Buddhism -

right
22% (8 votes)
shite
78% (28 votes)
Total votes: 36

Posted By

sam sanchez
Nov 22 2005 15:15

Tags

Share

Attached files

Comments

sam sanchez
Nov 20 2005 20:35

Admin edit - split from here:

http://libcom.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=79279

I consider myself a buddhist, and this idea certainly has fuck all to do with my buddhism. The buddha himself denied this idea, and vehemently opposed the indian caste system, which is based upon this idea. Your 'buddhist' friend has been listening too much to some eastern master and not thinking or finding things out for himself. I see the buddha as quite seriously anti-authoritarian. He taught that we should not believe anything, nor be obedient, to any authority including him, unless our experience and reasoning told us that we should. An your friend is talking about hindu ideas of re-incarnation, not buddhist ones.

Sam

Volin
Nov 22 2005 12:33

Aye, I'm a 'Buddhist' too actually though I'm still quite skeptical of many of the institutionalised structures and belief-systems found therein. You're completely right tho, an intrinsic anti-authoritarian tendency or basis infact is very clear, especially of what is known of Siddartha himself and his early students. From the Kalama Sutra and its rejection of dogma and appeal for complete self-questioning (and understandinG), the denial of a metaphysical and wordly objects of worship and authority right down to the symbol of the wheel and it's turning -what better metaphor for revolution! I think there's serious challenges to the underlying libertarianism however. Right from the start of the Councils and the acceptance by King Asoka's state you see the traditionalism and conservatism coming in, and I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that most forms of Buddhism are a degraded version of what was actually fundamental. Gary Snyder kicks ass by the way. 8)

luigi the vorpa...
Nov 22 2005 13:30

revol68, I frankly think that comment is mindless and unnecessary. If you have no interest in Buddhism that's up to you, but posts like that are just offensive.

I am not Buddhist, but I agree with many of the ideas and principles of Buddhism, and I suggest that you maybe actually learn something about it before coming out with such stupid comments. angry

And before I get any rants about religion, I will point out that firstly I am HUGELY atheist, secondly, Buddhism is not technically a religion (the Buddha said that the question of God is irrelevant because we can't answer it), and thirdly, many Buddhist ideas are compatible with, if not the same as, many of the ideas of anarchism.

Hey Sam.

Garner
Nov 22 2005 13:45

Not that I disagree with the content of your post, revol, but I think

revol68 wrote:
fuck buddhists fuck them up their pretentious holes.

could possibly be considered flaming.

the button
Nov 22 2005 13:49
Garner wrote:
Not that I disagree with the content of your post, revol, but I think
revol68 wrote:
fuck buddhists fuck them up their pretentious holes.

could possibly be considered flaming.

Do you know, I think you're right.

It's also hard to believe that revol isn't a buddhist, given the air of centredness & tranquility that infuses his every post.

revol, earlier today

luigi the vorpa...
Nov 22 2005 13:50

Right revol68, obviously you can't actually put together a remotely decent argument. But tell you what, while we're at it, we'll just execute all Buddhists shall we? Great, genocide, what a fantastic idea!

Thanks for your input revol68, but you obviously are just completely judgemental and have no idea what you're talking about. So, if you're finished on your Hitleresque genocidal rant (I'll remind you there's no flaming on this forum), I'm sure you'd be doing everyone a great favour if you just went back to reading Stormer and burning crosses.

If you actually bothered to learn anything about Buddhism, rather than just forming your own stereotypes, you'd find out that there is far more to the philosophy. If you ever get the chance, I'd definitely suggest visiting the Friends of The Western Buddhist Order HQ in Manchester. It's more geared up to western secular society than Tibetan Buddhism etc, and I'm sure you'd be less damning once you knew more.

If you insist on holding these prejediced ideas of yours, there's nothing I can do to stop you, but I'll ask that until you can actually string a coherent argument together that you refrain from posting.

the button
Nov 22 2005 13:58
luigi the vorpal hamster wrote:
So, if you're finished on your Hitleresque genocidal rant (I'll remind you there's no flaming on this forum), I'm sure you'd be doing everyone a great favour if you just went back to reading Stormer and burning crosses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law grin

luigi the vorpa...
Nov 22 2005 13:58

P.S. revol68, you wonder what it does other than say meaningless quotes. Not wander.

luigi the vorpa...
Nov 22 2005 13:59

Sorry, the button. Just annoys me when people are so judgemental about cultures and ideas they know nothing about.

luigi the vorpa...
Nov 22 2005 14:03

Look, revol68, I've got to go now. I don't know huge amounts about Buddhism, but what I have heard largely just seems sensible (i.e. not harming other living things, acting with the best intentions in mind).

