Buddhist Conspiracy For World Perversion

Originally posted by dontreally
[
Right.

Well, to those educated in religion, and philosophy, they know what the simple regard as "Satanism" is merely an idea in the worship of evil. The simple believe satan to be some personality which directs people.Thats not what it is, unfortunately. Its a romanticization of the truth. But the truth itself is much more technical and abstract in nature.

You can find Satanic 'left hand' path ideas in all religions. In Hinduism its actually quite prevalent in their Tantrism. Sufism as well has many esoteric orders whic engage in deliberate transgresson of halel, orgies, and worship of the animal self. Would non this behavior be associated with satanism? Christianity was based on paganism, specifically taking from Greek, Babylonian, Egyptian, zoroastrian and Indian thought.

Paganism is very much satanism, in that its a worship of nature. we all see how ferocious and vicious nature can be. Its bot right when human being look at the lion and consider the lions ruthlesness and disregard for objectivity as a template for how human beings should conisder their morality as whats relevant to them.

This is satanism. And i do agree that Western thought coupled with Easter ideas found in buddhism, hinduism, and New Age, Theosophy, contribute to this idyll.

But, not everything in the east is bad, nor everything in Islam or Christianity.

I don't see Satanism as the romancing of the truth, I see it as the revelling in greed, power, lust, lies, hatred and violence - and acting on them. Names are just signposts to an experience, and the word Satanist means those who practise and live out the values symbolised by Satan. There are many different names, all meaning the same thing.

Nor do I see paganism as Satanism. Christianity HAD to be based on what you consider 'paganism' because before Christ there couldn't possibly be any Christianity, lol! So anything which existed before that would now be considered Pagan.

But I totally disagree with your description of Paganism, nor do I believe it is Satanism.

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by dontreally
[
Right.

Well, to those educated in religion, and philosophy, they know what the simple regard as "Satanism" is merely an idea in the worship of evil. The simple believe satan to be some personality which directs people.Thats not what it is, unfortunately. Its a romanticization of the truth. But the truth itself is much more technical and abstract in nature.

You can find Satanic 'left hand' path ideas in all religions. In Hinduism its actually quite prevalent in their Tantrism. Sufism as well has many esoteric orders whic engage in deliberate transgresson of halel, orgies, and worship of the animal self. Would non this behavior be associated with satanism? Christianity was based on paganism, specifically taking from Greek, Babylonian, Egyptian, zoroastrian and Indian thought.

Paganism is very much satanism, in that its a worship of nature. we all see how ferocious and vicious nature can be. Its bot right when human being look at the lion and consider the lions ruthlesness and disregard for objectivity as a template for how human beings should conisder their morality as whats relevant to them.

This is satanism. And i do agree that Western thought coupled with Easter ideas found in buddhism, hinduism, and New Age, Theosophy, contribute to this idyll.

But, not everything in the east is bad, nor everything in Islam or Christianity.

I don't see Satanism as the romancing of the truth, I see it as the revelling in greed, power, lust, lies, hatred and violence - and acting on them. Names are just signposts to an experience, and the word Satanist means those who practise and live out the values symbolised by Satan. There are many different names, all meaning the same thing.

Nor do I see paganism as Satanism. Christianity HAD to be based on what you consider 'paganism' because before Christ there couldn't possibly be any Christianity, lol! So anything which existed before that would now be considered Pagan.

But I totally disagree with your description of Paganism, nor do I believe it is Satanism.

edit on 31-10-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

What is it about paganism that you disagree with me about?

Ive actually studied a little bit of pagan thought . The Greek classics, Platos republic, Hesiods Theogony, Homers Illiad, Euripides, ive read many books that talk about archetypes in myth, specifically Egpytian and Greek. Ive also read much on Joseph Campbell, Sir Isaac Fraser, ML Von Franz. Than you got the late Roman era mystery schools of Gnosticism, Hermeticism, Neo-Platonism, Manicheanism. I own many books on the former. GRS meads 3 volume analysis on the Hermetic writings. I own Terrence Mckenna books, Aleister Crowley, S.L. MacGregor Mathers, Samuel Aun Weor etc. Many different books on gnosticsm. Ive read a few books on sufism, but my main knowledge of Sufism comes from what other authors ive read have written about it. Their admiration and praise for their esoteric principles, piety and ecsstatic dervishes. Even the Sufi Bektashi order served to inspire Sabbati Tzvi (the Jewish false messiah) and in 1666 to leave Judaism and convert to Islam. His followers are known today as Sabbateans and Frankists(followers of Jacob Frank who believed himself to be a reincarnation of Tzvi) . Ive also read much into Theosophy, Freemasonry (own Albert Pikes morals and dogma of freemasonry) Catharism, Catholic mystics like St Theresa of Avila and St. John of the cross... Jungian psycholgy etc etc. Ive read the bhagavad Gita, Epic of Gilgamesh, Buddhist writings and im currently reading this manual on Kshnoom, Zoroastrian occultism.. I would say, and i say this with all modesty, that ive read a decent amount in both western and eastern esoteric thought.

