Answerer

Well everyone, those people who practise asceticism, did it out of willingness and with the hope of practising Dharma without disturbance and to enhance further training on the discipline of their minds. Of course, it is not the only or "must-do" or the 'best' path in Buddhism, there are other less restrictive and optional paths as well and ultimately, its up to one to pick and choose. Of course, anyone are free to choose to stick to their own views and continue to regard Buddhism as a 'lousy' school of teaching without any fear of condemnation(except that maybe his or her bad karma will increase).

Seraphim

"Well, Seraphim, I'm curious to your definition of 'soul' here, I hope you are not refering to permanent 'ego' or 'self-existence'. "

This is not the place to talk about Souls, go to my other thread - Soul and God and paste it there, and we can talk to your heartfelt. And you should explain what is "Ego" and "Self-existence" since you may hold different perspective than mine.

Again, go to the other thread since this thread belong to another and I don't think he or she will like having people talking about unrelated things in his/her thread.

Answerer

Okay, maybe I post a new thread next time round when I'm free but certainly not now or in the near future.

Waning Moon Conrad

I'm absolutely dying (metaphoricaly of course) to know why you say this.

Psycho Economist

I don't intend to be a mouthpeice for HD, but i'll take a crack at it. There are a couple different ways one could interpret Buddhism as "cruel".

Buddhism isn't nihlist in the philisophical sense, but it is in the entomological sense... to believe that every experience is ultimately sorrowful and that non-existence is preferable doesn't strike me as a particularly positive philosophy. Granted, it is the mechanism Buddhism uses to encourage morality ("don't do bad things; you'll add to the pain of the Universe"), and good works ("win points by shouldering the sorrow of some else through charity, et c.").

Some schools of Buddhism believe that souls endure a spell in a state very reminiscent of Catholic purgatory between incarnations.

While some schools (called Mahayana) hold that anyone who has been promoted up to humanity can achieve salvation on this go-round, Hinayana Buddhists believe that only *wealthy* *men* who become monks have advanced enough in previous incarnations to possibly achieve salvation during their own lifetimes.

People who treat others cruelly will come back as baser animals, and baser animals who do not behave cruelly (a dog that never bites) may be promoted up to human status. Going along with that, Bhuddism was very sexist and classist when it first started.

So yeah, Buddhism still has lots of the annoying features of other religions, but it is among the less annoying ones out there.

Waning Moon Conrad

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Psycho Economist:
<strong>
Buddhism isn't nihlist in the philisophical sense, but it is in the entomological sense... to believe that every experience is ultimately sorrowful and that non-existence is preferable doesn't strike me as a particularly positive philosophy. </strong>

I hate to be pedantic but entomology is a branch of zoology dealing with insects. Etymology (which you possibly meant but possibly didn't)is a branch of linguistics which refers to the origin of words. I'm not completely sure what you're meaning to say here.

The Buddhism I'm into (which fundamentalist Theravadans don't acknowledge as Buddhism) does not teach anything about non-existence being preferable. It does teach that there is a state known as enlightenment or buddhahood which can be characterised as open, free and dynamic.

<strong>
Some schools of Buddhism believe that souls endure a spell in a state very reminiscent of Catholic purgatory between incarnations.</strong>

I'm not aware of any but you could be right.

<strong>While some schools (called Mahayana) hold that anyone who has been promoted up to humanity can achieve salvation on this go-round,</strong>

Well.....a human birth is considered precious and too good an opportunity for enlightenment or at least progress towards, to waste.

I have a problem with promoted it suggests that there is some sort of God or Case Worker or that karma is some sort of self existent thing rather than a process. But maybe you're not being as literal as I'm taking you.

<strong>
Hinayana Buddhists believe that only *wealthy* *men* who become monks have advanced enough in previous incarnations to possibly achieve salvation during their own lifetimes.</strong>

I've never heard that one although there's a lot I don't know about hinayana buddhism.

