"Eventually, and regretfully, I concluded that Buddhism is not much more rational than the Catholicism I lapsed from in my youth; Buddhism's moral and metaphysical worldview cannot easily be reconciled with science—or, more generally, with modern humanistic values." This is one man's opinion just as my opinion that a while a world full of Buddhists wouldn't be absolutely peaceful, it would be a lot more peaceful than a world full of western monotheists is just one man's opinion. He also makes some fundamental errors (for example, calling Hinduism Buddhism's "parent religion" when in fact, Buddhism is older than what we now think of as "Hinduism" as opposed to the old Vedic religions on which Hinduism itself is based - see Karen Armstrong's "Buddha" for an excellent short non-specialist background of the situation in India in which the Buddha lived). Not only that but it is the opinion of a guy who only studied buddhism for four years. Reading between the lines of his article, it does'nt sound like he gave it much effort either. Now, I don't have a PhD in Buddhist Studies, I haven't spent years of meditation training in a monastery nor am I a Zen Master or any such thing, but I have read enough about it to know that even most of the reognized Zen masters I've read about spent at least a decade full time meditating and studying the sutras before they were able to devleop the concentration of mind to have any real breakthroughs with regards to their practice. To be a bit facetious here, making the kind of categgorical statements about Budhism that this gentleman has after a whopping four years of part-time meditation is like a Christian convert saying "Well, I've been going to church for five years now and I can't speak in tongues or heal the sick. Therefore, Christianity is a load of crap." As for Buddhism being as strictly rational as mathematics, it's not nor does it claim to be. Many (but not all) Buddhists believe in reincarnation, for example, and the Tibetans in particular believe in many metaphysical things. Even if it is nontheistic, it is still a religion with its mystical component that it claims cannot be accessed by rational thought which is limited by language. In fact, as I understand it (and any comments and corrections by any bona fide long-time Zen practitioners would be appreciated here), much of Zen training specifically seeks to break to the mind from its reliance on everyday rational modes of thought and all the famous Zen shouting and irrational actions are part of the Zen attempt to communicate states of mind uncommunicable by language. The charge of "nihilism" is as old as Buddhism itself and usually made by those who don't understand Buddhism's emphasis on compassion, restraint of the desires and its moral content. The medieval Neo-confucians, who were the closest thing Asia has produced to a native version of western monotheism's famous intolerance, seemed to imagine that the Buddhist monasteries were full of nihilistic Richard Specks when obviously this was not the case. I suggest you examine any of the Buddhist works that answer the charges of the Neo-confucians. Happy reading. Also, Westerners who erly on the western definitions of "empty" and "unreal" often make mistakes when trying to deal with the Buddhist conception of those terms. There are plenty of books on Buddhist philosophy that address this error in far more detail than I can here. My post wil already be too long without it. All I can say is go learn for yourself what Buddhists mean when they say that everything is "empty". It's not what you (or Horgan, apparently) think it is. Zen masters in particular are famous for using direct methods to shock their students out of their ordinary ways of thought and to get them to move beyond their own petty egos. For hyper-egoistic Americans who desperately cling to their little super-ego selves as things completely and absolutely separate from the rest of the universe, this seems the hight of horror. From what I understand of the Buddhist perspective, though, I believe they would claim that such attempts to help the student let go of their ego and everyday mind are done out of the most beneficent compassion by the teacher and understod as such by the student after the student has attained somerealization. Let me put it this way: Remember "Karate Kid" when Pat Morita made Ralph Maccio wax his car? "Wax on, wax off" and all that? And Maccio was all like "What's up with this? This guy isn't teaching me, he's abusing me!" but then later Maccio realizes the reason for "wax on, wax off"? Remember that? That's kind of what Buddhist teachers do too. As for Chogyam Trungpa, I have no idea what his story was. Even if he was the drunk that Horgan portrays, that's sad but at least he wasn't fondling little boys in the sacristy or starting religious wars or pogroms. Or flying jet planes into buildings. And Horgan makes another elemental mistake (common among American dillettantes, apparently) in assumnig that the goal of meitation is some insipid version of "bliss" or "happiness". Any half-serious student of Buddhist belief, even me, knows that's a load of dualistic hooey. There's also this gem from the article: "All