Running into walls again....ARGH!

[Vajrahridaya]

Has Buddhism or any other belief system actually solved this human dilemma?

 

The Buddha did solve the human dilemma and Norbu Rinpoche lives in the state that is beyond the human dilemma, yet alas, you can show the horse water but you cannot make him drink. That's a problem of humans, not religion. Your perspective is absolutist and does not recognize relativity and you don't understand where you are wrong in your view, so it seems to me at least. Your statements are a generalization based on a lack of insight. They spring from black and white thinking which is not reflective of the experience of Rigpa. Rigpa sees the universal field of relativity.

 

If not, why? What about disease, poverty and sanitation?

 

That's a global responsibility and religion more than any other organisation of any type gives more money and help to the impoverished as well as the beings in religion who are in it for the right reasons who make history with their level of self sacrifice for the sake of uplifting the downtrodden and impoverished. Look at Amma and Mother Theresa for instance. Anyway, the Buddha talks about how these circumstances happen for people, through Karma. All your misunderstandings come from not understanding the Buddhas teachings of how the universe cycles, how individuals get themselves into certain predicaments that are self destructive and are able to get themselves out. If everyone understood the Buddhas teachings, we wouldn't have any of these problems.

 

Why are some belief systems not used proactively to meet real human needs?

 

The real human need is to understand dependent origination, thus business' would not have a parochial vision and dump waste into clean water, and oil companies would turn to investing in renewable resources with their money, the world would get together and non-selfishly share information and resources in a kind of global communalism among many other positive things. If everyone saw interconnectivity, we would loose selfishness and the world would stop revolving around the race to please oneself as individual pleasure seekers who seek through material gains for the sake of a joy that's innate. People do deluded things because they don't understand or experience their own Rigpa. You might have experienced it, but you don't understand it, it's meanings or it's subtle implications or ramifications. You think the Buddha taught something that died with him, but that's because you haven't experienced the meaning of his teachings, as far as I can tell. This doesn't need to be insulting, but you should open your mind a bit. Of course you think your mind is open and mine is closed. But you don't see the illogic and unreasoning of your arguments. I sometimes wonder how old you are? Buddhism is concerned with the cause of suffering and the end of suffering. With this it does the job perfectly and all the problems of humanity arise due to individuals not seeing the end of psychological suffering from within themselves which is merely transforming marigpa into rigpa. You ask these questions and you make statements, but I wonder how you could make such statements and be a student of an amazing Buddhist master who makes it clear that the condition of suffering for anyone arises from a lack of true cognition which is what Rigpa is.

 

What are the psychological constructs that causes humans to behave in a reactionary, irrational way when their precious belief systems are questioned?

 

I don't feel questioned by you actually Ralis. I feel that you need help with clarity. Your view needs clarification because you keep bashing Buddhism, but you say you follow the teachings of a Buddhist master?

 

As far as people who react out of insecurity, it's because their view is merely a belief and not an experience. It's merely a set of ideas and not an insight.

 

Ah voices in the background...

Do you mistakenly judge and irrationally misinterpret?

 

BTW, I do question my own BS everyday!!

ralis

 

Oh, revealed! I actually feel an energetic relief. That's wonderful! I didn't want to say so because sometimes I compliment someone then they turn to just attack me as a thank you, but I do sense a softness in you. I guess I'm not fooling myself.

 

VH

Edited October 22, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[JustARandomPanda]

On the question of whether religions have been a cause of suffering and violence throughout human history I'd like to point out that agnosticism and atheism don't have a good track record either.

 

Some of the greatest genocides known to human history were done in the name of atheism and agnosticism.

 

Hitler

Stalin

Mao

Pol Pot

 

Just a few examples to name.

 

If religions (and by extension their adherents) are going to be accused of causing genocide then agnostics and atheists likewise must own up that the track record is no better under their alternative.

[nac]

If religions (and by extension their adherents) are going to be accused of causing genocide then agnostics and atheists likewise must own up that the track record is no better under their alternative.