You are flaming now, and just being offensive. I'd be quite happy to speak more if you can put together a rational argument without just being offensive.

oisleep
Nov 22 2005 14:38

is budhism not the one where if any of their teachings is disproved by science they change their stuff to go alone with the science?

luigi the vorpa...
Nov 22 2005 14:39

I'm not flaming now, but seriously, revol68 some of the things you are saying are sounding worryingly Nazist. You are expressing views I'd expect from only the hardest rascists. Obviously you won't give a reasonable response, and are going to continue to just try and be as offensive as possible. I'll say it again, Buddhism isn't a religion, the Buddha said never to except rules and authority, even him, unless our own experience told us to, and comparing Buddhism to paedophilia is just ridiculous and makes absolutely no sense at all.

If you can put forward a reasonable argument then I'll reply, but if you just continue spouting authoritarianism (on an anarchist forum?) and intolerance, then I have nothing left to say to you.

sam sanchez
Nov 22 2005 14:39

I agree that the way monks live off hand outs from local inhabitants etc. Is parisitic. And I agree there are some pretensious twats who call themselves buddhist. Same goes for anarchists, as you prove. Did you read in your "Anarchism for dummies" book that all anarchists hate all religion and must whine like a teenager who doesn't want to do the washing up whenever its mentioned, just to prove your a real, hardcore anarchist, dude! If you can give a cogent argument against buddhism, rather than spouting meaningless insults or criticising ONE particular buddhist and then generalising your criticism to everyone, then go ahead. If not, leave.

luigi the vorpa...
Nov 22 2005 14:44

oisleep, not exactly. Like I've already said, Buddhism isn't exactly a religion, and the Buddha said never to accept ideas/rules etc. unless our experience says we should. He even said only to follow his teachings if they work for you, which is why the teaching of different Buddhist orders often vary. For example The Friends of The Western Buddhist Order is more geared up towards western society, and so reflects this. Many FWBO monks don't wear robes or shave their hair etc, because it doesn't fit with western society. Tibetan Buddhism is of course entirely different, because it is meant to be relevant to Tibetan society.

In terms of science, Buddhism will accept science and embrace it, but at the same time does not say that science is the be all and end all. Buddism is very flexible.

oisleep
Nov 22 2005 14:48
revol68 wrote:

24 posts and you ask me to leave..

i know, what took him so long!

luigi the vorpa...
Nov 22 2005 14:50

Well done revol68, that was almost a sensible argument.

I can understand your view of "going with the flow", but it's not quite that simple. Buddhism teaches that we should learn to accept impermanence etc. But it also teaches that the harming of another is wrong, and this includes any form of oppression

I should say though, just because Sam has only 24 posts doesn't make his opinion any less valid than yours. I know him personally, and he knows far more about Buddhism than you or I, and I respect his opinion in 24 posts as much as whatever you've written in your 3000 or so.

oisleep
Nov 22 2005 14:51

in practice or in principle?

sam sanchez
Nov 22 2005 14:52

Sorry. Not been here long enough to join your hardcore inner circle. Sorry, I'll get back to sticking up stickers until I can join your cushy little anarchist vanguard.

Quote:
Fuck off to Tibet please!
Quote:
fuck buddhists fuck them up their pretentious holes, i mean it's a bit different if you just got brought up with vaguely religious beliefs, quite another to be a trendy white person chasing after dirty fucking monks
Quote:
Buddhism doesn't have Gods just pretentious chilled out pricks who can afford to wax lyrical about taking things easy.

Seriously though those Tibetian monks need fucking shot!

Quote:
and by flexible you mean innane bollox?
Quote:
as some fucking buddhist has probably said "spelling is but drift wood in the eternal stream of life".

Not a coherant argument about buddhism that isn't based on an insult or a misrepresentation. Its easy.

Tell Me precisely what it is you dislike about buddhism.

Can you repeat that. State it simply, without insults or generalisation, and I'll answer your comment. Otherwise, piss off.

luigi the vorpa...
Nov 22 2005 14:53

revol68, you don't have to be Buddhist to dislike intolerance like yours. You have just gone out of your way to offend anyone who disagrees with you.

I can't see how you can call yourself an anarchist and at the same time be so authoritarian.

the button
Nov 22 2005 15:00
luigi the vorpal hamster wrote:
revol68, you don't have to be Buddhist to dislike intolerance like yours. You have just gone out of your way to offend anyone who disagrees with you.