religions, including Buddhism, stem from our narcissistic wish to believe that the universe was created for our benefit, as a stage for our spiritual quests." Anyone who has spent any time reviewing Buddhist practice knows that much of it is precisely to get beyond such an ego-centric dualistic view of the universe. This assertion could not be more wrong if it tried. Finally, monasticism is also for women too and is meant to be temporary, at least in the Mahayana tradition. Monasticism is seen as the best a means to an end. I point you in the direction of the "10 Oxherding Pictures" which are meant as a metaphor for the proper spiritual life. In the last picture, the spiritual adept goes back into society after he has become enlightened. In Mahayana Buddhism with its emphasis on becoming a compassionate bodhisattva acting IN the world to help all beings, not attempting to escape from it, it is common for monks whose spiritual attainment has satisfied the master to return to lay life where they can truly manifest their spirituality in the sexual, romantic and social realms. So, I don't put too much stock in this article. I mean, if even I, who am no expert in Buddhist philosophy and practice myself, can spot its fundamental flaws in the understanding of these topics then I have to wonder how much meditation or learning Horgan actually did in his four years of "study". He certainly never actually talked to a qualified Buddhist teacher who would have caught such elementary errors as Horgan makes in his article. That said, your attempt to try to make up for the fact that the western monotheisms have created or enabled more violence than Buddhism by citing this article as proof that Buddhism is horrible just shows how desperate you've become to avoid the obvious, especially as I have long ago made my point regarding the hypocrisy of some (but not all, Mike!) Christians condemning Islam as somehow uniquely inherently violent and even given what I'd hoped was my final explanation for trolling those particular "Christians" and hoping to get them to experience first hand what it feels like to have their own religion attacked from outside as being "violent" had been played out but you seem to wish to continue fighting this long-finished battle because of your personal investment in believing that Christianty as a doctrine and a social institution is somehow incapable of any faults. Well, Senor Quixote, you have my permission to continue tilting at the windmills in your mind. Charge, Sancho, CHARGE!!!!
A girl in one of my classes says its possible to be Buddhist and Christian at the same time, how would that work?? Alex
I know you will disagree, but I don't think that only Axis Alex or 700 Club viewers are in denial about Christianity's historical record. I also think lots of mainstream Christians, let alone the hopeless fundies, are ignorant about the continuing potential for the use of the Bible and subsequent teachings by Christian leaders throughout history to be used for violent ends. It's always easiest to see "the other guy" as the biggest threat, not "our own" people as a threat. This means that in America and at this time, the focus has not surprisingly been on Islam as somehow uniquely violent when Christianity shares many of the qualities that non-Muslim Americans gleefuly point out in Islam. If it were the other way around, I'd have been pointing at the Quran passages and subsequent teachings of Islamic leaders to remind them that they are also not immune to religiously motivated violence. I'm sorry if that has been your experience. However, you might wish to ask yourself why all these people feel the need to point out some of the potentialities inherent in what Christianity has become. Why not see them as compassionately trying to help you avoid sending your hard-earned money to Pat Robertson, as off base as their concern may be? Or at least accept it as God's way of keeping you humble and on your toes with regards to possible pitfalls that snare the people who DO end up as fundamentalists. The good Lord doth work in mysterious ways, after all, or so I hear. If I just tell people "It sucks to have your religion attacked as violent so kindy cease and desist from such activity", that's too easily ignored. But if they themselves can experience that suckitude for themselves, that MIGHT lead them to reflect on that experience. As a master salesman once told me "If I say something, it's bullsit because I'm a salesman and therefore automatcially 'a liar'. But if I can get THEM to say it, then that same statement magically becomes true because nobody thinks of themselves as full of crap." That said, you're right that it's not very likely that I'll change Ian's mind but then I know this Forum has a large "peanut gallery" (Say "Hi" to all the nice folks, Mike!) while human stupidity and intellectual and spiritual laziness means that not many will learn, if only ONE person can gain a previously non-existent compassion for the hated Muslims based on having that experience, my efforts have been rewarded. I was hoping that superdave would be smart enough to look at the moon and not keep staring at my finger but I was apparently mistaken. My bad.