The standard atheist defense to this is: the atheist view itself didn't make Hitler kill people any more than his mustache did. Atheism is a negation of religious dogma and a negation can't influence people in committing genocide. They also point out that Hitler was a strict vegetarian and stood by his own beliefs and moral code. In my opinion, this could be an apt defense for pacifistic religions too.

 

Call this "sameness" or "difference", it all comes down to view in the end.

Hey, does Advaitin non-duality transcend sameness and difference? Both the Tao and Emptiness probably do. It's possible that it transcends them, but I don't see how if we're all illusory creations of one big Self. Seems to be pushing awfully close towards eternalism and ultimate sameness.

Edited October 22, 2009 by nac

[ralis]

On the question of whether religions have been a cause of suffering and violence throughout human history I'd like to point out that agnosticism and atheism don't have a good track record either.

 

Some of the greatest genocides known to human history were done in the name of atheism and agnosticism.

 

Hitler

Stalin

Mao

Pol Pot

 

Just a few examples to name.

 

If religions (and by extension their adherents) are going to be accused of causing genocide then agnostics and atheists likewise must own up that the track record is no better under their alternative.

 

Hitler was very religious. To paraphrase, "it is our duty as Christians to exterminate the Jews". The 3rd Reich was steeped in religion (Catholicism) and mythology. Germany was and still is a predominately Catholic country.

 

Remember, George Bush who claimed to be "saved" is responsible for at least 1 million deaths of Iraqi women and children. This was with the support of the religious right wing.

 

How many million deaths is the Catholic church responsible for, during the inquisitions and crusades?

 

 

 

ralis

Edited October 22, 2009 by ralis

[nac]

Hitler was very religious. To paraphrase, "it is our duty as Christians to exterminate the Jews". The 3rd Reich was steeped in religion (Catholicism) and mythology.

Not quite. He praised and criticized Christianity depending on his audience. He played them like a violin. Still, he criticized them most of the time.

 

Influenced by Nietszche’s writings and Thule Society creeds, Hitler believed that Christianity was a defective religion, infected by its roots in Jewish thinking. He viewed its teachings of forgiveness, the triumph of the weak, and self-abnegation as anti-evolutionary and saw himself as a messiah replacing God and Christ. Steiner had used the image of the Antichrist and Lucifer as future spiritual leaders who would regenerate Christianity in a new pure form. Hitler went much further. He saw himself as ridding the world of a degenerate system and bringing about a new step in evolution with the Aryan master race. He could tolerate no rival Antichrists, either now or in the future. He was tolerant, however, of Buddhism.

http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archi...hala_tibet.html

 

Besides, communist leaders like Stalin and Mao were definitely atheists. No doubt about it.

Edited October 22, 2009 by nac

[JustARandomPanda]

Hitler was very religious. To paraphrase, "it is our duty as Christians to exterminate the Jews". The 3rd Reich was steeped in religion (Catholicism) and mythology. Germany was and still is a predominately Catholic country.

 

I'll have to go do research then as this was not what I was taught. It was my understanding that though Hitler was from a Roman Catholic home he rejected it.

 

But even if we toss Hitler out that still leaves Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot as examples.

 

 

 

My point being that people are able to use their beliefs to support genocidal wars no matter whether those beliefs are religious, political, economic or philosophical.

 

Anyway...I don't have any answers to this. I just find it disingenuous for Atheists/Agnostics to not acknowledge that genocide has happened by people who promoted their brand of beliefs too.

[nac]

My point being that people are able to use their beliefs to support genocidal wars no matter whether those beliefs are religious, political, economic or philosophical.

I'll bet with sufficient ingenuity and skill, you can use the belief that genocidal wars shouldn't be waged to wage genocidal wars too. IMO it's a little unfair to hold beliefs & teachings accountable if there's no direct causal link.

