so whats with all the sectarian murder of muslims in burma by those so called peaceful buddhists ?-- i suppose we will have people saying they are not proper buddhists--but really , they are as intolerant as all other groups really....
they are as intolerant as all other groups really....
One news story and that's all Bhuddists exposed as terrorists, is that it?
including aethists then?
Bad people do bad things sometimes they believe in god[follow a religion] sometimes they dont sometimes they support a football team sometimes they dont etc.....iirc its a people problem and without religion tolerance will not suddenly blossom from the hearts of all
Not good behaviour though but that did not really need stating
One news story and that's all Bhuddists exposed as terrorists, is that it?
That's not what he said. If you really want to be argumentative, at least disagree with a point that was actually made ffs.
...its a people problem...
Isn't that the point though ?
If mountain bikers were running over walkers, saying they were doing it on behalf of STW, then the [i]people[/i] at STW would most likely take steps to stop it, or at least distance themselves from the extremists.
Why are omnipotent gods so reluctant to intervene when the actions of a few affect the image of all their worshipers ?
Why are omnipotent gods so reluctant to intervene when the actions of a few affect the image of all their worshipers ?
No God in Buddhism, dude, at least not in the Christian sense.
Bad people do bad things
But blind faith can make good people do bad things.
Buddhism isnt supposed to be a religion anyway, just a way of life.
big image problem for a religion that uses non-agressiveness as its USP--this does not appear as an isolated incident --if it was it would be dealt with surely--there is collusion here, with the state(police/army) aiding and abetting---
Hmmm, I've had a few people try to convince me that buddhism is not a religion in the conventional sense.
It does seem to follow the established format of a man at the top with an easy life, while everyone else does what they are told without asking questions, so I'm not so sure.
There may not be a bloke with a beard in the sky casting lightning bolts and turning people in to pillars of salt, but isn't there some sort of supernatural force, or whatever, that could stop this if it wanted to ?
It does seem to follow the established format of a man at the top with an easy life, while everyone else does what they are told without asking questions, so I'm not so sure.
Say whuuuuh?
Who's the 'man', MTG?
I've never really looked in to this, so could well be wrong, but isn't the Dalai Lama the sort of archbishop or pope of buddhism ?
I don't rule out the possiblity that there might be more to this life than the mundane world we see around us, I just have an intense distrust of anyone who claims to act as an intermediary.
Any god who can't be bothered to visit me personally, isn't worth worshiping.
hey Ninjas are buddists too
I've never really looked in to this, so could well be wrong, but isn't the Dalai Lama the sort of archbishop or pope of buddhism ?
Well, the Dalai Lama isn't really the equivalent to the Pope.
According to Tibetan Buddhism, he is the reincarnation of an ancient wise guy called Avalokite?vara, the bodhisattva of compassion. He has a kind of moral authority over Buddhists, Tibetan Buddhists particularly.
But in Buddhism, it's all about self-knowledge and enlightenment, not about a God per se.
for me , all religions are tied to states, they help each other, ideologically and physically, for buddhists to claim otherwise is disingenuous at least, dalai llama is just another leader of a big cult....like popey, and that pointy hat guy here.....
It's perhaps significant that rudebwoy hasn't set this in context: a row at a Muslim owned gold shop that resulted in violence, culminating in a Buddhist monk being murdered, (the shop owneres have been convicted of theft and violence), and previously the rape and murder of a Buddhist girl.
dalai llama is just another leader of a big cult....
The dalai llama? This guy?
[img] 
[/img]
Why does it have to be a "muslim owned" gold shop, not just a gold shop ?
As long as people identify themselves and, more importantly, other people, by their religion, I can't see this sort of thing ever ending.
The dalai llama? This guy?
thats him--he can appear in any guise apparently--but you have him relaxing at home...
Because it's not likely to be a Buddhist owned gold shop, or Christian or Jewish. 🙄Why does it have to be a "muslim owned" gold shop, not just a gold shop ?
I don't understand.
Do some religions not allow their followers to own gold shops while others do ?
Surely the point is this:
i suppose we will have people saying they are not proper buddhists--but really , they are as intolerant as all other groups really....
A tiny minority of practicing Buddhists are enraged by local circumstance and encourage/take part in violence. That, according to the Buddhist canon, it some seriously uncool behaviour.
But it speaks more of the inability of people - even some Buddhists - to see beyond their immediate problems than it does about the religion itself, which single-pointedly directs followers to look beyond inequality and injustice, to find the enlightenment beyond.
