you will no longer suffer" :lol:

That's not what I'm saying. I hate to sound preachy, but... were you listening? :huh: I'm just saying that if we let go of our preconceptions and live in the moment, we may be happier. Why do you have to morph everything I say? Does it make you feel good? :huh: Well, I sypathize for you if that's so.

Dr. Rosenpenis

5th April 2006, 21:23

Originally posted by Wonton_S[email protected] 3 2006, 08:02 PM
Some more than others

Clearly you don't know realize what you believe in and what you don't. But that's okay. You're learning.

How can you hold down one fixed, concrete, solid identity in a constantly fluxuating universe?

You probably can't.

But more importantly, you totally failed to address my point, beause an ego is not "one fixed, concrete, solid identity". I don't understand how that is even relaed to the concept of the ego.

How can you hold on to water as it slips out of your hands? How do you maintain your fluid self? How?

Answer these questions corectly, and you are a real genius.
Good luck on that! :lol:

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but what the fuck does any of this have to do with ego? :lol:

This statement is a hypocrisy unto itself. Philosophy is the love of learning, and you wrote in that learning to cope with suffering is not philosophy.

No it isn't.

violencia.Proletariat

5th April 2006, 22:45

Can you realy say, in all honesty, that our opinions never change?

Rational opinions? For the most part know. But you can't say you can't stick to and idealogy because thats exactly what your doing with buddhism.

I'm just saying that if we let go of our preconceptions and live in the moment, we may be happier.

This isn't living, it's capitalism. You sound like a fucking lifestylist.

Why do you have to morph everything I say?

Why do you use a product of outdated material conditions to rule the way you live?

Ol' Dirty

7th April 2006, 02:01

Some more than others

Clearly you don't know realize what you believe in and what you don't. But that's okay. You're learning.

Beliefs aren't realizations, they're not concrete things; they're a process of sentient evolution. Our beliefs aren't pre-proggramed, and you know it.

Besides, we're all learning; I'm not alone. And I'm sure my beliefs are just as well charted as yours.

How can you hold down one fixed, concrete, solid identity in a constantly fluxuating universe?

You probably can't.

But more importantly, you totally failed to address my point, beause an ego is not "one fixed, concrete, solid identity". I don't understand how that is even relaed to the concept of the ego.

Although I'm not fond of using premade definitions, it's the only thing you people will probably believe:

1. The self, especially as distinct from the world and other selves.

Dictionary.com

We humans try hold on to our ego, our rock (us) in the ocean (the universe), because we are affraid if we'd just be in the moment, realize what's going on, we' d probably be a lot happier.

How can you hold on to water as it slips out of your hands? How do you maintain your fluid self? How?

Answer these questions corectly, and you are a real genius.
Good luck on that! :lol:

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but what the fuck does any of this have to do with ego? :lol:

Can you say: Met-a-phor? :D Just think; it'll come.

This statement is a hypocrisy unto itself. Philosophy is the love of learning, and you wrote in that learning to cope with suffering is not philosophy.

No it isn't.

Wow, how elaborative :lol:

Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.

Again, Dictionary.com

Can you realy say, in all honesty, that our opinions never change?

Rational opinions? For the most part know.

What?

But you can't say you can't stick to and idealogy because thats exactly what your doing with buddhism.

You are very closed-minded. :rolleyes:

I'm just saying that if we let go of our preconceptions and live in the moment, we may be happier.

This isn't living, it's capitalism.

What does Buddhism have to do with the capitalist mode of production? What the fuck are you talking about?

You sound like a fucking lifestylist.

And you sound like a fucking fool. :rolleyes: How is this mudslinging and pointless repitition advancing your, or anyones, arguments?

ichneumon

10th April 2006, 15:46

1. The nature of human experience is suffering - everyone will grow old, weak, sick and die. Beyond this things, all experience, grief, pain and loss.

2. Mental suffering comes from attachment to material things and sensations. When we seek these things we either get them, then need more and more to feel the same pleasure, or we fail, and experience loss.

3. It is possible to be free from mental suffering. There are those among us who do not appear to suffer from psychic pain.

4. The best way to be free of mental suffering is by leading an ethical life free from attachment to material things, greed, and desire.

ALSO: it is pointless to seek this path until you have food to eat, shelter from the elements, healthcare such as can be provided. This is the Middle Path. once you have these things, and are free from suffering, the only correct action is Compassion, which is providing the needs of the Middle Path to others.

This has NOTHING to do with "religion" in the classical sense. It is philosophy, and it is the core of Buddhism. This can be debated as such, no?

drain.you

10th April 2006, 21:17

Some people on this forum piss me off so much. Someone wants to discuss a belief system so all the people opposed to it come and rain down insults, not constructive criticism, just plain rudeness and ignorance.
I mean sure, its nice to talk to someone opposed to communism to see if you can convert them, or to find weaknesses or just general fun but if the other person is just yelling 'Marx was a fuck' then nothing good is going to come of it.
My point being, if you dont think something is worth discussing sensibly then stay away from it, it obviously doesnt interest you or matter to you in anyway so fucking grow up.

violencia.Proletariat

10th April 2006, 21:49

Some people on this forum piss me off so much

And some people piss us off too ;)

Someone wants to discuss a belief system so all the people opposed to it come and rain down insults, not constructive criticism, just plain rudeness and ignorance.