 

I just find it disingenuous for Atheists/Agnostics to not acknowledge that genocide has happened by people who promoted their brand of beliefs too.

Non-belief.

[JustARandomPanda]

I'll bet with sufficient ingenuity and skill, you can use the belief that genocidal wars shouldn't be waged to wage genocidal wars too. IMO it's a little unfair to hold beliefs & teachings accountable if there's no direct causal link.

 

Pardon. I am unclear as to what you are saying. Are you saying you agree with Ralis and disagree with my statement you quoted?

 

I confess I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes to debates.

[Marblehead]

If religions (and by extension their adherents) are going to be accused of causing genocide then agnostics and atheists likewise must own up that the track record is no better under their alternative.

 

Well, Damn! Now I can't be calling myself an Atheist any more.

 

You sure know how to hurt a guy, Serene. Hehehe.

 

Peace & Love!

[ralis]

This book is well worth reading and Reich clearly states how fanatical beliefs lead to fascism. The emotional roots of fascism are discussed in great detail. The suppression of core feelings which includes sexuality are the reasons that authoritarian systems exist. The higher cause of religion being the most virulent. If one observes the religious right in the U.S. it is obvious that emotional suppression is key.

 

The my religion is more subtle, profound and better than yours is an authoritarian fascist ideology.

 

 

ralis

 

http://www.amazon.com/Mass-Psychology-Fasc...4896&sr=8-1

Edited October 22, 2009 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

 

The my religion is more subtle, profound and better than yours is an authoritarian fascist ideology.

ralis

 

 

Not if it actually is. Vajrayana is of course more subtle and profound as it deals directly with ignorance and the cause of ignorance which is not experiencing one's Buddhanature. It doesn't work through suppression it works through transformation of interpretation. One doesn't repress anger, and one also sublimates the sexual experience. Both if you are a monk or a nagpa, it's about sublimation, not suppression with the idea of original sin, or the idea of this is bad. Of course different people need different techniques, also not every monk is a righteous monk, one has to really want to sublimate and transform the experience of energy in order to do it, it takes great patience and effort, or release of effort and relaxing into through the view.

 

Of course if you think in black and white linearity and over-generalizations, then you only see your own pre-conceived projections and don't really get anywhere with insight. You just label and dismiss without further investigation.

 

The Bond of Power by Joseph Chilton Pearce would be a good read for you Ralis, as it goes into detail about the issues that you seem to be having with interpretation based upon a highly Western education.

[JustARandomPanda]

Just a friendly reminder to everyone:

 

As a precaution - please use the Ignore function if you find someone's posts constantly rub you the wrong way and can not respond without being civil.

 

Edited October 22, 2009 by SereneBlue

[Marblehead]

Hehehe. I wish the "ignore" button had more options so I could ignore all post that reference the "ignore" button.

 

Sorry Serene. I had to do that.

 

I wonder if one of our art students here could create a "kiss and make up" smilie. That might help.

 

Peace & Love!

[Tao99]

Just a friendly reminder to everyone:

 

As a precaution - please use the Ignore function if you find someone's posts constantly rub you the wrong way and can not respond without being civil.

 

Hehehe. I wish the "ignore" button had more options so I could ignore all post that reference the "ignore" button.

 

Sorry Serene. I had to do that.

 

I wonder if one of our art students here could create a "kiss and make up" smilie. That might help.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Being a debate umpire (mod) is such a hard job. One thing in football refereeing is the rule is either confidently throw the red flag and state clearly the player infraction, or in no way throw or threaten to throw the flag - let them play on, as no infraction has been caused. On or Off. The behavior is either an infraction so throw the flag or it is not an infraction so play on (no flag thrown/waved/threatened). This might be the best way to mod a forum. I don't know - something to think about.

 

I'm curious what statement you were responding to SB. It all seems pretty standard for around here. After all can it ever be "civil" for a Buddhist to tell a Taoist that because he does not recognize/actualize/realize DO then he is going to die unliberated and unconscious into a Buddhist hell, and the reason is because the Taoist is himself ignorant/deluded/ego-ridden subjective/angry/ ego projecting/ a believer in God/or a believer in spirit-self? And if you allow that, then you have to allow the response that points out personal problems a Buddhist might have.

