Respect ALL living things?
12 March 2007 by StardustI love the “Odd News” section of Yahoo News, and run across the most bizarre and interesting things there. Today this story caught my eye:
Ants test nonviolence of Buddhist monks
My first instinct would be to grab a can of RAID and then call the Terminex man, but these monk dudes will allow themselves to be seriously harmed by ants before they would intentionally kill the little fuckers. It seems that these monks want humans to put aside their own natural survival instincts that all animals possess.
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia – Buddhist monks, who are bound by faith to nonviolence, are grappling with how to rid a temple of a severe ant infestation without killing the insects.
Stinging red ants have plagued the Hong Hock See [say that ten times fast!] Temple in northern Penang state for a year, causing one worshipper to be bitten so badly last month that he had to receive hospital treatment, said Elma Lin, a temple volunteer worker.
A temple disciple tried using a vacuum cleaner to gather up the ants before freeing them in a nearby forest, but the method failed to purge the insects, Lin said.
“We haven’t found a solution so far,” Lin said. “Nothing has worked.”
The temple’s chief monk, Boon Keng, was quoted by The Star newspaper as saying that the monks had to “respect other living things” in the temple.
“When an ant drops on you, you must not flick it away or blow on it,” he told the newspaper. “If you do, it will bite to hold on. You just have to shake it off.”
The newspaper published a photograph of Boon Keng standing beside a sign at the temple that read: “Beware poisonous ants. Do not sit under the tree.”
The decades-old temple has more than 10 monks living there and hundreds of devotees, Lin said.
Like other religions, there are varying forms of Buddhism, but this video gives a brief summary of what modern “westernized” Buddhism is about. Are these people living in la-la land, avoiding problems in society, or is it possible for their influence of this kind of thinking to do any good for humankind?
12 March 2007, on 3:50 pm
Well, in fact, I rather respect the Buddhists: they tend to walk the way they talk (not all, but most). & if more people adopted the attitude of killing is wrong all the way around, the world’d be a little better place to live in. Jainists espouse the ‘ahimsa’ (do no harm) principle as well.
Granted, these are ants, so this is a bit over the top.
But I respect folks what can live by their own rules.
12 March 2007, on 4:11 pm
I agree with you in general, KA, although we mustn’t forget there are Buddhists we could argue are “extremist,” “fundamentalist,” and/or “literalist” as well, from what I understand (the sarin gas bombing of the Tokyo subway – wasn’t that committed by a Buddhist group?). Obviously, it’s human nature to take even a basically benevolent philosophy to absurd and destructive extremes.
Which brings me to my main beef with Buddhists, at least in the way they express themselves: they seem to tend to overemphasize mind over matter to a degree I don’t understand. Yes, acknowledging and identifying patterns of thought and feeling can lead to better comprehension and hopefully control of the same, but demonizing matter and the body as somehow “not as good” or even downright “backward” or “negative” doesn’t sit well with me.
Like it or not, we are physical beings. Like it or not, many if not most of our thoughts and emotions are born from/generated by our bodies. Like it or not, our conscious minds would probably not exist without our conception and birth into the material world. Most of the concepts developed that seek to put something outside of this basic reality seem too much like “woo” to me – and some of it not so pleasant.
Take the idea of karma and reincarnation, for example. One of the Venerables in the video says that this is simply the answering of the question “why.” But for me, answering a child being horribly abused who asks me why is this happening to me with “well, you must have done something in a previous life to deserve it” is pretty abhorrent. I know I’m simplifying when I put it this way, but after all the fancy speechifying about what karma and reincarnation are is said and done, that’s what I’m left with. Even stating the karmic reply as “well, this abuse is the cosmos (or whatever) teaching your soul a lesson it needed to learn” makes me sick.
I’m speaking strictly from the impressions I’ve received as an outsider and skeptic, so I don’t pretend to be in any way, shape, or form an authority on Buddhism. Compared to other systems of belief and/or thought, it seems relatively benign and even positive. But the research and study I’ve done so far in mythology, religion, anthropology, and archaeology has made me supremely suspicious of anything that devalues physical, physiological experience and reality. As soon as we start placing something above the general welfare of body and brain, then pain and suffering become at the very least something not so important to strive against – and I believe that they are.
Allowing red ants to sting you because your only self-defense is to kill them, and you don’t believe in killing? There’s an easy solution: kill yourself. That way you’ll be removing a danger to the life surrounding you, and you’ll be feeding more life without threatening it. That’s the logical result of this kind of thinking, in my opinion.
