Wirathu: The Face Of Buddhist Terrorism

[Apech]

Butler! get out of here ... you'll start as a Footman and work your way up like everybody else.

[C T]

 

 

 

...in fact many suggest jesus was influenced by Buddhists either by travelling to Kashmir or via trade links down the silk route ...

There's this interesting BBC documentary on the above (starts around the 37' mark):

 

[Songtsan]

Butler! get out of here ... you'll start as a Footman and work your way up like everybody else.

 

I don't care what I do, as long as I can have pet ghost cat to carry around with me all day...will it snuggle my neck?

[Apech]

I don't care what I do, as long as I can have pet ghost cat to carry around with me all day...will it snuggle my neck?

 

Ruff ... sorry that's the dog.

[Songtsan]

Ruff ... sorry that's the dog.

 

Foxes?

[Apech]

Foxes?

 

Ok .... thanks.

[konchog uma]

re·li·gion

/riˈlijən/

 

 

 

Noun

 

1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
   
2. Details of belief as taught or discussed.
   

 

 

 

 

 

Synonyms

 

faith - belief - creed - denomination

 

 

 

Religion IS Belief...belief IS Feeling, Feeling is Being..every person in the world is religious!

 

First you said "any strong belief system"

 

That definition doesn't support that claim

[konchog uma]

There is a view that you never existed. It is called 'sunyata'. It's a Buddhist term.

 

 

If your going to be snide at least get your terminology right lol. Sunyata is emptiness (and is as empty of nonexistance as it is of existance.) Maybe you should look into madhyamaka. Maybe you meant anatta no self

[konchog uma]

First you said "any strong belief system"

 

That definition doesn't support that claim

 

Oh I see youre extrapolating from the list of synonyms. Um I'm done talking about this.

[Songtsan]

First you said "any strong belief system" That definition doesn't support that claim

 

I was feeling done too...but I already started on this post, so what the hell:

 

""...for limited purposes only, let me define religion as a set of symbolic forms and acts which relate man to the ultimate conditions of his existence."

~ R.N. Bellah

 

"One's religion is whatever he is most interested in."

~J.M. Barrie, The Twelve-Pound Look (1910)

 

"Religion consists in a set of things which the average man thinks he believes and wishes he was certain of."

~ Mark Twain

 

"Religion, whatever it is, is a man's total reaction upon life."

~ William James

 

a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

 

a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance:consumerism is the new religion

 

"The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with belief system"

 

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially whenconsidered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional andritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2.

a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons orsects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3.

the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

4.

the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

5.

the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

Edited June 30, 2013 by Songtsan

[konchog uma]

Helpful, thanks. I'm still done talking about it but appreciate that post. Best

[Flolfolil]

nvm, pointless to fight with racists

Edited June 30, 2013 by Flolfolil

[Tibetan_Ice]

If your going to be snide at least get your terminology right lol. Sunyata is emptiness (and is as empty of nonexistance as it is of existance.) Maybe you should look into madhyamaka. Maybe you meant anatta no self

 

Since you seem to have a reading deficiency, I will repeat it here for you:

 

It is called 'sunyata'.

 

That is what I wrote.

 

What is the point in saying that there is no leaf when the leaf is dependant on the tree?

What is the point in saying that there is no tree when the tree is dependant on the ground?

What is the point in saying that there is no ground when the ground is dependant on the earth?

What is the point in saying that there is no earth when the earth is dependant on the universe?

What is the point in saying that there is no universe when the universe is dependant on dark matter?

 

Knowing Alwaysoff, he will argue that there is no leaf, the leaf has no identity (no self) because it is dependantly originated.

So, instead of arguing along the progression, it is better to examine the underlying philosophy which must be examined in order to determine the principles from which the the view of anatta is derived. And that is "emptiness".