If someone came here claiming I should take jesus christ as my savior, I'm not going to spend 10 hours debating a brick wall. I have no tolerance for useless non-materialist reactionary bullshit, end of story. Especially when people try to apply it with leftism.

Say this was an actual community in an actual meetingplace, if someone arguing in favor of nazism came would we debate them? NO! We'd kick their ass.

its nice to talk to someone opposed to communism to see if you can convert them, or to find weaknesses or just general fun but if the other person is just yelling 'Marx was a fuck' then nothing good is going to come of it.

Now take this exact statement, and apply it to talking with a buddhist, or any other sucker.

it obviously doesnt interest you or matter to you in anyway so fucking grow up.

:lol: Says the one looking for a philosophy to live by because he can't make his own personal and material decisions.

drain.you

10th April 2006, 22:23

Says the one looking for a philosophy to live by because he can't make his own personal and material decisions.

Who says I'm looking for a philosophy to live by? :S

violencia.Proletariat

10th April 2006, 22:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 05:32 PM

Says the one looking for a philosophy to live by because he can't make his own personal and material decisions.

Who says I'm looking for a philosophy to live by? :S
You do,

I stumbled across the Shinto religion earlier today. I have to say, it fits my belief system the best out of the religions

So your willing to accept a fascist tool for a guiding force in your life?

I want to talk to a Buddhist, Considering Buddhism as a religion

drain.you

10th April 2006, 23:05

I have searched for a philosophy to live by in the past therefore I must be at this moment in time also.
And fuck man, you're so wound up in this place that you spend time searching for where I once insinuated a point.
Out of curiosity, if I couldn't decide myself my own personal and material decisions then how would I be able to weigh up which religions fit with my belief system most? Of course I have my own belief system and know what I believe.

violencia.Proletariat

11th April 2006, 00:27

I couldn't decide myself my own personal and material decisions then how would I be able to weigh up which religions fit with my belief system most? Of course I have my own belief system and know what I believe.

If you could weigh material decisions you WOULD NOT be looking for a fucking religion.

drain.you

11th April 2006, 00:35

I'm sorry but do you know me?

mikelepore

14th April 2006, 11:53

A principle of Buddhism is that a conceptual or expressible model of something, either an object or a law of nature, is not the thing itself. Science rediscovered this.

Another principle of Buddhism is that everything is a dynamic process, susceptible to coming into being and passing away, with the motions and changes driven largely by the interaction of polarities. Science rediscovered this also.

Buddhism teaches that happiness requires the avoidance of the temptation to wish for things that are unattainable, such as wishing that we and our loved ones would never die, or wishing that we had been born into an aristocracy. Instead, we can attain happiness through the perceptions and activities of the present moment. Modern psychology rediscovered this.

There is a lot of wisdom in Buddhism, particularly in the Ch'an or Zen developments, which don't include belief in reincarnation or magic.

Mike Lepore - lepore at bestweb dot net - deleonism.org

ichneumon

14th April 2006, 15:18

buddhist philosophy represents, to me, a bottom up attack on materialism, as opposed to the communist/socialist top down approach.

it will take both these things to free the world from injustice. Marx was a fool to dismiss religion - perhaps he was groped by a priest as child. religion is the lever to move a society.

buddhist religion is basically window dressing. there was a point when the buddha's followers came to him and said "the people want festivals and holy days" and the buddha said "well, then, let there be festival and holy days" so lah. people (in general) obviously need this kind of things to be happy. if you deprive them of it, they will just worship the government or their bellybuttons or whatever. it's human nature. just detoxify it and ignore it.

yes, in many places, buddhist religion has become an instituion in and of itself. and, at times, that institution is oppresive. but ask any buddhist, anywhere - "did man evolve from apes?" the answer is "yes", from new york to lhasa. most people don't know that buddhism has a creation/cosmology myth. it's just as ludicrous as Genesis. but even the most devote have no problem letting go of it in favor of science.

the point being: the fundamentals of buddhism are very socialist and antimaterialist. buddhists generally approve of socialism. so why do socialists hate buddhists? the usgov has it's War on Drugs - communists have thier War on God. fact: people are going to have religions. they are just hardheaded like that. if you burn down the churchs, they will worship the scientists and politicians instead, which DRASTICALLY interferes with science and politics. it's stupid. so let the people have buddhism.

this is just my opinion. this thread is in chit chat now, so flame on. peace.

redstar2000

14th April 2006, 16:47

Originally posted by ichneumon
Religion is the lever to move a society....

People (in general) obviously need this kind of thing to be happy. If you deprive them of it, they will just worship the government or their bellybuttons or whatever. It's human nature....

