Tell me Buddhists here and sympathizers, is this hate speech against you?

[Francis king]

samabudhi, I am crude, yet I am deliberately crude... I am, though, sorry that u find me horrible and don't enjoy talking with me, as I quite like hearing what u have to say... as I said, I was not attempting to attack u, as a being, just ur views, which I find erroneous... u too, in turn, are free to attack my similarly erroneous views, although if u would prefer a less reactionary word, then maybe I should say- debate...

imo, it is not my karma that makes me disparaging of some precious jewels of the sangha, but my experience...

as you said- Should a man not exert himself on every occasion,
Not exist for another,
Not live for the sake of others,
Truly, he does not live the holy life
- Udana

which was my point, really...

u think thinking that beings are unlucky is "Nonsense. You are the cause of your own suffering - all of it. There is no 'luck'. This is just an excuse for not taking responsibility of your life", and that upsets me a little, for it does not appear as compassionate as the uddana or "spoken gift" u quoted above...

susma, buddhism, as a religion, IS a typical and conventional religion, I would agree, but I would not agree that "its best followers are habituated to cite the words of their founder and their primitive by thousands of years doctrinaires... it's best followers read the texts, and try to interpret them in a way which enables the reader to understand better the ideas contained within, rather than recite what they have been told is the way without thinking...

and yes, susma, ur right- "The only foolproof test of an idea is whether it can improve human life and enhance human life and also make man more respectful to the rest of living nature and no less inanimate nature"

which is, I think, what buddhism does, and I think, christianity and Islam also does... although, that might just be me "karma" talking...again...

[Susma Rio Sep]

In any event, when the Dalai Lama was asked which is the best religion, he replied, "Yours!"

-- Samabudhi

I would not take him seriously in this regard, because he does not have the habit of facts, evidence, and logic.

For one he believes that he is the rebirth of someone... wait I will look it up what he is a rebirth of; here, read the following:

...Dalai Lama, ... form a tulku lineage of Gelugpa leaders which trace back to 1391. Tibetan Buddhists believe the Dalai Lama to be one of innumerable incarnations of Avalokitesvara ("Chenrezig" [spyan ras gzigs] in Tibetan), the bodhisattva of compassion.[1] Between the 17th century and 1959, the Dalai Lama was the head of the Tibetan government, administrating a large portion of the country from the capital Lhasa. The Dalai Lama is the supreme head of Tibetan Buddhism, and the leaders of all four schools consider the Dalai Lama to be the highest lama of the Tibetan traditions. He is often granted the style "His Holiness" (or HH) before his title.

...

The 5th Dalai Lama, with the support of Gushri Khan, a Mongol ruler of Khökh Nuur, united Tibet. The Dalai Lamas continued to rule in Tibet until the People's Republic of China invaded the region in 1949 and then took full control in 1959. The 14th Dalai Lama then fled to India and has since ceded temporal power to an elected government-in-exile. The current 14th Dalai Lama seeks greater autonomy for Tibet. See History of Tibet for further information.

"Dalai" means "ocean" in Mongolian, and "Lama" (bla ma) is the Tibetan equivalent of the Sanskrit word "guru", and so may mean "teacher" or "monk." The actual title was first bestowed by the Mongolian ruler Altan Khan upon Sonam Gyatso, an abbot at the Drepung monastery who was widely considered the most eminent lama of his time.

. . .

Upon the death of the Dalai Lama, his monks institute a search for the Lama's reincarnation, or yangsi (yang srid), a small child. Familiarity with the possessions of the previous Dalai Lama is considered the main sign of the reincarnation. The search for the reincarnation typically requires a few years. The reincarnation is then brought to Lhasa to be trained by the other Lamas.

Despite its officially secular stance, the government of the People's Republic of China has claimed the power to approve the naming of high reincarnations in Tibet. This decision cites a precedent set by the Qianlong Emperor of the Qing Dynasty, who instituted a system of selecting the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama by means of a lottery which utilised a golden urn with names wrapped in barley balls. Recently, this precedent was called upon to name the Panchen Lama, who is empowered to recognize the new Dalai Lama. There is some speculation that with the death of the current Dalai Lama, the PRC will direct the selection of a successor.

