Thoughts on Buddhism?

[NeiChuan]

im not going to point the figure at which systems work and which dont because it relies on the people.

 

Same with Religion/philosophy/Politics - Its the people who bend this information to fit there greed and agendas.

[Ya Mu]

The people who are saying to ditch reading the books I think are just reminding everyone that the Map is not the Territory.

 

I think as long as one keeps that in mind then reading the Buddha's words or assorted Buddhist commentaries won't be detrimental to one's life.

 

Exactly.

 

As long as what is written is not acted upon without verification through the practice. Remember anyone can write a book and say anything they wish and call it any subject they wish - doesn't mean it possesses any truth whatsoever.

 

Again, reading ABOUT something really does nothing other that give a person a VIEWPOINT. It is all in the practice itself. One could read 3,000 books on any subject and they would not develop understanding without the PRACTICE of that subject. In terms of Buddhism if one read everything that was written but did not put anything into the actual day to day practice they would not have gained. I could read every mathematics book written but without applying it I would have no understanding of mathematics. I could read every book on qigong that was ever written but if I did not apply (practice) I would have nothing. Buddhism is no different.

 

To anyone who wishes to refute this I disagree. So my next post is covered.

[Vajrahridaya]

So enlightenment is really only the disintegration of the ego which was created through socialization. For it is only your ego that causes you suffering..it created the concept in the first place. As for unconscious rebirth...that varies in various traditions..

 

I meant the different Buddhist traditions, not all religious traditions.

 

I know India had monarchies though..it's religion was created to justify their existence.

 

Your talking about Hinduism. Buddhism was a peaceful counter culture uprising of the times. King Ashoka is one king that comes to mind that is a good example of a totalitarian gone good due to the influence of Buddhism in his life.

 

It has nothing to do with past experiences..I have only had/still have bad experiences with Christianity..which does not mean I'm going to go jump into the boat of another religion just because it came from the east.

 

Buddhism and Christianity is very, very different. People are people, but the spiritual tradition of Buddhism is a boat in an entirely different ocean. Unless you want to get into the possibility that Jesus went to North India during the missing 30 years and possibly learned some Buddhism, then brought that wisdom back and explained it through parables?? Who knows?? Or even the possibility that he didn't even exist arises as well. Anyway, you probably saw Zeitgeist? I'm just guessing. Well that movie totally misrepresents Buddhism, as the Buddha was not born of a virgin, etc. but that movie does a good job with the Western religions.

 

 

I follow the path of silence..which is un-deluded by any minds.

 

It helps to have the conditions of integration so that one can enact that inner silence in the world of noise and seemingly random occurrences. Otherwise it's just a mechanism of escape.

Actually it depends on the school of Buddhism...but anyways talking to a llama would be better for those interested of course. Here in the west I would assume Buddhism is dampened so the ex-christian masses can more easily accept it.

 

That's how it started. If you read lots of the old translations from the early 20th century, you get that kind of Theistic impression about Buddhism, a kind of Christian glaze over. I have a translation of the poems of Milarepa published by Penguin where the term God I think is used here and there, which would be a total mistranslation. I guess it served it's purpose of a slow and less shocking introduction, which is one that is loosing credence. These days, Vajrayana has some pure disseminators who teach the nitty gritty. The Dalai Lama has some books available that go into some of the more detailed aspects of the Dharma.

 

Exactly.

 

As long as what is written is not acted upon without verification through the practice. Remember anyone can write a book and say anything they wish and call it any subject they wish - doesn't mean it possesses any truth whatsoever.

 

Again, reading ABOUT something really does nothing other that give a person a VIEWPOINT. It is all in the practice itself. One could read 3,000 books on any subject and they would not develop understanding without the PRACTICE of that subject. In terms of Buddhism if one read everything that was written but did not put anything into the actual day to day practice they would not have gained. I could read every mathematics book written but without applying it I would have no understanding of mathematics. I could read every book on qigong that was ever written but if I did not apply (practice) I would have nothing. Buddhism is no different.

