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

Susma Rio Sep

Well-Known Member
Messages
828
Reaction score
1
Points
0
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

Purchased Bewilderment
Messages
2,084
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Location
Washington
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

One of Many
Messages
3,786
Reaction score
45
Points
48
Location
Seattle, WA
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

zennish
Messages
5,317
Reaction score
45
Points
48
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

Mercuræn Buddhist
Messages
6,877
Reaction score
275
Points
83
Location
Pacific Ring of Fire
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

New Member
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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-Known Member
Messages
1,318
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
oopmehownerse
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

Well-Known Member
Messages
417
Reaction score
1
Points
0
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

...
Messages
175
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Connecticut
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

zennish
Messages
5,317
Reaction score
45
Points
48
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

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,318
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
oopmehownerse
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

Well-Known Member
Messages
417
Reaction score
1
Points
0
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

Well-Known Member
Messages
828
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Re: Tell me Buddhists here and sympathizers... test of a religion.

"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

in essence
Messages
926
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
Oxfordshire uk
Re: Tell me Buddhists here and sympathizers... test of a religion.

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

Well-Known Member
Messages
417
Reaction score
1
Points
0
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!"
 

Francis king

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,318
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
oopmehownerse
samabudhi, I am crude, yet I am deliberately crude... I am, though, sorry that u find me horrible and don't enjoy talking with me, as I quite like hearing what u have to say... as I said, I was not attempting to attack u, as a being, just ur views, which I find erroneous... u too, in turn, are free to attack my similarly erroneous views, although if u would prefer a less reactionary word, then maybe I should say- debate...

imo, it is not my karma that makes me disparaging of some precious jewels of the sangha, but my experience...

as you said- 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

which was my point, really...

u think thinking that beings are unlucky is "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", and that upsets me a little, for it does not appear as compassionate as the uddana or "spoken gift" u quoted above...

susma, buddhism, as a religion, IS a typical and conventional religion, I would agree, but I would not agree that "its best followers are habituated to cite the words of their founder and their primitive by thousands of years doctrinaires... it's best followers read the texts, and try to interpret them in a way which enables the reader to understand better the ideas contained within, rather than recite what they have been told is the way without thinking...

and yes, susma, ur right- "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"

which is, I think, what buddhism does, and I think, christianity and Islam also does... although, that might just be me "karma" talking...again...
 

Susma Rio Sep

Well-Known Member
Messages
828
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Re: Tell me Buddhists here and sympathizers... Dalai Lama and facts.

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

I would not take him seriously in this regard, because he does not have the habit of facts, evidence, and logic.

For one he believes that he is the rebirth of someone... wait I will look it up what he is a rebirth of; here, read the following:

...Dalai Lama, ... form a tulku lineage of Gelugpa leaders which trace back to 1391. Tibetan Buddhists believe the Dalai Lama to be one of innumerable incarnations of Avalokitesvara ("Chenrezig" [spyan ras gzigs] in Tibetan), the bodhisattva of compassion.[1] Between the 17th century and 1959, the Dalai Lama was the head of the Tibetan government, administrating a large portion of the country from the capital Lhasa. The Dalai Lama is the supreme head of Tibetan Buddhism, and the leaders of all four schools consider the Dalai Lama to be the highest lama of the Tibetan traditions. He is often granted the style "His Holiness" (or HH) before his title.

...

The 5th Dalai Lama, with the support of Gushri Khan, a Mongol ruler of Khökh Nuur, united Tibet. The Dalai Lamas continued to rule in Tibet until the People's Republic of China invaded the region in 1949 and then took full control in 1959. The 14th Dalai Lama then fled to India and has since ceded temporal power to an elected government-in-exile. The current 14th Dalai Lama seeks greater autonomy for Tibet. See History of Tibet for further information.

"Dalai" means "ocean" in Mongolian, and "Lama" (bla ma) is the Tibetan equivalent of the Sanskrit word "guru", and so may mean "teacher" or "monk." The actual title was first bestowed by the Mongolian ruler Altan Khan upon Sonam Gyatso, an abbot at the Drepung monastery who was widely considered the most eminent lama of his time.