 

Tough questions! A lot to think about due to the nature of a multi-religious/cultural forum. Yikes!

Edited October 22, 2009 by Tao99

[JustARandomPanda]

I mention it because TB has a lot of un-civility going on for the past few months. It's not like it's only been a few weeks or within only one or two threads. It's been going on for months now. I confess I think most people - when their emotions overheat - would rather hit Reply and attack than hit Ignore and keep it that way toward the person who inspires their venom.

 

Sorry if I'm bringing the thread down with the reminders but I disagree that they are unhelpful. If you don't like me doing it - put me on Ignore. Problem solved.

 

 

 

Edit:

 

p.s. I did want to say the majority of this thread has been civil. It's all good in the woods. I guess I'm just trying to prevent anymore unhappiness from going around. It's silly I know but I like it when people can participate in a debate and still be happy.

 

Oh..and Ralis...if you're reading this edit...I'm going to try to find that book you linked to. It looks intriguing.

Edited October 22, 2009 by SereneBlue

[Marblehead]

I know, Serene,

 

You are trying to do the best you can regarding civility on the forum. And I grant you, it is a very hard job the mods have to do and I will openly acknowledge that and commend them all for the job they do.

 

I agree that there is still a little roughness along the edges but I have seen great improvement during the past couple weeks and I respect everyone who has done their part in keeping the discussions civil and in the most part respectful.

 

That's all I have got to say. (Boy I dislike that phrase. "have got" Hehehe.)

 

Peace & Love!

[Tao99]

Sorry. But I don't buy that shit.

 

If there is an infraction then throw the bloody flag and name the poster and infraction. Otherwise, PLAY ON.

 

It isn't a mods job to to avoid people's unhappiness. The job is the same as a football ref - to identify infractions and throw the flag on the poster and infraction. Period.

 

Otherwise they are to stay out of the way and let the players play on. If they did anything else they would be fired. (And football would suck). It should be the same on a forum IMO.

 

I still don't know who you are referring to or what their infraction was. Is it VH's personal slurs and insults, or is it someone's response to his input with personal slurs and insults of him? What we have here now is nothing but confusion.

[JustARandomPanda]

It isn't a mods job to to avoid people's unhappiness.

 

I disagree and will make suggestions as I see fit. They were just suggestions after all and will remain so. You are free to disagree. I could have actually taken action against a number of people but didn't and won't.

 

Tao99 I am making this request respectfully directly to you - PLEASE Put me on Ignore.

 

Because I'm not going to change and I'm not going to back down.

 

And no...don't worry I'm somehow going to retaliate against you for expressing your views or disagreeing with how I mod. That goes against my own personal ethics of trying to be fair and impartial.

 

Just so everyone knows...my ignore suggestion was directed to nobody in particular and to everyone in general.

 

I've been able to confirm with Marble that you can ignore mods too.

 

It's all good in the woods.

 

Best wishes to you Tao99.

 

[Tao99]

I disagree and will make suggestions as I see fit. They were just suggestions after all and will remain so. You are free to disagree. I could have actually taken action against a number of people but didn't and won't.

There's the problem. If you see an infraction then you DO throw the flag. You can't just make veiled comments that people don't know who or what you have a problem with. Is it ralis or that new guy you were referring to? I don't see them saying anything ANY HARSHER then what VH has accused everyone here of repeatedly. If it is VH you were referring to you need to say so, as he is never going to pick up on that. Everyone is going to think you are referring to people picking on poor VH.

 

But here's the truth: Nobody here has said anything harsher then he has from his first day. (and its all a response to his attacks, not someone starting attacks on him.)