 

To anyone who wishes to refute this I disagree. So my next post is covered.

But, Buddhism is different from your examples in that it is a philosophy that without the teaching words doesn't add up to much. Reading the words intently couldn't help but change a mind and lead it to meditation with the right intentions and view points. Unless your a brick wall of course. Qigong and Hatha Yoga are different, in that they are body practices for the mind, but through the avenue of the body, so of course one would need more so to do a lot more doing than reading. Buddhism at it's core is mind to mind and the mind responds to concepts and ideas. It responds to body movements as well, but how to utilize this energy in a day to day fashion needs some integrating concepts, which is why the philosophy of yoga is taught as well as the postures.

[Eviander]

I meant the different Buddhist traditions, not all religious traditions.

Your talking about Hinduism. Buddhism was a peaceful counter culture uprising of the times. King Ashoka is one king that comes to mind that is a good example of a totalitarian gone good due to the influence of Buddhism in his life.

 

Of course I was talking about Hinduism (sorry I was confused, I thought we were talking about other religions, not just different sects of Buddhism).

 

Buddhism and Christianity is very, very different. People are people, but the spiritual tradition of Buddhism is a boat in an entirely different ocean. Unless you want to get into the possibility that Jesus went to North India during the missing 30 years and possibly learned some Buddhism, then brought that wisdom back and explained it through parables?? Who knows?? Or even the possibility that he didn't even exist arises as well. Anyway, you probably saw Zeitgeist? I'm just guessing. Well that movie totally misrepresents Buddhism, as the Buddha was not born of a virgin, etc. but that movie does a good job with the Western religions.

 

Yea I've figured the same thing about Jesus (that he was a trained monk) I saw that somewhere but forgot. Anyways different subject of course. I know Buddhism is a lot fluffier than most religions..but really...I am not dissing the Buddha..only the religion that followed the teacher. I did see zeitgeist though..I don't remember much about it or Buddhism being connected to it.

 

 

It helps to have the conditions of integration so that one can enact that inner silence in the world of noise and seemingly random occurrences. Otherwise it's just a mechanism of escape.

 

So your offering me a crutch for this broken leg..when really..I wake up to realize I only broke it in a dream?

 

 

That's how it started. If you read lots of the old translations from the early 20th century, you get that kind of Theistic impression about Buddhism, a kind of Christian glaze over. I have a translation of the poems of Milarepa published by Penguin where the term God I think is used here and there, which would be a total mistranslation. I guess it served it's purpose of a slow and less shocking introduction, which is one that is loosing credence. These days, Vajrayana has some pure disseminators who teach the nitty gritty. The Dalai Lama has some books available that go into some of the more detailed aspects of the Dharma.

 

I don't wish to create suffering from a logical (or maybe illogical?) paradigm.

 

But, Buddhism is different from your examples in that it is a philosophy that without the teaching words doesn't add up to much. Reading the words intently couldn't help but change a mind and lead it to meditation with the right intentions and view points. Unless your a brick wall of course. Qigong and Hatha Yoga are different, in that they are body practices for the mind, but through the avenue of the body, so of course one would need more so to do a lot more doing than reading. Buddhism at it's core is mind to mind and the mind responds to concepts and ideas. It responds to body movements as well, but how to utilize this energy in a day to day fashion needs some integrating concepts, which is why the philosophy of yoga is taught as well as the postures.

 

Of course..meditation on the dharma..I know..it is indeed a meditative religion..one in which you literally self hypnotize yourself when your more auto-suggestible in trance or meditation.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

So your offering me a crutch for this broken leg..when really..I wake up to realize I only broke it in a dream?

 

If you do indeed realize that... and are able to take that realization into the day to day circumstances. Then...

 

I don't wish to create suffering from a logical (or maybe illogical?) paradigm.

