Paradox
©
Fisana

Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Buddhism makes more sense than Christianity


  • Please log in to reply
133 replies to this topic

#121 aumbrellaforainydays

aumbrellaforainydays

    Holding Tank

  • Expired Member
  • 1,328 posts

Posted 04 January 2007 - 05:03 PM

that's twice the dalai has been mentioned
in a pretty favorable light
for allowing the chinese to invade/occupy tibet
without any real fight,
as if it was just his to give away.

i wonder if all tibetans agree.


i agree with you hippie, the D.L. probably didnt have any legal sovereignity over tibet, since the fact of tibet being a free nation is arguable. but why i say he lost a country is because he knew a lot worse things would happen if he chose to rebel against china than to just leave and wait it out (after all he comes back when he dies anyway). well, the tibet did rebel and it failed and so what i was alluding to about him losing his 'control' over tibet was that at what price are such notions such as nations and temples worth anyway? is it worth thousands of lives and the destruction of so much heritage in order to gain a better life?

ok history lesson/correction. so it was the british who pretty much ruled india and china for a while. then revolution happened and india and china became independent of great britain. china became the republic of china which sought to incorporate the lands (tibet, taiwan, etc) that they felt was theirs before britain came along? but confusion to whether tibet was ever a real independent nation is still debatable. and for a while the dalai lama ruled in peace if not only under de facto style independence. so when china invaded (or walked in and said we own you) it (chinese rule) in some ways did make tibet better, but being a communist nation, its not hard to see what they would do with a nation stuck in a 1650 style society; modernize, mine, populate, educate, cultivate ... then the americans had to come along and fund one of their "play" wars against the communists. the tibet rebels could've almost had it and they ruled a semi-independent territory in chinese ruled tibet but once funding from the US stopped Lhasa was taken, the D.L. exiled, and this time the chinese would have tibet for good, in any way they wanted it... and so goes the destruction of tibetan culture...

#122 Vapor

Vapor

    Mycophiliac

  • Expired Member
  • 93 posts

Posted 04 January 2007 - 05:11 PM

"Form is Void...Being is Nothingness!"

#123 Hippie3

Hippie3

    DUNG DEALER

  • Founders
  • 40,642 posts

Posted 04 January 2007 - 05:42 PM

"if you can't dazzle them with your brilliance,
then baffle them with your bullshit."
;)

#124 Hippie3

Hippie3

    DUNG DEALER

  • Founders
  • 40,642 posts

Posted 04 January 2007 - 05:46 PM

o it was the british who pretty much ruled india and china for a while. then revolution happened and india and china became independent of great britain. china became the republic of china which sought to incorporate the lands (tibet, taiwan, etc) that they felt was theirs before britain came along?


not even close.
better hit the books friend.
that's not how it went.

#125 kukukajoob

kukukajoob

    Mycophiliac

  • Expired Member
  • 41 posts

Posted 04 January 2007 - 11:17 PM

hmm, ok, let's pick that apart
and see what it really means.

ignorance- a condition of being unaware of the facts of the situation.
now perhaps you mean some specific kind of ignorance ?
because everyone is ignorant of something,
even buddha surely did not know the facts about everything eh ?
so while one can educate
one can never eliminate ignorance,
we are all born utterly ignorant
and spend our entire lives learning
just a tiny fraction of what there is to know,
even buddha.
so to what ignorance do you refer ?

anger also puzzles me since anger is a brain / chemical-based emotional response,
sometimes anger can be bad but not always.
we should be angry when we see injustice, wanton destruction, etc.
surely buddhism doesn't take away
a man's natural outrage at seeing
the rape or murder of the innocent ?
don't buddhists get angry,
like when someone burns down their temples ?
history says yes, they do indeed.

now
the last you mention-
animality.
WTF does that mean ?
are you refering to our sex drives or what ?
because we are indeed animals,
mammals in fact.
buddism doesn't change that
so what do you mean when you say it ?

Ignorance in this context means ignorance of how to act virtuously.

Anger is the condition in which one is dominated by the selfish ego, competitiveness, arrogance and the need to be superior in all things. The experiencer is a slave to his/her delusions, viewing oneself as more important than - and superior to - others. This realm is characterized by viewing other beings as potential threats.