 

In fact he has set the Standard for the Limits of Debate. That's why I find him such a fascinating case from a debate rules standpoint. His Buddhist beliefs allows him to get away with ad hominens!! That's hilarious

 

THE VH STANDARD FOR THE LIMITS OF DEBATE ON TTB

 

"You do not recognize/actualize/realize DO thus you are going to die unliberated and unconscious into a Buddhist hell, and the reason is because you yourself are ignorant/deluded/ego-ridden subjective/angry/ ego projecting/ a believer in God/or a believer in spirit-self."

 

That's what's going on on this multi-cultural website, and it will take great contemplation and the Wisdom of Solomon to get it right.

Edited October 22, 2009 by Tao99

[Marblehead]

Well, I think we all are going to burn in hell according to someone else's religion so I guess it is just a matter of selecting which hell you don't want to burn in.

 

Happy Hellfire and Brimestone to us all!!!

 

Peace & Love!

Edited October 22, 2009 by Marblehead

[Vajrahridaya]

After all can it ever be "civil" for a Buddhist to tell a Taoist that because he does not recognize/actualize/realize DO then he is going to die unliberated and unconscious into a Buddhist hell, and the reason is because the Taoist is himself ignorant/deluded/ego-ridden subjective/angry/ ego projecting/ a believer in God/or a believer in spirit-self? And if you allow that, then you have to allow the response that points out personal problems a Buddhist might have.

 

Tough questions! A lot to think about due to the nature of a multi-religious/cultural forum. Yikes!

 

That's quite an extreme interpretation of our debates. I don't think any Buddhist in here has said that about Taoists. I've even said that it's possible for a Taoist to become a Buddha if he or she see's the Tao as referencing mutual co-dependence or inter-dependent co-arising rather than an ontological and mysterious universal essence. I've also mentioned many times that anyone in any religion can reach to higher re-births and higher realms through virtue and meditation. No Buddhist would think that anyone would go to hell for simply being a good Taoist, rather you'd reap the fruit of your own goodness which would be good fuit. It's just Buddhism is specific about what liberation means, and the Buddha said it means seeing co-dependent arising on a personal and simultaneously, on a universal level.

 

Buddhists by default are not black and white thinkers and by default see universal relativity. If the Buddhist understands the Buddhist teachings at all that is.

[Vajrahridaya]

I don't see them saying anything ANY HARSHER then what VH has accused everyone here of repeatedly.

 

Can you please reference any time I have said what you accuse me of saying? You are not being very clear because I have never, ever, once said or believed as you insinuate I do and say.

 

So... I think it's you who is having a harsh inner interpretation, rather than me saying anything harsh to anyone on a personal level.

 

I've said a few things to Ralis and Songs, but only after they repeatedly insulted me and my intelligence, attacked my Guru's, my history, and said all sorts of horrible things. Drew even went quite far in his personal attacks of me and my girlfriend. The only thing I've said of him, which both me and Vajrasattva said was that his attachment to the "full lotus" was a limiting mental dogma and that he was coming off as quite the child when it came to Tantra. I've only accused him of being somewhat of a neophyte when it came to the information he was sharing on Tantra. I think I said exactly that "you are a child when it comes to tantra". Vajrasattva said that he was in "diapers". I have never actually personally insulted you Tao99 and I've, never, ever said what you quoted me as saying. Not even a close approximation. I've said that you might take rebirth into a blissful formless realm after death if you hold strongly and focus very intensely on a mysterious formless essence to all things. This is not at all a Buddhist hell, this is a formless bliss realm, a level of bliss that is far greater than some of the higher heavens. It's in fact the highest bliss one can experience outside of actually realizing the dharmakaya. So, it's more akin to being reborn into a heaven realm. So, I've never said that Taoists and believers in God go to hell.

 

Tao99, it seems that you have brown colored glasses when it comes to me, because you don't seem to really be reading the things I say, only the shitty projections you manifest as interpretations of my posts.

 

I have never once said...