That's, in part, what most of us think, isn't it? Otherwise, why speak at all? Particularly, why come here?
In my experience, this is a poor interpretation of the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path; the former talks not about detachment from ordinary life, but rather about how specific attachments (as opposed to universal, "common" compassion) lead to suffering, and the latter is a way of living the quite ordinary life, manifesting general compassion, and avoiding the suffering that comes from specfic attachments (i.e., valuing one thing over, or to the exclusion of others, instead of trying to perceive the relationship all things have with all other things, and valuing everything in that way)...
You're so far off base I'm LOL'ing. Meditate some more, and maybe enlightenment will come to you. THAT would be cause for thankful prayer. Mike hit this, but I think it's a perfect symbol of your rampant ego that you think you're being original. It's like a college freshman writing a scathing pro-life or pro-choice for the college paper, and being proud of the persuasive power of the work. It's sorta cute from a freshman; what's your extenuating circumstances? Well, if this delusion makes you happy, have at it. Me, I think it's comedy gold. Projection has never been more perfectly demonstrated.
Fair enough, although... Here we'll just have to agree to disagree. Again, it's not just the right-wing crazies or Creationists who either think or are in danger of demonizing Muslims. *Godwin alert! Whoop! Whoop!* Goebeels had a point about the repetition of lies and I can go down to my local Border Books and find books that will seriously argue that Islam is somehow uniquely violent or "incapable of democracy". I'll just leave it at this since neither of us will change the other's mind on this. And why have Robertson and Tilton been allowed to hijack the "official voice of Christian Amercia"? Anyway, prejudgement is inevitable since we humans are not omniscient. Again, I'm sorry if you personally are feeling unfairly put upon. Believe me, as a "leftist" I know EXACTLY what that's like. My only suggestion is to at least try to remember WHY they think like that. I think that Christians like you would be doing themselves a great service by being as loud in your opposition to the likes of Phelps or Dobson as they are in trumpeting their nonsense. I know you do this in BigSoccer and I bet you do it in "real life" too. But, IMO, not enough Christians do and the silence, to secular or other non-Christian ears, is as deafening as the lack of voices in Islamic countries decrying the minority of violent Muslims. Easy there, killer. Finger and moon, Mike, finger and moon. Your self-restraint is admirable. As much as I may diss the fundies, I really do try to understand why they are as they are, going so far as to read their writings, and I do recognize the distinction between genuine (if, IMO, misguided) believers and the flat-out whack jobs. I don't even beat the crap out of the Moody Bible students who asked me if I'm saved as I walk down the street minding my own damn business. The genuine believers I feel sorry for as they are most likely good people who have fallen prey to con-men or self-deluded leaders. Their main fault, IMO, is that their psychological needs have conquered their reason and their intellectual integrity. Well, they wouldn't be the first and they won't be the last to suffer that sad fate. For the most part, though, theirs is an "honest mistake". At the same time, I'd be irresponsible if I forgot that such people have in the past been used as easily riled mobs by demagogues and while they're peaceful now, they may not always be so in some future time of great national or social stress. I'd say the best way to deal with them seriously would be patient dialogue but they've developed a number of amazingly effective psychological and doctrinal defenses that makes such attempts the job of saints, not us mere mortals. You're welcome. Sadly, not all Christians are as you have described them. If they were, the various threads you refer to would not have had nearly the number of responses they got. I'm sorry you take everything ever said about any Christian ever to be a personal attack on yourself. If Oklahoma is such a hotbed of anti-Christian abuse, I can well understand your touchiness. I can't control how you react to such things, however, and I make no apologies for saying things that I believe need to be said. No, you've (hopefully) learned that some lessons can't be taught in school textbooks but have to be experienced to be fully appreciated. Geez, I thought everyone who has had children or at least survived their teenage years would know that. *Warning, actual thread topic content!!* Consider it a lesson in how Zen Masters use counter-intuitive methods to teach their students.
