Tell me Buddhists here and sympathizers, is this hate speech against you?

[Susma Rio Sep]

Please read the following quotation carefully and thoughtfully, and tell me, Buddhists and sympathizers of Buddhists and Buddhism, is it tantamount to hate speech against Buddhism and Buddhists?

Okay, name&name, no more hatred, no more hate mail; translate your Buddhist compassion into love of the kind exercised by folks in the Red Cross and in the Amnesty International and in the Medicins sans Frontieres movement and in the World Wild Life Foundation.

[This paragraph is the incriminating text, line in red for emphasis by some readers.]
But Buddhism and Buddhists, they will never contribute anything of substance to mankind's civilization and culture, because theirs is a philosophy and religion of self and human and life extinction; if the animal drive in Buddhists were not so persistently against self-extinction, they should have all committed suicide long ago, also because their leaders would be out of business and a purpose for being if they should draw their philosophy and religious world view of Nirvana to its utter logical end.

If yes, why, and if not, what about seeing in it a message of extremely cruel and hateful content against a Buddhist?


Susma

[Paladin]

It certainly sounds hateful doesn't it? But I think most Buddhists well versed and practiced in the tenets of their religion would see much more in it than offensive language. I could just imagine Geshe-la reading this after all he has been through, fleeing Tibet just after the Dalai Lama had left for exile in India. He would probably smile and remind us that the person writing this must be suffering greatly and is in need of compassion. No mere trifling sentiment from someone who watched the Chinese destroy villiages, families, cultures, degraded the monsastics and destroyed much of the heritage of Tibet. If such persons like our teacher Ven. Tenzin Kacho could look upon the Chinese soldiers with compassion even though thousands were dying, how much more the writer of these words?
I don't know what suffering might have spawned these sentiments but what ever it is does need healing. No one can destroy the ideas behind what the Buddha taught nor can they kill the sacrifice made by Christ with a simple few angry words. To take offense at the onslaught of those who really have no love in their hearts is more than foolish, it is irrational.

Peace
Mark

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Susma,

thank you for the post.

no, i don't view it as hate speech. ignorant? without doubt. hateful, not to me

metta,

~v

[Snoopy]

Hi,

So is the choice of answer:

It is tantamount to hate speech against Buddhism and Buddhists.

or

It is a message of extremely cruel and hateful content against a Buddhist.


Not much of a choice, is it?


Where did this exhibition of ignorance come from then?

s.

[seattlegal]

I would say this person has a rather warped view of reality, and needs to make some careful observations. This argument is entirely based upon theory, and arguments based only upon theory do not always correspond with actual reality.

[Skaramunga]

I wouldn't say it's hateful in anyway, just a general ignorance of the buddhist religion. The person has just a misguided understanding of Buddhism - which is all too common. Don't forget any time you're learning about a religion and getting your feet wet it's easy to not quite understand the cohesion or meaning of the concepts.
You just can't know everything.

[Francis king]

well, to be honest, I don't see the quote as tantamount to hate speech against Buddhism and Buddhists, and nor do I see it as extremely cruel or hateful- I think it is just the view of an angry person who is not particularly knowledgable about buddhism...

in fact, although I don't agree with it all, I would go so far as to say the author might actually raise some valid points...

there are a lot of buddhists who bang on about compassion, and yet how many of them really do anything for anyone else? yes, they buy all the books written by all the gurus, but what use is that? sitting on ur special buddha cushion reciting rhetoric is no use to the world- u make urself feel good, but nobody else benefits from it, do they? I would love it if buddhists realised the potential within buddhism for buddhism to be a vehicle of social change, but lets face it, most buddhists in the west are middle class white ppl with too much money and not enough sense, and buddhism is a distraction for them, something fashionable to get into, something worthy of merit on the hippy circuit, and for these ppl, reaching enlightenment will take several lifetimes...

