I don’t understand how this pertains to Buddhism. Myanmar, a brutal authoritarian country ruled by a military autocratic junta is committing atrocities against its population, both Buddhist and Muslim.
Unlike Abrahamic religions, there is not a single part of Buddha’s teachings nor a single school of Buddhism that would condone this. Myanmar happens to be a Buddhist country, whose government acts this way. The bible, the q’ran and the tora all incite violence on some sort of people, be it gays, polytheists, infidels, apostates, you name it, but not a single word in Buddhism ever speaks in favor of violence.
Seems like a stretch to peg this on Buddhism. If Myanmar was not Buddhist, they would act the exact same way. This is more a Myanmar thing, rather than a Buddhist thing. This is like ascribing Nazi crimes to Christianity because Germans happened to be Christians during Nazi rule. The crimes derive from governmental nationalism operation, not from religious teachings. The bible god may have said that gays deserve to die, but did not say Jews deserve to be killed. Crusades and the inquisition are Christian crimes, Nazism is an ideology crime, same as Myanmar nationalism.
If you knew anything about Buddhism, you would know that violence goes against everything Buddhists believe. There is no justified violence in Buddhism. There is no right justification to be violent in Buddhism. Being violent is proof you do not understand Buddhism in any way. I challenge anyone to bring me proof of any teachings of Buddha that condones what is happening in Myanmar. Literally any verse, any koan, any quote, anything at all. Anything that shows that Buddhism encouraged Myanmar to act this way. If someone who calls themselves Buddhist goes around murdering people, even though in all history of Buddhism, never once violence was called for in any teachings, can you honestly say it is Buddhism that is flawed here ? Can you be intellectually honest and still say Buddhism incited Myanmar to commit genocide ?
Your second paragraph details my understanding of Buddhism and why I asked. I have also recently read that The Buddha is not considered a god. It seems to me that Buddhism is more akin to philosophy than religion.
Siddathrata was never ever just a man in Buddhism. There are verses where he talks about coming back to earth to help humanity. Must be dozens of distinct fairytales about his birth alone let alone his physical form.
If you met a being that came from heaven to save humanity, was budded off a women’s side instead of normal birth or C-section, who walked as a newborn while flowers grew in his footsteps, who as an adult could spin his hands 360, could warp time and space to avoid knife stabs, whose ears were so long he could suck them, who had webbing that glowed between his super long fingers, soles of feet like a turtle shell, stood 7 cubits tall, could will falling boulders away from himself without even noticing, a natural palm pattern of a thousand spoke wheel, could summon a 7 headed snake as an umbrella, could meditate for 40 days without stop would you call that being human?
This part of the world is a lot like the west before monotheism took over. They have loads of gods. While true that some writers tried to emphasis his humanity they are few and far between.
If Buddhism is not a religion I truly do not know what a religion means. All those people at the temples I have been to, making offerings, engaging in OCD like rituals, seeking blessings, praying, chanting, seem like they were doinf religion to me.
I’m no expert but I’m pretty sure there’s both a religion and a philosophy. Taoism and confucianism are the ones that are more philosophical than religious but even taoism has a fair amount of woo baked in. Don’t know shit about confucianism except all the times Lao Tse pokes at Kung Tse in the Zhuangzhi, which is probably a bit skewed perspective. I made a cursory study of some of Eastern philosophy a few years back. Went a bit into the religious aspects but lacked the cultural background to properly understand without a teacher so I stuck mostly to just the philosophy (which was far less inscrutable than the Zhuangzhi, for example). It’s a western mistake to necessarily separate the two, from what I understand. Still worth trying to understand tho.
Of course there is both. You can say the same thing about every religion that has established itself. There have been great minds who wrote stuff down in all the major faiths. I don’t think theists are dumb people. You can for example study Thomas Aquinas and I dare anyone to say he wasn’t sharp but that won’t make Catholicism not a religion.
You are correct. Buddhism is indeed more akin to a philosophy to find meaning in life and to act in a way that minimizes suffering to yourself and others through compassion.
Although there is a lot of mythology regarding reincarnation and energies, but the old nature of Buddhism makes it so not everything is clear crystal whether it was stated by Buddha or not. Moreover, like Hinduism, a lot of things explained by the Buddha were metaphors that explain processes that are hard to explain unless you have a clear understanding of science that didn’t exist back when Buddhism was founded, or were analogies to better explain them. Stuff like the cosmic wheel, energies, that sort of thing.
