Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

[/Yeah, thanks for the lesson. You're missing my point. You're also using the word 'hegemonic' incorrectly, unless you're referring to Hinduism's position as the dominant force in Indian religious life, in which case it would be correct to refer to Hinduism as the religious 'hegemon'. 'Homogeneous' maybe?

Yeah, my bad. I get those mixed up a lot.

I think it's a good idea to build a Mosque. It could show the Arab world that we don't hate all of them, and can forgive the transgressions of a few extremists and move foreward instead of wallowing in grudges. That might be a step towards less extremists hating us in the future. Just an idea.

I went to a Mosque a couple of times and was welcomed in, was respectful. The man at the door asked me "you know this a mosque, right" and I responded "Doesn't matter, it's still god, and I'd like to have a moment to think" He smiled and let me right in, after I took my shoes off.
It was very serene in there. A man came and sat on the floor next to me and asked me what I pray for. I said "peace". I was actually speaking of peace in my immediate situation. He took it to mean peace in the World sense and immediately tried to explain that not all Muslims are violent, quite the opposite. I told him I understood this, and was actually just praying for personal peace and he told me "That is the way of Islam, I know you are not Muslim but you seek the same thing we do.". It was a really rewarding experience. Then we just sat and quietly talked while other people were quietly singing, or just praying, or discussing or whatever. It was cool.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Shuma already pointed out the problem with bringing up Hinduism so I shall just go with the Buddhist issue. Having things isn't against Buddhism; Buddhism isn't equal to asceticism. It generally isn't concerned with having things, it is concerned with our relationship to said things. A guy with practically nothing that is enamored and hoards things is more of an issue than a man that has a ton of material goods but understands his relationship to them.

Sounds like a peculiarly American equivocation to me. I could be wrong of course. Also, see above.

You're wrong. There are similar things in Christianity.

For example, "Money is the root of all kinds of Evil" -- the correct quotation is, "The love of money is the root of all kinds of Evil".

Similarly, there is a commandment against coveting your neighbour's ass, but not against having your own ass.

Also see the traditional interpretation of the seven deadly sins.

I was assuming that the accumulation of wordly goods was an indication of too great an attachment to the material world, something which Buddhism generally discourages due to their belief in the transient nature of matter. Was I wrong?

Yes or no?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Yeah, thanks for the lesson. You're missing my point. You're also using the word 'hegemonic' incorrectly, unless you're referring to Hinduism's position as the dominant force in Indian religious life, in which case it would be correct to refer to Hinduism as the religious 'hegemon'. 'Homogeneous' maybe?

Yeah, my bad. I get those mixed up a lot.

Meh, don't worry about it, babe.

Although I would like to ask what your reaction would have been if I had made that mistake. Well? You would have slaughtered me for it, correct?

Albatross wrote:
I was assuming that the accumulation of wordly goods was an indication of too great an attachment to the material world, something which Buddhism generally discourages due to their belief in the transient nature of matter. Was I wrong?

Yes. Learn more and don't confuse Buddhist Monks with Buddhists in general. You seem to be transposing Jainists for Buddhists.

Albatross wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Shuma already pointed out the problem with bringing up Hinduism so I shall just go with the Buddhist issue. Having things isn't against Buddhism; Buddhism isn't equal to asceticism. It generally isn't concerned with having things, it is concerned with our relationship to said things. A guy with practically nothing that is enamored and hoards things is more of an issue than a man that has a ton of material goods but understands his relationship to them.

Sounds like a peculiarly American equivocation to me. I could be wrong of course. Also, see above.

You're wrong. There are similar things in Christianity.

For example, "Money is the root of all kinds of Evil" -- the correct quotation is, "The love of money is the root of all kinds of Evil".

Similarly, there is a commandment against coveting your neighbour's ass, but not against having your own ass.

Also see the traditional interpretation of the seven deadly sins.

I was assuming that the accumulation of wordly goods was an indication of too great an attachment to the material world, something which Buddhism generally discourages due to their belief in the transient nature of matter. Was I wrong?

Yes or no?

You were wrong about it being a peculiarly American equivocation.

Meh, don't worry about it, babe.