It would be finer if all those monks sitting on cushions staring at the wall went out and did voluntary work, got in the thick of things, made waves, made the world a better place via action, yet, in truth, most ppl who claim to be religious are only in it for themselves, and that includes most of the gurus who ppl hold in such great esteem...if the gurus used the profits they made to fund hospitals in the third world, or they opened soup kitchens, or they had outreach programs for homeless drug addicts, then yes, I would then see their compassionate wisdom made real, but most of them dont, although that doesn't apply only to buddhists....

buddhism is often thought as a nihilistic religion, due to bad translations of dharma- it appears that some ppl cannot get their little heads around the idea of extinguishing the ego without extinguishing the life, or the self, and for that reason buddhism is seen by some to be like a form of suicide... in truth, the self does not exist, there is no self, the self is composed of many ideas and influences, and none of them are original or unique to the individual, and the idea is to recognise this, recognise that these characteristics of the individual are not so unique, and at least in theory, this should inspire u to cut out the dead wood within urself, and be urself, rather than be the person that society shapes u into being, which is positive, rather than nihilistic...

as for the animal drive in buddhists preventing them from killing themselves, that made me smile, as no decent buddhist would think about doing themselves such violence, nor advocating such for others...

as far as I've been led to believe, nirvana is not extinction, or at least, not extinction of life... I translate nirvana as- no forest, or rather, no delusion, but maybe thats just me...

[samabudhi]

if the gurus used the profits they made to fund hospitals in the third world, or they opened soup kitchens, or they had outreach programs for homeless drug addicts, then yes, I would then see their compassionate wisdom made real, but most of them dont

This is the Hari Krsna's modus operandi, and see how well it is received in the west?

In any case this generalisation is false. I haven't met a guru who doesn't have some outreach program on the go. But understand that they do this only when their more precise role as spiritual heirs is not appreciated.
The monastic life is for study, meditation, and teaching the lay. The monastery is the spiritual pillar of society which gives direction and purpose, a commodity almost completely lacking in western society since we rejected the father.

Buddhism is not about rejecting society however. It's about attaining perfection of mind, the extinction of suffering here and now, which has, as a by-product, unimaginable compassion, wisdom and power.
And when one's mind is calm and undefiled, there is nothing stopping people from helping themselves. As Buddhas and Bodhisattvas understand, this purification of mind is the foremost method of ending suffering, rather than flooding handouts which last only as long as the stomach is full.
It's quite pathetic, actually, how some consider generosity and compassion flying over some miserable African country and turfing out a load of grain. Motivated by guilt and shame - this is not the way to live.

Motivated by universal compassion, we need to understand the true cause of suffering.

I was in Angola a few years ago. You know what their problem is? Greed. A state of mind.
They have oil reserves coming out of their ears, money is not the problem. But those who have, covert for themselves, and the rest of society lives a meager existence. Why? Because they live in a society of demon worship. Those demons are self-interest, immorality, shamelessness, apathy.

Please, don't worship demons. Cherish these spiritual teachers we are so fortunate to have. They will disappear if we don't, this is certain.

[jiii]

Firstly, I don't consider this to be particularly hateful. At least the author expressed his 'take' on Buddhism without resorting to name-calling and the such.

Secondly, I think the problem lies right about here.

(from the paragraph cited at this thread's opening)
...if they should draw their philosophy and religious world view of Nirvana to its utter logical end.

The author of this short commentary you offered, Susma Rio Sep, seems to be under the impression that Buddhism is based, quintessentially, upon a logical premise. This is not the case, whatsoever. In fact, this interpretation of Buddhism as basically an Eastern version of Nihilism is the very misconception that was originally adopted when Buddhism was first formally introduced to the West in the mid to late 1800s. The Buddha-dharma is most certainly not a nihilistic doctrine, but it might certainly seem that way if it is interpreted as a 'philosophy' and judged based upon this exterior representation.

I don't think the author was hateful, really, just somewhat confused.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Francis king

there are a lot of buddhists who bang on about compassion, and yet how many of them really do anything for anyone else? yes, they buy all the books written by all the gurus, but what use is that? sitting on ur special buddha cushion reciting rhetoric is no use to the world- u make urself feel good, but nobody else benefits from it, do they?

Hi,

I don’t know what percentage of “Buddhists” really do anything for anyone else. Do you?

If a person is not “doing anything for anyone else” that person will not in the future either, unless they themselves change first. They will not / cannot change if they never enquire within. I would suggest that this is where the sitting comes in (if that is the practice one has chosen).

s.