Communists have their War on God. Fact: people are going to have religions. They are just hardheaded like that. If you burn down the churches, they will worship the scientists and politicians instead...

See, this is why these threads always end up in the Religion Subforum...no matter how they start out.

There's always some fucktard that comes along and asserts that "religion is human nature" and "will always exist".

And that kind of reactionary bullshit belongs in the Reactionary Bullshit Subforum.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

Ol' Dirty

14th April 2006, 17:29

You people are real butchers. :rolleyes: You cut out all of the important facts, and add in your own shit (that really isn't true) to make other people look bad. Fucking sickening. <_<

violencia.Proletariat

14th April 2006, 20:04

jaycee

14th April 2006, 21:45

violencia.Proletariat

14th April 2006, 22:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 04:54 PM

.

However this doesn't mean that everything it says is 'metaphysical rubbish'

So you say, but next,

such as achieving a sense of oneness with the universe

That doesn't mean anything. You exist in the universe, so you are "with it" end of story.

and a loss of ego

Yet they have the whole village parading around them :lol: :lol: :lol:

peoples idea of themselves as completely seperate to nature and other people is an expression of alienation and mental repression

How do people feel they are seperate from nature? By living in cities? How can what we are doing be "un natural"?

I think that these 'spirits' are part of the material world

If spirits were part of the material world, there would be empirical evidence of them.

but that there is undeniably something to these ideas

No, there isn't.

jaycee

14th April 2006, 22:35

well with regards to peoles connection with nature, alot of people don't even have any limited experience or appreciation of nature.

shamans weren't exploiters or oppressors they worked for the community and served it, gave out medicine and gave advice to people. How could they be exploiters or oppressors in a classless society.

Yeah thats right we are part of the universe and most people think this, but what shamans and some Buddhists have achieved is FEELING this.

With regards to being un natural, well there are things about capitalism which are counter to the essence of what humanity is about. For example humanity is by its nature a social animal and a sense of community is a deep seeted need for people, capitalism increasingly gets rid of community and keeps people segregated and isolated. Alienation is a key component of class society and labour in class society specifically.

While the primitavist idea of going back to primative communism is obviously impossible. Marx talked about the end of the seperation of town and country, which means the end of the need for people to live in one place for their entire life and the restructuring of society on a more aesthetically pleasing and sensible way. This would mean an end to the massive, ugly, polluting, overcrowded cities of modern day capitalism.

My point about spirits is not they are a measurable 'thing' but that there is something which connects everything and there is something which is central to our humanity.

chaval

14th April 2006, 22:42

peole on this forum are obsessed with being anti-religion, while organised religion is reactionary because it segregates workers, makes them accept suffering, is crooked because its part of capitalism. However this doesn't mean that everything it says is 'metaphysical rubbish' if any of you really pondered the eternal questions or lerant anything about knowledge of shamans and the powers that they possessed (such as achieving a sense of oneness with the universe and a loss of ego, by which realising that everything is one and that peoples idea of themselves as completely seperate to nature and other people is an expression of alienation and mental repression) then you would see that spiritual ideas can't just be dismissed.

the problem jaycee that i find in this forum is that anything that is not communist is automatically fascist. i find you cant really discuss anything (even in nonmarxist subforums) that is totally unrelated to class struggle without someone taking it back to marxist rhetoric.

i could say "i have trouble opening these nuts with this nutcracker" and i guarantee someone will say its cause the capitalists and fascists want to opress me and make me buy more nutcrackers in my futile attempt to find one that works properlly

more importantly, morals arent fascist nor are they all religious. isnt the brotherhood and solidarity of communism in some way based on morality? or do the poeple just unite because they realize that it is to their own personal benefit to cooperate? like an enlightened form of the prisoners dilemma...?

violencia.Proletariat

14th April 2006, 23:49

shamans weren't exploiters or oppressors they worked for the community and served it, gave out medicine and gave advice to people. How could they be exploiters or oppressors in a classless society.

Shamans don't exist in modern society, the few that exist are in really backwards places. There's a communal "medicine" man in an Indian village who told a woman to kill a baby in order to ease her bad visions. Guess what, SHE DID IT! Check the religious sub-forum for the story.

but what shamans and some Buddhists have achieved is FEELING this.

That DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING. How do you know someone "feels" the universe, thats stupid and can't be tested. Enough with the metaphysics!

well there are things about capitalism which are counter to the essence of what humanity is about.

Great another person who knows "the meaning of life" :lol: :( Tell us, how much is your fee in order to get us into heaven.

For example humanity is by its nature a social animal and a sense of community is a deep seeted need for people, capitalism increasingly gets rid of community and keeps people segregated and isolated.

Well if it's in "our nature" capitalism won't really stop this now will it? I really hope your opposition to capitalism doesn't only consist of people being "isolated" from each other. Whats next language oppresses our feelings? :lol:

This would mean an end to the massive

Probably not, I rather doubt large cities will shrink

ugly

subjective

My point about spirits is not they are a measurable 'thing' but that there is something which connects everything and there is something which is central to our humanity.