Additionally, many myths were created around the image of Buddha that were embellishments added at a later date, not just to the teachings, but to the man himself. You could say that if some Buddhist believes in something that it is part of Buddhism, but Buddhism is a personal journey that each person must take themselves and see. The Buddha always said that each one of us must take that journey and learn the things he learned himself. He is no prophet, nor god, but a man who understood part of the rules of the universe and that each person could too. This is why Buddhist teachings take the form of koans. Small, confusing tales meant to make you think deeply upon certain characteristics of the universe, to help you reach the same conclusions as he did by yourself. “If two hands make a clapping sound, what is the sound of one hand ?” This is one such koan, what does it teach you about life, society and the universe? It’s not quick and easy. You’re supposed to sit and think about it. Even if i tell you what i think it means, you’ll only understand my perspective on it based on my life experiences. Your lesson might take a different explanation than mine based on your own life, which is why koans have no universal solution. They’re meant to replicate thought patterns and realizations that are bespoke to each intelligent being. No one can spoonfeed you Buddhism. It requires agency, thought and doubt.
This is why the Dalai Lama said that if science proves Buddhism wrong, Buddhism adopts the scientific explanations. Buddha was a man that came across some fundamental insights into being happy. Sooner or later these insights will be discovered and proven by science, much like the benefits of meditation were, and will be explained in scientific terms. Meditation helps you focus and being at peace because it reduces the activity in the Default Mode Network of the brain. Buddha could not explain the default mode network. He probably didn’t know what those words even meant. But he knew that “Meditation brings wisdom. Lack of meditation leaves ignorance. Know well that leads you forward and what holds you back.”
I can understand the weariness of some people about religion. I can understand the distrust about Buddhism. Yet i can appreciate that everyone has their own internal journey and doubting Buddhism is an integral part of it. I too began by thinking Buddhism made no sense, until it did. Because of this exact reason, there are no heretics in Buddhism.
It isn’t an apples to apple comparison. Buddhism lacks an equivalent to the Koran or Bible. The Pali Canon is closer to the Talmud merged with the Gospels. The result is massive tomb of long theology arguments with stories about the “perfect” founder. It doesn’t have the messy horror of what happens next like other religions recorded. Who knows what terror Buddhist kings led and were recorded?
I see we aren’t going to mention what the Tibet government did to heretics. Fine, screw intellectual honesty
Here is the real problem with Buddhism: it breaks every country it takes over. You can go right now to South East Asia and see everywhere the poverty those people live under. Then walk into a “small” temple and have your mind broken with how impressive it is. The entire resources of a people, their best minds, their main output of labor, all of it invested in this one thing. This replicating meme that bankrupted them. Every single time I go my brain melts seeing a small town village temple that wipes the floor with anything the west produced.
And 2. You once again misunderstood the fact that Buddhism is not a system of government. It is a religion that is more akin to a philosophy. It is impossible to follow the Buddhist religion and cause terrors, because Buddhism is centered around compassion and acceptance. Buddhism never set any guidelines to create a system of government, in fact, governments are in themselves anti thetical to what Buddhism is meant to accomplish. Buddhists were, since times immemorial, monks who lived out of charity. Buddha explains how ownership creates suffering, for everything you own, you have to obtain, then you have to defend. Buddha himself was a ruler who gave up ruling. So whatever Buddhist “kings” did was beyond Buddhism.
3 . Buddhism has no problem. Buddhism measures success in joy and lack of suffering. You measure success in material possessions. Those people living in poverty live happier than you living in abject luxury, for if they lose everything, they will still lose nothing. To me it seems pretty successful. To understand why they are happy, even though they don’t have a perfectly insulated and heated home, a Tesla car, they don’t eat Ribeye every week and make 100k a year while working on their corporate insurance job, is a journey that you yourself will have to take to understand. I can understand that being a western citizen and always measuring things in profits can make this journey quite confusing, but Buddha himself was the wealthiest man of his kingdom and his teachings show us that he was no more special than any of us.