And of course, i have read a bit on satanism (my curiousity takes me many places in the intellectual realm) and i know what they study. Nietzche (who himself was inspired by greek and Nordic pagan thought), Objectivism (like Ayn Rand) etc. Satanism as in Leveyan Satanism is merely a mordern more romanticized form of a philosphy which exists in theosophy, gnosticism, sufism, vedanta/tantra, Taoism, Shinto, Zoroastrianism, Bahai, Celtic/nordic thought etc, It is literally universal.

Of course, im not identifying EVERY aspect of these traditions to Satanism. Im saying that certain aspects - materialism, sensualism, acceptance of the negative evil side (in addition to the good) of ones personality as a prelude to being enlightened by ones true self. And even many pagans worship the "dark god', ie; the personification of the archetype of evil, of chaos. Who literally live a life by engaging in some perversion or corruption of any trait. The lie, steal, murder (being satanists of the highest order) rape, engage in sadism and masochism etc. Its some seriously demented stuff, yet, theres a logic to their philosophy, as corrupted and rationalized as it is. These are people who have accepted evil, suffering and thus having made suffering there pleasure, have literally in their minds transcended morality, and therefore do whatever gives them pleasure accepting the consequences. Theyve given themselves over completely.

Most of paganism is not liek this. Materialistic, sensual? yes, alots like that. But, theyre are also normal, righteous people, to varying degrees from ultra saintly to good hearted but has negative qualities etc.

reply to post by dontreally


Originally posted by dontreally





Hi, I don't really have the time or inclination to get into a debate about this, and it's way off topic, but thank you anyway.

I see you enjoy your study and that's great - but please, don't assume you are the only one to have done this. No offense meant, but your posts suggest you assume superior knowledge. A word of wisdon - that is most often a very slippery slope

.

reply to post by dontreally


I just find that fascinating, it deserves its own topic.

MY post in no way are a slam against Buddhism BTW, just wanted to add that.

Originally posted by wcitizen

Hi, I don't really have the time or inclination to get into a debate about this, and it's way off topic, but thank you anyway.

I see you enjoy your study and that's great - but please, don't assume you are the only one to have done this. No offense meant, but your posts suggest you assume superior knowledge. A word of wisdon - that is most often a very slippery slope

No. I mentioned all that only to ask what was wrong about my analysis of paganism. Ive read a fair bit into it.

Im sure there are others who have read much much more than i have, as my main area of study is Judaism. These other subjects i just fit in when i find the time (like in the washroom)

So, what was wrong with my views on paganism?

If youre gonna criticize my depiction of it - than well, explain yourself.

reply to post by dontreally


Thanks for your reply, but as I said, I really don't have the time or inclination to go into it, and it is off topic.

Peace.

reply to post by rileytardell

I dont want to be mean and condescending, but you know absolutely nothing of Buddhism, and its obvious. Which type of Buddhism? Vajrayana? Tantric, Red hat, Yellow Hat? Tibetan, Zen? Shux I think before imploring people to read your hole addled post again, you perhaps could benefit from a more thorough study of the sect in question. And you know as a recovering Catholic, the last thing this world needs is more blood thirsty, judgmental christians.

That is not to imply that all Christians are, deviant, but Christians that feel it important to slander other peoples religions or creeds are not practicing Christianity.

Originally posted by wcitizen
reply to post by dontreally

 

Thanks for your reply, but as I said, I really don't have the time or inclination to go into it, and it is off topic.

Peace.

Thats a convenient excuse.

Heres some advice. Its not humble, nor proper (in a moral sense) to criticize without justifying your criticism. This should honestly go without saying.