Although I would like to ask what your reaction would have been if I had made that mistake. Well? You would have slaughtered me for it, correct?

No, I likely would have reacted in the same fashion you did. I slaughter people for having wrong opinions or stating stupid things, not for grammar or mispoken words (hegemonic and homogenous are easy to mix up!).

I slaughter people for having wrong opinions or stating stupid things, not for grammar or mispoken words (hegemonic and homogenous are easy to mix up!).

Stay classy, Shuma.

Ahtman wrote:

Albatross wrote:
I was assuming that the accumulation of wordly goods was an indication of too great an attachment to the material world, something which Buddhism generally discourages due to their belief in the transient nature of matter. Was I wrong?

Yes. Learn more and don't confuse Buddhist Monks with Buddhists in general. You seem to be transposing Jainists for Buddhists.

So Buddhism allows for excessive materialism? It approves? I was making a point about wordliness, and the fact that most deeply religious people are opposed to it in a general sense. The more extreme the religious belief, the greater the opposition to 'decadence'. The purpose of that was to illustrate that islamist terrorists don't just attack the West because of our decadence - the reasons are more complex than that. Other religions are opposed to aspects of our lifestyle and their adherents don't bomb our cities. If you're going to argue, argue the point. I don't give a gak about Buddhism. Really.

Kilkrazy wrote:You were wrong about it being a peculiarly American equivocation.

It just placed my in mind of that American tendency to approach everything like a lawyer - 'hey buddy, I might have a large stock portfolio, a house in the bahamas and a yacht, but as long as I'm properly aware of my relationship to them I'm still being a good Buddhist.' Er, no. You're doing it wrong.

See also: 'Actually "Thou Shalt Not KILL" means "Thou Shalt Not MURDER", so it's ok to kill someone as long as you don't murder them'.

I slaughter people for having wrong opinions or stating stupid things, not for grammar or mispoken words (hegemonic and homogenous are easy to mix up!).

It's stupid to mix those two words up.

ShumaGorath wrote:

I slaughter people for having wrong opinions or stating stupid things, not for grammar or mispoken words (hegemonic and homogenous are easy to mix up!).

Mate im not having a go at you, as i find your barbed comments most amusing, but how can you have a "wrong" opinion? Surely an opinion cant be wrong can it? Its just your opinion?

I mean, i disagree with people all the time, but who gets to decide which of us has an opinion that is right or wrong?

It depends on the opinion.

I like pie == Value judgement. Can't be wrong.
OJ will soon find the real killers == Fact based. Can easily be wrong.

Albatross wrote:So Buddhism allows for excessive materialism?

There is a difference between financial success and excessive materialism.

Albatross wrote:It approves?

"It" doesn't approve or disapprove because "it" isn't a singular thing but various groups of people.

Albatross wrote:The more extreme the religious belief, the greater the opposition to 'decadence'.

You might consider reading "The Varieties of Religious Experience" by William James. The answer to your statement is that religion is not that homogenous and it seems you are using religion to coincide with your personal experience involving the Religion of the Books more than all possible types of religious expression or dogma. The Church of Satan is all for decadence. The Gospel of Wealth strain of Christian thinking, in essence, states that the better a Christian you are the more stuff you get.

Albatross wrote: - the reasons are more complex than that.

It is kind of hard to argue for complexity while giving an extremely broad and inaccurate view of something.

Albatross wrote:I don't give a gak about Buddhism. Really.

Then it is kinda of stupid to bring it up, especially considering your knowledge of it is cursory at best.

mattyrm wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

I slaughter people for having wrong opinions or stating stupid things, not for grammar or mispoken words (hegemonic and homogenous are easy to mix up!).

Mate im not having a go at you, as i find your barbed comments most amusing, but how can you have a "wrong" opinion? Surely an opinion cant be wrong can it? Its just your opinion?

I mean, i disagree with people all the time, but who gets to decide which of us has an opinion that is right or wrong?

People can have opinions that are wrong when they are based on factual matters.

