Something I noticed about Buddhism

we're talking about openmindedness in monotheism. As Galileo and the Church were both monotheist and we are discussing the issue of the church's openmindedness, I think it is on topic but I am willing to concede it is not about Buddhism.

On Buddhism itself, my knowledge is two pronged.

One is the knowledge obtained in school from books, about Gautam Buddha and his arrival in India from Nepal, his enlightenment in Bodhgaya and his travels around the country.

The other is from news articles in India and elsewhere. The original Pali canon was written in Sri Lanka, where the Buddhists consider themselves the "original" Buddhists. This was where Emperor Asoka went for his retirement after he gave up war and became a Buddhist.

So far so good.

After this however, changes in Buddhist theocracy led to a split society, the monks and those who serve them (the Bikshuk). This system evolved differently in different cultures. In Japan, it led to the Shinto Buddhism which was warrior oriented, in Korea the monks practised taekwondo and preserved the temples, in Sri Lanka they became an ethnocracy and separated themselves from immigrants, in Tibet, the king adopted Buddhism and enforced it on the people. In both Nepal and Tibet, the locals, ie the Kamaiyas and Banpos became bonded laborers under the ruling aristocracy, which in Tibet included the Lamas, who were the supreme God-heads. The majority of the population in Sri Lanka, Tibet and Nepal thus degenerated into a serfdom, which mirrored the landowner system of European aristocracy.

Currently, the majority Sri Lankans, Buddhist Sinhalese have been fighting with the ethnic Tamils for land since the British left. The ethnic Tamils have formed a terrorist group called LTTE, which sent a suicide bomber to kill Rajiv Gandhi, the prime minister.

In Tibet, the communists abolished the serfdom, in Nepal, the kamaiya system was recently (2000) abolished.

IMO, there is not much openmindedness in traditional dogmatic Buddhism. However the brutal murders of Buddhists under communist regimes in Tibet, Vietnam, Cambodia, as well as the bombing of Japan followed by the US ban on Shinto religion has led to a turnabout in traditional roles. Priests are no longer given as much sacred status, which has relieved the roles of the Bhikshuks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree, but I am seeing things from a very different perspective than you.
You seem to be focused on the national, social, political and economical affairs in traditionally Buddhist countries. I know very little about that.
My knowledge of Buddhism is mainly directly from the Suttas of the Pali Canon, and a few Western and Eastern teachers in the Theravada tradition.

From my perspective on Buddhism, "open-mindedness" is bad because it implies paying attention to more things than one can safely process without becoming enmeshed in sensual pleasures, ill will and confusion.
Being "open-minded", the way the so-called Western, liberal culture would have us be is tantamount to having no boundaries, giving your attention idly to anything that asks for it. From my understanding of Buddhism, such "open-mindedness" constitutes heedlessness, Wrong View.


Also, the Dalai Lama, as is his public image, marketed by his political engagement, public teachings and books, is not a representative or an authority of all Buddhists.
It is wrong to conclude that if the Dalai Lama claims something, then this is true for all Buddhism.

There is that unfortunate statement of his to the effect that Buddhism will amend its views if science discovers something contrary to those views. Many people use this statement as proof of Buddhism's "open-mindedness". But taking that statement seriously, believing it, degrades Buddhism into nothing but a hippie agnosticism. Buddhism is not agnostic.

As far as the traditional view from the Suttas goes, Buddhism is not open-minded at all; in fact, putting strict constraints on what one thinks, says and does is essential to the practice towards Liberation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I never confuse the Dalai Lama with Buddhism.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I agree. Its a monastic but not ascetic religion.

Self discipline is paramount.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The OP was making a strong connection between the Dalai Lama and Buddhism, as if the Dalai Lama would be representative of all Buddhism.

 

The OP is more familiar with laissez faire Buddhism.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

btw, offtopic but kudos to you for noticing both my strategies (the anti objectivism as well as the use of fallacies

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

I'm surprised you caught it, no one ever has.