[Francis king]

samabudhi, u say, in reference to my post "....This is the Hari Krsna's modus operandi, and see how well it is received in the west?"

well, apart from food for life programs, I dont think they did much else, and I might be wrong but I thought that they only did that to recruit ppl into their flock, so I dont see ur point there...

u also say- "I haven't met a guru who doesn't have some outreach program on the go", and to this I would say then u are very fortunate, for I have met plenty who don't, and for most of those who do they do it for the sake of their charitable status, and the percentage of profit that is spent is minimal.

you also say "But understand that they do this only when their more precise role as spiritual heirs is not appreciated"

and to this I have to laugh. To my mind, the only teacher is the dharma, I am not a flag waver or someone who bows and scrapes. Unfortunately for me, most teachers I encounter are not worthy of my worship, but maybe that's just me.

you also say "The monastic life is for study, meditation, and teaching the lay. The monastery is the spiritual pillar of society which gives direction and purpose", although to me not much real study goes on, unless u count reciting parrot fashion what ur told is the way, u dont need a temple to meditate in, and as for teaching the lay, what do they teach? A half- cocked version of buddhism is what most of them teach. U don't need monks or gurus, all u need is a good IP, or a library pass. The rest u can work out for urself, should u bother to look, in my humble opinion. Also, in my opinion, monastic life is nothing more than a nice excuse to sit on ur bum and pontificate while other ppl pay ur way in life.

You then go onto say that "(purpose is), a commodity almost completely lacking in western society since we rejected the father". Now, this I don't understand, as buddhism doesn't have a god, or a father, and I assumed u was a buddhist. I personally dislike all this talk of how "spiritual" and "enlightened" the East is, and how crappy the west is in comparison. Western society has plenty of purpose. I fail to see whats so spiritual about sitting in a hovel in Tibet drinking yak butter tea with a dirty face scratching my flea bites. Developing central heating and feeding the poor ppl would be a more useful thing than spending all ur hard earned cash buying gold leaf to garnish statues with.

You then go onto say- "Buddhism is not about rejecting society" (I agree with u there...), and u also say "It's about attaining perfection of mind, the extinction of suffering here and now, which has, as a by-product, unimaginable compassion, wisdom and power" and here I disagree with you. The perfection of mind thing is a myth. Buddha said- I teach only the origin of suffering, a way out of suffering, and the cessation of suffering... Compassion is rarely mentioned by the buddha. A feeling of mental perfection does not usually have such noble by-products. Being perfect is not what buddhism is about. Buddhism is about knowing the self and avoiding suffering so that u can have a better existence.

I dislike all this defilement stuff. My mind is not defiled. My mind is actually quite bright and clean. I swear, I smoke, I pick my nose and scratch my bum, I fart, I snore, I laugh, I tell rude jokes and I dance. Nor do I consider others to be defiled, unpure and by inference, unholy. Instead, buddhism taught me to appreciate others for what they are, without trying to change them into something they're not. We're all like nagarjuna's "fools at the magic show", we torment ourselves, dig mudholes to fall into, and are frightened by illusions we create ourselves. None of us are perfect.

you also say "there is nothing stopping people from helping themselves. As Buddhas and Bodhisattvas understand, this purification of mind is the foremost method of ending suffering, rather than flooding handouts which last only as long as the stomach is full. It's quite pathetic, actually, how some consider generosity and compassion flying over some miserable African country and turfing out a load of grain. Motivated by guilt and shame - this is not the way to live".

plenty of ppl would love to help themselves. Its why ppl row from Cuba to the USA in ramshackle boats, its why starving barefoot african mothers will walk 25K with a dying child in their arms for the hope of some food for their little ones. Handout are better than starvation. A full belly is better than books. U can't eat statues. When I give my few pennies to charity, I do not do it becuase I am motivated by guilt and shame. I am in fact motivated by compassion, as most of the ppl who give their few pennies are. Better to give a few pence than to give nothing. I hear this a lot on the buddhist scene, this- hey- dont give to charity, cos ur motivations wrong, stare at the wall instead and give ur money to me rubbish, and it sickens me. Any teacher who says it deserves to be boiled in oil. May the wheel of the law run right over their heads.

next u say- "Motivated by universal compassion, we need to understand the true cause of suffering", and I agree there. Shall we list the ways..? Ppl suffer because of ignorance, they suffer because of greed and hatred. They do not suffer because they don't agree with what guru so-and-so says, or at least, not where I live they don't.