People who do what you just did tend to have a major ego problem; and doing that is in itself intellectually disgracefuly and pure sophism (that is, trying to come off as clever yet having no logical basis for your argument).

Im not saying youre like this. But this criticizing and than running off saying you dont have the time is pretty ridiculous. if thats the case, and thats your deal, dont say anything at all. Otherwise its vanity

Originally posted by Shadowfoot
reply to post by rileytardell

 

I dont want to be mean and condescending, but you know absolutely nothing of Buddhism, and its obvious. Which type of Buddhism? Vajrayana? Tantric, Red hat, Yellow Hat? Tibetan, Zen? Shux I think before imploring people to read your hole addled post again, you perhaps could benefit from a more thorough study of the sect in question. And you know as a recovering Catholic, the last thing this world needs is more blood thirsty, judgmental christians.

That is not to imply that all Christians are, deviant, but Christians that feel it important to slander other peoples religions or creeds are not practicing Christianity.

Depends what ones crticizing.

I personally dont want to offend people. When i criticize, i consider it incumbent for me to specify taht im criticizing their idealogy, and not them.

The two are not the same. I care for the person and i try to reflect this in the tact that i use in our conversation. But for me to just swallow everything everyone says supposes that everything is relative, which to me is reprehensible.

Its this aspect that can be found in Eastern thought which is bothersome to me. Of course, theres great merit in Eastern mysticism. I dont want to say that i dont marvel at the sophistication of many of their traditions. Like Tai Chi for instance is pretty amazing, and i recognize it as the particular spiritual genius that came out of the far east and thus mankind is indebted to their efforts in this area.

But i dont like what Tantra stands for. I find it obnoxious and self pretentious. Any worship of any temporal power, which Judaism calls 'idolatry' is in itself a mockery of the truth - that all is one. These aspects which i detest in Hinduism are also found in buddhism, Sufism (Bektashi being a prime example), Gnosticism and of course the pre-christian pagan religions which are resurging nowadays as neo-paganism, New Age etc. This neo-liberal 'do what thou wilt' as long as it doesnt affect someone else is anathema to me. Of course, one can live that way and probably live happily as well. I just dont think its true. I think its dishonest and i think when all is said and done that person will have to suffer the consequences for his inherently self motivated actions.

The only truth that there is is that all is one. Since the one G-d made us all in his image, everything we do should be connected to that reality. Thus, i dont want to be engaging in lascivious behavior because G-d considers that abhorrent. And it is. How am i honoring him by the kama sutra? Having multiple sex partners? Please. No rationalizations - all of which are motivated by the Satan. In the end, you seek pleasure, YOUR pleasure, YOUR convenience. You dont want to bend your will beyond what your immideate nature tells you. Should Nature be called G-d? That could be another problem i have with Eastern thought. G-d is certainly revealed in nature, but nature is not G-d. In Hebrew, Elohim (a name of G-d) = 86, and thats the same gematria as HaTeva (nature) aswell as Kli YHVH (YHVH is the essence of all reality. In other words, elohim is a 'kli', which means vessel, for YHVH). G-d reveals himself through nature, but our nature is above the nature we percieve with our eyes. Animals dont have self consciousness. We alone are able to look at ourselves and judge our behavior. Just like our bodies take the good and discard the bad, so to our souls/minds take in both good and bad phenomena. The Bad, the evil, which the 10 commandments delineate, need to be discarded and rejected. This is the process by which on can integrate the good and thus progress spiritually. This is actually how one recieves divine strength and guidance. When one overcomes HIS nature, so to, G-d oversteps the Nature he created and manifests in ones life in miraculous ways.

so, my views and Judeo-Christian views are at odds with these moral relatistic/nihilistic currents found in both western and eastern esoteric thought.

reply to post by dontreally


Why won't you type the word 'god'?

Just wondering.

Originally posted by dontreally

Originally posted by wcitizen
reply to post by dontreally

 

Thanks for your reply, but as I said, I really don't have the time or inclination to go into it, and it is off topic.

Peace.

Thats a convenient excuse.

Heres some advice. Its not humble, nor proper (in a moral sense) to criticize without justifying your criticism. This should honestly go without saying.