"I don't give a gak about buddhism anyway"

-Albatross

ummm... isn't that kind of the point of buddhism...? not giving a gak about anything? Desire is the root of sorrow. Caring causes grief, etc etc. The Buddha never claimed to be god, a son of god, or any interest whatsoever in god, he only sought truth and peace. That is a wise man, not a religious figure. Unfortunately, just like Jesus the teaching became doctrine and the doctrine became the word of god and the word of god became the law and the law became the 'rules' when really all it was was a philosophy of eternal boredom to eliminate the anxieties of life's ups and downs.

I'm sure Sidhartha would be happy to hear that you don't give a gak about Buddhism, and I would wager Jesus would be pretty sickened by modern xtianity too.

Ahtman wrote:

Albatross wrote:So Buddhism allows for excessive materialism?

There is a difference between financial success and excessive materialism.

Listen, whatever gets you through the night, (Aht)man. If it helps you to believe that, cool. I'm not here to ruin your party.

Ahtman wrote:

Albatross wrote:It approves?

"It" doesn't approve or disapprove because "it" isn't a singular thing but various groups of people.

There's that 'hyper-literal' lawyer-ish approach (that I mentioned earlier) in action. I have a funny feeling you know exactly what I meant and are just trying to score cheap points at this stage. Sad.

(sigh)

Ok, how about this: 'Do the teachings of the various forms of Buddhism, and Buddhist philosophy in a general sense, allow for, encourage or approve of excessive consumption of, indulgence in, or accumulation of, material possesions?

Better?

Albatross wrote:The more extreme the religious belief, the greater the opposition to 'decadence'.

You might consider reading "The Varieties of Religious Experience" by William James. The answer to your statement is that religion is not that homogenous and it seems you are using religion to coincide with your personal experience involving the Religion of the Books more than all possible types of religious expression or dogma. The Church of Satan is all for decadence. The Gospel of Wealth strain of Christian thinking, in essence, states that the better a Christian you are the more stuff you get.

You might consider reading my earlier posts. I only referred to Buddhism, Hinduism, Orthodox Judaism and Christianity. Oh, and Islam of course.

But please, don't let me derail The Smug Train - you seem to be enjoying yourself.

Of course I'm using broad generalisations - the person I was replying to implied that Fundamentalists Islamists consider the West to be decadent. Yes, that's true, broadly speaking - but it's also true of other religious adherents, again, BROADLY speaking. The difference is that those people don't generally bomb us, meaning that citing decadence as a reason for Islamic antipathy towards the West is too simplistic an argument.

I think my 'crime' here was taking all of this as assumed (although I DID state it pretty explicitly) - I wasn't expecting to have to spell it out like I was talking to a fething infant.

Guitardian wrote:I'm sure Sidhartha would be happy to hear that you don't give a gak about Buddhism, and I would wager Jesus would be pretty sickened by modern xtianity too.

I'm sure Sidhartha would be pretty sick about modern Buddism too by that standard. Them Buddist monks seem to care about a lot of things these days . The point of Buddism isn't not caring. Buddist monks do a lot of humanitarian work in the world. And Buddha is a religious figure. Just like Christians, there's a good deal of debate in Buddism concerning what he intended and meant in his teachings. There are a lot of metaphysical concepts and beliefs in Buddism that go back to Sidhartha, not that we know anymore about who he really was than we do about who Jesus really was.

Unfortunately, just like Jesus the teaching became doctrine and the doctrine became the word of god and the word of god became the law and the law became the 'rules' when really all it was was a philosophy of eternal boredom to eliminate the anxieties of life's ups and downs.

Really? Wow. And here I thought the Historical Jesus was an enigma of opinions and scholarly slap fights over which documents, sentences, and words are more correct.

There is no consensus on who Jesus really was, assuming he is something other than what Christians make him out to be. Since all information concerning him is second and third hand it's unlikely anyone will ever know for sure without a time machine. And Seriously, if we had a time machine, what would you rather see? Jesus, or Dinosaurs?

EDIT: As to Fundamentalist muslims hating decadence, it's an okay generalization. Radical Islamic leaning folks also didn't like us stationing US Troops in Saudi Arabia, or that they want to go back to the good old days of the Muslim Caliphate that the west crippled. Radical Islam is the result of a cultural conflict between western ideals and ideals of people who hold that Islam is a religion as well as a political system with some identity crisis and fascist concepts thrown in. It's a complex issue going all the way back to the late 19th Century.