And that doesn't exist until you PROVE IT. Your "feelings" don't mean anything in terms of material conditions.

jaycee

15th April 2006, 00:20

obviously capitalism doesn't completely stop people socialising but it does prevent real communal living. If your a communist then you must support communal living, ownership and production. Do you support this becuase you think it will increase human happiness or not, if you think it will then there must be something about humans which supports this style of living.

I know Shamans don't exist in modern society and what you are refering to is not a shaman because you can't be a shaman unless you live in a society which suits the exisistence of shamans. In communism there won't be Shamans but the people will reconnect to some of the lost knowledge which they possessed.

I would never claim to know the meaning of life but i can look at history and at things which stay constant in all humans in all societies (the exisitence of Shamans in all primative communist societies being one example), Marx himself argued that a desire to produce things is a central part of humanitys nature as is the social side which i mentioned earlier.

my pint about 'spirits' isn't that i feel this connection i spoke about, if i had i would be enlightened and a much wiser man than i am. THe point is that there is alot of evidence that there are some forces which we don't fully understand yet and will only understand when communism frees us from alienation and allows us to lessen the effect of mental repression.

If you want examples of these forces: examples of telepathy, outer body experinces and many other phenomena which are written off as maddness by mainstream thought.

redstar2000

15th April 2006, 00:49

Originally posted by chaval
I find you can't really discuss anything (even in nonmarxist subforums) that is totally unrelated to class struggle without someone taking it back to marxist rhetoric.

What would you expect at a message board called RevLeft?

Che Guevara once had a very good response to this criticism. He said, "It's not my fault that reality is Marxist."

There are probably an enormous number of boards where people talk about "spirits" as if they were "real"...and everyone there is "just fine" with that.

MindlessMetaphysicalBabble.com? :lol:

Here, things are different.

We like it that way. :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

Ol' Dirty

15th April 2006, 02:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 12:38 PM
You people are real butchers. :rolleyes: You cut out all of the important facts, and add in your own shit (that really isn't true) to make other people look bad. Fucking sickening. <_<

Why don't you post some of the Buddhist texts up here for us to pick apart then.

Sure:

If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why does he order such misfortune
And not create concord?

If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why prevail deceit, lies and ignorance
And he such inequity and injustice create?

If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Then an evil master is he, (O Aritta)
Knowing what's right did let wrong prevail!

That was from this thread:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47480

Also, if you're really interested, read this book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/157322656...glance&n=283155 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1573226564/104-3823222-2939118?v=glance&n=283155)

There is also nothing "sickening" going on here,

I consider fakery, ignorance and outright apathy rather vile, so yes, I'd say that some of the posts in this threads have been pretty bad.

I think you just whine too much.

Well, you really haven't given me a reason to trust your thoughts. :rolleyes:

Hey man, I'm just taking it as I see it.

violencia.Proletariat

15th April 2006, 03:18

Well, you really haven't given me a reason to trust your thoughts. :rolleyes:

Then don't.

And when I say post up some buddhist texts, I mean the WHOLE THING not just the part that sounds good ;)

violencia.Proletariat

15th April 2006, 03:25

Do you support this becuase you think it will increase human happiness or not, if you think it will then there must be something about humans which supports this style of living.

I don't do it because of the ultimate "happiness". I won't live to see it. I do it because it's in my CLASS INTEREST to do so.

If your a communist then you must support communal living, ownership and production.

And this has NOTHING to do with metaphsyical bullshit, it's about MATERIAL REALITY!

Shamans don't exist in modern society and what you are refering to is not a shaman because you can't be a shaman unless you live in a society which suits the exisistence of shamans.

Then why the fuck are you talking about them, its COMPLETELY irrelevant? Are you a primitivist, then maybe restriction is in order.

Marx himself argued that a desire to produce things is a central part of humanitys nature as is the social side which i mentioned earlier.

It's not nature, it's NECESSITY. Production has nothing to do with "spirits" or any other BULLSHIT, it's about the necessity to stay ALIVE.

examples of telepathy, outer body experinces and many other phenomena which are written off as maddness by mainstream thought.

:lol: :lol: :lol: This is proof there is no god.

jaycee

15th April 2006, 12:33

your clearly misunderstanding my view point,
1st i'm not a primitavist, as i said a return to the past is impossible and not what i would hope communism would look like, but i'm merely saying that there are aspects of the way in which early people related to each other and to society which will be taken further in advanced communist society.

i'm also not into metaphysics (the name itself is bollocks) but i am simply saying that there are truths within this way of looking at the universe, even tho these truths have material sources.

THis is what i am tring to say about spirits, that while thinking of them as above the material world is wrong there does seem to be forces which are untapped and unknown in the world.