People who do what you just did tend to have a major ego problem; and doing that is in itself intellectually disgracefuly and pure sophism (that is, trying to come off as clever yet having no logical basis for your argument).

Im not saying youre like this. But this criticizing and than running off saying you dont have the time is pretty ridiculous. if thats the case, and thats your deal, dont say anything at all. Otherwise its vanity

edit on 1-11-2010 by dontreally because: (no reason given)

OK, let me repeat myself. Please pay attention because you don't seem to understand. I DIDN'T CRITICISE YOU. I SIMPLY SAID I DISAGREED WITH YOUR TAKE ON PAGANISM.

I have a different view to you - that is not a criticism, that's just life.

I also said I had no interest in discussing paganism with you. You might think my lack of time is ridiculous - so let me put it this way. I have limited time. I choose not to use that time discussing things I have little interest in, and especially with someone who comes across as arrogant and rude and very judgemental. And also because it is OFF TOPIC. This is a thread about BUDDHISM.

End of.

reply to post by dontreally


Man, I hate to bump this crazy a## thread, but I have seen it pop up numerous times the past week and can't help myself. People are passing judgments upon something they obviously have little knowledge and/or respect for. This Judeo-Christian outlook over Eastern Philosophies you speak of, is closed minded, non-tolerant and down right misguided. If you wish to place judgments upon other peoples ideologies, it is helpful if you thoroughly understand them first. This is why you do not see me debating or analyzing in depth the Judeo-Christian ideologies, for I only have a novice understanding of them.

Do not hold onto your beliefs as if they are the absolute truth, for one day you will realize you were wrong and be left with only two choices; regret or denial. A wise man speaks only from experience and actualization, not from the opinion of their own or of others ideas.

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
reply to post by dontreally

 

Man, I hate to bump this crazy a## thread, but I have seen it pop up numerous times the past week and can't help myself.

People are passing judgments upon something they obviously have little knowledge and/or respect for. This Judeo-Christian outlook over Eastern Philosophies you speak of, is closed minded, non-tolerant and down right misguided. If you wish to place judgments upon other peoples ideologies, it is helpful if you thoroughly understand them first. This is why you do not see me debating or analyzing in depth the Judeo-Christian ideologies, for I only have a novice understanding of them.

Do not hold onto your beliefs as if they are the absolute truth, for one day you will realize you were wrong and be left with only two choices; regret or denial. A wise man speaks only from experience and actualization, not from the opinion of their own or of others ideas.

Star for you, bro.

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by dontreally

Originally posted by wcitizen
reply to post by dontreally

 

Thanks for your reply, but as I said, I really don't have the time or inclination to go into it, and it is off topic.

Peace.

Thats a convenient excuse.

Heres some advice. Its not humble, nor proper (in a moral sense) to criticize without justifying your criticism. This should honestly go without saying.

People who do what you just did tend to have a major ego problem; and doing that is in itself intellectually disgracefuly and pure sophism (that is, trying to come off as clever yet having no logical basis for your argument).

Im not saying youre like this. But this criticizing and than running off saying you dont have the time is pretty ridiculous. if thats the case, and thats your deal, dont say anything at all. Otherwise its vanity

edit on 1-11-2010 by dontreally because: (no reason given)

OK, let me repeat myself. Please pay attention because you don't seem to understand. I DIDN'T CRITICISE YOU. I SIMPLY SAID I DISAGREED WITH YOUR TAKE ON PAGANISM.

I have a different view to you - that is not a criticism, that's just life.

I also said I had no interest in discussing paganism with you. You might think my lack of time is ridiculous - so let me put it this way. I have limited time. I choose not to use that time discussing things I have little interest in, and especially with someone who comes across as arrogant and rude and very judgemental. And also because it is OFF TOPIC. This is a thread about BUDDHISM.

End of.

edit on 1-11-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

Oh, im sorry. Semantics.

Whats the difference between 'criticism' and disagreeing with my views on paganism?

I could scroll back and reference some of your statements. But, i dont think that would help, youve already revealed the personal nature of your attacks on me.

Im arrogant? How exactly? Because i shared my opinion about paganism? and yes. buddhism is an aspect of paganism, so it is relevant for me to mention paganism.. My criticisms of buddhism are relevant to all other manifestations of paganism, that is, moral relativism or nihilism. These are the qualities in buddhism which are found equally in 'paganism'.