I think Jesus probably partied hard, thought a lot, and talked a lot... so he would probably be a fun guy to kick it with. Just don't let the Romans catch you hanging out with him. That much at least we can assume to be true.

I would think that Buddhists do humanitarian work because they seek to not care about materialism, not necessarily because they care about other people's material needs. If its food and someone wants it, it doesn't affect me, I may as well give it away. If they want stuff that's their problem. Humanitarian acts are considered selfish in some schools of thought. A desire to feel good about onesself by doing good deeds for others... it is pretty paradoxical.

Still I would pick dinosaurs.

It's like the masochist who liked to have a freezing cold shower in the morning so he had a hot one instead.

Guitardian wrote:I think Jesus probably partied hard, thought a lot, and talked a lot... so he would probably be a fun guy to kick it with. Just don't let the Romans catch you hanging out with him. That much at least we can assume to be true.

The Romans didn't really have anything against Jesus. It was the Sanhedrian, Jewish officials, who wanted him dead. Christians would claim it was because he committed blasphemy by claiming to be the Son of God. Historians might agree with that, others might just say his teachings were radical, some even think he was trying to incite rebellion against the Romans, and the Sanhedrian wanted to avoid another crack down on their faith which to them was synonymous with their people. EDIT: I actually kind the idea kind of funny. It's the Roman Empire, conquerers of the known world. I don't think one Jew was on their radar

Still I would pick dinosaurs.

Heck yeah. Dinosaurs win hands down. *Begin Jurassic Park/A Sound of Thunder moment*

Guitardian wrote:I think Jesus probably partied hard, thought a lot, and talked a lot... so he would probably be a fun guy to kick it with. Just don't let the Romans catch you hanging out with him. That much at least we can assume to be true.

True, in fact he was criticised for it. But partying isnt necessarily lead to drunken-ness or irresponsibility, even if there was wine at the party, let alone the prostitutes that were also frequently there.

Luke 5:33 They said to him, "John's disciples often fast and pray, and so do the disciples of the Pharisees, but yours go on eating and drinking."

The Romans were not bothered by Jesus until they were told to be at a high level, in fact allowing for the large number of Centurions 'of faith' stories in the Gospels, plus more in the Acts grants the impression that the Roman intelligence machine, which weatched the province especially closely, knew all about Jesus and not only didnt want to act against him but in many cases respected him.

You know Alb, you could have saved everyone the eye strain by just admitting you don't really know anything about Eastern Religion/Philosophy. You didn't need to go through the trouble of showing us you don't know. We would have believed you.

Ahtman wrote:You know Alb, you could have saved everyone the eye strain by just admitting you don't really know anything about Eastern Religion/Philosophy. You didn't need to go through the trouble of showing us you don't know. We would have believed you.

Yeah... Good comeback, champ.

LordofHats wrote:

Guitardian wrote:Still I would pick dinosaurs.

Heck yeah. Dinosaurs win hands down. *Begin Jurassic Park/A Sound of Thunder moment*

Dinosaurs hate decadence. Hate it.

@Ahtman/Albatross,

Gentlemen, no need to bicker. You can settle this with a 10' circle drawn into the dirt and knives!

Albatross wrote:

Ahtman wrote:You know Alb, you could have saved everyone the eye strain by just admitting you don't really know anything about Eastern Religion/Philosophy. You didn't need to go through the trouble of showing us you don't know. We would have believed you.

Yeah... Good comeback, champ.

Yes it was. The things you say show that your knowledge is second-hand at best. Everything you needed to know about Buddhism you learned from The Matrix, amiright? Other people have tried to point out where you are incorrect, initially in a friendly way, but you continue to want to tell people that actually have knowledge of the subject that they are wrong. You purposefully are choosing the path of ignorance consistently on the subject. Are we supposed to pat you on the head and agree with you just to make you feel better? Well it won't happen. You are wrong, you are arguing with people that actually have above a laymen understanding of the subject yet you still want to disagree.

Albatross wrote:'Do the teachings of the various forms of Buddhism, and Buddhist philosophy in a general sense, allow for, encourage or approve of excessive consumption of, indulgence in, or accumulation of, material possesions?