The reason i'm talking about Shamans as i said is because they were around in primitive communist societies. THerefore i think they show something which can be develped in the future communist society. Mainly that in future communist society people will be free to develope to their full potential and this will include increasing our awareness of the universe and regaining aspects of Shamanistic knowledge.

violencia.Proletariat

15th April 2006, 16:17

but i'm merely saying that there are aspects of the way in which early people related to each other and to society which will be taken further in advanced communist society

That's your hypothesis, you don't know that will happen until it does.

there are truths within this way of looking at the universe, even tho these truths have material sources.

What "truths"? What are you talking about?

that while thinking of them as above the material world is wrong there does seem to be forces which are untapped and unknown in the world.

:huh: are you seeing things? People on tv bending spoons is not an unknown force in the universe, it's called a SCAM ;)

THerefore i think they show something which can be develped in the future communist society.

They have NO purpose in our modern world. We don't need people making shit up to explain things, we have science.

ichneumon

20th April 2006, 19:34

We don't need people making shit up to explain things, we have science.

it's this kind of nonsense that has turned science into a religion. i bet you have a darwin fish on your car, don't you?

yuck. when you ask an actual scientist a question like "scientifically, what do you think about life after death?" the answer is almost always "uh, nothing. that's not science." which rabid antireligion people take as the Word from ON HIGH that there is no life after death, because it's not Science! when the poor scientist just meant that such things are hard to investigate and impossible to prove or disprove.

many of the questions that are central to philosophy and theology are outside the scope of science. what is the purpose of life? why is there suffering? what happens to me after I die? is there a higher power in the universe? few modern scientists mess with this stuff.

on the other hand, the buddha discovered and proved, rather empirically, that you can find spiritual peace and joy without all that mess. Hsub1="There is a source of suffering, and it can be stopped". he experimented with fasting and spiritualism and other crap, and found, in the end, that the liberation from suffering comes from within mostly via ethics and mediation, and isn't it in any way, shape or form related to gods or spirits. "You have been shot with an arrow, and when the healer comes, You stop him and say 'But where was the arrow made? Who fired it? Why does war happen?' This is pointless. Deal with your suffering, and when you have, you will find that many of your questions have no meaning anymore".

yet since buddhism is RELIGION and because science is TRUE and religion is FALSE, you get to ignore it. the little language game y'all play is sophomoric, at best. religion can be true and science can be wrong. happens all the time.

redstar2000

21st April 2006, 00:30

Originally posted by ichneumon
many of the questions that are central to philosophy and theology are outside the scope of science. what is the purpose of life? why is there suffering? what happens to me after I die? is there a higher power in the universe? few modern scientists mess with this stuff.

That's because it's "stuff"...to be precise, those are not real questions even though they conform to the grammar of the English language for asking questions.

Lacking any objective referents, they are, semantically speaking, noise!

Rational people do not attempt to find or insert meaning into noise. It's just noise, period.

on the other hand, the buddha discovered and proved, rather empirically, that you can find spiritual peace and joy without all that mess.

Yeah. You take over a country (Tibet), reduce the overwhelming majority of its population to slavery and serfdom, and live high off the profits.

Hey, that's "spiritual peace and joy" that's tough to beat! :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

ichneumon

26th April 2006, 15:40

eah. You take over a country (Tibet), reduce the overwhelming majority of its population to slavery and serfdom, and live high off the profits.

Hey, that's "spiritual peace and joy" that's tough to beat! laugh.gif

the buddha enslaved tibet? maybe according to the PRC. and what are the chinese peasants now but slaves and serfs? happy citizens? :lol:

tibet was a feudal economy. as feudal economies go, it was less brutal than most. it's a stage that societies go through, mr. marxist. duh. religion always plays a part in state formation, be it christianity or communism. at the least, we can say that buddhism was hijacked into the state, strongly against it's founder's will. and i UTTERLY fail to see the difference between a buddhist shrine and mao's pickled body. are you aware that millions of chinese make the pilgramage to that shrine and leave offerings? the details of a belief system are irrelevant to the function it plays in a society.

That's because it's "stuff"...to be precise, those are not real questions even though they conform to the grammar of the English language for asking questions.

Lacking any objective referents, they are, semantically speaking, noise!

Rational people do not attempt to find or insert meaning into noise. It's just noise, period.

voltaire, sartre, kant, socrates ?= irrational

rational people do not reject ideas that threaten them. curious people question everything. the fact that you "know" that there is no life after death, that you have no soul, that there is no god(s) and no destiny is just your religion. those are your answers to those questions. it's not like you have no opinion on the subject (or so i wager). i, personally, am undecided and mostly unconcerned. i have found, as the buddha predicted, the more peace you have, the less you care about that kind of thing.

or, perhaps, you were merely trying to point out that siddharta gautama was an imminently rational guy. good job.

redstar2000

26th April 2006, 21:37

Originally posted by ichneumon
Tibet was a feudal economy. As feudal economies go, it was less brutal than most.

I am not an "expert" in "comparative feudalism"...but the written accounts suggest it was far worse than European, Chinese, or Japanese variants.

By modern standards, it might well have been the worst hellhole on Earth!