Animality is a condition in which one is governed by instinct, in which one has no sense of morality and lives only for the present moment. In this state one won't hesitate to prey on weaker beings for personal gain, and will try to attract the attentions of stronger beings in order to side with them. This realm is characterized by the total lack of good judgement and reason.
Sensuality, even in its highest form, is not by any means the highest thing for man, and no man should maintain that this was the purpose for which he was born.

#126 Hippie3

Hippie3

    DUNG DEALER

  • Founders
  • 40,642 posts

Posted 05 January 2007 - 08:38 AM

Sensuality, even in its highest form, is not by any means the highest thing for man, and no man should maintain that this was the purpose for which he was born.


sez you,
thank god that
you ain't the boss eh.
:lol:

seems to me to be
just a word game,
i ask you to define those terms
and in doing so
you use 'fuzzy' words
like act 'virtuously' that also
require definition
as obviously what you consider
'virtuous' might not be the same for all.

it's circular logic by which to define your way
into a 'proof' that all humanity is 'sinful'.

"viewing other beings as potential threats"
isn't a sign of debased anger-driven sin,
it's just a rational assessment of reality-
other beings can, may, indeed be threats
and since it is true and since you use it to define sin
then you have a seemingly air-tight argument.
:lol:
that's cheating.

likewise with other traits,
you know we all have to be
competitive in this world,
so hey, guess what- being competitive 'proves'
in your argument
that there's something 'wrong' with me.
:lol:

same with 'getting stronger beings to side with them'-
making alliances.
by that definition
if a child goes to get her daddy to help her
that proves
in your argument
that there's something wrong with her-
perfectly normal rational human behavior
is thus twisted by your religious perspective
into proof of sinful nature of the 'lower realms', eg. earth.

all the other religions do exactly the same,
defining natural human emotions and thought-patterns as sin
makes it very easy for religion to
prove that everyone needs them.
:thumbdown:

#127 aumbrellaforainydays

aumbrellaforainydays

    Holding Tank

  • Expired Member
  • 1,328 posts

Posted 05 January 2007 - 11:52 AM

not even close.
better hit the books friend.
that's not how it went.


well, hip would you care to share your knowledge of pre-1950 tibet and post communist occupation? i shared what i sorta know of that particular event in history, but i dont know anything in detail about it. perhaps your highness would care to enlighten me?

#128 Hippie3

Hippie3

    DUNG DEALER

  • Founders
  • 40,642 posts

Posted 05 January 2007 - 12:22 PM

i'm afraid i'll have to leave it up to you to educate yourself,
i just don't have the needed spare time
;)

#129 kukukajoob

kukukajoob

    Mycophiliac

  • Expired Member
  • 41 posts

Posted 05 January 2007 - 07:56 PM

sez you,
thank god that
you ain't the boss eh.
:lol:

seems to me to be
just a word game,
i ask you to define those terms
and in doing so
you use 'fuzzy' words
like act 'virtuously' that also
require definition
as obviously what you consider
'virtuous' might not be the same for all.

it's circular logic by which to define your way
into a 'proof' that all humanity is 'sinful'.

"viewing other beings as potential threats"
isn't a sign of debased anger-driven sin,
it's just a rational assessment of reality-
other beings can, may, indeed be threats
and since it is true and since you use it to define sin
then you have a seemingly air-tight argument.
:lol:
that's cheating.

likewise with other traits,
you know we all have to be
competitive in this world,
so hey, guess what- being competitive 'proves'
in your argument
that there's something 'wrong' with me.
:lol:

same with 'getting stronger beings to side with them'-
making alliances.
by that definition
if a child goes to get her daddy to help her
that proves
in your argument
that there's something wrong with her-
perfectly normal rational human behavior
is thus twisted by your religious perspective
into proof of sinful nature of the 'lower realms', eg. earth.

all the other religions do exactly the same,
defining natural human emotions and thought-patterns as sin
makes it very easy for religion to
prove that everyone needs them.
:thumbdown:



Compassion for others, being in control of one's desires and negative emotions [mindfulness], altruistic behavior, diligence, consistency... these are some of the things I would classify as virtues. They may vary from person to person, yet they are not that hard to understand, define, & classify when juxtaposed with their opposites.