I’ve got more thoughts crowding my cranium, but I don’t want to hog the thread!
12 March 2007, on 4:33 pm
The video kept freezing whilst I watched it, and it didn’t appear to be a fault on my system, since I tried another YouTube video which worked OK. I understand from the video, however, that the particular emphasis was on Tibetan Buddhism, which stresses esoteric practices that the more pragmatic Chinese and Japanese Ch’an/Zen masters consider to be irrelevant at best and completely delusional at worst. Basically, I think that the Dalai Lama and his followers have long since lost the plot, and are simply evading the real world with their hocus-pocus and laid down rituals in segregated societies.
The truth about Buddhism is that it does not need practice, it just needs doing. At it’s quintessential best it was summed up by the Kamakura School in Japan, where it was known as ‘warrior zen’ or ‘one word zen’. All it takes is one word to realise the truth: life is impermanent, it has no meaning, there is no heaven or hell, there are no gods, scriptures or holy words, there is no afterlife or soul, but there is just now, this instantaneous moment and that if one does not experience that in its immense fullness, then one has not truly experience the immediacy and wonder of this life.
All other pursuits are mere diversions, as is the so-called practice of many of those who claim to be Buddhists.
In their favour, however, at least one has to admit that Buddhist leaders or texts do not exhort their followers to kill apostates or infidels, so if Buddhism is to be regarded as a religion, perhaps it can be considered to be the most genuinely compassionate of all so-called religions.
Nevertheless, I support the views of the Sixth Patriarch of Zen (if I remember correctly), who went about Japan closing monasteries and exhorting the monks to go out into the real world and get an ordinary (i.e. ‘real’)job.
A sentiment echoed by the words of the Master Huang-Lung Hui Nan who said:
Or as Master Dahzhu said:
An finally, the words of Master Hongzhi, who said:
It is not necessary to be able to spout esoteric texts, or to sit in the full-lotus position, or even to meditate in some sequestered venue, cocooned from the real world, to experience the truth which Buddha spoke about, but most eloquently demonstrated when he held aloft the flower on Dragon’s Peak – yet even then, only one of his many followers ‘got’ the message, and smiled knowingly.
12 March 2007, on 4:41 pm
Eve, you can read about the Aum Shinrikyo group who were behind the Tokyo sarin poisonings here.
I think it’s true to say that it would actually be a travesty of the word to define them as ‘Buddhist’, don’t you?
12 March 2007, on 5:24 pm
One of the things I feel obligated to point out is that Buddhism is non-theistic in many cases. The question of “is there really a god” is simply beside the point to many Buddhists (tho’ not all) and is certainly beside the point to the early Buddhist teachings (such as Thervada Buddhism). I’m not a Buddhist because I disagree with the logical premises of Buddhism (the Four Noble Truths) — I don’t believe in the inevitability of life being suffering. But if you accept the premises of Buddhism the conclusions are pretty inescapable.
Along with Buddhism’s non-theistic character, the most misunderstood aspect of Buddhism is it’s logic. Reading early Buddhist texts, in particular, is like reading a book on formal logic. Buddhism is extremely logical in a way that is quite unlike any religion.
I think that Buddhism is termed a religion because the West tends to orientalize things from Asia. India is, to many, many people, a land of mysticism — therefore, Indian systems of philosophy are mystical. (This idea was cemented into place by Hegel who said that India was frozen at an infantile stage of historical development. This would be the standard line of thought for the British Empire’s dominion over India.) So, I think that our view of Buddhism as being religious at all is heavily influenced by a bunch of old racist notions about the area. This would also explain our focus on Tibetian Buddhism — which is, really, a fairly small strain of Buddhism and far more mystical than most other types of Buddhism — while ignoring virtually all other forms of Buddhism.
12 March 2007, on 5:36 pm
Thank you for weighing in, Old Git and Chris; Aum doesn’t sound that much different from other destructive cults, despite the exotic-to-our-Western-ears-overlay of cherry-picked Buddhist and Hindu elements. Just the fact that it’s now calling itself “Aleph,” a letter from the Hebrew alphabet, shows its true smorgasbord approach – not to mention control over its members.
12 March 2007, on 5:49 pm
I’m not a Buddhist because I disagree with the logical premises of Buddhism (the Four Noble Truths) — I don’t believe in the inevitability of life being suffering. But if you accept the premises of Buddhism the conclusions are pretty inescapable.