I UTTERLY fail to see the difference between a Buddhist shrine and Mao's pickled body.

Agreed. :lol:

The fuss that is made over corpses makes absolutely no sense at all.

A future and much more rational society will look back with disbelief.

Voltaire, Sartre, Kant, Socrates? = irrational.

They were all quite rational, but they worked with irrational concepts. They tried to "make sense" out of noise...because it was widely accepted in their era that there was "hidden meaning" in "ideas" that were, in fact, noise.

It would be just like modern scientists trying to "decipher" the radio signals from Jupiter...there's no message there.

The fact that you "know" that there is no life after death, that you have no soul, that there is no god(s) and no destiny is just your religion.

And if you don't agree with me then you'll burn in Hell, sinner! :lol:

Calling something "a religion" does not make it so.

There is no reliable scientific evidence for "life after death", "souls", gods or "destinies".

That means they don't exist...and talk about them is perforce inevitably babble.

Usually for the purpose of extracting money from the gullible. :angry:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

Fistful of Steel

26th April 2006, 22:04

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 2 2006, 06:41 PM
As if dialectics wasn't bad enough, we have socialists here falling for an Eastern cut of ruling-class opium!

What next? Spoon bending with Uri Geller, alien abduction, dousing, shape-shifting lizards?

Lenin was right; in times of defeat, radicals seek out and find their own brand of consolation/mysticism: some find it in dialectics (as did Lenin himself), some in Buddhism, others in Daoism. Oddly enough, all of these are very similar (to anyone who disagrees: check out what the Dalai Lama said in the New Scientist the other week: almost pure dialectical 'materialism').

Looks like there is a spectre haunting a few too many socialists at this site: the need to believe that there is a divine/cosmic/Nirvana-induced point to human existence.

How is being told what to believe (by a self-appointed guru), or what 'moral' code to accept, any different from slavery?

Come back Spartacus, all is forgotten....
You may not have noticed in your own ignorance, but Buddhism as detailed by Buddha has little to nothing to do with any mystic or occult bullshit. Buddhism was founded as a rejection of metaphysical substances, and at its base was formulated upon phenomenological and psychological grounds. Nirvana itself refers disinterested wisdom and compassion, hardly something difficult to comprehend. And nobody says that any guru is worth listening to if you're a Buddhist, nor even Buddha himself as Buddha formulated what he thought worked best as a reaction to what everyone else was doing at the time. He rejected the boredom of being a rich prince and became an ascetic, before finally focusing on compassion as a necessary good. Hardly a bad thing. And nobody says you have to follow any moral code postulated, but Buddha dictated his own and thought that was best, he was by no means holding up a gun and saying this is what you have to believe. As well Buddhists reject any notion of divinity and soul, despite the popular misunderstanding. With all this in mind I hardly see how this is a religion at all.

Funny how this gets forced into the opposing ideologies section of the forum. Anything that seems remotely connected to religion is immediately frowned upon, justly or not. If we talked about Schopenhauer in the philosophy section it would be well and good, but Buddhism doesn't fit under philosophy when all Schopenhauer did was synthesize Buddhism for a Western audience.

redstar2000

26th April 2006, 23:57

Originally posted by Fistful of Steel
Anything that seems remotely connected to religion is immediately frowned upon...

Someday, it will be banned! :D

The tolerance for reactionary ideas is steadily declining on this board.

As it is, roughly speaking, on the whole planet.

In a century or two, religious beliefs will probably be seen as prima facie evidence of serious mental illness.

Hopefully curable. :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

Fistful of Steel

27th April 2006, 03:28

Originally posted by redstar2000+Apr 26 2006, 11:12 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Apr 26 2006, 11:12 PM)
Fistful of Steel
Anything that seems remotely connected to religion is immediately frowned upon...

Someday, it will be banned! :D

The tolerance for reactionary ideas is steadily declining on this board.

As it is, roughly speaking, on the whole planet.

In a century or two, religious beliefs will probably be seen as prima facie evidence of serious mental illness.

Hopefully curable. :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif [/b]
Banning people from thinking what they want, eh? *Cough crimethink cough*

redstar2000

27th April 2006, 06:50

Originally posted by Fistful of Steel
Banning people from thinking what they want, eh?

No, what you think is strictly up to you.

Where you get into trouble is when you start communicating it to others...or "acting it out".

You may sincerely believe that your "God" is "real" and "demands" human sacrifice on a regular basis.

Tell that to people and you will start to have problems. :lol:

Try doing it and you will have really serious problems. :angry:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

encephalon

27th April 2006, 07:16

I do so love the "special status" many leftists try to afford buddhism apart from all other religions.

Hey! Let's all surround the pentagon and levitate it!

Fistful of Steel

27th April 2006, 18:20

Originally posted by redstar2000+Apr 27 2006, 06:05 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Apr 27 2006, 06:05 AM)
Fistful of Steel
Banning people from thinking what they want, eh?

No, what you think is strictly up to you.

Where you get into trouble is when you start communicating it to others...or "acting it out".

