Ought Naught

Define plenty. Given the poor conversion of plant matter into meat, it would have to be one hell of a lot of land.

Primal

Humanity has a dark side but such a dark side can be brought out by religion. No religion is just about compassion; it is about keeping certain values and beliefs alive and immune from criticism.

Buddhism isn't about compassion but renouncing worldly pleasures.

I don't doubt that monks in a religion based system would abuse their powers, they are in a position to do so easily. Religion tends to make its frontmen, like its beliefs, immune from criticism.

To blame all the bad that occurs from religion on something, always something else, because that something else may *possibly* be the cause is spurious. That's like if I blamed all racial bigotry, not on racism, but on humanity. One can then go "racism doesn't have a dark side, humanity has a dark side."

Not to say religion is as bad as racism but religion does promote backwards values. These *can* be things like compassion but can also be harmful practices like "shun medicine and technology", "place serfs below monks". These things do not have to be written down to be part of the religious tradition. What religion does to these values if give them increased life by making them immune to criticism, by sanctioning them with percieved cosmic significance. Hence religion byits very nature is obscurantist and it would not surprise me for there to be widespread, harmful, backwards practices in Pre-Communist Tibet.

Nor do I just spurously wipe the religious tradition of all guilt, because there really is not reason to do so. Instead I look at the effect of its practices just like I look at the effects of all other ideologies on practice. I look at the situation honestly, without giving religion any special benefits.

[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: Primal ]</p>

Waning Moon Conrad

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Primal:
<strong>Humanity has a dark side but such a dark side can be brought out by religion. No religion is just about compassion; it is about keeping certain values and beliefs alive and immune from criticism.

Buddhism isn't about compassion but renouncing worldly pleasures. </strong>

Buddhism is about compassion but it is also about wisdom. In instances where there is advice to renounce wordly pleasures, the renunciation is not for its own sake but is a means to an end. The usefulness of renouncing worldly pleasures does not apply to everybody for the simple reason that not everybody is the same. Different people have different dispositions and need different practices. I find it incredible that you should think that Buddhism is just about renouncing worldly pleasures - you obviously haven't looked at it closely.

Even if you don't believe in the possibility or worth of enlightenment through the practice and study of Buddhism - it is still about compassion and wisdom in the same way that Christianity is about salvation even if there is no original sin or soteriological validity to Christ.

And in the same way that this forum is about truth and rationality and the usefulness of healthy scepticism even if the fundamentalist Christians turn out to be correct.


<strong>I don't doubt that monks in a religion based system would abuse their powers, they are in a position to do so easily. Religion tends to make its frontmen, like its beliefs, immune from criticism. </strong>

Buddhism in Tibet criticised itself enthusiastically in many instances. In others what you've said above certainly holds true.

<strong>To blame all the bad that occurs from religion on something, always something else, because that something else may *possibly* be the cause is spurious. That's like if I blamed all racial bigotry, not on racism, but on humanity. One can then go "racism doesn't have a dark side, humanity has a dark side."</strong>

Rascism is a manifestation of the dark side of humanity. It is not a thing in itself.

Rascism is not a substance or an entity or a being that can be blamed. Rascism is something that humans do. Humans are to blame for rascism.

When we blame rascism what we are really blaming is the human propensity to be bigoted and intolerant of others because of their race.

Wouldn't you say that it was spurious to blame stupidity and not the humans who are being stupid?

I think it cuts both ways. If we blame rascism rather than rascist humans, then we should admire intelligence but not intelligent humans.

Are we going to strip Nobel prizewinners of their prizes and give the prizes to Intelligence and Dedication instead of leaving them with the humans who used their intelligence and dedication to contribute something to the world?

Do we stop admiring Bach, Mozart and Beethoven (to name a miniscule few) for their music and start admiring an entity known as Talent instead?

Shall we cease to respect artists like Reubens or Da Vinci and start respecting some hypothetical entity known as "The-Capacity-to-Paint-Well-and-Meaningfully"?