Eastern religions, like Taoism and Buddhism, teach that in this life, taking more than what you need is pointless. When you die, you take nothing. It’s like buying a street legal car with the engine of a Ferrari. If everyone has the same amount to spend on a car, why spend it on an engine that is more than you need for the task ? Instead, followers of these religions spend their time not in obtaining more wealth that will be irrelevant once they die, but in developing themselves, mentally and spiritually, which is what they believe is what you take with you once you die.
Your first point is a rehashing the claim every religion makes. The religion is perfect and blameless, it is the people who are wrong.
Your second point was just a load of crap. First off for a people so happy I wonder why they work so hard to leave. Secondly I don’t know where you got the idea that South East Asians don’t eat well, certainly not from experience. Best freaken food on earth. Third I have you know I don’t work for an insurance company and drive a Honda Civic.
Your third point is also crap. The Bible says the exact same thing and you act like you invented it. How many times does Jesus complain about people making money? A freaken lot. Your argue for self improvement was also not great since you don’t exactly produce any metrics for it.
Well then i have nothing else to explain to you. You asked for me to explain, so i did. You say everything is crap and clearly miss the forest for the trees. I never said asians don’t eat well, the point wasn’t about your specific car and job, Buddhism is older than the bible (like way, way, way older) and you still try to apply metrics to spiritual self development.
You’re either not ready to understand or I’m not the one with the ability to explain Buddhism to your specific person. Either way, I’m not forcing Buddhism on you, nor i have any intentions to convert you. My point is merely that governmental rule is not covered by Buddhist teachings. What Myanmar and Tibet do are not Buddhism because Buddhism has zero guidelines about governance of a country. Buddhism is about self development. Buddhism calls for the exact opposite of genocide and there is no inconsistency about this. That is all.
A. It isn’t really that much older than the Bible. Jesus is a fictional character cobbled together from the likes of Jeremiah and Elijah. So while it was fully written down until 800 years after Siddharth it isn’t like the ideas it borrowed from didn’t come from closer to the his time. Plus the main body of works behind Buddhism date from the 6th century.
B. Forests are made out of trees last I checked. You tried to stereotype me because dealing with a stereotype is easier than dealing with a human. You have zero clue what my profession is, if I enjoy it, how I eat, what I consider important. You built a strawman of me and somehow this is my fault.
C. Government rule isn’t in the NT either. That didn’t stop Rome.
D. What happened in Tibet is as much Buddhism as the crusades were Christian. It is part of the tradition like it or not. You don’t get to claim the good and ignore the bad. Just like you don’t get to claim I work for an insurance company and drive a Tesla.
It is much older than the bible from an entirely different culture, which had little contact with Abrahamic religion cultures. Buddha’s words weren’t even written for hundreds of years, so by your own statement, you’re comparing the body of works that were written centuries after Buddha’s teachings with something that was just beginning to be written centuries later. Additionally, on the original comment you specifically referred to Jesus. As far as I’m aware, Jesus is only featured in the new testament, so you’re comparing two things that are a thousand years apart. I’m not saying one thing influenced other, but if it did, there’s only one way this could have gone down.
English is your native language, I’m not going to explain the meaning “missing the forest for the trees”. I don’t need to know your profession. You know why what i said wasn’t a strawman ? Because it wasn’t even about you. I did not specifically speak once about you in my statement. I explained why those people can be happy without the things i mentioned, in the context of western luxuries and poverty. You were not a part of it, i did not say it was you, i did not allude to a characterization of your person. You inserted yourself in it and then claimed strawman of your own volition. I’m sorry but that’s just not how rhetoric works.
So you ignore the entirety of the Bible and only bring up the new testament, even though Christianity itself endorses the Bible as canon law and doesn’t exist without it ? There are clear mentions of God’s law on how to rule a government throughout the entirety of the bible. Are we supposed to ignore that ? I guess that does track in regards to Christianity.
The crusades were called upon based on canon law that to enter the kindom of heaven, to kill enemies of Christ was seen as basically the golden ticket, which is why the Crusading armies did it. They didn’t do it for France, for Rome, for the Pope or Papal states. They did it in the name of Jesus Christ and the Christian faith. I’m not the one selectively ignoring things here, my dear non insurance, Honda driving gentleman (or lady, or other).