You may sincerely believe that your "God" is "real" and "demands" human sacrifice on a regular basis.

Tell that to people and you will start to have problems. :lol:

Try doing it and you will have really serious problems. :angry:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif [/b]
You said you'd ban religion. Religion is belief in a supernatural creator, or a personal or institutional system based on belief. 3/4 of the definition of religion itself is personal faith. If you want to communicate what you believe to others, you should be free to do so, anyone limiting your ability to do that is limiting your freedom. If you start saying that you will and start infringing upon the freedoms of others, then yes naturally problems arise but there's nothing other than stereotypes to say a religious person is so inclined.

And to encephalon: As I've already clearly and logically explained, Buddhism isn't a religion. It's a philosophy that's been incorporated into many other belief systems, especially in Asia, but that doesn't make Buddhism itself a religion in any shape or form. I don't consider it to have any special position in philosophy, or that it's even something worth doing, but that doesn't mean it deserves the misconceptions everyone is intent to put it through especially when they're basing it off their own ignorance. Levitating the pentagon has nothing to do with Buddhism... At all.

ÑóẊîöŉ

27th April 2006, 19:03

OK, buddhism is a philosophy.

It's still crap.

ichneumon

28th April 2006, 18:35

levitating the pentagon:

the buddha defined the various powers of the mind, including things that we would consider ESP, and asked his followers not to do these things, as they were mere tricks.

in any case. i don't worship any kind of god. buddhism is my *religion* and i consider everything about my religion to be logical and provable. if it were not, as per the buddha himself, i would not believe it. most of what i believe is based on science, but also i acknowledge that mental suffering comes from desire, and that that suffering can be avoided. the bit about suffering is rock solid. science changes it's mind about the nature of the cosmos monthly.

this philosophy/religion debate is semantics. relgions are like assholes, everybody has one. i hate it for y'all but there is no validity WHATSOEVER in the idea of "what i believe is true and that's science, what everyone else believes is false and that's religion". almost everyone alive believes this to some degree, and most of those who don't are buddhists. oh, except some say "gospel" instead of "science" and "blasphemy" instead of "religion".

also: "there is no such thing as the supernatural because everything that exists can be explained by natural law" 1)bullshit - explain gravity. 2)if god comes down in his flaming chariot, you just say, "oh, there must be an explanation, that's not supernatural". it's semantics. try again.

redstar2000

28th April 2006, 21:05

Originally posted by ichneumon
Buddhism is my *religion* and I consider everything about my religion to be logical and provable.

Ok. We can't "stop" people from being suckered here...all we can do is point out the scams.

Of which Buddhism is one among many.

As Einstein remarked in one of his gloomier moments: Mankind is very stupid and progress is very slow.

Some of the posts in this subforum would serve as evidence for his assertion.

Like yours. :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

patrickbeverley

28th April 2006, 23:14

"there is no such thing as the supernatural because everything that exists can be explained by natural law" 1)bullshit - explain gravity.

Large masses attract other large masses, as well as smaller masses, in direct proportion to their mass. Theories about the cause of this are varied, but the prevailing theory at the present time involves the existence of a particle called a "graviton". Ah, I see now: God exists! Well proved!

2)if god comes down in his flaming chariot, you just say, "oh, there must be an explanation, that's not supernatural".

Ichneumon, you're so right. That's exactly what I said last time God appeared to me in a flaming chariot.

Got any more proofs of God's existence? Or can we now go back to not believing in him?

encephalon

1st May 2006, 04:45

I've no idea why, but this thread is hilarious to me.

It'd be sad if it weren't so funny. I should come to this sub-forum more often. It seems I'd forgotten how absolutely illogical some people want to be.

Correction: I've changed my mind. It isn't funny anymore. Just sad.

Levitating the pentagon has nothing to do with Buddhism... At all.

But it does. Both smell suspiciously of spiritual fecal matter.

adenoid hynkel

1st May 2006, 13:15

I am really unaware of the Buddhist culture and religion, so I am neither pro-Buddhism nor anti--Buddhism. But I came along a quote of the current Dalai Lama, which I think is very interesting;

From Wikipedia
If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview." - Dalai Lama

Discuss

redstar2000

1st May 2006, 13:19

He's a lying sack of shit who'll say anything if he thinks he can profit from it.

He's even said "nice things" about Marxism...big fucking deal.

He makes Richard Nixon look "honest"! :angry:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

adenoid hynkel

1st May 2006, 13:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 12:40 PM
He's a lying sack of shit who'll say anything if he thinks he can profit from it.

He's even said "nice things" about Marxism...big fucking deal.

He makes Richard Nixon look "honest"! :angry:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif
As you have said, nothing should be considered right without proof..........

So, can you prove that he is lying?

redstar2000

1st May 2006, 18:46

Originally posted by adenoid hynkel
So, can you prove that he is lying?

He himself claims to be the reincarnation of a Buddhist "holy man".

Scientific evidence in favor of "reincarnation": zero!