Buddhists are essentially peaceful, IMO. To slate the religion itself because some non-enlightened followers are not sufficiently enlightened to see beyond violence and retribution is missing the point.
I don't understand.
Do some religions not allow their followers to own gold shops while others do ?
Well, in the middle and far East, It's highly unlikely that a gold shop would be Christian owned, because gold isn't such an important part of the social makup; it's used for dowries and such like. Christians only make up 4% of the population in Burmah, the same as Moslems.
In any case, that's irrelevant, it happened to be Moslem owned, the owners kicked off when accused of theft and a monk got killed. If it had been a Christian owned shop, I'm sure the end result could have been the same, but it wasn't.
Burmah has been closed off for decades, we have no way of knowing what animosity has been building up for those years; the Taliban's destruction of highly symbolic Buddhist statues probably didn't help the relations between the two groups, either.
I don't understand.
Do some religions not allow their followers to own gold shops while others do ?
Well, in the middle and far East, It's highly unlikely that a gold shop would be Christian owned, because gold isn't such an important part of the social makup; it's used for dowries and such like. Christians only make up 4% of the population in Burmah, the same as Moslems.
In any case, that's irrelevant, it happened to be Moslem owned, the owners kicked off when accused of theft and a monk got killed. If it had been a Christian owned shop, I'm sure the end result could have been the same, but it wasn't.
Burmah has been closed off for decades, we have no way of knowing what animosity has been building up for those years; the Taliban's destruction of highly symbolic Buddhist statues probably didn't help the relations between the two groups, either.
they are as intolerant as all other groups really....
I took this to be branding Bhuddists as intolerant people generally.
I think that's a bit of a sweeping statement tbh.
It's perhaps significant that rudebwoy hasn't set this in context: a row at a Muslim owned gold shop that resulted in violence, culminating in a Buddhist monk being murdered, (the shop owneres have been convicted of theft and violence), and previously the rape and murder of a Buddhist girl.
Well, if you can't have faith in the hasty conviction by a Buddhist authoritarian military junta, what can you have faith in?
The fact that it was a Muslim-owned gold shop is relevant because of the massive beef between Muslims and Buddhists in the area - it was a spark for the pitchfork-wielders.
all religions claim to be enlightened, and i'm sure the vast majority of adherents are peaceful, but surely there is a problem with such an avowedly non aggressive strain as buddhism. It doesnt surprise me that this would occur, since religion is useful form of social control, but like all forms of control, they do go out sometimes....
As for the furry man in charge, found him to be very reactionary in his views......
It's not really a problem with Bhuddism, it's a problem with some people who claim to be Bhuddist, surely?
religion is useful form of social control, but like all forms of control, they do go out sometimes
In the context that the Buddha's teachings advocate non-violence, I can see where you're coming from. On the other hand, Buddhist philosophy sees beyond national boundaries and centres on the personal journey to the end goal of enlightenment.
Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned.
Are those who condone or engage in violence in Burma following the Buddha, or have they cast their reason aside?
what monks and the like ?
I'm learning stuff here. I'd never thought about Burma and what religion it's people are before. All I knew was that Burma and the USA are the only two countries in the world still using the imperial system of measurement.
I watched this video, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22243676 and there's nothing to convince me that buddhism is significantly different to any other religion.
If you base your beliefs on faith, not evidence, I suppose the only way to settle disagreements with people of different faiths is to start a fight.
All I knew was that Burma and the USA are the only two countries in the world still using the imperial system of measurement.
And Liberia too. Huh!
It's not really a problem with Bhuddism, it's a problem with some people who claim to be Bhuddist, surely?
*cough*No true scotsman*cough*
Burma VJ is well worth a watch.
[url]
there's nothing to convince me that buddhism is significantly different to any other religion.
you might want to reads its message tbh rather than looking at folk who are really bad at it fighting to work this out.
There may not be a bloke with a beard in the sky casting lightning bolts and turning people in to pillars of salt, but isn't there some sort of supernatural force, or whatever, that could stop this if it wanted to ?
No.
If you base your beliefs on faith, not evidence, I suppose the only way to settle disagreements with people of different faiths is to start a fight.
Buddhist beliefs are not based on faith. There is nothing to have faith in. There are stories which, like in other religions, have been bandied about for thousands of years, and they may or may not be true. But then that applies to much of our known history and in Buddhism it doesn't really matter if it's true.
I'm pretty sure events in Burma are based on circumstance and the human race. Buddhism really is the last 'religion' that would promote violent acts towards other groups. It is nothing like Western religions in that sense.