No people’s ever took up arms and said “I shall kill these people in the name of Siddhartha Gautama”. No monk ever called for action saying “If you wish to escape Samsara and attain Nirvana, pick up arms and kill these people in the name of Siddhartha Gautama.” Or “I know while killing these people, Siddhartha Gautama will be with me”. Going to war in the name of Buddhism would be complete nonsense, which is why nobody ever did it. I cannot make this any clearer than it is already.
I don’t understand how this pertains to Buddhism. Myanmar, a brutal authoritarian country ruled by a military autocratic junta is committing atrocities against its population, both Buddhist and Muslim.
Unlike Abrahamic religions, there is not a single part of Buddha’s teachings nor a single school of Buddhism that would condone this. Myanmar happens to be a Buddhist country, whose government acts this way. The bible, the q’ran and the tora all incite violence on some sort of people, be it gays, polytheists, infidels, apostates, you name it, but not a single word in Buddhism ever speaks in favor of violence.
Seems like a stretch to peg this on Buddhism. If Myanmar was not Buddhist, they would act the exact same way. This is more a Myanmar thing, rather than a Buddhist thing. This is like ascribing Nazi crimes to Christianity because Germans happened to be Christians during Nazi rule. The crimes derive from governmental nationalism operation, not from religious teachings. The bible god may have said that gays deserve to die, but did not say Jews deserve to be killed. Crusades and the inquisition are Christian crimes, Nazism is an ideology crime, same as Myanmar nationalism.
If you knew anything about Buddhism, you would know that violence goes against everything Buddhists believe. There is no justified violence in Buddhism. There is no right justification to be violent in Buddhism. Being violent is proof you do not understand Buddhism in any way. I challenge anyone to bring me proof of any teachings of Buddha that condones what is happening in Myanmar. Literally any verse, any koan, any quote, anything at all. Anything that shows that Buddhism encouraged Myanmar to act this way. If someone who calls themselves Buddhist goes around murdering people, even though in all history of Buddhism, never once violence was called for in any teachings, can you honestly say it is Buddhism that is flawed here ? Can you be intellectually honest and still say Buddhism incited Myanmar to commit genocide ?
Your second paragraph details my understanding of Buddhism and why I asked. I have also recently read that The Buddha is not considered a god. It seems to me that Buddhism is more akin to philosophy than religion.
Siddathrata was never ever just a man in Buddhism. There are verses where he talks about coming back to earth to help humanity. Must be dozens of distinct fairytales about his birth alone let alone his physical form.
If you met a being that came from heaven to save humanity, was budded off a women’s side instead of normal birth or C-section, who walked as a newborn while flowers grew in his footsteps, who as an adult could spin his hands 360, could warp time and space to avoid knife stabs, whose ears were so long he could suck them, who had webbing that glowed between his super long fingers, soles of feet like a turtle shell, stood 7 cubits tall, could will falling boulders away from himself without even noticing, a natural palm pattern of a thousand spoke wheel, could summon a 7 headed snake as an umbrella, could meditate for 40 days without stop would you call that being human?
This part of the world is a lot like the west before monotheism took over. They have loads of gods. While true that some writers tried to emphasis his humanity they are few and far between.
If Buddhism is not a religion I truly do not know what a religion means. All those people at the temples I have been to, making offerings, engaging in OCD like rituals, seeking blessings, praying, chanting, seem like they were doinf religion to me.
I’m no expert but I’m pretty sure there’s both a religion and a philosophy. Taoism and confucianism are the ones that are more philosophical than religious but even taoism has a fair amount of woo baked in. Don’t know shit about confucianism except all the times Lao Tse pokes at Kung Tse in the Zhuangzhi, which is probably a bit skewed perspective. I made a cursory study of some of Eastern philosophy a few years back. Went a bit into the religious aspects but lacked the cultural background to properly understand without a teacher so I stuck mostly to just the philosophy (which was far less inscrutable than the Zhuangzhi, for example). It’s a western mistake to necessarily separate the two, from what I understand. Still worth trying to understand tho.
Of course there is both. You can say the same thing about every religion that has established itself. There have been great minds who wrote stuff down in all the major faiths. I don’t think theists are dumb people. You can for example study Thomas Aquinas and I dare anyone to say he wasn’t sharp but that won’t make Catholicism not a religion.
You are correct. Buddhism is indeed more akin to a philosophy to find meaning in life and to act in a way that minimizes suffering to yourself and others through compassion.