 

http://www.integralscience.org/sacredscience/SS_sunyata.html

 

 

Madhyamika philosophy is conceived in compassion, for its fundamental purpose is to liberate individuals from ignorance and suffering. Through criticism one discriminates between the real and the unreal, cancels the confusion of the relative with the absolute, and ends ignorance and suffering through recognition of sunyata as truth. The sense of the real is the basis for this cancellation. Just as the sense of the real leads to ignorance when misapplied, the sense of the real leads to knowledge when guided by criticism in light of sunyata. Without the sense of the real liberation would not be possible--but then neither would ignorance. Thus ignorance implies the possibility for liberation. "The truth that man is not confined to the level of the determinate, but has in him the possibility of rising above it, that he is the meeting point of. . .the conditioned and the unconditioned, is the basic import of the sense of the real in him."[121]

Criticism consists in first assuming as absolute the distinctions and claims upon which a particular extreme view is based. From this basis one draws the necessary logical conclusions which turn out to be false because of the falsity of the initial error. "The one way which Nagarjuna frequently adopted was of showing up the self-contradiction and absurdity to which the holders of exclusive views would lead themselves on their own grounds."[122] In this way, one is lead by the sheer force of logical truth to surrender the ignorance of the exclusive claim. By repeated application of this method, the relative is no longer mistaken for the absolute and the true sunya-nature of all of determinate existence is revealed. "It is the mission of the Madhyamika to reveal that the notion of the ultimacy and separateness of these basic elements is not only devoid of ground but is definitely contradicted by the very nature of things."[123] Sunyata, as emptiness, means that the conventional world is not, as we fancy to think, composed of substances inherently existing; in truth, these entities are devoid of inherent existence--they are empty.

It is important to point out that what is denied by such criticism is not the conditioned world itself but our clinging to it as absolute, our ignorance. Thus, it is not the views or determinate entities as such which are denied by sunyata but rather our clinging to them, our misconceptions with regard to them. Sunyata does not deny the conditioned, relative world; it only denies our mistaking it as absolute. "Words, concepts, are in themselves pure; what makes the difference is the way in which we use them."[124] Furthermore, the conditioned world does not vanish when its true sunya-nature is realized. Only our ignorance is destroyed.

As an example of the application of the critical method, let us consider the true nature of the self. Our first error, it is said, "is the imagination of absolute exclusiveness in regard to the 'I,' i.e., the entity that constitutes the object of the notion of 'I.' "[125] Now if I inherently exist, then there is an absolute division between that which is 'I' and that which is 'not-I.' There is then no dependence of one upon the other. Each is independent and self-existent. But without mutual dependence how can 'I' be in any way related to 'not-I,' how can I know or be aware of the world at all? If I exist inherently, I am absolutely isolated and divided from the world with no possibility of experiencing it or affecting it. This is obviously absurd.

By revealing the contradictions that arise in this way from taking the relative self as absolutely existent, we thus reveal the sunya-nature, the relative and conditioned nature, of the self. We have then arrived at the truth with respect to the conventional world: that all things (in this case, the self) are empty of inherent existence. However, having denied the inherent existence of the self, suppose we now cling to this denial as itself absolute. In other words, we assert inherent non-existence, we make emptiness or relativity itself an absolute. Now in this case there is an absolute division between the relative and the absolute, the divided and the undivided. But then the undivided is not truly the undivided for it is divided from the divided. This contradiction forces us to surrender our clinging to the conditionedness of the conditioned as itself absolute.

 

However, that is not the subject here. The subject is that Alwaysoff's denial of the existence of Mohammed is his way of insulting people. Alwaysoff has also denies the existence of Jesus. It is humurous that he does not have a coherent pattern of behaviour modeled on the belief system that he holds onto so tightly, and allows historical texts to alter his belief system.