 

The Dalai Lama is all about reducing psychological suffering, of which he is quite a pillar. All that he has gone through and still be able to experience the depth of peace and happiness that he does. Is quite amazing! Have you ever seen him do his private chanting and meditation practice? He allowed somebody to have permission to video his private practice. It's very, very powerful. Many years ago, even before I became a Buddhist I saw the video and literally fell off my couch in a spontaneous jhana state.

 

 

Of course..meditation on the dharma..I know..it is indeed a meditative religion..one in which you literally self hypnotize yourself when your more auto-suggestible in trance or meditation.

 

Oh, it's much deeper than that.

Edited September 18, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[JustARandomPanda]

I think that the "opiate of the masses" argument put forth by Marx and Engles was made pretty much worthless after we got a chance to see what communism did with their atheist states. The situation was and is absolutely no better. In fact, I think that it is worse in many ways, since people tend to not have strong sources of hope and they have no basic ethical model to guide their lives. Like it or not, socially proscribed ethics and morality is very important for societies to run smoothly, even if these things can sometimes be restrictive for the spiritually inclined minority. I would personally be terrified to live in a country made up purely of existentialists, even though I love the study of existentialism and personally believe in many of its tenants. I just do not have that much faith in the masses, I guess, to suggest that everyone think that there is no absolute right or wrong. Maybe this is just the high school teacher in me.

I am beginning to wonder if you've read any Julius Evola or Ortega y Gassett. They didn't have much faith in the masses either.

 

All this Neo Tantra going around is just part of many peoples process to get to the higher stuff. Or some people just don't have the capacity and merit to get to the real Tantric practice which has very little to do with sex. There are plenty of Tantric monks who don't have sex at all. There are very few beings who practice any real tantric sex. For the most part, the real practice is a real secret reserved for the most adept practitioners who have the focus and meditative strength to engage in such powerful practices that enlighten one very quickly.

 

I remember reading a review on Amazon critical of one of these Neo-Tantra texts. He said something that struck me. I 've always remembered it. He said the same thing you did. That real Tantra has little to do with sex. Except there was one thing he knew high level Tantrics occasionally did - sleep with the ugliest person they could. This was to remind (and allow him/her via direct experience) the Tantric that even the ugliest people - people we have zero attraction to - are still an expression of the Divine.

Edited September 18, 2009 by SereneBlue

[Enishi]

Large masses of people tend to end up creating some form of opiate, no matter the form. I believe that many secularist/materialist beliefs are really just another form of religion.

Edited September 18, 2009 by Enishi

[Vajrahridaya]

Large masses of people tend to end up creating some form of opiate, no matter the form. I believe that many secularist/materialist beliefs are really just another form of "religion".

 

I agree. I've never been one to follow the pack because of this.

[vsaluki]

Unless you want to get into the possibility that Jesus went to North India during the missing 30 years and possibly learned some Buddhism, then brought that wisdom back and explained it through parables??

 

Buddhism was already 500 years old in the time of Jesus. Buddhists were already wandering about the middle east during his lifetime. In fact, the middle east was a virtual melting pot of spiritual ideas of every type at the time. If you read the sermon on the mount, the parallels with Buddhist ideas are easy to see. In fact, if you read his parables and metaphors from a Buddhist perspective, everything fits very nicely. The fact that Jesus had not absorbed the mystical/pantheistic language of India indicates that he learned his material in the ME from people, probably Buddhists, that were trying to teach using the spiritual language of the area.

 

What is surprising to me is the existence of the story of the fall in Genesis. While the old testament is largely a tribal history and a spiritual load of crap, there are some mystical jewels, such as the story of the fall, within it. Of course Genesis preceeds both Buddhism and Jesus. Without going into an explanation of the metaphor for the moment, I can only think that the mystics who placed the Upanishads within the Vedas may be the same people that are the source of that story. It's a bit of a parallel. The Vedas are a big load of dogma, ritual and superstition. And yet they contain the Upanishads. The Upanishads even speak critically of the material in the Vedas from time to time. In any case, the old Testament is thought to have about five different authors. Apparently some of them had encountered and absorbed - from somewhere - some of the mystical teachings that went into the Upanishads.

