Comments on: Respect ALL living things?

By: Yake

Yake — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:41:13 +0000

Buddhism has some merrit in my eyes, because mindfull breathing meditation has been AFAIK scientifically proven to increase positive emotions (or raise the happyness set point) in long term meditators. The relaxation itself may be very healthy aswell (see the relaxation response).
I could see one danger in Buddhism, namely that the elusive goal of enlightenment may destroy some people’s lives and make them very frustrated. “Living in the moment” is also hard (if not impossible) to achieve permanently and may therefore ironically lead to more suffering.

By: Hand Banana

Hand Banana — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:35:30 +0000

If they had a tapeworm would they let it kill them?

By: The Old Git

The Old Git — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 08:58:45 +0000

Chris,

My last comment was a result to you ignoring my previous response to your earlier comment. I find it interesting, however, that you found it constituted ‘offensive mockery’, when you don’t appear to be concerned that many may find your own ‘deeply blasphemous’ comments merit that description. However, if you want to use that as an excuse for not continuing to debate the issues, then that’s up to you, but I do find your statement, “[You] don’t have a lot of ego invested in Buddhism…” highly amusing.

As for your charge that I was ’spoiling for a fight’, it is completely spurious – as is your implication that I am a Buddhist, BTW. I was merely responding to comments which you made, and which you implied were knowledgeable on the subject, but which were wide of the mark – as are your final remarks on the subject.

By: Chris Bradley

Chris Bradley — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 03:57:36 +0000

Old Git,

I was silent because I didn’t know what to say. I mean, I could talk about dukkha and straw men, but I don’t have a lot of ego invested in Buddhism and it felt to me like you were spoiling for a fight which . . . always makes me feel weird when talking to Buddhists. So I didn’t say anything.

However, it is my understanding that Buddhist impermanence refers to flux (there is a specific term for this, but I don’t know it off the top of my head and I’m not gonna get up to look it up, hehe), not ending. Not that we, as living beings, come to an end but that we are in a constant state of change not only through this life but through many lives. It was also my impression that this flux was considered, by Buddhists, generally, to be a bad thing, which is where I part company with them. I don’t consider the flux of life to be bad, it just sorta is and it can be bad or good.

If this is wrong, I can live with it, as I’m not a Buddhist and don’t particularly care to be one. If you have a different interpretation, I freely and openly concede you to be more knowledgeable about the subject. So, I’m sure your reasoning on the subject is going to be more nuanced and robust than mine.

That said, I found this pretty disturbing:

What a pity that Chris didn’t come back to develop his argument and to share his secret of permanent life.

I found it to be offensive mockery and doesn’t particularly predispose me to continue talking to you on this subject.

By: The Old Git

The Old Git — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 23:19:59 +0000

What a pity that Chris didn’t come back to develop his argument and to share his secret of permanent life.

Perhaps his claim that, “[He has] long understood the deeper meaning behind dukkha…” is not as well-founded as he would like us to believe?

By: Stardust

Stardust — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:38:39 +0000

tommy, the Tibetans you read about in Pakistan, were they Tibetan Buddhist or Tibetan Muslims in Pakistani-controlled Baltistan?

By: Tommykey

Tommykey — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:09:08 +0000

I was surprised to read somewhere that there were actually some Tibetans in Pakistan.

By: Krystalline Apostate

Krystalline Apostate — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 19:51:05 +0000

Tommy:

No native Chinese dynasty, be it the Han, the Sui, the Tang, the Song, or the Ming, ever ruled over Tibet.

Actually, the Qing emperor instituted Lamaism as the religion for Tibet & Mongolia.
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=Tibet&gwp=16
We could wrangle over borders & their definitions, but Tibet’s simply not been autonomous since the 13th CE, which is how Westerners seem to view it.