This is from the Wikipedia page about the Sri Lankan Tamils.
Quote:
Most are Hindus with a minority of Christians and Muslims amongst them. Politically they are supportive of trade union derived political parties that have supported most of the ruling coalition since the 1980s.
And you don't see how this has something to say about Zen and something to say about your negative comments about Zen?
Igm,
In the past it seems you don't respond well to subtlety, so please forgive me because I will be blunt.
I have studied esoteric religions, including the one I presume you claim to follow. Mahayana Buddhism? If you fail to see how my "negative comments" on the moral philosophy thread, are not more of a defense of your "faith" than any of the comments you gave on the subject, then you have a lot to unlearn about your "religion".
If you think that "Buddhism" is some "thing" that needs attacking or defending, you are mistaken.
If esoteric religion is something you find value in, and a particular Buddhist path is one you wish to follow, I suggest you explore a little deeper why you seem to assume that my comments were an "attack" on zen?
--Matt
That is complete ignorance and lack of compassion. I am sad for you.
My disagreements with Setanta are quite obvious.
I am not going to condone your cheap vilification tactics.
They come from ignorance and most certainly not from love.
And you don't see how this has something to say about Zen and something to say about your negative comments about Zen?
If esoteric religion is something you find value in, and a particular Buddhist path is one you wish to follow, I suggest you explore a little deeper why you seem to assume that my comments were an "attack" on zen?
--Matt
This is what I was referring to Matt - how is this not an insult to JL (I don't practice Zen - which by the way is Mahayana):
MattDavis wrote:
How is zen different than glorified escapism?
[I don't mean the question as a rhetorical one. I understand it may sound that way, but I see no other way to directly ask the question. ]
You then post a YouTube video to someone else where a Christian explains the usefulness of 'silence' and 'inaction before 'wise' compassionate 'action', your problem is you have a simplistic view of compassion IMHO... eloquence isn't everything Matt '?????
Again, you have a simplistic and naive view of compassion. Read the whole exchange between Set and myself.
0 Replies
igm
1
Thu 14 Mar, 2013 03:15 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
This is from the Wikipedia page about the Sri Lankan Tamils.
Quote:
Most are Hindus with a minority of Christians and Muslims amongst them. Politically they are supportive of trade union derived political parties that have supported most of the ruling coalition since the 1980s.
(The above quotation appears at the end of the first paragraph.)
Thanks for the research izzy.
0 Replies
reasoning logic
1
Thu 14 Mar, 2013 03:20 pm
@MattDavis,
Quote:
I suggest you explore a little deeper why you seem to assume that my comments were an "attack" on zen?
I am very ignorant when it comes to understanding anything about Buddhists but I am willing to learn what I can. I did find a couple of things interesting and I do not know if they are true but I have always enjoyed what Allen had to share.
Important Questions
The questions still remain, why are the Sri Lankans ignorant of their past or rather, why is the Sri Lanka's past hidden from its own people? Why do the Sri Lankans believe that the Buddhist sites in Sri Lanka belong only to the Sinhalese (Sinhala heritage) and not to the Tamils? Why are the Sri Lankans ignorant about the early Tamil Buddhists of Sri Lanka and Tamil Nadu? Why do the Sri Lankans think, in Sri Lanka a Buddhist should be a Sinhalese and a Hindu should be a Tamil while the Sinhalese worship most of the Hindu/Brahmanical Gods? Why do most Sinhala-Buddhists believe that they are blood relatives of Lord Buddha (Sakya clan)? Why are the Sinhalese so ignorant to believe that the Tamils in Sri Lanka are either invaders or brought by the colonial rulers?
Not only the Indians but even the Sri Lankan Tamils gave up Buddhism and accepted Hinduism. For them to go back to Buddhism, has 2500 years of Buddhism in Sri Lanka (the so called Dhammadveepa) influenced any major changes in the Sinhala society (the so called guardians of Buddhism chosen by none other than the Buddha) in terms of attitude, character, behavior, morality and so on or has it failed miserably? Are the Buddhist monks practicing Ahimsa (non-violence), Karuna (compassion), Metta (affection), and Maithriya (loving-kindness) towards fellow humans (irrespective of race/religion) or are they in the name of Buddhism promoting ethno-religious chauvinism and hatred?
Buddhism in Sri Lanka is monopolized by the Sinhalese and they call it Sinhala-Buddhism which is Theravada Buddhism (Tripitaka) mixed up with the Mahavamsa. Will the Sinhala-Buddhist Maha Sangha accept any Tamil Buddhist monks? Will the Tamils accept Mahavamsa as a part of Buddhism or Buddhist history knowing very well that it is a Sinhala-Buddhist mythology?