There is nothing inherent in Buddhism that prohibits being successful and owning a great many things. Again it comes down to a humans relationship with the objects, not against their existence. Is excessive consumption bad? Sure, but it is considered problematic by everyone, including atheists. It really isn't a religious issue. Excessive water will kill you as well. It is like the person who confuses a dollar bill for wealth. The unclear mind confuses the symbol with the symbolized. If your mind is clear than you can have all the money in the world and it won't matter.

Guitardian wrote:ummm... isn't that kind of the point of buddhism...? not giving a gak about anything? Desire is the root of sorrow.

There is a difference between non-attachment and disinterest/disconnection. Compassion is an important component and you can't be compassionate and apathetic at the same time. This is a common misunderstanding. It is one of the aspects that stems from Buddhism's Hindu roots, more specifically the Upanishads.

Ahtman wrote:If your mind is clear than you can have all the money in the world and it won't matter.

I would just re-word this bit.

There can be a difference between financial success and excessive materialism.

Financial success is a difficult phrase to pin down. Excessive material isn't quite so difficult to pin down. A person can have one dollar and be financially successful if their needs are met by that dollar. It is more difficult to say that a person that doesn't need redundant items but has them anyway, isn't practicing excessive materialism.

Does Bill Gates live in excess? Yeah, my guess would definitively be yes. Do most westerners live in excess? Probably. Obesity is often caused by excessive consumption, while eating an extra roll at dinner could hardly be considered that excessive.

You can be financially successful and live in excess. I would call that being extremely successful and living in excess as a perceived result. Your mind can be clear and you can be both financially successful and clearly living in excess.

If I were to go merely by the brand established by buddhist monks themselves (ignoring the excessive facade in many Buddhist temples and the overall concept is silly IMO, but whatevs) I would say that having more than you need while others go without is generally frowned upon. I don't know, and I don't presume to know.

It would be interesting to hear what opinions there are in Buddhism, specifically about the whole rich man, camel-needle thing. Are there many parts of Buddhism that actually deal with that? I guess the better question would concern what the range of opinions are on that subject.

Wrexasaur wrote:If I were to go merely by the brand established by buddhist monks themselves

We aren't basing the discussion of Christianity based just on how the monks or nuns do things in Monasteries, why would we just limit the Buddhists to that standard?

Wrexasaur wrote:Are there many parts of Buddhism that actually deal with that? I guess the better question would concern what the range of opinions are on that subject.

Yes there are. Typically they are about a guy going to a rich Buddhist and wondering how he can have all this material stuff and him giving a lecture on non-attachment.

One of the best examples of having material success and not being obsessed with wealth is my boss.
A co worker had to have his sone put into the hospital and came up with a $100,000 dollar tab. My boss went to him and told him that whatever insurance didn't pay, he would. Another co worker had a 27 members of his family in El Salvador that he was worried about with the stuff that was going on there at the time. My boss heard about it and had them flown up here and he set them up in this country on his own dime.
Currently, he's in Africa helping a village get a going industry so the people there can have a higher living standard.
He does do well, but he uses a lot of his money helping other people. I gave just a few examples of what he does with his money.
He is someone who could get through the proverbial "eye of the needle" and still have headroom left over.

The tenets of Christianity come from Judaism, and a guy who questioned those absolutist LAWs of god and asked "why aren't we better than this?"... From what I understand (sorry Philosophy103 was 10 years ago for me) Buddhism sprang from Hindu ideals... one had the 'noble truths' (4 of them?) and one had the 'sacred path' (5 of them). Religions certainly do love their numbers.

the first truth is understanding that life is suffering caused by yearning

the next is that to eliminate the yearning in order to eliminate the suffereng

then the paradox... how can you yearn to not yearn?

I don't remember what the last and resolving one was, it has been a long time.