Well, I could believe that I have all life's answers just because I have some old book that tells me I do because I have that book. I could also believe that I am "saved" because of said book and therefore I am better than everyone who doesn't think exactly as I do and is doomed to some horrible hell for all eternity, those poor godless infidels. So, I guess the answer to your question is "Yes", I could, in fact, be more egotistical than I already am, Mr. Pot.
Do you realize how sad this post (and this thread for that matter) makes you look? Do you think you're fooling anyone here? In all seriousness, do yourself a favor and get a Mod to delete this whole thread because this is the worst example of self-inflicted injury I've seen since Kurt Cobain.
WTF? Arise and smell the Juan Valdez! You tell me. Quality, not quantity, young Padawan. 9000-odd posts, and a self-celebrated Vicar (VICAR, for chrissakes!) embrace does neither acceptance nor erudition make...you're like my friend's great-grandmother...she talks incessantly now, in hopes that something, anything coherent will issue forth. Usually though, its only dribbles of spit.
I'll let you know if I find someone like whom you described. More projection. I'll pass. In all seriousness, you're so far off base wrt my faith. You're just making me into what you want me to be because you want to "win" the argument. So let me ask you...can you find some posts of mine that support your depiction of me? On one, specific thing, where in God's name did you get the idea I believe in hell? Still smilin'....at you, not with you. Tell us some more about those evil fundamentalists who caricature their enemies and rile up their followers with blatant misunderstandings and misreadings. It'll be especially great if you can cite 79 books you've read on the subject.
If you wish to discuss Buddhism rationally (which would be very difficult for you since you know nothing about it), fine. I'll do what little I can to carry my end of reasonable convo. If you merely wish to continue making an ass of yourself, however, you're on your own.
??? Nah, I just wanted to make fun of you. It's just so comical, your need to bash western monotheistic Manicheanism with your own brand of Manicheanism. And it's funny how when I point out various weaknesses in your arguments, or try to engage you in any way, you use that as proof of my Falwellian theology. The word for the day, boys and girls, is projection.
Not to mention those dangerous socialists and the French, of course. I'll grant you that there's truth in this if you grant me that there is some truth in the saying "perception is reality". If most people think of Falwell or even Ned Flanders when they hear the word "Christian", it doesn't matter what the objective situation is. Again, as a leftist, I know EXACTLY what that's all about. If most people here believe the Soviet Union was the only possible form of socialism, then (to them) that's reality and all I can do is try to correct them. As long as you keep that "all" firmly in mind. Yeah, but compared to, say, my Presbyterian minister friend (and her COC hubby), Dobson looks a lot like Phelps, the difference being in degree. [cheap shot]Isn't that what you already do?[/cheap shot] Didn't I already go out of my way to absolve you personally from that particular criticism? What, am I typing in invisible ink here? And you say you're not taking everything personally.... Never said that was the case. However, since there aren't many Jains here.... I bet he listens to Limbaugh or O'Reilly when you're not around. You're welcome. On what? The joy of sleeplessness? Seriously, I admire parents for the difficult road they've chosen while at the same time the missus and I have no desire to add to an already crowded world that has too many kids who aren't wanted. If we ever do decide that we can't live without the pitter patter of little feet, we'll adopt. It's implied. As opposed to what? Striking out on their own in fearless individualism? Perhaps, but I doubt they do so in large numbers. Anyway, even if "all" is not 100% accurate, enough are to keep the accuracy of my post mostly intact. See what? I'm sorry, but I don't see how attempting to take the Bible absolutely literally despite all the preponderance of evidence that it was not even meant to be read that way can represent anything other than the triumph of psychopathology over reason. If they did that with any other book ("Lyle, Lyle Crocodile" - hey, crocodiles CAN TALK, buddy! - or "Lord of the Rings", for example) they'd be locked up. As