If you allege that rascism and stupidity (for example) are something other than a particular way that humans are thinking (or not thinking) and behaving, then basically you're doing the equivalent of blaming the devil.

<strong>Not to say religion is as bad as racism but religion does promote backwards values. These *can* be things like compassion but can also be harmful practices like "shun medicine and technology", "place serfs below monks". </strong>

Some religions. Not all.

<strong>These things do not have to be written down to be part of the religious tradition.</strong>

Then they're parasitic memes hanging on a religion, not the religion itself.

<strong>What religion does to these values if give them increased life by making them immune to criticism, by sanctioning them with percieved cosmic significance.</strong>

Religion as something practiced by humans does indeed do this a lot of the time. Buddhism is no exception because it is necessarily practiced by humans.

<strong>Hence religion byits very nature is obscurantist and it would not surprise me for there to be widespread, harmful, backwards practices in Pre-Communist Tibet. </strong>

Absolutely! I have no doubt at all that that there were widespread, harmful and backward practices in pre-communist Tibet. The same goes for now in occupied Tibet - most of which is dished out by the occupying communist Chinese.

The Dalai Lama would not contradict you here and he himself has statedon a number of occassions that he does not want Tibet to become exactly as it was in the pre-invasion days.

<strong>Nor do I just spurously wipe the religious tradition of all guilt, because there really is not reason to do so. Instead I look at the effect of its practices just like I look at the effects of all other ideologies on practice. I look at the situation honestly, without giving religion any special benefits.</strong>

Good for you! Long may you remain healthily sceptical! But do consider the middle way. You don't have to be a Buddhist for the middle way to be useful!

[ September 22, 2002: Message edited by: Waning Moon Conrad ]</p>

Sarpedon

One thing that the tibetans (or tantric buddhists which I think is the more proper term) like to obscure is how one of the early Dalai Lamas conspired with the Mongol emperors of China to destroy the chinese sects of buddhism and replace them with tantric temples and monasterys. So, in place of the chinese buddhist temples, which fostered the arts, sciences, and philosophy, were put hordes of chanting monks, prayer beads, myth, idolatry,and abasement to the Mongol state. Where do you think all that gold for those huge idols in the tibetan monasterys came from? There are no natural resources of any kind in Tibet. Every ounce of it was looted from the temples of their fellow buddhists.

Waning Moon Conrad

Sarpedon, have you been reading Chinese propaganda?

[ September 29, 2002: Message edited by: Waning Moon Conrad ]</p>

Sarpedon

There is no doubt that the Mongols were tantric buddhists, their culture, like that of the Tibetans was too primitive to embrace the subtler aspects of buddhism as practiced in Southern India, China and Japan. This information was well known before chinese communism. I am not in any way in favor of the Chinese occupation of Tibet, if that is what you are insinuating. Nor am I in favor of communism. I merely observe that if the tantrics hadn't crippled Chinese buddhism, maybe china would have been a better place, and wouldn't have adopted communism. No one can deny that tantric buddhism is superstitious and counter-progress. Nor is it properly buddhist, the monks seem to practice a form of buddhism, but they maintained a form of empty idolotry to keep the common people ignorant and content. All theocracy is wrong, be it buddhist, christian, muslim, or taoist. Buddhists have had a hard time in China. First it was the Taoists, then the Tantrists, than the Christians, and now finally the Communists.

Primal

The middle path advocates abandoning the "extreme" of hedonism; that is renouncing worldy pleasures for some sort of expected metaphysical gain.

It may have elements promoting compassion but that doesn't mean this is what Buddhism is about or focused on. It seems to me to focus on abandoning reason, sense of self, and material values. In much of what I learned of Buddhism compassion was mentioned but the main focus was on enlightenment.

I'm glad you seem to respect the values of this forum though I do not accept the analogy.


I'm sorry but I doubt it. More likely people within the religion disagreed about certain ethical codes or interpretations of the Buddha i.e. certain aspects of the religion. Religion has a bad habit of either not criticizing itself or outlawing criticism of the religion altogether,


That is implicit in the term, hence the ism.