 

"You do not recognize/actualize/realize DO thus you are going to die unliberated and unconscious into a Buddhist hell, and the reason is because you yourself are ignorant/deluded/ego-ridden subjective/angry/ ego projecting/ a believer in God/or a believer in spirit-self."

 

That's quite an amazing mis-quote. Talk about... never mind. I won't say anymore.

Edited October 22, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Lucky7Strikes]

Buddhism, Buddhism, Buddhism.

 

People need to stop seeing things through a pre-conceived paradigm.

 

Taoists especially, not as dogmatic followers, but inquirers into our existence.

 

And Buddhists, especially those who don't find Buddhism, but simply accept it, shouldn't do so either. I know many Buddhists who don't have clue about any of the things we debated here.

Edited October 22, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[ralis]

 

 

I've said a few things to Ralis and Songs, but only after they repeatedly insulted me and my intelligence, attacked my Guru's, my history, and said all sorts of horrible things.

 

 

V,

 

I have only questioned your belief system and that is fair in a debate. Then when you can't handle the questions, you respond with insults.

 

Exactly what terrible things have I said? Remember, you called me a moron a few days ago.

 

ralis

[Tao99]

Can you please reference any time I have said what you accuse me of saying? You are not being very clear because I have never, ever, once said or believed as you insinuate I do and say.

 

I have never actually personally insulted you Tao99 and I've, never, ever said what you quoted me as saying. Not even a close approximation.

 

Tao99, it seems that you have brown colored glasses when it comes to me, because you don't seem to really be reading the things I say, only the shitty projections you manifest as interpretations of my posts.

 

I have never once said...

That's quite an amazing mis-quote. Talk about... never mind. I won't say anymore.

 

What I said your Buddhist Doctrine is:

"You do not recognize/actualize/realize DO thus you are going to die unliberated and unconscious into a Buddhist hell, and the reason is because you yourself are ignorant/deluded/ego-ridden subjective/angry/ ego projecting/ a believer in God/or a believer in spirit-self."

 

You just did in that post. Just as I said. But you are not flagged for it. And so you have set the tone for the debate, and so it goes.

 

And you have said the other things to me to: subjective, ignorant, deluded, angry. And if I believe in God or a spirit-self then of course I have not actualized Do (co-dependent arising), and so I miss the liberation, as you stated once again above:

 

VH: "It's just Buddhism is specific about what liberation means, and the Buddha said it means seeing co-dependent arising on a personal and simultaneously, on a universal level."

 

 

Put it all together, and you get the VH Buddhist Doctrine, as I paraphrased it.

 

VH: "I've said that you might take rebirth into a blissful formless realm after death if you hold strongly and focus very intensely on a mysterious formless essence to all things. This is not at all a Buddhist hell, this is a formless bliss realm, a level of bliss that is far greater than some of the higher heavens. It's in fact the highest bliss one can experience outside of actually realizing the dharmakaya."

 

A "formless realm" IS a hell for a Taoist and it is not even the ultimate for the Buddhist as you said. This is no good news for a Taoist, and no help. It's a subtle lessening due to un-actualization of DO as you say.

 

VH: "I've even said that it's possible for a Taoist to become a Buddha if he or she see's the Tao as referencing mutual co-dependence or inter-dependent co-arising rather than an ontological and mysterious universal essence."

 

All that is saying is I should convert and I will be saved. Anyone can re-write their way and do that. But then one would not be a Taoist, and there is no way I know of to get around the "indestructible diamond-body" (spirit-self) and the Heavenly Realms of Form. This is not good news and no help. It is not an open ended response/option but an on (DO) / off (not-DO) mind set.

 

Let me be clear - I AM NOT ARGUING AGAINST YOUR RIGHT TO SAY YOUR BELIEFS ON THIS OPEN FORUM.

 

I'm simply saying let's be clear about your Buddhist doctrine, because others have other ideas on this big multi-cultural forum and will naturally want to respond with how they see things.

Edited October 22, 2009 by Tao99