Has he withdrawn his claim in favor of science?

Fat chance! :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

redstar2000

10th May 2006, 14:46

Originally posted by BBC
Dalai Lama 'behind Lhasa unrest'

China has blamed the Dalai Lama for an outbreak of violence at a Buddhist monastery in Tibet, accusing the exiled spiritual leader of stirring up unrest.

The official Xinhua news agency said 17 Tibetans on 14 March destroyed a pair of statues at Lhasa's Ganden Monastery depicting the deity Dorje Shugden.

Lhasa's mayor blamed the destruction on followers of the Dalai Lama, who sees Dorje Shugden as a divisive force.

The Dalai Lama has urged his followers not to worship Dorje Shugden, regarded as a powerful but dangerous protector, analysts say.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/asia-pacific/4757125.stm

Buddhism = same old shit!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

ichneumon

11th May 2006, 22:44

ah, Redstar, here's a bit of useful buddhsim for ya:

people often misidentify their ideology with themselves. thus they feel that when their beliefs are threatened, they themselves are threatened. most react in the typical monkey fashion: they wave their arms, shriek and throw shit. humans, being more advanced, *talk* shit instead of throwing it.

buddhistsare not supposed to do this. to us, buddhism is the best religion because if anything better comes along, we adopt it and call that buddhism instead. that is how we have added both science and socialism. no threat. change and adaptation.

survival of the fittest.

you should try it some time.

btw, "no evidence" is not "disproven". not at all. once, there was no evidence for planets around other stars...were they disproven? no. there is no evidence of the existence of souls, are they disproven?

redstar2000

11th May 2006, 23:41

Originally posted by ichneumon+--> (ichneumon) ah, Redstar, here's a bit of useful buddhsim for ya.[/b]

http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/9149/buddhistdickhead7oj.jpg

BBC
Kelsang teaches that the deity Dorje Shugden is the Dharma protector for the new kadampa tradition and is a manifestation of the Buddha.

The spirit Dorje Shugden is described by some as a "wrathful, sword-waving deity with big ears and menacing fangs" or as "a ...warrior figure, riding a snow lion through a sea of boiling blood". The New Kadampa Tradition offers this description:

"In his left hand he holds a heart, which symbolises great compassion and spontaneous great bliss... His round yellow hat represents the view of Nagarjuna, and the wisdom sword in his right hand teaches us to sever ignorance... Dorje Shudgen rides a snow lion ...and has a jewel-splitting mongoose perched on his left arm, symbolising his power to bestow wealth on those who put their trust in him... His wrathful expression indicated that he destroys ignorance, the real enemy of all living beings, by blessing them with great wisdom."

Dorje Shugden (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/features/kadampa/dorje_shugden.shtml)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

Janus

12th May 2006, 07:51

the buddha enslaved tibet?
The lamas controlled all the land in Tibet. Do you think that Buddha built the Dalai Lama's Lhasa palace?

that is how we have added both science
And where is the scientific evidence for reincarnation?

redstar2000

12th May 2006, 08:43

Originally posted by ichneumon
Once, there was no evidence for planets around other stars...were they disproven? No.

There was nothing in science to suggest that planets in orbits around other stars was "impossible"...and it was suggested as early as the 1930s "how to find them". The problem was that our instruments were not sensitive enough. When they became sensitive enough, we found a whole bunch...even in some very improbable locations.

Planets are "common as dirt". :D

There is no evidence of the existence of souls, are they disproven?

That's the reasonable conclusion. Scientists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries looked for evidence for souls and could find nothing.

Everything we think we know about the human brain says flatly that consciousness is a product of electro-chemical reactions in matter...and when those reactions are halted, there's nothing left at all.

You may, of course, imagine some kind of new and very sensitive "soul detector"...but you'd have to begin by constructing a plausible definition of what "souls" consist of. Just what is it that you're trying to "detect"?

Indeed, I think that's what probably caused all efforts to find "evidence" for "souls" to fail. How can you "detect" something when you have no fucking clue as to what it "is"?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

Comrade J

21st May 2006, 18:26

The Buddha also said there is no soul, Buddhists have a belief in 'anatman' - the belief that there is no self, and 'anicca' - the belief that nothing is permanent.
Personally I find Buddhism to be illogical, though considerably less so than most other major world religions like Islam, Judaism and Christianity. At least, as ichneumon says, it accepts a certain degree of change.
It acknowledges suffering (dukkha) but says it is a result of craving, and to overcome dukkha and eventually reach Nirvana, one has to stop wanting things.
This would include 'craving' to own the means of production and to violently overthrow one's oppressors, and it is therefore an obstacle in a revolution, and must be cast aside with all other religions.

Ichneumon, I think you need to re-evaluate your beliefs and consider stopping your belief in an ancient teaching that is clearly illogical and relatively pointless.
However, unlike some members, I believe you have a personal right to hold this belief as it does not physically harm people, and should you wish to continue with it go ahead, but understand your limitations in helping the proletariat in any way.