Of course, any group with influence and authority is potentially dangerous in the wrong hands.
rudebwoy - Memberso whats with all the sectarian murder of muslims in burma by those so called peaceful buddhists ?
Buddhism's as varied as any other ethos tbh. Just need to look at how it integrated with shinto to see that.
The style is a bit different to what we're kind of used to with western religion- there's not so much "thou shalt not, else you will go to hell", there's lots of "thou should". Instead of sending sinners off to hell, they go another round in the world with station and state appropriate to their actions in previous lives, it's basically rehab for the soul (well, it's complicated)- another chance to do well, rather than punishment for doing badly.
But the flipside of that of course is the understanding that not everyone will do well, at least not in this life.
...ethos...
Yes, that's another word I've heard used to try and differentiate buddhism from other religions.
This whole reincarnation thing though, it's still something that people only believe because they've been told to believe it by the man in charge.
It's not something they believe based on evidence or personal experience, so in that respect, it's just another religion.
I'm pretty sure events in Burma are based on circumstance and the human race. Buddhism really is the last 'religion' that would promote violent acts towards other groups. It is nothing like Western religions in that sense.
Why do you think that the pitchfork-wielding was less likely to occur in Burma because the majority was Buddhist instead of being, say, a bunch of Prods?
Why do you think that the pitchfork-wielding was less likely to occur in Burma because the majority was Buddhist instead of being, say, a bunch of Prods?
I don't. It is as likely to happen in Burma as it is anywhere. My point is that Buddhism has absolutely nothing to do with it.
It's like capturing a murderer, noting that he's black, and then coming to the conclusion that black people are murderers.
MidlandTrailquestsGraham - MemberThis whole reincarnation thing though, it's still something that people only believe because they've been told to believe it by the man in charge.
Yeah but no but... It's a feedback loop basically. reaping what you sew's a simple idea but we know it doesn't work, in this life. But the reincarnation idea helps put your life into a wider context and supports the message effectively. It's meant literally but it works as a metaphor too.
The big difference (IMO, I am no scholar nor am I a buddhist!) is that with christianity, you do things because the mythology says so. With buddhism, you do things because they're good things, for good reasons, and the mythology takes care of the rewards.
And what that means is that you can remove the woo, and still have something that makes sense- it just adds an extra level of encouragement. Whereas with more traditional faiths... "Why is murder wrong?" "Because GAAAAAHD said so", take away god and what's left?
you do things because the mythology says so. With buddhism, you do things because they're good things
Hmm that's not quite fair. Jesus said to be nice to each other, and if you're an arsehole you'll go to hell. Bhudda said to be nice to each other, and if you're an arsehole you'll come back as a worm.
Not that different is it? I think Jesus and Bhudda would have got along just fine.
Anyway - in Bhuddism, who decides what's 'good' and what's not. The Cosmos? Who's the arbitrater?
Bhudda said to be nice to each other, and if you're an arsehole you'll come back as a worm.
To be fair, I think you're paraphrasing there, fella!
As far as I know, Buddhism centres on four Noble Truths:
1. Life is suffering
2. Suffering is caused by craving and aversion.
3. Suffering can be overcome and happiness can be attained if we stop craving and learn to live each day at a time.
4. Following the 8-fold path is the way to end suffering, focusing the mind on being fully aware of our thoughts and actions, and developing wisdom and compassion for others.
...no mention of arseholes there!
ts ts ts ...! The world does not revolve or evolve around western views ...
Buddhism - No reincarnation but yes to rebirth due to karma.
Hinduism - Yes to reincarnation or eternal soul.
Abrahamic faith - Yes to eternal soul with your creator God.
Atheism - Yes to carbon maggots when you die.
Shamanism etc - Yes to nature but not sure about the rest ...
Confucius - Know your place in society & bureaucracy rules!
Dear Leader - I step on you and you need to thank me for that.
🙄
molgrips - MemberHmm that's not quite fair. Jesus said to be nice to each other, and if you're an arsehole you'll go to hell. Bhudda said to be nice to each other, and if you're an arsehole you'll come back as a worm.
Not so much. Jesus says you'll go to hell forever. The Buddha says you'll reincarnate lower down the wheel (going from human to worm is unlikely, that's reserved for Luis Suarez and inconsiderate overtakers), for another go. So perhaps you reincarnate as a human in a less good situation
If you do well as a worm, then you can move back up- so there is the opportunity for improvement. And it's wrong to think of that as punitive- a meanspirited human's not likely to be happy or at peace, lessons learned in another "lower" life may allow them to find satisfaction. It seems like punishment for an arsehole to come back as a beggar, but not if in the longer run you end up not being an arsehole, not so much. Or, if you find a level of life which suits you, that's a better outcome too for you.