Edited June 30, 2013 by Tibetan_Ice

[konchog uma]

i feel no need to humor posts that start with a comment about my reading deficiency lol with any kind of serious response. i will note however that for someone trying to profess on the nonexistance of the self, you're taking your own feelings about alwayson pretty seriously lol

 

maybe when you learn to relate without the attitude we could talk about emptiness and how it relates to the ideas of existance and nonexistance lol

 

its okay most people are confused on the topic

Edited June 30, 2013 by konchog uma

[konchog uma]

does anyone know who said this? i think it was Saraha, but couldn't find a reference

 

"those who think that the world exists are as stupid as cows, and those who think it doesn't are even more stupid!"

[konchog uma]

TI, i read that link, i don't think its an accurate depiction of what Nagarjuna was saying, because it uses sunyata to refute "inherent existance" without also refuting the non-existance of reality and self, as Nagarjuna was very clear to do. I am also not sure if Nagarjuna used the phrase "inherent existance" of if that came later with Tsongkhapa's commentaries on madhyamaka, which have been wideless disputed and generally are not considered the be completely accurate. hahahah i would say check with alwayson, but your ego might get in the way of that. Look into it for yourself, like i said, many people are confused on the subject.

 

As i understand Nagarjuna, he never said that nothing exists and stopped there. There is more to it, and sunyata is about non-conceptuality and direct experience more than it is about how life doesn't exist and self isn't real.

 

I suggest reading Nagarjuna for yourself, instead of western scholars who are commenting on the commentaries of Nagarjuna. Regardless of the size of your typeface lol sunyata is not the view that nothing exists, or that the self doesn't exist independantly. That is anatta or anatman (pali/sanskrit).

 

If you feel any need to continue your trend of snide commentary and your aggressive stance towards those who disagree with you, be forewarned that no actual conversation with me (or anyone else with self-respect!) will ensue from such an approach lol

Edited June 30, 2013 by konchog uma

[thelerner]

 

Religion = a set of beliefs

Buddhism = letting go of beliefs

 

IMO, atheists are among the most brainwashed beings on the planet. They believe the Object-ive world is real. I generally consider atheists as having zero chance for awareness in this life, whereas I see theists as having a .4% chance.

Alright! .4% according to Vmarco. Whahoo.

Is there a particular place in your in your anatomy you pull these statistics from?

 

 

on the more positive side, I like what you say about Buddhism.

Going back negative, I don't think its universally true of all types of Buddhism, but then little is.

Going back positive, letting go of beliefs may be the secret to a more enlightened attitude. Yet, it may be clinging the beliefs that hold us back. Knowing, having them, keeping them in the- I think, but don't 'know'. May be more powerful then believing nothing.

 

Can too much emptiness result in plant like existence? Does it make us stagnate along the path? Don't we need some momentum? Aren't most of the greats rebels or followers of some system, thus getting momentum beyond nothing is real? A cave may be an ideal place to visit but it seems wrong for a man to set his sights there.

 

There's a practice of putting your mind to good things before one enters meditation. Not so you think or of it or are distracted, but so that it creates quiet positive echoes in the mind. Maybe at a high state even that is not needed. But skipping stages leads to imbalance. Without some positivity its too easy to fall into nihilism. maybe..

Edited July 1, 2013 by thelerner

[Simple_Jack]

There's always those who put aside religious differences in order to help those in times of distress:

 

Buddhist monastery protects Muslim refugees in Myanmar - http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=51,11488,0,0,1,0#.UdDUS9jhejl

[Simple_Jack]

TI, i read that link, i don't think its an accurate depiction of what Nagarjuna was saying, because it uses sunyata to refute "inherent existance" without also refuting the non-existance of reality and self, as Nagarjuna was very clear to do. I am also not sure if Nagarjuna used the phrase "inherent existance" of if that came later with Tsongkhapa's commentaries on madhyamaka, which have been wideless disputed and generally are not considered the be completely accurate. hahahah i would say check with alwayson, but your ego might get in the way of that. Look into it for yourself, like i said, many people are confused on the subject.