you then go on to mention Angola, and mention that they have large oil reserves and state that their problem is greed. Yes, greed is a poison, something that causes suffering, but it is not a demon. It is something bad within mankind which would benefit everyone if it was tempered. But not all ppl are greedy and ignorant and fueled by hate, and by inference, are deserving the sufferings they experience. Some ppl are just unlucky. Giving hungry ppl "buddhadharma" is a noble idea, but u would be better off giving them a good meal first...

as for these "spiritual teachers we are so fortunate to have"... most of them are not worthy of ur worship. As far as I can see, most of them appear to disappear regularly anyway, up their own bums, along with all the wee brown nosers who worship at their lotus like feet. Do their farts smell of roses? Can they fly into the sky? are they not just men and women, like me and u? what makes their version of reality any more valid than ur own? Samatha meditation does not generate compassion. Samatha meditation uncovers the clear mind u have, which is underneath all the rubbish u've been spoon fed since u crawled out of the womb. But by itself it is useless. U also need to contemplate the concepts, adhere to the five great gifts, and eventually, u'll wake up and smell the coffee.

hopefully u will find all that very reactionary, although I hope u appreciate I am not personally attacking u... please feel free to attack my views, its the nature of debate, after all..

cheerio

[samabudhi]

samabudhi, u say, in reference to my post "....This is the Hari Krsna's modus operandi, and see how well it is received in the west?"

well, apart from food for life programs, I dont think they did much else, and I might be wrong but I thought that they only did that to recruit ppl into their flock, so I dont see ur point there...

"People blame others for their silence. They blame those who talk much and those who talk in moderation. There is therefore no one in this world who is not blamed." - Buddha

Naropa has said, "samsara is the tendency to find fault with others."

u also say- "I haven't met a guru who doesn't have some outreach program on the go", and to this I would say then u are very fortunate, for I have met plenty who don't, and for most of those who do they do it for the sake of their charitable status, and the percentage of profit that is spent is minimal.

you also say "But understand that they do this only when their more precise role as spiritual heirs is not appreciated"

and to this I have to laugh. To my mind, the only teacher is the dharma, I am not a flag waver or someone who bows and scrapes. Unfortunately for me, most teachers I encounter are not worthy of my worship, but maybe that's just me.

It's not you, it's your karma.

You then go onto say- "Buddhism is not about rejecting society" (I agree with u there...), and u also say "It's about attaining perfection of mind, the extinction of suffering here and now, which has, as a by-product, unimaginable compassion, wisdom and power" and here I disagree with you. The perfection of mind thing is a myth. Buddha said- I teach only the origin of suffering, a way out of suffering, and the cessation of suffering... Compassion is rarely mentioned by the buddha. A feeling of mental perfection does not usually have such noble by-products. Being perfect is not what buddhism is about. Buddhism is about knowing the self and avoiding suffering so that u can have a better existence.

Should a man not exert himself on every occasion,
Not exist for another,
Not live for the sake of others,
Truly, he does not live the holy life
- Udana

you also say "there is nothing stopping people from helping themselves. As Buddhas and Bodhisattvas understand, this purification of mind is the foremost method of ending suffering, rather than flooding handouts which last only as long as the stomach is full. It's quite pathetic, actually, how some consider generosity and compassion flying over some miserable African country and turfing out a load of grain. Motivated by guilt and shame - this is not the way to live".

plenty of ppl would love to help themselves. Its why ppl row from Cuba to the USA in ramshackle boats, its why starving barefoot african mothers will walk 25K with a dying child in their arms for the hope of some food for their little ones. Handout are better than starvation. A full belly is better than books. U can't eat statues. When I give my few pennies to charity, I do not do it becuase I am motivated by guilt and shame. I am in fact motivated by compassion, as most of the ppl who give their few pennies are. Better to give a few pence than to give nothing. I hear this a lot on the buddhist scene, this- hey- dont give to charity, cos ur motivations wrong, stare at the wall instead and give ur money to me rubbish, and it sickens me. Any teacher who says it deserves to be boiled in oil. May the wheel of the law run right over their heads.

You have not understood the cause of suffering.