 

http://www.thezensite.com/non_Zen/Was_Jesus_Buddhist.html

Edited September 18, 2009 by vsaluki

[Ya Mu]

But, Buddhism is different from your examples in that it is a philosophy that without the teaching words doesn't add up to much. Reading the words intently couldn't help but change a mind and lead it to meditation with the right intentions and view points. Unless your a brick wall of course. Qigong and Hatha Yoga are different, in that they are body practices for the mind, but through the avenue of the body, so of course one would need more so to do a lot more doing than reading. Buddhism at it's core is mind to mind and the mind responds to concepts and ideas. It responds to body movements as well, but how to utilize this energy in a day to day fashion needs some integrating concepts, which is why the philosophy of yoga is taught as well as the postures.

 

I see your point but disagree that "reading the words couldn't help but change a mind and lead it to meditation with the right intentions and viewpoints". I have met many so called Buddhists who said they were very well read in Buddhism but OBVIOUSLY did not meditate or practice core Buddhism.They were oh-so-Buddhist that they couldn't see the forest because the trees were getting in the way. To be fair, I have certainly seen plenty of oh-so-Taoist's that had the same problem.

 

I also disagree with this statement "Qigong and Hatha Yoga are different, in that they are body practices for the mind, but through the avenue of the body..."

I can't speak for hatha yoga but the Jing Dong Gong qigong is not a body practice at all and it's main effect is to eliminate the linear mind from the equation and jump to direct quantum energetics, "not body practices for the mind through the avenues of the body". You may be correct for some of the physical oriented qigong forms.

[~jK~]

I think that the "opiate of the masses" argument put forth by Marx and Engles was made pretty much worthless after we got a chance to see what communism did with their atheist states. The situation was and is absolutely no better. In fact, I think that it is worse in many ways, since people tend to not have strong sources of hope and they have no basic ethical model to guide their lives. Like it or not, socially proscribed ethics and morality is very important for societies to run smoothly, even if these things can sometimes be restrictive for the spiritually inclined minority. I would personally be terrified to live in a country made up purely of existentialists, even though I love the study of existentialism and personally believe in many of its tenants. I just do not have that much faith in the masses, I guess, to suggest that everyone think that there is no absolute right or wrong. Maybe this is just the high school teacher in me.

 

Totalitarian governments exist plentifully in countries with Christianity, Buddhism, Atheism, and practically any other -ism. Even an (agnostic) democratic state can run into some pretty horrible tyranny of the majority. This is a universal societal problem that every group most fight to counter, no matter what the predominant religion or belief might be.

 

Communism is an economic system - the other side of the coin is Capitalism.

Comunism is used to help a nation create economic systems that can evolve.

Capitalism is an evolved economic system.

Nothing is pure - absolutely nothing.

Come to China to see it working.

 

Buddhist teachings are for the person to create a healthy mind.

Take a look: http://www.amtbweb.org/tchquote.php

Edited September 19, 2009 by ~jK~

[Vajrahridaya]

I also disagree with this statement "Qigong and Hatha Yoga are different, in that they are body practices for the mind, but through the avenue of the body..."

I can't speak for hatha yoga but the Jing Dong Gong qigong is not a body practice at all and it's main effect is to eliminate the linear mind from the equation and jump to direct quantum energetics, "not body practices for the mind through the avenues of the body". You may be correct for some of the physical oriented qigong forms.

 

No, I think we are saying the same thing, just wording it differently. Your wording here is more detail oriented.

 

Communism is an economic system - the other side of the coin is Capitalism.