If moral relativism or nilihism isnt an essential aspect of paganism, than what is? Please. You disagreed. Share with me your own knowledge, if you even have any to share.

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
reply to post by dontreally

 

Man, I hate to bump this crazy a## thread, but I have seen it pop up numerous times the past week and can't help myself.

People are passing judgments upon something they obviously have little knowledge and/or respect for. This Judeo-Christian outlook over Eastern Philosophies you speak of, is closed minded, non-tolerant and down right misguided. If you wish to place judgments upon other peoples ideologies, it is helpful if you thoroughly understand them first. This is why you do not see me debating or analyzing in depth the Judeo-Christian ideologies, for I only have a novice understanding of them.

Do not hold onto your beliefs as if they are the absolute truth, for one day you will realize you were wrong and be left with only two choices; regret or denial. A wise man speaks only from experience and actualization, not from the opinion of their own or of others ideas.

do you get that "do not hold onto your beliefs as if theyre absolute" is in itiself, a belief. Albeit a redundant one.

I explained thoughtfully what i dislike about Buddhism. and yes, ive read a great deal into buddhism which is why im able to crticize aspects of it.

Nor did i categorically reject it in the popular christian manner. I have a good friend whose a buddhist and i have absolutely no problem with the particular school shes apart of.

Nonetheless, Buddhism does have a antinomian/nihilistic streak in it, and its this which i condemn and am perfectly allowed to do so.

Im glad youre matrue enough to keep quiet about Judaism and Christianity. However, the word "judeo-christian" is a misnomer and oxymoron. Christianity the religion itself, has much in common with Buddhism (see gnosticism), whereas the popular christian attitude and manner of worship is similar to Judaism. So, its not really a theological kinship which exemplifiies the term "Judeo -chrisitan' but moreso a simple acknowledgement of a personal G-d who has given mankind objective laws to live by. Both Christians and Jews live by this.

Kabbalah - Judaisms inner dimension surely sets itself apart from Christianity. And its this inner dimension which makes the term Judeo-christian a oxymoron. Christianity has a rebellious streak in it. Again, see gnosticism.

Christians criticizing Buddhists, Muslims criticizing Jews, ...

Like monkeys throwing poo at eachother. So sad considering we live in the 21st century