It is possible I suppose to not yearn, have an aweful lot of materiel wealth, and not necessarily yearn for it, covet it, and have a charitable nature to just let other people have your material stuff if they need it/want it, without really caring one way or another. "I have a mountain of gold so if you want/need gold here have some"... heck I give my old guitars away to kids just because I can. I don't need them any more, so may as well put them to use, right? I have accumulated lots of musicy stuff, but as long as it gets use, its still serving its purpose, right? Do I miss them? well... yeah I miss all of my old guitars in the way of having happy memories of them. Do I want them? not particularly otherwise I would have not given them to various kids. Do I want to be paid for them? No. They have already been paid for once, why do it again? Do I care who gets them? If it a thief I would say yes. If it is an interested 9-year old or an aspiring 16 year old then no, I'm happy they have something to do, and when/if they give up on it it will be passed along... If I were broke I might be a little more tightwad about my possessions but when stable, have enough musicy stuff to use for my trade, and more that I don't use... may as well let someone else use it, right? it is pretty easy to have a "dont care" attitude when you already have what you feel you need... is that materiel buddhism?

Guitardian wrote:The tenets of Christianity come from Judaism, and a guy who questioned those absolutist LAWs of god and asked "why aren't we better than this?"

I'd love to know where you get your information. I suggest some reading: Matthew 5:17. The Laws of Jewdism are in pretty good harmony with the Laws of Christianity. As much as can be expected from two groups of people in a discussion of religion. We all know how those like to end The problem for the Jews at the time from the Christian perspective was that they didn't follow the law. They liked to interpret it to their advantage.

The Law of God is the Law of God. Jews and Christians have the same god and follow the same law. Neither of them can accurately be described as absolutist. The difference is an interpretation of the law used by the two groups. Christians followed an interpretation used by Jesus that gave rise to a sect of Jewdism that would evolve into Christianity; One that to them follows not only the letter of the law but the spirit of the law. It's an even more complex issue than that though. As far as codes of law go the Christian/Jewish one is rather confusing and takes as much study as any other code of law to understand, but what you've described is hardly accurate of why Jesus began his ministry or adequately reflects his teachings, if Christianity is the view from which we are looking at the issue.

Buddhism sprang from Hindu ideals... one had the 'noble truths' (4 of them?) and one had the 'sacred path' (5 of them)

I'm no expert on Hinduism but neither of these to my knowledge are part of their system of belief. They are Buddist beliefs, and it's the Eightfold Path that I believe you are thinking of (Granted I'm no expert on Buddhism either). It's true that Buddhism has roots in Hinduism but neither of the things you mentioned are to my knowledge among these roots. EDIT: I'm looking around and I actually think I may need to read more about this. I'm reading some stuff on Hinduism and its history and I could have even less of an understanding of it than I believed I did in its relation to Buddism. I think I might actually want to get a book on this and do some proper study.

Kilkrazy wrote:Similarly, there is a commandment against coveting your neighbour's ass, but not against having your own ass.

There was a Christian sect that believed it was a sin to have an ass of your own. They had to make themselves special chairs.

Can you be reported for terrible jokes? Just asking...

ShumaGorath wrote:People can have opinions that are wrong when they are based on factual matters.

I like to think that while people can't have wrong opinions that can certainly have stupid ones.

Ahtman wrote:Everything you needed to know about Buddhism you learned from The Matrix, amiright?

I though the Matrix was gnostic? I mean, I can't say for certain, because I don't know much about gnosticism, buddhism or the Matrix movies, but I think I remember people talking about the story drawing heavily gnostic ideas when they were released...

LordofHats wrote:
I'm no expert on Hinduism but neither of these to my knowledge are part of their system of belief. They are Buddist beliefs, and it's the Eightfold Path that I believe you are thinking of (Granted I'm no expert on Buddhism either). It's true that Buddhism has roots in Hinduism but neither of the things you mentioned are to my knowledge among these roots. EDIT: I'm looking around and I actually think I may need to read more about this. I'm reading some stuff on Hinduism and its history and I could have even less of an understanding of it than I believed I did in its relation to Buddism. I think I might actually want to get a book on this and do some proper study.

Buddhism has both The Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path.



1. Life means suffering.

2. The origin of suffering is attachment.

3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.

4. The path to the cessation of suffering.




As for The Matrix, it is a hodgepodge of ideas. The idea of maya (the veil) predates gnosticism and the original title of the script was "The Third Eye". There certainly is some gnosticism, but the series draws from a lot of different ideas, often not very well once you get past the first movie. It might have been the whole plagiarism thing.