If a doctor gives a patient medicine for an illness they do not suffer, it may well do more damage than good.

you then go on to mention Angola, and mention that they have large oil reserves and state that their problem is greed. Yes, greed is a poison, something that causes suffering, but it is not a demon. It is something bad within mankind which would benefit everyone if it was tempered. But not all ppl are greedy and ignorant and fueled by hate, and by inference, are deserving the sufferings they experience. Some ppl are just unlucky.

Nonsense. You are the cause of your own suffering - all of it. There is no 'luck'. This is just an excuse for not taking responsibility of your life.

as for these "spiritual teachers we are so fortunate to have"... most of them are not worthy of ur worship. As far as I can see, most of them appear to disappear regularly anyway, up their own bums, along with all the wee brown nosers who worship at their lotus like feet. Do their farts smell of roses? Can they fly into the sky? are they not just men and women, like me and u? what makes their version of reality any more valid than ur own? Samatha meditation does not generate compassion. Samatha meditation uncovers the clear mind u have, which is underneath all the rubbish u've been spoon fed since u crawled out of the womb. But by itself it is useless. U also need to contemplate the concepts, adhere to the five great gifts, and eventually, u'll wake up and smell the coffee.

hopefully u will find all that very reactionary, although I hope u appreciate I am not personally attacking u... please feel free to attack my views, its the nature of debate, after all..

You're a crude man and I don't enjoy talking with you. I'm not interested in attacking your views.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by samabudhi

"People blame others for their silence. They blame those who talk much and those who talk in moderation. There is therefore no one in this world who is not blamed." - Buddha

Naropa has said, "samsara is the tendency to find fault with others."


It's not you, it's your karma.


Should a man not exert himself on every occasion,
Not exist for another,
Not live for the sake of others,
Truly, he does not live the holy life
- Udana


You have not understood the cause of suffering.

If a doctor gives a patient medicine for an illness they do not suffer, it may well do more damage than good.


Nonsense. You are the cause of your own suffering - all of it. There is no 'luck'. This is just an excuse for not taking responsibility of your life.


You're a crude man and I don't enjoy talking with you. I'm not interested in attacking your views.

Ipse dixit, he said so. Buddhism is a typical and conventional religion, its best followers are habituated to cite the words of their founder and their primitive by thousands of years doctrinaires. That is authoritarianism pure and simple but regrettable.

You're a crude man and I don't enjoy talking with you. I'm not interested in attacking your views. -- samabudhi

When Buddhists just like other committed members of a religion cannot or will not attend carefully to your views, they will resort to telling you that you are not worthy to have their ears and eyes, much less mind and heart.

So... will they ever learn anything new or different in order that at least the possibility of their getting to know more deeply and genuinely of the useful and also of the useless and even baneful in their religion?

I for one have a religion, but one which I fashion for myself and am continuously improving and enhancing.

I propose to everyone to do likewise. No need to convert to this or that religion, and certainly not to Buddhism even though it has the glamor of coming from the Far East with its supposedly aura of mysticism, and it has an origin going back 500 years before common era; these two features are not but only fallacious ways of attributing merit to a religion as to any idea.

The only foolproof test of an idea is whether it can improve human life and enhance human life and also make man more respectful to the rest of living nature and no less inanimate nature.


Susma

[Ciel]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

The only foolproof test of an idea is whether it can improve human life and enhance human life and also make man more respectful to the rest of living nature and no less inanimate nature.


Susma

Thank you Susma.............

[samabudhi]

Buddhism is a typical and conventional religion, its best followers are habituated to cite the words of their founder and their primitive by thousands of years doctrinaires.

Francis King says the Dharma is his teacher. Why wouldn't I quote the Dharma?

When Buddhists just like other committed members of a religion cannot or will not attend carefully to your views

Did I say that I will not attend carefully to others' views?

No need to convert to this or that religion, and certainly not to Buddhism even though it has the glamor of coming from the Far East with its supposedly aura of mysticism, and it has an origin going back 500 years before common era; these two features are not but only fallacious ways of attributing merit to a religion as to any idea.

If these are your reasons for following the Dharma, then you're probably better of, back on the fence.

In any event, when the Dalai Lama was asked which is the best religion, he replied, "Yours!"