First, Gautama never taught that suffering was ‘inevitable’, as you seem to claim.
Second, the first ‘Noble Truth’ is Dukkha, and whilst many scholars translate that as meaning simply ’suffering’, that does not do it justice, since the word has a deeper meaning of which includes impermanence, emptiness, insubstantiality. Thus, it is difficult to find one word which embraces the whole context of the term ‘dukkha’ as used in the ‘First Noble Truth’ which is why many commentators do not translate it rather than give the wrong idea by using the simple word ’suffering’ for it.
The second ‘Noble Truth’ gives the reasons for the arising of dukkha, whilst the third describes the cessation of dukkha and the fourth the way leading to the cessation of dukkha. This format follows the established medical practice at the time of diagnosing, description, prognosis, and cure.
Gautama made it absolutely clear in his teachings that dukkha was neither a necessary nor an inescapable condition.
12 March 2007, on 6:11 pm
You’re right, Old Git, that it is not taught to be necessary or inescapable. That is, after all, the whole point behind Buddhism.
I have long understood the deeper meaning behind dukkha, but I don’t think that life is those other things, either. However, since I was addressing my post to a primarily non-Buddhist audience that wouldn’t be familiar with dukkha — and seeing as I had no real intent of explaining it more fully — I didn’t get into it. However, since the Four Noble Truths have been brought up more fully . . .
Buddhists seem to me to construct a straw man. As a group they say, “Yearning leads to dukkha, so stop it.” That’s a slippery slope argument that does great injustice to the common condition of human happiness. Most people are pretty happy most of the time if you ask them. While I’m all for making people even happier by teaching then how to accept loss, and have realistic expectations, Buddhism strikes me as more than a trifle extreme (as does Stoicism, with which it shares many traits).
12 March 2007, on 6:31 pm
I think that you misunderstand the issue; there is no ’slippery slope’ argument.
Buddhists will tell you that happiness is a delusion, just as its opposite is, for there is only the existential moment, and experiencing that in its fullness and immediacy is so self-absorbing that there is nothing else – sunyata, the void, and self are one.
Further, Buddha’s teachings DO enable people to go beyond mere happiness – the kind of state that you refer to as ‘making people even happier’. At it’s basic level, what you’re talking about is simply giving people false hope, jollying them along, teaching them some nonsense fairy-tale, deluding them, rather than, as Buddha was, teaching them to be free from all that farrago and to live in the oneness of this very moment.
As for Buddhism being extreme, Buddha had nothing to say, and those who need Buddhism in their life are simply delusional.When one is no longer aware of the need for Buddhism, true Buddhism is manifesting itself. There is a world of difference between Buddhism and Stoicism.
12 March 2007, on 6:38 pm
Chris, you also said…
As I do not wish to indulge in a philosophical discussion about the Buddhist meaning of ‘emptiness’ or ‘insubstantiality’, I will leave those words aside for the moment. However, I fail to understand how you cannot accept that life is ‘impermanent’ – one of the deeper meanings of ‘dukkha’ – and I would be interested in your explanation as to why you do not think that our lives have a finite span and come to an end.
12 March 2007, on 7:31 pm
We’ve got an ant problem in our home right now. I searched the internet for a product that I could use to kill the ants without harming my pet rats. I finally found a product that uses mineral oil and mint oil in an aerosol that you spray on the ants to kill them. The mineral oil clogs their “air holes” and the mint oil causes their neurological system to go haywire. They twitch and spasm and suffocate slowly.
Good thing I’m not a Buddhist.
12 March 2007, on 8:31 pm
ooohh Julie, you are evil! LOL
I really hate using pesticides. I have a pet Bearded Dragon and am afraid of getting RAID or other poisons anywhere near her. I do let her out to run around sometimes, so ant traps aren’t so good either. I will have to look for that stuff you used since warm weather is coming and so are the little varmints. (Though now I am starting to feel like a murderer with all this Buddhist talk.
)
Does it work just on ants, or other creepy crawlers, too?
12 March 2007, on 9:14 pm
The ants are probably infesting the temple because of food offerings. (my guess..)
The best way to remove ants from your house, or from your temple, in this case, is to provide a more attractive food source elsewhere.
That I provide food source for ants, laced with borax, (no buddhist here), outside of my house, almost guarentees that the pesky little varmits stay outside.