Comunism is used to help a nation create economic systems that can evolve.

Capitalism is an evolved economic system.

Nothing is pure - absolutely nothing.

Come to China to see it working.

 

Uh hu... cheap child labor... yeah!! Just to name one aspect.

 

I see your point but disagree that "reading the words couldn't help but change a mind and lead it to meditation with the right intentions and viewpoints". I have met many so called Buddhists who said they were very well read in Buddhism but OBVIOUSLY did not meditate or practice core Buddhism.They were oh-so-Buddhist that they couldn't see the forest because the trees were getting in the way. To be fair, I have certainly seen plenty of oh-so-Taoist's that had the same problem.

 

This has nothing to do with Buddhism and more with the persons.

[~jK~]

Child labour exists in all countries. I, for one, have been working, in USA, since I was 6 years old and was proud to be working at that age and still am happy with it. Actually I created my own business at that age - shinning shoes.

 

It cannot be denied that to judge one nation, to be in touch with reality, All nations must be judged in comparison.

 

History of Child Labor

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/childlabor/

 

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/history-of-child-labor.html

 

http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units...04.01.08.x.html

 

Eventually the Dungeons & Dragons mindset that seems to prevail with many posters, claiming supernatural powers etc. etc, will need be eliminated in favor of reality.

Edited September 19, 2009 by ~jK~

[Lucky7Strikes]

Communism is an economic system - the other side of the coin is Capitalism.

Comunism is used to help a nation create economic systems that can evolve.

Capitalism is an evolved economic system.

Nothing is pure - absolutely nothing.

Come to China to see it working.

 

Buddhist teachings are for the person to create a healthy mind.

Take a look: http://www.amtbweb.org/tchquote.php

 

Aren't you the guy who wrote that the Chinese don't drink much?

 

Now you talk about Communism working in China?

 

HAHAHHAHAAHHA.

 

First of all, Communism is NOT a mere economic system. You might want to look into Socialism for that.

 

Communism, in its most traditional sense, has never been fully realized because it is THE evolved system that is supposed to gradually transition from Capitalism. It is an Utopian ideal where there is almost no government rule.

 

This term has been re used, re developed, yada yada yada so many times that nowadays people just paint an incredibly wide brush with it.

 

And you think China is Communist? You must also think that North Korea is a Democratically Republic State. .

[vsaluki]

Come to China to see it working.

Take a look: http://www.amtbweb.org/tchquote.php

 

LOL. I don't think so. Communism was a complete economic failure in China. It was only the infusion of capitalism that caused China's economic boom. If you want to see how Communism works, go to North Korea.

 

And while the injection of Capitalism brought about the economic boom in China, the retention of the communist party means that personal freedom is still severly limited and political freedom is non existent.

 

Do we really need to detour down this road? The only thing that strikes me a relevant here is that both Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu were radical individualists. I believe that they would find government to be overly intrusive in virtually every country on the face of the earth today.

Edited September 19, 2009 by vsaluki

[Vajrahridaya]

Child labor exists in all countries.

 

Who cares!? It's the worst in China and abused via China by all other countries.

 

Chinas treatment of Tibet and Falon Gong though a cult, is a horror spectacle! Including possibly 1,000,000 Tibetan deaths since the invasion of Tibet. Supposedly about 1/3rd of the population died. Not to mention the burning of temples and Tibets incredible history of keeping the Indian tantric texts in full, not only Buddhist, but Hindu as well.

 

You will loose this argument. There will be no supporters of the current Communist regime in Tibet and China, which is not really Marxist Communism but Totalitarianism instead.

Edited September 19, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Encephalon]

Aren't you the guy who wrote that the Chinese don't drink much?

 

Now you talk about Communism working in China?

 

HAHAHHAHAAHHA.

 

First of all, Communism is NOT a mere economic system. You might want to look into Socialism for that.