The current Dalai Lama has repeatedly stated that he will never be reborn inside territory controlled by the People's Republic of China [2], and has occasionally suggested that he might choose to be the last Dalai Lama by not being reborn at all. However, he has also stated that the purpose of his repeated incarnations is to continue unfinished work and, as such, if the situation in Tibet remains unchanged, it is very likely that he will be reborn to finish his work [3]. Additionally, in the draft constitution of future Tibet, the institution of the Dalai Lama can be revoked at any time by a democratic majority vote of two-thirds of the Assembly. It is also worth mentioning that the 14th Dalai Lama has stated "Personally, I feel the institution of the Dalai Lama has served its purpose."[4].

. . .

Dalai Lama - encyclopedia article about Dalai Lama.

I would not therefore take his words seriously, not from someone who believes himself to be a rebirth of a series of previous personages; because I am certain that his belief and consequent actuation are not founded on facts, evidence, and logic.


I said that I make my own religion and work to improve and enhance it; for me it is the best religion. What I encourage others to do, is not to accept my religion, but to work out their own.

Thanks just the same if the Dalai Lama means that the religion I make for myself is the best religion for myself.


Susma

[samabudhi]

because I am certain that his belief and consequent actuation are not founded on facts, evidence, and logic.

Please continue.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by Samabudhi

Quote:
because I am certain that his belief and consequent actuation are not founded on facts, evidence, and logic.

Please continue.

Actually in this thread I am asking the opinions of Buddhists and their sympathizers whether a post I had written in another forum, the James Randi Educational Foundation Forum (an atheistic skepticism forum) is hate speech.

Because for writing this post:

Quote:
Okay, name&name, no more hatred, no more hate mail; translate your Buddhist compassion into love of the kind exercised by folks in the Red Cross and in the Amnesty International and in the Medicins sans Frontieres movement and in the World Wild Life Foundation.

[This paragraph is the incriminating text, line in red for emphasis by some readers (actually a moderator there in JREF Forum).]
But Buddhism and Buddhists, they will never contribute anything of substance to mankind's civilization and culture, because theirs is a philosophy and religion of self and human and life extinction; if the animal drive in Buddhists were not so persistently against self-extinction, they should have all committed suicide long ago, also because their leaders would be out of business and a purpose for being if they should draw their philosophy and religious world view of Nirvana to its utter logical end.

I was issued a warning for the offense of hate speech; I am glad to learn from the people here that they can't find any hate speech in the cited text.

About the lot of that text, I received a warning for hate speech, when I asked why in a public board, after reactions from fellow posters there, the admin changed it to a warning not for hate speech against Buddhists but for extremely cruel and hateful content against a fellow member. Extremely cruel and hateful content against a fellow member... that so?

What do you say, guys here, see any extremely cruel and hateful content against a fellow member in that cited text?


That is why I am now posting messages critical of Buddhism and Buddhists to find out how the posters here would react against me. So far so good.

If you are curious I have been having a history of being banned in forums, for writing critical posts on Buddhism and Buddhists of the Western stripe.

Forgive me for this self-commiseration; but the fact is that whereas many Westerners gripe against authoritarianism, dogmatism, religious fanaticism in the traditional religious churches of the West, and therefore embrace Buddhism as opposite to them, they in turn show themselves to be even more intolerant.

And you know what? They have managed to hijack or infiltrate free inquiry, free thought, and free speech anti-religion forums, in order to prevent critics of Buddhism from continuing with their criticism of Buddhism, even bringing about their ousters.

What about you, samabudhi, are you now annoyed with my postings here and feel like wishing I would or should be censured and eventually removed from this forum?


Susma

[samabudhi]

I think you should remove yourself from the forum, go on a long holiday and forget about playing mind games with sincere practitioners. When you're more familiar with the subject, your posts will cut a lot more ground and you'll be able to make your point without being thrown out, even if it's contrary.