Yes, I know its an ideology that exists in the human brain, but that doesn't mean the ideology doesn't drive people to action. People pass on ideas to others and these ideas effect actions, it is in this manner that beliefs like racism are blamed or condemned.

Yes but we recognize racist ideology as the culprit.

I honestly can't see the difference, except for the term stupidity applies to a broader range.

WHy can't we blame/praise both? Also, intelligence is an attribute not an ideology.

No, because intellect is an attribute and we admire this attribute. Racism is an ideology. Nobody discovered racism nor invented it. The Nobel Prize awards for intellectual achievement, not adherence to an ideology.

I never advocated any kind of dualism of this nature. I am saying that adherence to certain ideologies can lead to bad actions and that some ideologies are notorious for this. Should we stop saying by that token, that we enjoy the acts of musicians and not music?

I never alleged this. I'm just saying racism can be blamed, as can the humans who adhere to it as well. There are many dark sides of human nature and racism is one of them, or leads to many of them.

All, religions were developed by earlier peoples in order to promote certain values and beliefs. Religion justified these things so they would last, and it does tend to. Religions also by definition tend to emphasis devotion to the sacred, such devotion by its nature tends to detract from material joys.

But all religion is merely a compilation of such memes. Why should only memes in writing be considered "religion" and not memes passed down via tradition?


I'm glad we can find some common ground.


Agreed, though I imagine some western sources tend to exagerate the extent of the opression in communist countries.

That's very good me thinks. Does he want a secular state?

Thank you for the kind words. Though I reject the middle path is unproven and most likely shall. Life seems too complicated for me to be able to concieve of any balance in action or any one principle solving all problems. But I did like your post and look forward to your reply. Ta.

Sarpedon

The dalai lama has been quoted to say he wants to be considered an ordinary citizen in post communist Tibet. I assume that if the religious leader will be an ordinary citizen, than the state will be secular. I hope he is being sincere.

Waning Moon Conrad

I like your reply too. I think I misunderstood you in a few places but that's cleared up now.

I have to agree with you on a few things. Religion being a compilation of memes is an interesting and valid idea although I do see Buddhism's philosophical system as being much more than just that.

I'm pretty sure the Dalai Lama wants Tibet to be a secular state. My impression is that this does not translate to a secular state with a parliament of lamas.

Sarpedon,

I disagree with you strongly. It's perfectly true that many buddhists in the west look at Tibet through rose coloured glasses and see a mystical paradise that wasn't there. I think that you may be looking at it through muddy glasses.

If you read a bit of madhyamika philosophy and find out something about tantric iconography and what all the symbols mean and how they relate to philosophy or are derived from it; you may just find that the primitive and rather silly devil worship that these poor deluded unfortunates practice is actually much more than it appears.

Are you into the Theravadan side of things at all? A lot of people into Theravadan Buddhism have this strange view of Tantra and it always seems to be that they don't really understand anything about it.

Where did you get the information about the Tibetans looting gold from Chinese temples?

When did Chinese temples ever not have monks?

When did the Tibetan monks invade China, loot the gold, kill or drive away the incumbent monks and occupy their temples?

In what way is Chinese Mahayana philosophy progressive, scientific, philosophical and subtle whereas Tibetan Mahayana philosophy is anti-progressive, unscientific, un-philosophical and un-subtle?

[ October 05, 2002: Message edited by: Waning Moon Conrad ]</p>

Answerer

Well, its always been a mistake to look at just one of the paths or teachings in Buddhism and then claims it to be superior than other Buddhism teachings. In actual fact, all Buddhism teachings are essentially the same and lead to the same goal, let it be Mahayana or Hinayana or Tantric, ultimately, the paths that one person should choose or follow depends on his own character and abilities rather which path is the best or right. Therefore, I think debating on the 'True or Best Buddhist teachings' is a complete waste of time and meaningless. I'm quite sure that things will end up having no conclusion.
Anyway, if Dalai Lama wanted to live as an original citizens, I hope that he will do it now instead of continue his fruitless campaign.