Interesting article that was given, and the posts are something that are to be thought about. Though the mention of Zen, well lets just say that is really not a sect of Buddhism. The reason why is that for a sect to be valid, it has to have a direct line to the first Buddha from which all Buddhist teachings were to have come from. The Zen sect, at one point, the masters of such, were killed and thus it is considered a dead topic, and even in the Buddhist circles, it is considered to be an a very bad thing to look, read or even practice for that exact reason. The teachings have to go from master to student, with out any breaks. And just exactly how much do you really know of Buddhism and its teachings? After all as there are 3 paths of Buddhism, the diamond, movement, and southern paths.
There have always been problems in all religions. Not one has been without exception or beyond reproach. The more notable ones are of the Christian church, though others have their own skeletons. In the article, there are allegations that are made, yet very little in the way of evidence that is not bias. And the other thing, is that this is not the first nor the last country to pass laws to ban the spread of foreign churches into its lands. (Try that in Russia, or dare I say it: Iran and see how far you get real quick)
So this should not be surprising or even shocking that such laws are being passed to curve the activities. And lets face it the Christians exactly do not paint a good picture, from the point of view of history, you know those little wars over different pieces of lands where they tried to exterminate every one who believed differently than them, called the Crusades, and the different reformations that happened there after, and the failure of most good Christian churches to speak up when some of the greatest atrocities happened.
It is always easy to point out the failings of any organization, or country.
The mere mention of child prostitution in some of these countries currently is something that many people around the world are taking more of an interest in both for the good and the bad, leading to other questions, such as would the industry exist if there was not a demand for it? After all it can not exist if there is no demand and at the last time I saw any records on such, seems like the estimates were that the majority of the offenders were coming from the Western world, and a majority of the offenders were Christian men, some of whom were married.
Sides are we any sure about Tibet? After all it is an occupied country, namely China, where the policies of the Chinese government, since the time of Mao, is that all belief in anything other than the government and party is highly disapproved of, discouraged and could cause a person to end up in jail or prison or killed, at the will of the judge. His Holiness, the Dali Lama, I have seen accusations made, yet what really is his crime? Wanting there to be peace, an end to suffering around the world, and for Tibet to be free, through non violent means? Wait a minute, is that the same man who has won a peace prize and has irritated the Chinese government? We could say the same thing for Jesus, after all he did irritate the local government, and Rome, he wanted peace, an end to suffering, and for all men to be free. Sounds like the same idea, different means to approach it. Or how about this: A man who wanted his people to be free, through non violent means, willing to sacrifice everything, stand up for what is right and be willing to die for his belief and not let anyone be willing to raise a hand in anger. Kind of sounds like the same message from 2 other people, one behind Gandhi, a devout Hindu when leading India to freedom from the British Empire and Dr. King who led the civil rights march here in the USA, none of those guys sound bad to me, do they sound that bad to you? If you listen to the Dali Lama, he claims to be nothing more than a man and a monk, that is all. He wants all of his people to make their own decisions and to decide what is correct for them, not just cause it is written down in one old musty tome or cannon. After all there is a saying about not believing.
Now India is broken down by not only caste system but with the following religions as well: Hinduism is 82% of the population. Islam 12%, Christianity 2.5%, Sikhism 2 %, Buddhism .07%, Jainism .05%, Zoroastrianism 0.01%, and Judaism is .0005%. That is the population breakdown by population of the country of India, so that fact that was mentioned was wrong.
1) The civil war in Sri-Lanka came about as it was a colony of the British Empire, that like all colonies, divided the people who had been living there for years without any conflict, only to end up having one group above the other, and the influx of western ideas and cultures that led to a group of people trying to gain the freedom as they saw in the rest of the world.
2) The Cambodian killing fields were instituted by the Khmer Rouge, which was working with, a group that viewed all religion as poison, yes the communist.
3) The Vietnamese, led by Ho-chi Mien, were communist, and to stop the violence, as history will recall, seeing Buddhist monks setting themselves on fire.
4) Like many religious figures and persons, during a civil war, they tend to duck, cover, give aid to all who want it and avoid getting in the way of gun fire.
5) Where was Buddhist “ahimsa” during the cultural revolution? Hiding like the rest of the people, during that time, speaking out against Mao was punished by either imprisonment or a bullet, which ever the judge decided at the time, first offence was usually imprisonment and re-education.
6) Buddhism and Taoism are 2 separate beliefs, and when a bomb goes off near you, it is not religion you tend to think about.
7) Japanese soldiers were not Buddhist. In fact during the war, those who spoke out, were, and history will tell you, imprisoned and or executed. Most Japanese soldiers followed the Bushido, and were Shinto in belief not Buddhist.
8) See #7
9) Cause those in charge of China are not Buddhist or really have a religion publicly, if they did, they would really not be in that position in the first place, as it would cause doubt about their loyalty to the party and the people.
10) And once again, is this before or after these countries were a colony and thus ran by a good Christian people to be abused and used, and like bad guests, fail to realize when they needed to leave?
Now women in religion have always gotten a bad wrap. Though it seems as though your information on Buddhism is slightly flawed, as there is one of the practices where women are put above all others, and that would be the TARA.
Christianity on the other hand, well women are painted as a more bigger evil than both the Jewish and Romans combined. After all according to the bible, a woman was responsible for the original sin, a woman cut the hair off of Sampson, a woman asked for the head of John the Baptist.
The ultimate point is that no religion is perfect and non should throw stones at any other religion, lest that they themselves fall under the same scrutiny as they are putting others in.
And one final thought before I leave, do you know who the ancient Aryans are and who their descendents happen to be? I can tell you it was not the German race, as much as propaganda would lead you to be. Not even in that part of the world. Happens to be that the modern day children of the Aryans happen to be the people who practice Zoroastrians and the people of Iran, the majority of whom happen to practice Islam.

reply to post by dontreally


Hey, listen... I am not saying you don't have the right to say anything. Say what you will, all I'm saying is that yours and others posts in this thread have shown yourselves to not have a fair or full understanding of what you are giving your opinions on. I do not feel like picking apart each post and correcting people on their mistakes or misunderstandings, in fact I do not want to correct anyone, all I am saying is you should study more about what you are judging because you show serious misunderstandings of the topic. And let's not get into semantics, as you said above, about what the definition of "belief" is or the context the word is being used in.