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by samabudhi

I think you should remove yourself from the forum, go on a long holiday and forget about playing mind games with sincere practitioners. When you're more familiar with the subject, your posts will cut a lot more ground and you'll be able to make your point without being thrown out, even if it's contrary.

Such a warm person.

[Francis king]

...susma, at least u dont sit at guru so-and so's feet offering to clean his lotus like feet with ur tongue... so u get my vote... can't see where u have been hateful or abusive in this thread, maybe there are other threads I dont know about... yes, I have to say that ur buddhism isn't very good, but ur enquiring, so that can't be too bad, can it?

as for ppl removing themselves from the boards and going on holiday, I reckon we all chip in and buy samabudhi a bus ticket, as the only person who has been mean in this thread is her/him... (joking samabudhi, I love u really, even if u think I'm crude and not worth speaking with)...

as for ur post being taken as hateful towards other members there... well, it could be construed as such, yes, but only by ppl who are devoted and all starry eyed about buddhism... the whole disciplinic succession thing makes me laugh too... tulkus...lol... avatars of long dead gurus, bit too mystical and magical for my liking, but I've just been reading how they are uncovering st pauls basillica so that catholics can touch the coffin which contains the bones of a long dead saint, so don't be too suprised that ppl are eager to believe rubbish, they do it all over the world and in every religion...

I find it amusing that ur so anti- yet so fervent... must be summat in it that grabs u...

[jiii]

Susma Rio Sep-

Again, as I posted a while back, nothing particularly hateful is involved. However, that the paragraph in question which you posted at the beginning of this thread might inspire some ill-feelings is not exactly unbelievable. I mean, take a look at this line:

But Buddhism and Buddhists, they will never contribute anything of substance to mankind's civilization and culture...

Firstly, that's simply not true whatsoever. In fact, it would really take some unprecedented magic to demostrate this point in even the least bit. Buddhism and Buddhists already have contributed very much to mankind's civilization. Is this statement hateful? No, not really. Is it true? No. So, clearly, some people might be rubbed the wrong way by this post.

Also, take a look at this line:

...also because their leaders would be out of business and a purpose for being if they should draw their philosophy and religious world view of Nirvana to its utter logical end.

Again, this is not really hateful, at all. However, it does certainly reflect a lack of genuine understanding of Buddhism.

My point is simply this:

1) I, as well as many other board members, don't think that this is really hateful.

But,

2) It is arguably inaccurate in its insight into Buddhism, and furthermore, uses this inaccurate insight as grounds for criticism. I don't see anything surprising about it rubbing some people the wrong way. To put it plainly, the paragraph, as a whole, does not reflect a familiarity with Buddhism so much as a desire to criticize it based upon assumptions which have not been appropriately explored and investigated for accuracy. It is not hateful, but some people take others opinions far too seriously.

So,

3) I don't really see what's so inconceivable about it causing problems in certain situations. Whether you're talking about Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or Bahai (to name a few), there will always be people that get a bit too excitable when criticism is posted about the tradition they follow, especially when the criticism is rather inaccurate. It's not a "Buddhist" thing at all, really...it's just people, and people get bent out of shape sometimes.

-jiii

[Susma Rio Sep]

Thanks, everyone, for your participation, specially to those who do not see any hate speech in my opinion about Buddhism.

I have a thread on the end destiny of man and life in Buddhism. I notice that Buddhists and sympathizers seem to be skirting the issue whether and what is the end destiny of man and life in Buddhism.

What I am going to do now is to ask the question or pose the topic:

The greatness of Gautama, why?

You see, Westerners who take up Buddhism and Buddhists in traditional Buddhist lands who know about the 'sin' of idolatry in the West, don't see any idolatry or worship of man or non-God entities in the honor shown to Gautama in words, actions, and in statues and art works.

So, what I want to find out is why then even denying Gautama any divine pretensions, the greatness of the man?

Look up that thread.


Susma