Although there is a lot of mythology regarding reincarnation and energies, but the old nature of Buddhism makes it so not everything is clear crystal whether it was stated by Buddha or not. Moreover, like Hinduism, a lot of things explained by the Buddha were metaphors that explain processes that are hard to explain unless you have a clear understanding of science that didn’t exist back when Buddhism was founded, or were analogies to better explain them. Stuff like the cosmic wheel, energies, that sort of thing.
Additionally, many myths were created around the image of Buddha that were embellishments added at a later date, not just to the teachings, but to the man himself. You could say that if some Buddhist believes in something that it is part of Buddhism, but Buddhism is a personal journey that each person must take themselves and see. The Buddha always said that each one of us must take that journey and learn the things he learned himself. He is no prophet, nor god, but a man who understood part of the rules of the universe and that each person could too. This is why Buddhist teachings take the form of koans. Small, confusing tales meant to make you think deeply upon certain characteristics of the universe, to help you reach the same conclusions as he did by yourself. “If two hands make a clapping sound, what is the sound of one hand ?” This is one such koan, what does it teach you about life, society and the universe? It’s not quick and easy. You’re supposed to sit and think about it. Even if i tell you what i think it means, you’ll only understand my perspective on it based on my life experiences. Your lesson might take a different explanation than mine based on your own life, which is why koans have no universal solution. They’re meant to replicate thought patterns and realizations that are bespoke to each intelligent being. No one can spoonfeed you Buddhism. It requires agency, thought and doubt.
This is why the Dalai Lama said that if science proves Buddhism wrong, Buddhism adopts the scientific explanations. Buddha was a man that came across some fundamental insights into being happy. Sooner or later these insights will be discovered and proven by science, much like the benefits of meditation were, and will be explained in scientific terms. Meditation helps you focus and being at peace because it reduces the activity in the Default Mode Network of the brain. Buddha could not explain the default mode network. He probably didn’t know what those words even meant. But he knew that “Meditation brings wisdom. Lack of meditation leaves ignorance. Know well that leads you forward and what holds you back.”
I can understand the weariness of some people about religion. I can understand the distrust about Buddhism. Yet i can appreciate that everyone has their own internal journey and doubting Buddhism is an integral part of it. I too began by thinking Buddhism made no sense, until it did. Because of this exact reason, there are no heretics in Buddhism.
It isn’t an apples to apple comparison. Buddhism lacks an equivalent to the Koran or Bible. The Pali Canon is closer to the Talmud merged with the Gospels. The result is massive tomb of long theology arguments with stories about the “perfect” founder. It doesn’t have the messy horror of what happens next like other religions recorded. Who knows what terror Buddhist kings led and were recorded?
I see we aren’t going to mention what the Tibet government did to heretics. Fine, screw intellectual honesty
Here is the real problem with Buddhism: it breaks every country it takes over. You can go right now to South East Asia and see everywhere the poverty those people live under. Then walk into a “small” temple and have your mind broken with how impressive it is. The entire resources of a people, their best minds, their main output of labor, all of it invested in this one thing. This replicating meme that bankrupted them. Every single time I go my brain melts seeing a small town village temple that wipes the floor with anything the west produced.
3 . Buddhism has no problem. Buddhism measures success in joy and lack of suffering. You measure success in material possessions. Those people living in poverty live happier than you living in abject luxury, for if they lose everything, they will still lose nothing. To me it seems pretty successful. To understand why they are happy, even though they don’t have a perfectly insulated and heated home, a Tesla car, they don’t eat Ribeye every week and make 100k a year while working on their corporate insurance job, is a journey that you yourself will have to take to understand. I can understand that being a western citizen and always measuring things in profits can make this journey quite confusing, but Buddha himself was the wealthiest man of his kingdom and his teachings show us that he was no more special than any of us.
Eastern religions, like Taoism and Buddhism, teach that in this life, taking more than what you need is pointless. When you die, you take nothing. It’s like buying a street legal car with the engine of a Ferrari. If everyone has the same amount to spend on a car, why spend it on an engine that is more than you need for the task ? Instead, followers of these religions spend their time not in obtaining more wealth that will be irrelevant once they die, but in developing themselves, mentally and spiritually, which is what they believe is what you take with you once you die.