 

Communism, in its most traditional sense, has never been fully realized because it is THE evolved system that is supposed to gradually transition from Capitalism. It is an Utopian ideal where there is almost no government rule.

 

This term has been re used, re developed, yada yada yada so many times that nowadays people just paint an incredibly wide brush with it.

 

And you think China is Communist? You must also think that North Korea is a Democratically Republic State. .

 

Well said.

 

A lot of people are thrown by an exact definition of the current Chinese model. After flying their "Marxist" flag since the days of Mao, they decided in the 90s to really harness the economic engine of capitalism while keeping an authoritarian state power structure in place.

 

Erich Fromm wrote "Marx's Concept of Man" back in 1961, but it's still a great read if you want to get an idea of:

what was really going on in Marx's head about human nature,

how several countries seized and twisted Marx's moral arguments in defense of their own despotisms,

and how the West was perfectly willing to accept misconstrued and self-serving definitions of marxist states when they started showing up in the twentieth century.

 

There really has been no pure communism or even close approximations of socialism, although the social democracies of Northern Europe/Scandanavia come close. Remember the Golden Rule of western political ideology; don't ever say anything good about socialism.

 

Who cares!? It's the worst in China and abused via China by all other countries.

 

Chinas treatment of Tibet and Falon Gong though a cult, is a horror spectacle! Including possibly 1,000,000 Tibetan deaths since the invasion of Tibet. Supposedly about 1/3rd of the population died. Not to mention the burning of temples and Tibets incredible history of keeping the Indian tantric texts in full, not only Buddhist, but Hindu as well.

 

You will loose this argument. There will be no supporters of the current Communist regime in Tibet, which is not really Marxist Communism but Totalitarianism.

 

O M G!! We agree on something! Isn't it precious??

[Vajrahridaya]

O M G!! We agree on something! Isn't it precious??

I'm sure we'll find that we'll agree on more than a few things...

[Ya Mu]

...

This has nothing to do with Buddhism and more with the persons.

 

Agreed! But it is my point that these folks read a lot but do not practice

[Encephalon]

Well said.

 

A lot of people are thrown by an exact definition of the current Chinese model. After flying their "Marxist" flag since the days of Mao, they decided in the 90s to really harness the economic engine of capitalism while keeping an authoritarian state power structure in place.

 

Erich Fromm wrote "Marx's Concept of Man" back in 1961, but it's still a great read if you want to get an idea of:

what was really going on in Marx's head about human nature,

how several countries seized and twisted Marx's moral arguments in defense of their own despotisms,

and how the West was perfectly willing to accept misconstrued and self-serving definitions of marxist states when they started showing up in the twentieth century.

 

There really has been no pure communism or even close approximations of socialism, although the social democracies of Northern Europe/Scandanavia come close. Remember the Golden Rule of western political ideology; don't ever say anything good about socialism.

O M G!! We agree on something! Isn't it precious??

 

I hate to say it, but since I'm a geographer and I subscribe to "Doomer" global scenarios, the alleged threat that China may pose to a western power structure in the near future probably ain't gonna happen, because they lose over 10% of their GDP just by their polluted environment alone; they are running out of water (Himalayan glaciers retreating dramatically); they are running out of topsoil (food). It's really tragic, because I believe the Chinese, at least the ancient chinese, have given the world more than any other civilization. They may well occupy Siberia before 2050, and that might not go over very well with the Russians, but they won't be in a position to do anything much either. (Guess what happens to a population that consumes 4.5 gallons of vodka per year, per capita?)

[Vajrahridaya]

I hate to say it, but since I'm a geographer and I subscribe to "Doomer" global scenarios, the alleged threat that China may pose to a western power structure in the near future probably ain't gonna happen, because they lose over 10% of their GDP just by their polluted environment alone; they are running out of water (Himalayan glaciers retreating dramatically); they are running out of topsoil (food). It's really tragic, because I believe the Chinese, at least the ancient chinese, have given the world more than any other civilization. They may well occupy Siberia before 2050, and that might not go over very well with the Russians, but they won't be in a position to do anything much either. (Guess what happens to a population that consumes 4.5 gallons of vodka per year, per capita?)