Competition can be directed in a positive way, just as being circumspect about others is generally prudent, and some alliances with stronger individuals can create value. It becomes negative when the entire society gets swept up in that mindset.

For example, in an office setting, you could build a great sales force through healthy competition, or you could create a dog-eat-dog environment where everyone is cutthroat towards each other and "sucking up" to the boss.

Or in politics, the difference between ML King's supporters cooperatively working for social justice v. the predatory behavior of the Third Reich. They're all following the leader, but what are the dynamics of their interactions?

It's a question of intent, degree, and context. There needs to be an element of compassion and wisdom or the situation will devolve into negativity.

Every day, we witness needless tragedies and human suffering that originated because someone responded in anger to a situation that required calm and mindfulness.

We see in our competetiveness, a few at the top controlling the majority of the resources. We see in our appetites for more goods and consummables, a non-sustainable depletion of those resources. It's harming the planet.

Emotions and thought patterns are not sins in & of themselves. They are just the origin of actions. They become sins [negative causes] when are manifested as harmful actions. Controlling & redirecting that energy towards an enlightened goal what I try to do with my meditation. The concept of hendoku iyaku means "changing poison to medicine". Karma is real, bad karma can be changed. It's different from the Western concept of sin. There's no damnation in Buddhism, because all karma can ultimately be changed, and everyone will eventually attain enlightenment. There are no permanent losers.

Buddhism simply offers a path to higher conciousness, insight, and wisdom that works for some. I enjoy it, and it has been very helpful to me over the years. It's a perspective well worth learning about, yet obviously not everyone's cup of tea.


Thanks for all your efforts at Mycotopia and providing these discussion forums.

#130 Hippie3

Hippie3

    DUNG DEALER

  • Founders
  • 40,642 posts

Posted 05 January 2007 - 11:17 PM

plz don't misunderstand me,
i have nothing against buddhists
and in fact
i'm of the opinion that
the more crap you can believe
the better off you are.
i wish sometimes that
i, too, could find some comfort
in a religion
but alas, they all, without exception, leave me
cold.
of all religions
i confess i'm prolly closer to being a buddhist than
anything else.
but still there's too much stuff
that i can't ignore nor get past.
i stumble, as it were, to borrow an xian expression.
but hey
if you derive comfort from it
by all means,
more power to you.
in the end
you're better off believing, i think,
than i am as an unbeliever,
no matter who is really 'right'.
it's sad
kinda
but even if i'm right
i still lose out
compared to the believers.

#131 kukukajoob

kukukajoob

    Mycophiliac

  • Expired Member
  • 41 posts

Posted 06 January 2007 - 01:17 AM

Hip, you are respected and loved in this community as I suspect you are in other areas of your life.

The collected knowledge here, archives and teks, will benefit seekers of wisdom for generations to come - the fruit of your efforts!

Your insight on many levels, combined with a sense of fair play and the ability to cut through bullshit...rare qualities.

I heard John Lennon's Imagine and the words reminded me of your opinions about religion. Not too shabby a role model.

Peace:)

#132 Hippie3

Hippie3

    DUNG DEALER

  • Founders
  • 40,642 posts

Posted 06 January 2007 - 09:21 AM

lennon was shot dead on the street by a lunatic.

#133 aumbrellaforainydays

aumbrellaforainydays

    Holding Tank

  • Expired Member
  • 1,328 posts

Posted 06 January 2007 - 11:53 PM

picked up a book on the history of modern tibet since 1947, called The Dragon in the Land of Snows, through chapter 3 and this book has already taught me alot, thx hip for the advice. once i get to the cia part (which still has its files on tibet classified) i'll post something.

where does insanity come from?

#134 kukukajoob

kukukajoob

    Mycophiliac

  • Expired Member
  • 41 posts

Posted 07 January 2007 - 04:42 AM

lennon was shot dead on the street by a lunatic.



A sad day; I remember it well.

After chanting for an hour for his repose, then I observed the moment of silence Yoko had requested.

At the very end of the silence, sunlight began to stream into my room.




Like Mycotopia? Become a member today!