. . .

Upon the death of the Dalai Lama, his monks institute a search for the Lama's reincarnation, or yangsi (yang srid), a small child. Familiarity with the possessions of the previous Dalai Lama is considered the main sign of the reincarnation. The search for the reincarnation typically requires a few years. The reincarnation is then brought to Lhasa to be trained by the other Lamas.

Despite its officially secular stance, the government of the People's Republic of China has claimed the power to approve the naming of high reincarnations in Tibet. This decision cites a precedent set by the Qianlong Emperor of the Qing Dynasty, who instituted a system of selecting the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama by means of a lottery which utilised a golden urn with names wrapped in barley balls. Recently, this precedent was called upon to name the Panchen Lama, who is empowered to recognize the new Dalai Lama. There is some speculation that with the death of the current Dalai Lama, the PRC will direct the selection of a successor.

The current Dalai Lama has repeatedly stated that he will never be reborn inside territory controlled by the People's Republic of China [2], and has occasionally suggested that he might choose to be the last Dalai Lama by not being reborn at all. However, he has also stated that the purpose of his repeated incarnations is to continue unfinished work and, as such, if the situation in Tibet remains unchanged, it is very likely that he will be reborn to finish his work [3]. Additionally, in the draft constitution of future Tibet, the institution of the Dalai Lama can be revoked at any time by a democratic majority vote of two-thirds of the Assembly. It is also worth mentioning that the 14th Dalai Lama has stated "Personally, I feel the institution of the Dalai Lama has served its purpose."[4].

. . .

Dalai Lama - encyclopedia article about Dalai Lama.

I would not therefore take his words seriously, not from someone who believes himself to be a rebirth of a series of previous personages; because I am certain that his belief and consequent actuation are not founded on facts, evidence, and logic.


I said that I make my own religion and work to improve and enhance it; for me it is the best religion. What I encourage others to do, is not to accept my religion, but to work out their own.

Thanks just the same if the Dalai Lama means that the religion I make for myself is the best religion for myself.


Susma
 

Susma Rio Sep

Well-Known Member
Messages
828
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Samabudhi said:
Quote:
because I am certain that his belief and consequent actuation are not founded on facts, evidence, and logic.
Please continue.

Actually in this thread I am asking the opinions of Buddhists and their sympathizers whether a post I had written in another forum, the James Randi Educational Foundation Forum (an atheistic skepticism forum) is hate speech.

Because for writing this post:

Quote:
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 (actually a moderator there in JREF Forum).]
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.

I was issued a warning for the offense of hate speech; I am glad to learn from the people here that they can't find any hate speech in the cited text.

About the lot of that text, I received a warning for hate speech, when I asked why in a public board, after reactions from fellow posters there, the admin changed it to a warning not for hate speech against Buddhists but for extremely cruel and hateful content against a fellow member. Extremely cruel and hateful content against a fellow member... that so?

What do you say, guys here, see any extremely cruel and hateful content against a fellow member in that cited text?


That is why I am now posting messages critical of Buddhism and Buddhists to find out how the posters here would react against me. So far so good.

If you are curious I have been having a history of being banned in forums, for writing critical posts on Buddhism and Buddhists of the Western stripe.

Forgive me for this self-commiseration; but the fact is that whereas many Westerners gripe against authoritarianism, dogmatism, religious fanaticism in the traditional religious churches of the West, and therefore embrace Buddhism as opposite to them, they in turn show themselves to be even more intolerant.

And you know what? They have managed to hijack or infiltrate free inquiry, free thought, and free speech anti-religion forums, in order to prevent critics of Buddhism from continuing with their criticism of Buddhism, even bringing about their ousters.

What about you, samabudhi, are you now annoyed with my postings here and feel like wishing I would or should be censured and eventually removed from this forum?


Susma
 

samabudhi

Well-Known Member
Messages
417
Reaction score
1
Points
0
I think you should remove yourself from the forum, go on a long holiday and forget about playing mind games with sincere practitioners. When you're more familiar with the subject, your posts will cut a lot more ground and you'll be able to make your point without being thrown out, even if it's contrary.
 
Top