Prof. Sunil Ariyaratne's dream of future Tamil Buddhists is very genuine and apt during this period. As he says, it may recreate the togetherness, the common bond that once existed between the Sinhalese and Tamils. It will not be a surprise if Nanda Malini sings about the Damila Buddhayo of the past and the future but can his dream materialize? Of course, miracles do happen; Martin Luther King Junior's dream came true so let us have some hope.
This may be the the lecture I had in mind but not the exact video I wanted to share.
0 Replies
FBM
1
Thu 14 Mar, 2013 08:11 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
I few questions, if I may...and to igm who considers this pretty much a perfect reply:
You wrote:
Quote:
The religious Buddhism is not qualitatively indistinct from any of the theist religions in that the ignorant pray to imagined spirits for salvation, good luck, etc.
Are you suggesting there that only "ignorant" people pray to imagined spirits?
Nope. I left out "only" on purpose.
Quote:
If "yes"...are you prepared to defend that assertion?
Are you willing to dismiss the very intelligent people who pray...to what apparently you consider imagined spirits?
I think both of these are covered by my negative response above.
Quote:
Are there any "spirits" that are not imagined?
If speaking in absolute terms, I wouldn't know. Speaking only about my own experiences, yes.
Quote:
Are you certain the ones that you consider "imagined"...are not real?
I think my above answer covers this one, too. I won't make any absolute knowledge claims about anything I haven't directly experienced. When speaking strictly, I slip in disclaimers such as 'in my experience' and 'as far as I can tell so far,' etc. But I don't always speak strictly and I doubt anyone else does, either. Since I'm familiar with your critical thinking skills, I'll speak more strictly with you, but I don't always maintain that if the conversation partner isn't engaging in that register.
Quote:
If you would prefer these one at a time...just deal with the first and I'll submit the others later.
I'm likely to be offline for a day or so after this afternoon and these questions didn't require too much, so I tried to tie up all the loose ends at once.
Also, "ignorant" does not necessarily imply "unintelligent."
0 Replies
tenderfoot
1
Fri 15 Mar, 2013 12:01 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
The atheist position Spade is that all life is pointless and that any moral position is merely a strategy for dealing with life under the circumstances presented at a given time as conveniently as maybe.
The religious position Spendy is that all life is true only under their God and anything that their moral strategy for dealing with life under their circumstances presented at any given time is their given way is the true way... or you go to hell
0 Replies
neologist
1
Fri 15 Mar, 2013 01:05 am
It's been a while, but I miss you folks. You too, Set.
I've always been of the belief that atheism makes a lot of sense when compared to thousands of years of priestly inspired bloodshed.
Christians... Your life is pointless. If you're just going to spend eternity in either hell or heaven, what's the meager handful of decades you get on Earth by comparison? It's nothing but a waste of time. Might as well get on with it and get to your final destination already. There's no point in lollygagging around here. Atheists, on the other hand, have all the purpose in life, if there could ever be one. Atheists are the ones tasking themselves with advancing science, finding out why things are, what things will be, and how they can gain more control over it all. They are the ones who drive technology forward, who seek cures, and who promote happiness and wellbeing - they know nobody else is going to do it for them, so they take personal responsibility. They are the ones who are genuine in what they do, because it's done out of who they are, not to win a free ticket to paradise.
Welcome Ayami,
The original question that started this thread was posted years ago, by someone who is no longer on the site.
I do agree that assuming God does not make a question of purpose an easy one. I think you are going a bit far if you claim Christians have no purpose. I understand that the original post is incendiary, so I can understand if you are speaking out of anger. I reacted the same way when I read it.
--Matt
0 Replies
izzythepush
2
Fri 15 Mar, 2013 02:40 am
@Ayami,
Ayami wrote:
Atheists are the ones tasking themselves with advancing science, finding out why things are, what things will be, and how they can gain more control over it all.
You're confusing scientists with atheists. If all scientists were atheists you'd have a point.
0 Replies
Setanta
1
Fri 15 Mar, 2013 02:58 am
It is an article of faith with some atheists that they have science on their side--in my experience, these are explicit atheists. Science becomes their scripture, and most of them are about as well informed about science as the religious true believers are about their own scripture. It doesn't do much good to make science your religion if you don't really understand science. You will have just substituted on superstition for another.
]