Your first point is a rehashing the claim every religion makes. The religion is perfect and blameless, it is the people who are wrong.
Your second point was just a load of crap. First off for a people so happy I wonder why they work so hard to leave. Secondly I don’t know where you got the idea that South East Asians don’t eat well, certainly not from experience. Best freaken food on earth. Third I have you know I don’t work for an insurance company and drive a Honda Civic.
Your third point is also crap. The Bible says the exact same thing and you act like you invented it. How many times does Jesus complain about people making money? A freaken lot. Your argue for self improvement was also not great since you don’t exactly produce any metrics for it.
Well then i have nothing else to explain to you. You asked for me to explain, so i did. You say everything is crap and clearly miss the forest for the trees. I never said asians don’t eat well, the point wasn’t about your specific car and job, Buddhism is older than the bible (like way, way, way older) and you still try to apply metrics to spiritual self development.
You’re either not ready to understand or I’m not the one with the ability to explain Buddhism to your specific person. Either way, I’m not forcing Buddhism on you, nor i have any intentions to convert you. My point is merely that governmental rule is not covered by Buddhist teachings. What Myanmar and Tibet do are not Buddhism because Buddhism has zero guidelines about governance of a country. Buddhism is about self development. Buddhism calls for the exact opposite of genocide and there is no inconsistency about this. That is all.
A. It isn’t really that much older than the Bible. Jesus is a fictional character cobbled together from the likes of Jeremiah and Elijah. So while it was fully written down until 800 years after Siddharth it isn’t like the ideas it borrowed from didn’t come from closer to the his time. Plus the main body of works behind Buddhism date from the 6th century.
B. Forests are made out of trees last I checked. You tried to stereotype me because dealing with a stereotype is easier than dealing with a human. You have zero clue what my profession is, if I enjoy it, how I eat, what I consider important. You built a strawman of me and somehow this is my fault.
C. Government rule isn’t in the NT either. That didn’t stop Rome.
D. What happened in Tibet is as much Buddhism as the crusades were Christian. It is part of the tradition like it or not. You don’t get to claim the good and ignore the bad. Just like you don’t get to claim I work for an insurance company and drive a Tesla.
It is much older than the bible from an entirely different culture, which had little contact with Abrahamic religion cultures. Buddha’s words weren’t even written for hundreds of years, so by your own statement, you’re comparing the body of works that were written centuries after Buddha’s teachings with something that was just beginning to be written centuries later. Additionally, on the original comment you specifically referred to Jesus. As far as I’m aware, Jesus is only featured in the new testament, so you’re comparing two things that are a thousand years apart. I’m not saying one thing influenced other, but if it did, there’s only one way this could have gone down.
English is your native language, I’m not going to explain the meaning “missing the forest for the trees”. I don’t need to know your profession. You know why what i said wasn’t a strawman ? Because it wasn’t even about you. I did not specifically speak once about you in my statement. I explained why those people can be happy without the things i mentioned, in the context of western luxuries and poverty. You were not a part of it, i did not say it was you, i did not allude to a characterization of your person. You inserted yourself in it and then claimed strawman of your own volition. I’m sorry but that’s just not how rhetoric works.
So you ignore the entirety of the Bible and only bring up the new testament, even though Christianity itself endorses the Bible as canon law and doesn’t exist without it ? There are clear mentions of God’s law on how to rule a government throughout the entirety of the bible. Are we supposed to ignore that ? I guess that does track in regards to Christianity.
The crusades were called upon based on canon law that to enter the kindom of heaven, to kill enemies of Christ was seen as basically the golden ticket, which is why the Crusading armies did it. They didn’t do it for France, for Rome, for the Pope or Papal states. They did it in the name of Jesus Christ and the Christian faith. I’m not the one selectively ignoring things here, my dear non insurance, Honda driving gentleman (or lady, or other).
No people’s ever took up arms and said “I shall kill these people in the name of Siddhartha Gautama”. No monk ever called for action saying “If you wish to escape Samsara and attain Nirvana, pick up arms and kill these people in the name of Siddhartha Gautama.” Or “I know while killing these people, Siddhartha Gautama will be with me”. Going to war in the name of Buddhism would be complete nonsense, which is why nobody ever did it. I cannot make this any clearer than it is already.