 

Perhaps he was an arse hole that way? Maybe he didn't know any better and thought it was perfectly normal. Now-a-days (as I read) he calls for a dismantling of a ruling religious class and the formation of an autonomous democratic secular government in Tibet.

Anyway, my post isn't specifically about the Dali Lama it's about the fact that many Buddhists I have personally met from various different cultures (Thai, Chinese, Japanese, Korean) and have read of (ex: here from a Tibetan Buddhist) take what I consider an open minded religious attitude simply not found in most monotheisms.

I'm not saying all and I'm not suggesting people don't have their own ideas. I grew up in a monotheistic culture and most people who are reasonably religious don't take such an attitude. Although, to be fair, I met an agnostic Catholic priest once (he would have taken such an attitude) and there used to be a person who defined themselves as an atheist Muslim on these boards (he was quite open minded) BUT in general monotheists are not so open minded.

I think you’ll find Greek, Chinese, Egyptian, etc… philosophers, calculating the circumference of the earth, the concept of mathematical proofs, etc… they did pretty good back in the day.

Yeah, from what I read Galileo was imprisoned for suggesting people could interpret the scripture themselves. During the protestant movement this was a HUGE no no for a Catholic to insinuate.

this weeks Time.com

 

tresbien,

you my friend are like a God-send. Truly you are. I am always trying to make these points with SAM and she, being slippery, usually squirms around even the most direct questions (lexical semantic secretions being the more slippery of phraseologys

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yet, here you are, telling it straight:
Zero, invented by Mohammad.
Gravity, invented by Mohammad.
etc....

anyway I think you make my point very well in here:

One basic reason for this is the laziness and indolence that Buddhism inculcates in its adherents. Because it lacks any faith in an eternal afterlife, Buddhism does not urge its devotees to be better or develop themselves, to beautify their environment, or to advance culturally.

Islam [on the other hand] always urges its adherents to seek out and apply themselves to what is better and more beautiful. Islam's dynamic moral teaching requires people to research and learn, to develop themselves and be useful to their communities. In one verse of the Qur'an (35: 28), God says that "Only those of His servants with knowledge stand truly in awe of Him."

Our Lord, the only sovereign of Earth and Heaven has announced that for all people the way of salvation is to embrace the Qur'an, sent down as a guide to the true path. In the Qur'an (14: 1), God affirms


So I have a question open to any monotheists.

Does the possibility exist that there is no God and that you Prophets were just normal men who heard voices in their heads due to schizophrenia?

Does the possibility exist that your religious books are in no way inspired words from God but the ramblings of madmen mixed with the musings of philosophers?

Michael

 

I have some faith in you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And some basic formal knowledge in philosophy and psychology.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I once asked this question to a Saudi alim and he said to me the discussion has always veered between madness and lies. If he lied, he could not be mad, if he was mad, he could not effectively lie. That said, he said, this resource, the Quran is available to us. As a resource, it is replete with knowledge. Why not enjoy it?

I think that is the best approach to Islam. Lets enjoy what the Quran contains without getting too hung up on details.

Thank you, I don't know what I've done to deserve your faith, I'm too busy revising my own ideas and using others as soundboards to excite any sympathy and I can be quite aggressive too.

My own knowledge in philosophy is self studied and is fragmentary and instinctive rather than learned.

 

Firstly my OP was not just about the Dali Lama. It was reading an interview from the Dali Lama in Time that prompted the post.

As for openmindedness, it's something I have found in many Buddhists. Maybe not all, but all the ones I have spoken with.

I think tresbien's post makes the point elegantly.

Michael

 

You can enjoy it. But, also, you should be free to criticize it. Many people LOVE The Marriage of Figaro, but not everyone, the aristocracy didn't "get it". Does the fact that someone finds The Marriage of Figaro long and boring mean that someone else can't find it quick and entertaining?

If the Saudi alim was being honest he'd simply add to this, yes, the possibility does exist he was mad and/or lied and still you may enjoy the book.