Are there parts of Buddhism that are flawed? Are there "Bad Buddhists"? Hell yes there are.
Are there parts of Christianity that are flawed? Are there "Bad Christians"? Of course.

So what's the point in singling out any one religion and criticizing or comparing it to another? Do they not all suffer from similar problems? Do you think Buddha or Jesus would of wanted their followers to build monestary's or church's or statues in their name, or do you think they would of wanted people praying or worshiping to them? No, of course not. Yet people still do these things, and so that is a fault of mankind or religion as a whole, not just a single religion. Do not take up issue with the message just because the people who claim to follow that message are faulty. Study the message yourself and judge upon that.

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
reply to post by dontreally

 

Hey, listen... I am not saying you don't have the right to say anything. Say what you will, all I'm saying is that yours and others posts in this thread have shown yourselves to not have a fair or full understanding of what you are giving your opinions on. I do not feel like picking apart each post and correcting people on their mistakes or misunderstandings, in fact I do not want to correct anyone, all I am saying is you should study more about what you are judging because you show serious misunderstandings of the topic. And let's not get into semantics, as you said above, about what the definition of "belief" is or the context the word is being used in.

Are there parts of Buddhism that are flawed? Are there "Bad Buddhists"? Hell yes there are.
Are there parts of Christianity that are flawed? Are there "Bad Christians"? Of course.

So what's the point in singling out any one religion and criticizing or comparing it to another? Do they not all suffer from similar problems? Do you think Buddha or Jesus would of wanted their followers to build monestary's or church's or statues in their name, or do you think they would of wanted people praying or worshiping to them? No, of course not. Yet people still do these things, and so that is a fault of mankind or religion as a whole, not just a single religion. Do not take up issue with the message just because the people who claim to follow that message are faulty. Study the message yourself and judge upon that.

I never made the thread.

Though i do find the main crux of it valid.

As a Gentile who follows Judaism, i consider an objective morality incumbent upon all of us. We all have an obligation to each other. And if theres an obligation - that is, a need to do whats right, than theres an obligator, he who defined for us what is and isnt right. In short, these laws are presented in the the Talmud and Tosefot as the 7 laws of Noach. They constitute 7 basic pricniples, restrictions and boundaries by which every human made in the image of his source is meant to follow.

1. Prohibition of Idolatry: You shall not have any idols before God.
2. Prohibition of Murder: You shall not murder. (Genesis 9:6)
3. Prohibition of Theft: You shall not steal.
4. Prohibition of Sexual immorality: You shall not commit any of a series of sexual prohibitions, which include adultery, incest, sodomy, and bestiality.
5. Prohibition of Blasphemy: You shall not blaspheme God's name.
6. Dietary Law: Do not eat flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive. (Genesis 9:4, as interpreted in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 59a)
7. Requirement to have just Laws: Do not punish by these lessons

Buddhism is often desscribed as being nihilistic. As making 'having no beliefs' a grand belief in itself, a deified rule that every being is governed by his own inner laws. This than trivializes the real world in which we live.

Conversely, Judaism has departed from this universal fascination of pagandom with the unconscious spiritual worlds and fantasy, and have imparted to mankind the will of our ineffable source. G-d requires of us to imitate him by mirroring his attributes.

Anyways. I would be interested in actually talking to someone who knows something about buddhism, as opposed to those who revere the idea popularized in the west of Buddhism and Eastern thought being western mans panacea.

This is definitely being popularized, and honestly, it shouldnt be surprising. The western elite are gnostics who still maintain the tradition of their pagan past. Whether in Greece, Rome, or Nordic, Germanic or Celtic mysticism. There has never been a point where the aristocrats of the west werent misleading their followers while they themselves practicing the 'perennial philosophy' as huxley called it, which is perhaps most evolved in Hinduism and Buddhism, which is why its been popularized in the west. Theosophy also emerged many years before the eastern ideas became popular in the west. Alice Bailey, a famous theosophist was a major figure in the early 20th century and in fact founded an organization called lucifer trust (now called lucis trust) which was based on her esoteric philosophy - as contained in her 25 books. Robert Mueller a very influential diploamt and UN undersecretary for 45 years based his philosophy on her writings.

So. Theres definitely a congruency between western and eastern thought. however, is this in the interest of us? Is their vision of the world preferable, to lets say, Judaisms?