<strong>People who treat others cruelly will come back as baser animals, and baser animals who do not behave cruelly (a dog that never bites) may be promoted up to human status. Going along with that, Bhuddism was very sexist and classist when it first started.</strong>

Actually (pedantic again ) ignorance is suggested as the likely path to the animal realm whereas cruelty is more likely to be a path to a hell realm. Mind you, hells and animal realms can all exist within the human realm. You don't need four legs and a tail to be animalish. You don't need a lake of fire or a frigid glacier to suffer abject misery.

You probably didn't want a debate, you were merely suggesting a possible answer as to why HD said what he said. Fact is I can't help myself sometimes.

Primal

Ever heard of the genocidal campaigns of Buddhist like; Genghis Kahn?

Oh well guess they weren't "real Buddhists".


I don't get it. Why are so many people clearly seeing the faults of one religion, christianity, but are not willing to see faults with religion in general? Do superstitions improve as as we go eastward?

All religions are belief systems developed by ancient people who wished to pass on their values and beliefs developed in ignorance. Religion was not developed in a vacuum by saints. But by ancient people, very ignorant and trying to justify his/her values. It is by its nature irrational and obscurantist.

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: Primal ]</p>

Seraphim

"Ever heard of the genocidal campaigns of Buddhist like; Genghis Kahn?
Oh well guess they weren't "real Buddhists"."

My reply : Who told you that Genghis Khan was a Buddhist? Buddhism is not a religion Pal, whether you follow it or not is not forced on you like Christianity or Islam, nor do you go around saying you are a Buddhist while doing everything OPPOSITE. Buddhism weren't spread to Mongolia till 1200s, so Genghis Khan was not a Buddhist as you claim.

I guess his (Genghis Khan's) successors knew the evil their predecessor (Genghis Khan) so they went and brought Buddhism from Tibet around mid-1200s. Here's a link, study some history :

<a href="http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~rbell/BuddhismInMongolia.html" target="_blank">http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~rbell/BuddhismInMongolia.html</a>

"Why are so many people clearly seeing the faults of one religion, christianity, but are not willing to see faults with religion in general?"

My reply : Maybe cause Christianity (like Islam, may I add) caused more trouble than other religions/teachings.

"All religions are belief systems developed by ancient people who wished to pass on their values and beliefs developed in ignorance. Religion was not developed in a vacuum by saints. But by ancient people, very ignorant and trying to justify his/her values. It is by its nature irrational and obscurantist."

My reply : Maybe true from your point of view. But then again, if you do not follow a religion/teachings then why bother talking about something that has NO concern of you? In another word, if you don't wish to follow, don't bother about it or what other say about it.

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: Seraphim ]</p>

Psycho Economist

You're right; switch entomoglogy / etymology. Sheesh, my girlfriend's in an entomology class; I should have proofread that. Stipulating to that point (and you can be as pedantic as you want; I need the practice ), it seems very full of "believing in nothing" which is what you make if you break nihlism into parts to say that all of existance is sorrow. But i'll grant that Buddhism left a sour taste in my mouth during Hist 224.

Yeah, fundy Buddhism says if you're at a state of nirvana when you die, your soul will *finally* cease to be.

You might want to try Wright's Buddhism in Chinese history, and DeBarry's Sources of Chinese tradition (comes in two volumes), any good university library should have them.

You're right; that was unduely anthropomorphic of me, but I couldn't think of a better word to communicate the chance for upwards and downwards mobility.

There aren't many adherants to hinayana Buddhism because it is that exclusionary. Again, Wright's and DeBarry's books would be helpful.

Neither can I. Have fun. Tell me what you think of those two texts (if you have time). What's in there and what I learn in PBS specials about the Dalai Lama are all I know about Buddhism.

(To quote, or not to quote, or to forget your closing /quote tag...)

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: Psycho Economist ]</p>

Answerer

Well pal, Buddhism has never defined itself as a religion at all despite whether you believe it or not. Its just another way of life and there were no worships or prayers were enforced unlike of course some religions. Finally, non-buddhists are never being condemned.