 

As i understand Nagarjuna, he never said that nothing exists and stopped there. There is more to it, and sunyata is about non-conceptuality and direct experience more than it is about how life doesn't exist and self isn't real.

 

I suggest reading Nagarjuna for yourself, instead of western scholars who are commenting on the commentaries of Nagarjuna. Regardless of the size of your typeface lol sunyata is not the view that nothing exists, or that the self doesn't exist independantly. That is anatta or anatman (pali/sanskrit).

 

If you feel any need to continue your trend of snide commentary and your aggressive stance towards those who disagree with you, be forewarned that no actual conversation with me (or anyone else with self-respect!) will ensue from such an approach lol

 

Check with Alwayson? Screw that guy, he's not an authority on Buddhism. I'm sure the monks in training for their Geshe degree at Sera Je monastery or wherever, would be able to wipe him across the floor in debate.

 

Hey, if the Dalai Lama thinks Tsongkhapa's version of madhyamaka is good enough to propagate: then I'm sure it's just as viable of an approach to non-conceptual realization of emptiness. Let's not continue in the vein of the triumphant sectarianism that Tibetan Buddhism is known for.

 

Thinking about it now, I know that I've also come across Chinese commentators of madhyamaka explaining emptiness in the same terms as Tsongkhapa.

[konchog uma]

Check with Alwayson? Screw that guy, he's not an authority on Buddhism. I'm sure the monks in training for their Geshe degree at Sera Je monastery or wherever, would be able to wipe him across the floor in debate.

 

Hey, if the Dalai Lama thinks Tsongkhapa's version of madhyamaka is good enough to propagate: then I'm sure it's just as viable of an approach to non-conceptual realization of emptiness. Let's not continue in the vein of the triumphant sectarianism that Tibetan Buddhism is known for.

 

Thinking about it now, I know that I've also come across Chinese commentators of madhyamaka explaining emptiness in the same terms as Tsongkhapa.

 

Fine screw him. I didn't say he was a geshe level scholar lol but he has given me some helpful advice about understanding madhyamaka. DL is gelugpa Tsongkhapa is his patriarch I'm not sure he isn't a biased or b indoctrinated but in all seriousness thanks for your pov

[RongzomFan]

Knowing Alwaysoff, he will argue that there is no leaf, the leaf has no identity (no self) because it is dependantly originated.

 

Noone has to argue anything. Its all in the Indian Madhyamaka texts. They are self-explanatory.

 

Alwaysoff has also denies the existence of Jesus.

 

Columbia PhD in Ancient History Richard Carrier denies the existence of Jesus.

[RongzomFan]

Check with Alwayson? Screw that guy, he's not an authority on Buddhism.

 

I go away for a few hours, and everyone is talking about me. What the hell is going on?

 

Don't trust what I say on Madhyamaka. Read the self-explanatory Indian Madhyamaka translations for yourselves.

 

As I was brain-washed by Tsongkhapa, Loppon Namdrol had to help me personally over many months with Madhyamaka. He said I was "greatly improved" and "almost perfect".

Edited July 1, 2013 by alwayson

[Vmarco]

Alright! .4% according to Vmarco. Whahoo.

Is there a particular place in your in your anatomy you pull these statistics from?

 

There's a practice of putting your mind to good things before one enters meditation. Not so you think or of it or are distracted, but so that it creates quiet positive echoes in the mind. Maybe at a high state even that is not needed. But skipping stages leads to imbalance. Without some positivity its too easy to fall into nihilism. maybe..

 

I first heard that figure back in the 70's,...pretty popular with the Gurdjieff Work (ie., The Fourth Way),...and observations over the past 40 years seem quite consistent with that figure. Gurdjieff called it: Twenty of Twenty of Five.

 

Meditation is a proven path,...but most never realize it's a path,...and paths sustain sleep.