ye reap so shall ye so. Shame on the other groups for resorting to fundie tactics. While it's wrong, it's also understandable, isn't it, given the "Christians" starting the crap? That's the problem of "revenge", though. It simply keeps the downward spiral rolling. Do I really need to point at Israel for proof? Well, I have the same problems with them that I have with dogmatic Marxists, racists and libertarians - you can't have a meaningful discussion with someone who is completely unwilling to admit even the possibility that he might be mistaken on anything or concede that anyone else can possibly have something of value to say. This Forum is proof enough of that. I welcome positive argumentation by the Christians here. I was raised Christian and I've taken much time to learn about it about is as a belief systemand a socio-historical institution and while I no longer share the beliefs, I don't mind discussing what I know and learning what I don't know. What I don't welcome is the above and also frivolous personal attacks and non-seqiturs ala superdave whenever he tries to talk religion. Fair enough. If you say so, but it sure seems that way at times. If you don't understand that admittedly somewhat exaggerated reaction, read your history or look at what goes on in some Muslim countries today. Think about what would happen if the Robertsons and Falwells had their way. I know it's not fair to you because you're not going to turn the USA into medieval Spain complete with The Inquisition (what a show!) but the Founding Fathers wanted the separation of church and state for a reason and while I could be wrong, I think most Amercians still agree with the concept. Assuming the same is also true of Buddhism, Islam, Rastafarianism and all other religions, at least nobody has an unfair advantage. I guess you can take solace in such contradictions of the separation of church and state as swearing in the Bible in court (what do atheists, Buddhists or Hindus swear on?) and "In God We Trust" on all our money. Nor, within reason, should you. Sad, but true. I'm sure there are idiot Buddhists and socialists and free-thinkers and Fire fans out there. Scratch that, I KNOW there are. And I don't mind people having opinions that differ from mine. At some time and some place, you have to (metaphorically speaking) shit or get off the pot, at least until better information comes along. And different people will have different intersts. It's in a fortune 500 CEO's niterst that as much social power as possible be placed into the hands of CEOs whereas it's not in anyone else's best interests. So yeah, there's gonna be genuine honest conflict there. If people want to argue with me, though, they'd better be prepared to defend themselves reasonably and honestly without resorting to cheap sophistry if they wish me to return the favor. Depends on the situation. The trolling in question wasn't directed at you personally but at those who needed it. If you mistook yourself for being the one under attack again there's not much I can do. If you're ever ni doubt, you could always ask if I mean you, Mike Segroves, or just the nutcases instead of getting all defensive.
Which is promptly contradicted by.... The closest you've come to "pointing out weaknesses" in any argument I've made was to post a hella weak attack on Buddhism that I answered to even Mike's satisfaction. The rest has been nothing but insults that you erroneously imagine are just soooooo devastating. By your obvious mistaking of having an educated opinion for "manichean dualism", however, you only prove that what you know about "manicheanism" and "dualism" (and "projection" for that matter) couldn't fill a postage stamp using a size 14 font. Really, you may think you're being some clever troll but you're not even doing that very well at all. You're far better off sticking with things you know in poltical threads because you're drinking deeply from the River Suck in here. See you in some political thread where you actually have something relevant to say.
My mistake. I should have been clearer on the "when" of everything. I used to try to engage your arguments, but now I just make fun of you. Does that make it clearer? Well, I'm clever enough that you keep resonding. A while back I realized the game you were up to, and I've just been havin' fun since then. You're taking this thread too seriously. I would have thought the title was a dead giveaway as to the seriousness (or lack thereof) of the thread, but I guess not. I am serious about you're Goebbels' like projection, tho. Textbook.