As for what is good or bad- tbh if you start from the reduction of suffering, by means of compassion and understanding, I don't think you can go too far wrong with your credo.
Ok, but it's broadly similar in concept - you're judged on your actions in life.
if you start from the reduction of suffering
Hmm, but that's fraught with problems, as discussed in Utilitarianst philosophy. And it's conflicting too. You're not meant to hurt living things, are you? But if you killed every malarial mosquito on earth a lot of people might be saved at the expensse of the mozzies. But would that actually help? If everyone in some marginal part of the world survived childhood suddenly would there not be a massive strain on resources leading to mass starvation?
It's complicated.. which is why I asked about arbitration. Is it jus the cosmos that decides? If so, what's the difference between the rules of the Cosmos and God?
molgrips - MemberOk, but it's broadly similar in concept - you're judged on your actions in life.
But not condemned, is the critical difference.
Re arbitration- it gets well into the mysticism there, which is where I just lose interest tbh. I understand that intention and will is what's most important- a mosquito causes suffering but it has no understanding of that, a man who thoughtlessly or cruelly kills a mosquito might be judged poorly while a man who studies malaria vectors and makes an informed decision to kill mosquitos without cruelty may be judged well. Perhaps next year the understanding of the disease or the ecosystem changes and what was wise today is wrong. Smart not to deal in absolutes really.
Buddhists are essentially peaceful, IMO.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/25/burma-muslims-two-child-limit
A Buddhist state practicing peace, yesterday.
and to follow
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/25/woolwich-attack-islam ]http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/25/woolwich-attack-islam[/url]
or
[url= http://www.****/news/article-1351251/Number-British-Muslims-double-5-5m-20-years.html ]http://www.****/news/article-1351251/Number-British-Muslims-double-5-5m-20-years.html[/url]
There appears to be a larger issue here.
That EDL supporter in the Guardian link is a handsome ****er, and he's clearly very proud to be English.
[img] 
[/img]`
I bet he feels vastly superior to others who unfortunately haven't had the good luck to have been born English.
Editorial bias init. The Guardian's clearly had to tightly crop that picture so you don't see that most EDL supporters actually look like Brad Pitt.
and from the daily mail...
[img] 
[/img]
Nothing like a bit of stereotyping is there!
^^ That pic is scary. Imagine being those women and being so brainwashed by their religion that they feel they have to cover themselves up in black from head to toe just to please their male opressors....
^^ That pic is scary. Imagine being those women and being so brainwashed by their religion that they feel they have to cover themselves up in black from head to toe just to please their male opressors....
^^ Scary. Imagine only being able to imagine one reason you'd wear a cloak.
There appears to be a larger issue here.
Is the issue that Buddhism is just the same as all other religions an shouldn't get a free pass?
konabunny - MemberThere appears to be a larger issue here.
Is the issue that Buddhism is just the same as all other religions an shouldn't get a free pass?
Obviously you have lumped everything that is not of your belief to be the same with the Abrahamic faith so let me keep this simple for you before you try to associate things that you do not understand ...
Ask yourself these questions:
Did they terrorise the world?
Did they terrorise the developed country?
Did they terrorise EU?
Did they terrorise their neighbouring country(s)?
Did they terrorise the 3rd world?
Did they terrorise you?
If non of the above apply to you then let them deal with their own internal matters.
They do not want your free pass but why do you insist on "imposing" your free pass on them? Why do you judge them?
What have they done to you or your country?
To keep it at a more basic level ... they are NOT of larger issue because they are merely defending what is left their ways.
No ... someone slap you on your right cheek you don't turn your face to let him/her slap your left cheek. That would be making mistake twice.
Buddhism and Islam have been at war in this region for Eons.
Nothing new here
Buddhism and Islam have been at war in this region for Eons.
Nothing new here
.aaand we're back to..
but really , they are as intolerant as all other groups really.
konabunny - Member.aaand we're back to..
That is why I say you have limited understanding ...
Tolerance does not mean bowing down and let things be or taking advantage of the native.
Your interpretation of the world can normally be termed as imposing. i.e. anything that does not fit your ideal is wrong and must be adjusted. Now imagine the other round ... can't you comprehend?
They know how to deal with their own problems so let them be unless the west try to intervene to cause a mess like their ancestors did to the world?