I can't see how you can call yourself an anarchist and at the same time be so authoritarian.

To be fair, I think he's being rude rather than authoritarian.

Unless an authoritarian is (by your own definition) someone who goes out of their way to offend anyone who disagrees with you. I think I would call that being a dickhead, rather than being an authoritarian.

But I might remind young revol that this is a no-flaming forum. If I was an admin rather than a humble moderator, I would move this thread to General, but I can't. So just play nice, alright?

luigi the vorpa...
Nov 22 2005 15:00

Anyway, I'm sorry, I'll stop now, I just realise I've taken over a social hierarchy post with discussion about Buddhism.

Again, I apologise.

revol68, if you want to discuss it further, start a new post.

oisleep
Nov 22 2005 15:05
the button wrote:

But I might remind young revol that this is a no-flaming forum. If I was an admin rather than a humble moderator, I would move this thread to General, but I can't. So just play nice, alright?

you bitch, i asked you why yr name was in green and you came out with some cock & bull story about being able to post news items, rather than come out and admit the filthy truth, shame on you the button, shame on you

the button
Nov 22 2005 15:07
oisleep wrote:

you bitch, i asked you why yr name was in green and you came out with some cock & bull story about being able to post news items, rather than come out and admit the filthy truth, shame on you the button, shame on you

Off topic abuse. Bin/ban angry

tongue

My mod powers are solely to do with the newswire -- I can't do sheeit in the forums. Honest.

luigi the vorpa...
Nov 22 2005 15:08

Yeah, the button. I understand, but the authoritarian comment was in relation to earlier comments about having Buddhists shot because revol68 doesn't agree with them. That's authoritarian.

luigi the vorpa...
Nov 22 2005 15:12

revol68. New topic. This isn't a post on Buddhism. I've apologised and stopped, so if you want to carry on, start a new post.

Steven.
Nov 22 2005 15:18

FWIW I think Buddhism is a load of balls, like all other religion, spirituality and mysticism.

Luigi - welcome to the boards. While revol might be rude and you might not like him, to call him "authoritarian", a "Nazi" or "racist" is just utterly stupid though.

I don't know anything about kiddy-fiddling monks though - what's up with that?

sam sanchez
Nov 22 2005 15:25

I don't go in for the metaphysical mumbo-jumbo. But I don't think its fundamental to Buddhism. What I find useful is the practise of minfulness. This is just developing concentration and the ability to watch your thoughts and experiences from a detatched viewpoint, so that your better at spotting when your viewpoint is floored. Sounds simple, but its difficult as hell.

As anarchists, I'm always asking people to let go of their under the surface unexamined assumptions i.e. the assumption that we need hierarchy, authority and government. I think the least I can do is pay enough attention to my own mind to make sure I'm not being pushed around by my own irrational prejudices, untested assumptions and counterproductive desires. That's what buddhism is about for me. Plus meditation is enjoyable and relaxing, so what's wrong with it?

sam sanchez
Nov 22 2005 15:27

You repeatedly insist on criticising the actions of some buddhists rather than the ideas and practises of buddhism. Its just like people saying all anarchists are immature teenage punks or terrorists.

Steven.
Nov 22 2005 15:28
sam_frances wrote:
I don't go in for the metaphysical mumbo-jumbo. But I don't think its fundamental to Buddhism. What I find useful is the practise of minfulness. This is just developing concentration and the ability to watch your thoughts and experiences from a detatched viewpoint, so that your better at spotting when your viewpoint is floored. Sounds simple, but its difficult as hell.

Isn't some fundamental tenet of Buddhism "life is suffering"? Cos that sounds like as blatant an apologia for the status quo (NB the definite article) as you can get?

the button
Nov 22 2005 15:32

My problem with Buddhism (founded on almost-total ignorance tongue ) is expressed in the "4 Noble Truths", which go something like (and I await your corrections)

Quote:
The Four Noble Truths

1. Life means suffering.

2. The origin of suffering is attachment.

3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.

4. The path to the cessation of suffering. (Or "noble 8-fold path")

If life means suffering, why take action to do anything about it?

And as for suffering originating in attachment? Well fuck me, so it has nowt to do with capitalism then -- an system of social organisation which condemns millions to poverty & death?

And as for attachment? So all the world's problems would disappear if we were all a little less materialistic, maaaaaaaaan?

Nah. Fuck that.