Michael

 

Not if he did not know. One does not demonise someone just to make oneself feel better, its not samskara.

 

He does not know if he thinks the possibility exists? I'm sure he does know what he thinks.

 

He's an alim, he cannot make rash statements without some support.

What he was describing was the effort to defame the Prophet in other places, which of course never expanded beyond rhetoric due to lack of any evidence.

It would be like any scholar making declarations he could not support.

 

What do you mean support? (I mean what do you mean by the word support?)

I'm asking about possibilities.

The Buddhist is open to possibilities and the monotheists is not.

Is it possible that Buddha was wrong? The Buddhist replys yes.

SAM, is it possible that the Qur'an is wrong? Well is it?


Michael

by the by, what did you think of tresbien's response? Reminds me of that Muslim who told me Arabic is Gods perfect language or the Muslim who couldn't touch my hand (for some superstitious reason or another). Funny, I've never heard a Buddhist say: Buddha's language is the "perfect" language or not shake my hand because I'm a non-Buddhist. Seeing the differences?

 

Possibilities are for idle discussion, if you question an alim he will not go beyind what he can support. For him every statement must be supported by some evidence.

What would the Quran be wrong about? Which part? Is Kant wrong? Is Hume? The term wrong is inappropriate when referring to a philosophy. Is Ayn Rand wrong? I disagree with her POV so I am not an Objectivist. But shes neither wrong nor right.

Lots of people in the east would not shake your hand. Same as you may be uncomfortable bending down to touch their feet and wiping the dust from their feet on your forehead. There are many occasions when I don't shake hands either. Its not a personal statement merely a preference.

I remember once bringing food to share with my friends and my American friend found it yucky to eat from food I had dipped my spoon into. My Korean friend snatches half eaten sandwiches from my hand and eats them. People have different attitudes based on culture.

And I don't agree with yahya so I skipped tresbien's post. Its just a POV.

 

Funny enough - it's always been this way hasn't it. I mean, from the point of view of the polytheistic Arabs MOHAMMAD demonised their beleif! But, oooo hooo hoooo that's different. He was just asking people to stop and think that maybe these were idols and not Gods at ALL!!! How utterly demonic of Mohammad - wouldn't you say SAM? Well?

In pre-Socratic Greek philosophy ..the 5th-century BCE Greek philosopher Diagoras is known as the "first atheist",[64] and strongly criticized religion and mysticism. Critias viewed religion as a human invention used to frighten people into following moral order.

Cicero,[5] writing in the 1st century BC, tells of how a friend of Diagoras tried to convince him of the existence of the gods, by pointing out how many votive pictures tell about people being saved from storms at sea by "dint of vows to the gods", to which Diagoras replied that "there are nowhere any pictures of those who have been shipwrecked and drowned at sea." And Cicero goes on to give another example, where Diagoras was on a ship in hard weather, and the crew thought that they had brought it on themselves by taking this ungodly man onboard. He then wondered if the other boats out in the same storm also had a Diagoras onboard.

With reason did the Athenians adjudge Diagoras guilty of atheism!*

He was therefore condemned, and the psephisma was engraved on a column, promising a prize for his head, and one talent to the person who should bring his dead body to Athens, and two talents to him who should deliver him up alive to the Athenians.

I wonder what happens to Muslims in Iran or KSA who openly convert to atheism, openly ridicule Islam, openly question Allah and use their Qur'an for tinder to light their stoves?

Some thing change some things stay the same.

Michael

exclamation mark added for dramatic effect

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Oh really SAM. Ask him if there is One God or Two. Ask him if Mohammad was the Last Prophet or not the Last. Ask him if the Qur'an has been altered or never been altered.

I await his response.

 

I wonder what Iran would have been like if Mossadgeh had not been replaced by an autocratic Shah.

Why don't you find an alim and ask him. I'm no longer in Saudi Arabia,

 

ahhhh hello - there being a God ... magical winged fairy creatures .. the moon splitting in two.

OK SAM, there is evidence that the moon has never split into two peaces in the last 2000 years.