 

I got off the paths sometime ago,...now, things are as being in stream, not only without any way to navigate, but not quite desiring a way to navigate. The navigation is over.

 

However, I do enjoy stirring things up,...like the mundane issues in Myanmar. You see,...yes, I'm in a stream without a paddle,...but I have a computer along for the ride. 555

 

Lao Tzu said, "Do you think you can clear your mind by sitting constantly in silent meditation? This makes your mind narrow, not clear."

 

Hui Neng reportedly scolded his monks for spending too much time sitting in meditation....He said that meditation is unnecessary, and warned that such practice can easily become a narcotic.

 

"The state of non-meditation is born in the heart...." Jigme Lingpa

[Vmarco]

Came across an original report of the Myanmar situation,...what the biased Western media is not reporting:

 

"The spark was simple enough.

Aye Aye Naing, a 45-year-old Buddhist woman, wanted to make an offering of food to local monks. But she needed money, she recalled, sitting in her home in Pyon Kout village. At about 9 a.m. on March 20, a day before the massacre, she brought a gold hair clip to town. She had it appraised at 140,000 kyat ($160). With her husband and sister, she entered New Waint Sein, a Muslim-owned gold shop, which offered her 108,000 kyat. She wanted at least 110,000.

 

Shop workers studied the gold, but the clip came back damaged, she said. The shop owner, a young woman in her 20s, now offered just 50,000. The stout mother of five protested, calling the owner unreasonable. The owner slapped her, witnesses said. Aye Aye Naing's husband shouted and was pulled outside, held down and beaten by three of the store's staff, according to the couple and two witnesses.

 

Onlookers gathered. Police arrived, detaining Aye Aye Naing and the owner. The mostly Buddhist mob turned violent, hurling stones, shouting anti-Muslim slurs and breaking down the shop's doors, according to several witnesses. No one was killed or injured, but the Muslim-owned building housing the gold shop and several others were nearly destroyed.

 

"This shop has a bad reputation in the neighborhood," said Khin San, who says she watched the violence from her general store across the street. "They don't let people park their cars in front. They are quarrelsome. They have some hatred from the crowd."

 

That hatred had been further stoked by a leaflet signed by a group calling itself "Buddhists who feel helpless" and handed out a few weeks before. It suggested Muslims in Meikhtila were conspiring against Buddhists, assisted by money from Saudi Arabia, and holding shady meetings in mosques. It was addressed to the area's monks.

 

Tensions escalated. By about 5:30 p.m., four Muslim men were waiting at an intersection. As a monk passed on the back of a motorbike, they attacked. One hit the driver with a sword, causing him to crash, witnesses said. A second blow sliced the back of the monk's head. One of the men doused him in fuel and set him on fire, said Soe Thein, a mechanic who saw the attack. The monk died in hospital.

 

Soe Thein, a Buddhist, ran to the market. "A monk has been killed! A monk has been killed!" he cried. As he ran back, a mob followed and the riots began. Muslim homes and shops went up in flames."

http://www.maungzarni.com/2013/04/special-report-buddhist-monks-incite.html

　

"A Myanmar court last month sentenced seven Muslims to prison — one of them to a life term — in the killing of a Buddhist monk during the unrest in Meikhtila. In April, a gold shop owner and two employees, all Muslims, were sentenced by the same court to 14 years in prison on charges of theft and causing grievous bodily harm. Their scuffle with Buddhist customers led to the rioting there. No Buddhist has been tried on any serious charge for the violence there."

http://www.ajc.com/news/ap/crime/myanmar-jails-man-whose-attack-sparked-rioting/nYJZy/

　

　

　

[RongzomFan]

Hey, if the Dalai Lama thinks Tsongkhapa's version of madhyamaka is good enough to propagate:

 

I don't care if people follow Tsongkhapa's "Madhyamaka", as long as they know its radically different.

 

According to Sam van Schaik, it was one of the features that originally differentiated the Gelugpa school .