 

Ya see!? I told you...

[Vajrahridaya]

Kind of off topic, but... Along the maturation of the thread I suppose.

 

I think the best societal structure would be a Marxist ideal Communism which would be more of a Communalism. Where everyone shares in the work and profit and we all share in duties. Though of course there will always be those fit to do one thing over another. There will always be those that inspire and they can be the inspiration speaker? One who gets the people energetic enough to keep together and do the work? Which is really what a Guru in any Ashram is supposed to be, is an inspirer, not a dictator. It can be successful, but I don't know if it truly can be on such a large scale as current globalism demands? I don't know? It's worth questioning I think.

[~jK~]

LOL. I don't think so. Communism was a complete economic failure in China. It was only the infusion of capitalism that caused China's economic boom. If you want to see how Communism works, go to North Korea.

 

And while the injection of Capitalism brought about the economic boom in China, the retention of the communist party means that personal freedom is still severly limited and political freedom is non existent.

 

Do we really need to detour down this road? The only thing that strikes me a relevant here is that both Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu were radical individualists. I believe that they would find government to be overly intrusive in virtually every country on the face of the earth today.

 

I don't know where your fantasies are coming from but from where I sit in China,

Communism is alive and well in China as is Capitalism.

 

I can't help but wonder if you even understand the terms Communism and Capitalism?

 

Kind of off topic, but... Along the maturation of the thread I suppose.

 

I think the best societal structure would be a Marxist ideal Communism which would be more of a Communalism. Where everyone shares in the work and profit and we all share in duties. Though of course there will always be those fit to do one thing over another. There will always be those that inspire and they can be the inspiration speaker? One who gets the people energetic enough to keep together and do the work? Which is really what a Guru in any Ashram is supposed to be, is an inspirer, not a dictator. It can be successful, but I don't know if it truly can be on such a large scale as current globalism demands? I don't know? It's worth questioning I think.

 

I repeat: I can't help but wonder if you even understand the terms Communism and Capitalism?

Some one has been slurping up sugared spoonfed news...

 

Think this: The Government funded the Mass Transit Railway system through the Communist economic system and then made it public on the Stock Exchange through the Capitalist economic system.

Now Hong Kong has a mass transportation railway system that runs every 3 to 5 minuites.

Take a look:

http://www.mtr.com.hk/eng/train/intro_index.html

By the way - it carries 2.3 million passengers daily in Hong Kong

18 Million daily in Beijing.

Guess what - No Traffic Jams!

I can ride in air conditioning from one side of Hong Kong through the New Territories to the mainland of China for about 5 US$ - It takes a total of about 45 minuites.

 

Here is a map to help you understand the system:

http://www.hong-kong-travel.org/MTRKCRMap.asp

 

By the way - there is also a bus systen that was funded by the government and later listed on the stock exchange system - the busses run every 9 to 15 minuites - And a mini bus system that is privately owned and operated by the drivers And a taxi system privately owned and operated by the drivers.

Edited September 19, 2009 by ~jK~

[Vajrahridaya]

I don't know where your fantasies are coming from but from where I sit in China,

Communism is alive and well in China as is Capitalism.

 

I can't help but wonder if you even understand the terms Communism and Capitalism?

I repeat: I can't help but wonder if you even understand the terms Communism and Capitalism?

Some one has been slurping up sugared spoonfed news...

 

Could be you within Chinese propaganda.

[~jK~]

Could be you within Chinese propaganda.

 

Vajrahridaya, I don't play dragons & dungeons.

I've preferred to live in reality for a loooong time.

I am stating facts that are easily proven by simply clicking your mouse on the URL's.

What is your point? From this end you come across as Joe McCarthy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy