Wirathu: The Face Of Buddhist Terrorism

[Apech]

So, the compassion of the Buddha is "motivation" for "teaching others" to free them from a state of mind of suffering. It is not actually about helping others physically if they are in danger?

 

Thus, in your view, if a Buddhist saw a homeless man being hurt, he could teach the homeless man to free him from the suffering, but it is optional for the Buddhist to actually stop the attack.

 

Do good deeds have no connection to compassion in Buddhism?

 

 

Did you read my last post? or do you prefer repeating the same point instead?

[silas]

Did you read my last post? or do you prefer repeating the same point instead?

 

I am unclear about your last post. If I am asked a point, I don't mind repeating it to help others to understand my view. I don't mind clarifying at all.

 

Is that not the way of the Buddha, to be infinitely patient, to explain until there is no more need to explain?

Edited July 6, 2013 by silas

[Apech]

I am unclear about your last post. If I am asked a point, I don't mind repeating it to help others to understand my view. I don't mind clarifying at all.

 

Is that not the way of the Buddha, to be infinitely patient, to explain until there is no more need to explain?

 

 

What do you think you are explaining?

[silas]

What do you think you are explaining?

 

Very clever.

 

Buddha: The world is an illusion, and so is suffering and so are the people who suffer. Buddhist apathy.

Edited July 6, 2013 by silas

[Apech]

Very clever.

 

Buddha: The world is an illusion, and so is suffering and so are the people who suffer. Buddhist apathy.

 

Ah well.

[konchog uma]

I am unclear about your last post. If I am asked a point, I don't mind repeating it to help others to understand my view. I don't mind clarifying at all.

 

Is that not the way of the Buddha, to be infinitely patient, to explain until there is no more need to explain?

 

sometimes the way of the buddha is to tell you to educate yourself in the basics cause that books already been written and you need to read it, not bother people to repeat it for your benefit here.

 

buddhism isnt a moral code, there are guidelines like the paramitas, but a fully awakened buddha might do whatever the fuck he wanted to. Maybe its a homeless man's karma to suffer and by not interfering a buddha is helping that man burn his karma and create auspicious conditions. maybe by realizing that he is suffering he will contemplate dharma, where if a buddha helps him he will just look to the buddha instead of himself. Nobody knows except someone whose truth eye is open, so theres no saying what a buddha might do, and no way for a conventional person to understand a buddha. Buddhism is practices which help us awaken so that we can react spontaneously to the situation in a state of wakefulness, not a law that says you always do Y if X happens or anything that mundane.

 

i second the recommendation to read some buddhist basics instead of asking endless clarifications on this forum, we aren't teachers, so read the words of teachers.

Edited July 7, 2013 by konchog uma

[konchog uma]

Very clever.

 

Buddha: The world is an illusion, and so is suffering and so are the people who suffer. Buddhist apathy.

 

Silas: The world is not an illusion, and so when i misinterpret the dharma, it matters.

 

hint: it doesn't. but buddhists are compassionate anyway, thats why alwayson recommended you some good books to read.

[silas]

sometimes the way of the buddha is to tell you to educate yourself in the basics cause that books already been written and you need to read it, not bother people to repeat it for your benefit here.

 

This forum is full of people who just copy and paste reams of text packed with technical terms. The reason for asking for explanations is to understand what people really mean. With the Wiki and other sources, there is no lack of excellent summaries of books online, but they say different things.

 

Maybe its a homeless man's karma to suffer and by not interfering a buddha is helping that man burn his karma and create auspicious conditions. maybe by realizing that he is suffering he will contemplate dharma, where if a buddha helps him he will just look to the buddha instead of himself.... Buddhism is practices which help us awaken so that we can react spontaneously to the situation in a state of wakefulness, not a law that says you always do Y if X happens or anything that mundane.

 

Then that buddha is being arrogant b/c a man is in danger (meaning the homeless man is being beat up) and the buddha deigns to let him suffer b/c he feels that helping him would prevent him from contemplating the dharma. He is saying: "I could help you homeless man, but I feel (in my superior mind) that you need to learn the dharma. Please try not to die." That is why modern Buddhism is leading the world to destruction. It is helping to create a world of morally-corrupted apathetics and cowards, driven by religion.

 

 

i second the recommendation to read some buddhist basics instead of asking endless clarifications on this forum, we aren't teachers, so read the words of teachers.

 

The words of the teachers are sometimes barely readable. The unwillingness to help b/c it is a mystic experience for each person to discover - has led to Wirathu, the terrorist monk. Buddhists must move beyond this mode of thinking. The mystical Path of koans that took a lifetime to master is for the old sleepy world, not for one where nuclear and biological weapons can wipe out entire populations in a day.

 

If Buddhist compassion is only a state of mind, then it means nothing and they should tear down all those Buddha Compassion posters.

Edited July 7, 2013 by silas

[silas]

Silas: The world is not an illusion, and so when i misinterpret the dharma, it matters.

 

hint: it doesn't. but buddhists are compassionate anyway, thats why alwayson recommended you some good books to read.

 

From the Wiki:

 

One of the most discussed themes in Buddhism is that of the emptiness (sunyata) of form (matter), an important corollary of the transient and conditioned nature of phenomena. Reality is seen, ultimately, in Buddhism as a form of 'projection', resulting from the fruition (vipaka) of karmic seeds (sankharas). The precise nature of this 'illusion' that is the phenomenal universe is debated among different schools. For example;

• Some consider that the concept of the unreality of "reality" is confusing. They posit that, in Buddhism, the perceived reality is considered illusory not in the sense that reality is a fantasy or unreal, but that our perceptions and preconditions mislead us to believe that we are separate from the elements that we are made of. Reality, in Buddhist thought, would be described as the manifestation of karma^{[citation needed]}.

• Other schools of thought in Buddhism (e.g., Dzogchen), consider perceived reality literally unreal. As a prominent contemporary teacher puts it: "In a real sense, all the visions that we see in our lifetime are like a big dream [...]".^[1] In this context, the term 'visions' denotes not only visual perceptions, but appearances perceived through all senses, including sounds, smells, tastes and tactile sensations, and operations on received mental objects.

 

Both conceptions of reality as unreal default to apathy b/c confusion and belief keep you from acting.

[Apech]

sometimes the way of the buddha is to tell you to educate yourself in the basics cause that books already been written and you need to read it, not bother people to repeat it for your benefit here.

 

buddhism isnt a moral code, there are guidelines like the paramitas, but a fully awakened buddha might do whatever the fuck he wanted to. Maybe its a homeless man's karma to suffer and by not interfering a buddha is helping that man burn his karma and create auspicious conditions. maybe by realizing that he is suffering he will contemplate dharma, where if a buddha helps him he will just look to the buddha instead of himself. Nobody knows except someone whose truth eye is open, so theres no saying what a buddha might do, and no way for a conventional person to understand a buddha. Buddhism is practices which help us awaken so that we can react spontaneously to the situation in a state of wakefulness, not a law that says you always do Y if X happens or anything that mundane.

 

i second the recommendation to read some buddhist basics instead of asking endless clarifications on this forum, we aren't teachers, so read the words of teachers.

 

a) Buddha activity is nothing to do with 'wanting' ... perhaps a way of thinking about it is pure spontaneity like rain falling which allows plants to grow ...

 

b ) we are being drawn into speculating about how a Buddha would act in a hypothetical situation (with the homeless person) ... a Buddha sees things as they really are ... we just see reflections of our own ignorance ... so we cannot determine how a Buddha would act in a given situation ... so we can only think about how we may act ... which is aspire to compassion, generosity and so on ... the moral choice in any given situation is not the issue on which to base anything really as it is likely that since we are all in ignorance then we will get it wrong anyway ... but no blame if we do our best and try to be better.

[silas]

a) Buddha activity is nothing to do with 'wanting' ... perhaps a way of thinking about it is pure spontaneity like rain falling which allows plants to grow ...

 

b ) we are being drawn into speculating about how a Buddha would act in a hypothetical situation (with the homeless person) ... a Buddha sees things as they really are ... we just see reflections of our own ignorance ... so we cannot determine how a Buddha would act in a given situation ... so we can only think about how we may act ... which is aspire to compassion, generosity and so on ... the moral choice in any given situation is not the issue on which to base anything really as it is likely that since we are all in ignorance then we will get it wrong anyway ... but no blame if we do our best and try to be better.

 

Apech, what I am about to say is NOT an attack.

 

You say: "the moral choice in any given situation is not the issue on which to base anything really as it is likely that since we are all in ignorance then we will get it wrong anyway ... but no blame if we do our best and try to be better."

 

Buddhist philosophy/theology treatment of reality is the issue. If Buddhists treat reality as unreal (and that is one of its key teachings to eliminate suffering), then the training blinds them to any truth where there is a REAL person suffering. Why help someone and put your own life at risk when the danger is an illusion and the person is an illusion? Buddhism begin degenerating into nihilism, so there is no other chance to "try to be better".

 

And I am not speculating about how a buddha would act. I KNOW of so-called "enlightened" on the Path who give a beggar a dime, but let the homeless man be beaten up without even calling 911 on a cell phone they have in their pocket.

[RongzomFan]

[C T]

Silas,

 

This is also not an attack.

 

Your assumptions are weak, and the hypothetical situations you present are even weaker.

 

Why do you keep assuming buddhists (or buddhist practitioners) wont do this or that in those conjured scenarios mentioned?

 

There are so many variables involved that its impossible to say exactly how things will pan out.

 

A homeless man could be many things...

 

He could be getting a beating because he had just molested someone's child.

 

He could be getting a beating because he is a kgb agent.

 

He could be getting a beating because he is a cia agent.

 

He could be getting a beating because he paid some guys to do just that.

 

It might be some actors getting together to pre-act out a scene.

 

The list goes on.

 

Assuming again that he is indeed in the kind of mess that you had painted, again, you are only guessing that a passing buddhist would simply turn a blind eye to it, when in truth, it could again be many other possibilities occurring.

 

Your understanding on emptiness and illusion needs to be taken deeper, if you are sincerely trying to see it from the teachings (buddhist) point of view.

 

There are many layers to it. What you have presented are quite superficial and if you choose to remain on that level, the only outcome (for you) would be more confusion.

 

I suggest less hypothesis and more investigation.

 

Buddhist apathy? Its possible, taking into consideration the human factor involved, but as a philosophy and practice, its certainly far removed from apathetical contexts.

[konchog uma]

This forum is full of people who just copy and paste reams of text packed with technical terms. The reason for asking for explanations is to understand what people really mean. With the Wiki and other sources, there is no lack of excellent summaries of books online, but they say different things.

 

 

Then that buddha is being arrogant b/c a man is in danger (meaning the homeless man is being beat up) and the buddha deigns to let him suffer b/c he feels that helping him would prevent him from contemplating the dharma. He is saying: "I could help you homeless man, but I feel (in my superior mind) that you need to learn the dharma. Please try not to die." That is why modern Buddhism is leading the world to destruction. It is helping to create a world of morally-corrupted apathetics and cowards, driven by religion.

 

 

 

The words of the teachers are sometimes barely readable. The unwillingness to help b/c it is a mystic experience for each person to discover - has led to Wirathu, the terrorist monk. Buddhists must move beyond this mode of thinking. The mystical Path of koans that took a lifetime to master is for the old sleepy world, not for one where nuclear and biological weapons can wipe out entire populations in a day.

 

If Buddhist compassion is only a state of mind, then it means nothing and they should tear down all those Buddha Compassion posters.

 

lol

[konchog uma]

a) Buddha activity is nothing to do with 'wanting' ... perhaps a way of thinking about it is pure spontaneity like rain falling which allows plants to grow ...

 

b ) we are being drawn into speculating about how a Buddha would act in a hypothetical situation (with the homeless person) ... a Buddha sees things as they really are ... we just see reflections of our own ignorance ... so we cannot determine how a Buddha would act in a given situation ... so we can only think about how we may act ... which is aspire to compassion, generosity and so on ... the moral choice in any given situation is not the issue on which to base anything really as it is likely that since we are all in ignorance then we will get it wrong anyway ... but no blame if we do our best and try to be better.

 

thanks apech, i agree on both counts.

 

the most relevant thing i may have said (to me) is that its impossible for conventional people to understand the mind and activity of a buddha. I wasn't trying to hypothesize about what a buddha might do, but just to illustrate that point, which was lost on silas anyway. Will try to chose my words more carefully next time.

[konchog uma]

From the Wiki:

 

One of the most discussed themes in Buddhism is that of the emptiness (sunyata) of form (matter), an important corollary of the transient and conditioned nature of phenomena. Reality is seen, ultimately, in Buddhism as a form of 'projection', resulting from the fruition (vipaka) of karmic seeds (sankharas). The precise nature of this 'illusion' that is the phenomenal universe is debated among different schools. For example;

• Some consider that the concept of the unreality of "reality" is confusing. They posit that, in Buddhism, the perceived reality is considered illusory not in the sense that reality is a fantasy or unreal, but that our perceptions and preconditions mislead us to believe that we are separate from the elements that we are made of. Reality, in Buddhist thought, would be described as the manifestation of karma^{[citation needed]}.

• Other schools of thought in Buddhism (e.g., Dzogchen), consider perceived reality literally unreal. As a prominent contemporary teacher puts it: "In a real sense, all the visions that we see in our lifetime are like a big dream [...]".^[1] In this context, the term 'visions' denotes not only visual perceptions, but appearances perceived through all senses, including sounds, smells, tastes and tactile sensations, and operations on received mental objects.

 

Both conceptions of reality as unreal default to apathy b/c confusion and belief keep you from acting.

 

thats just your interpretation. lol quantum physics sees the physical world as a sort of projection too so maybe you should decry that as well! I would suggest studying what youre trying to talk about with better sources than wikipedia. Good luck, and keep it unreal.

Edited July 7, 2013 by konchog uma

[Apech]

thanks apech, i agree on both counts.

 

the most relevant thing i may have said (to me) is that its impossible for conventional people to understand the mind and activity of a buddha. I wasn't trying to hypothesize about what a buddha might do, but just to illustrate that point, which was lost on silas anyway. Will try to chose my words more carefully next time.

 

 

Silas seems to prefer restating the same thing endlessly without reading or thinking about any of the replies he has already had. If this is deliberate then it is trolling ... if it is not then I would be forced to think that he has no will or capacity to answer the questions he asks.

 

End of this one for me I think.

[konchog uma]

Silas seems to prefer restating the same thing endlessly without reading or thinking about any of the replies he has already had. If this is deliberate then it is trolling ... if it is not then I would be forced to think that he has no will or capacity to answer the questions he asks.

 

End of this one for me I think.

 

hehehe i did learn that nuclear weapons have rendered the words of dharma teachers obsolete though. Gems like that keep me coming back for the lolz! See the belly laughs are good for my diaphram and thereby increase the value of my meditation.

 

thanks for setting a fine example, i think im done as well.

[silas]

Silas,

 

This is also not an attack.

 

Your assumptions are weak, and the hypothetical situations you present are even weaker.

 

Why do you keep assuming buddhists (or buddhist practitioners) wont do this or that in those conjured scenarios mentioned?

 

There are so many variables involved that its impossible to say exactly how things will pan out.

 

A homeless man could be many things...

 

He could be getting a beating because he had just molested someone's child.

 

He could be getting a beating because he is a kgb agent.

 

He could be getting a beating because he is a cia agent.

 

He could be getting a beating because he paid some guys to do just that.

 

It might be some actors getting together to pre-act out a scene.

 

That's a very strange list of hypothetical reasons. Would a true homeless man even know such things? A KGB agent? A CIA agent? Why and how would he pay someone to beat him? If he molested a child, why didn't the police arrest him?

 

How would a buddhist know any of this, just from seeing him on the street? If any or all of these were true, would that be any reason for a buddhist not to help? If he didn't help, he would be guilty of letting someone get hurt without a real reason.

 

>>thats just your interpretation. lol quantum physics sees the physical world as a sort of projection too so maybe you should decry that as well!

 

They may or may not see it as a projection, but if they don't eat food or drink water, they die.

[三江源]

.

Edited July 25, 2014 by cat

[Apech]

I dont know if SIlas is thinking of the Salvation Army and Christian Aid, etc. Huge charities based on a belief in common humanity which work toward practical salvation as well as spiritual, and is wondering why Buddhism doesnt rally forces for practical good, in the same way as Christianity does.

 

 

Would you care to purchase a copy of the magazine entitled 'the Big Issue'? Many Thanks and have a nice day, God Bless.

[Simple_Jack]

Let me guess, Brunnholzl must be a scholar, and you took his word for it.

 

Perhaps you should find out for yourself. I did. Not too hard, just read the goddamn songs yourself!

 

Milerepa's songs make short work of scholars and he even denies being a scholar himself...

 

http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh095.pdf

 

 

 

So, if Milarepa himself denies being a scholar and he says that he is "not well-versed in words", that is good enough for me.

 

If Brunnholzl is trying to prove that Milarepa was a scholar (which I strongly doubt), then Brunnholzl's erudition wasn't efficacious, as he did not understand the content of the songs nor believe Milarepa's attitude towards scholasticism, nor did he accept Milarepa's denial of being a scholar.

 

Milarepa had good instruction followed with lots of practice and experience. He was no pandit.

 

 

Eh, it's typical in Buddhism, to find someone talking down to scholars who only have conceptual understanding of the Buddhist teachings.

 

Milarepa was definitely learned in Buddhist teachings, whether he received these teachings orally or by studying Buddhist texts himself.

 

An example from one of his songs here:

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Milarepa

 

"....

The Buddha’s own hands couldn’t block the appearance of objects to the consciousness;

A great yogi knows there is no object behind the appearance."

 

This stanza is inspired by the Surangama Sutra, where Buddha is explaining the nature of consciousness (though don't quote me on this as I may be wrong; look in the section where Buddha is first giving teachings to Ananda).