Ants, like all other living things are food driven. I think the buddhists should provide “food offerings” for the ants OUTSIDE of the temple.
12 March 2007, on 9:19 pm
Just mix up a small container of sugar and borax, or honey and borax, and leave it in the path of the ants. Borax, for the old fashioned amongst us, is used in detergents and washing powders.
12 March 2007, on 9:25 pm
beepbeep…Borax is banned here in the USA, but I was shocked when I read in Wiki that it is used as a food additives in some other countries! Yikes!
Just a question . . . couldn’t the borax possibly harm other critters or pets? I wouldn’t want my little squirrel friends to get ahold of that or my neighbor’s cat who likes to prowl around.
12 March 2007, on 11:40 pm
It is banned as a food additive in many countries, but it is not banned in total as it is found in cosmetics, detergents and various cleaning products. Borax can be bought here, but Australia also does not allow borax in food products. It is used in food products as a preseservative or a “flavour enhancer.”
It is probably in many products, but most of us are more than likely unaware of it. It is certainly in many cleaning products and cosmetics.
I don’t know if products in the states have to by law, display the written codes for their contents, but most, if not all product in Australia must list the ingredients, additives, chemical compounds in each product.
Borax has the number of E285 (EU standards)and listed as Sodium tetraborate. So anything imported from the EU should be listed as E285 if it has borax in it.
I don’t have to worry about my cat eating the sugar and borax, but if I had a dog, or a pet reptile, I would be more concerned.
And I don’t leave it out overnight as I get possums here, and I am sure that it wouldn’t be good for my little possum friends.
12 March 2007, on 11:45 pm
Stardust, they’ve got all kinds of products.
http://www.saferbrand.com/
12 March 2007, on 11:59 pm
Hey, thanks for the link Julie!
13 March 2007, on 2:25 am
ToG:
All bound into Maya, the illusion of the world.
How’s the old saying go? “Joyful participation in the suffering of the world” or somesuch.
I like Buddhism, but I lean towards Taoism meself.
Eve:
That’s actually an excellent point. Most Buddhists view the body as a leather bag, filled w/dirty fluids. Ergo, the practitioner is in constant effort to purify.
The Vinegar Tasters are a perfect example of the 3 traditions of China.
I do love the occasional tale.
“A farmer was pulling a cart into a village. In the cart was a dancing pig. A villager stopped him, & asked ‘How long did it take you to teach that pig to dance?’ ‘Thirty years,’ said the farmer. ‘30 years’ exclaimed the villager. The farmer shrugged, and said: ‘What’ 30 years to a pig?’”- Zen flesh, Zen bones.
13 March 2007, on 2:26 am
Oops, forgot the link:
http://www.answers.com/topic/vinegar-tasters
13 March 2007, on 4:32 am
KA,
I also have much time for Taoism, and I regularly enjoy reading Chuang Tzu and Lieh Tzu, but I am particularly drawn to Ch’an/Zen Buddhism simply because of the way that it enshrines much of the best of Taoist thought and attitude.
As for the 30 years story, here’s another one: as Zen became more developed as a formal practice in Japan, many schools were set up. As the number of acolytes swelled, schools had to became more regimented in order to cope with the growing number, and formal rules were established, such as how many koans one must ‘pass’ before one could be considered ‘enlightened’ etc. One such school declared that it took 30 years training to become enlightened and to have the dharma seal of approval bestowed upon one. Rumour has it that those who stayed for the 30 years hoping to have their ‘enlightenment’ acknowledged were sadly disabused at the end of that time, since they were told that only a fool would consider that true enlightenment required any formal training whatsoever, but the fact that they had though otherwise was proof that they had not achieved it.
And here, just for you KA, is a koan entitled ‘Ordinary Mind Is Tao’ from the famous Zen work ‘The Mumonkan’ often known as ‘The Gateless Gate’.
13 March 2007, on 4:46 am
KA,
Meant to add, I love ‘The Vinegar Tasters’, which is also referred to in a rather fine book which I can recommend to anyone as capturing the essence of Taoism so beautifully, and in a way that most can relate to. It is: The Tao of Pooh & The Te of Piglet’ by Benjamin Hoff (ISBN 0-416-19526-1), and it is suitable for all ages.
Buy it, borrow it, steal it, but whatever you do, read it.
13 March 2007, on 4:50 am
Oops, should have followed your link, KA, before posting the above – see it specifically refers to Hoff’s book.
Still, for true fans of Pooh, and followers of the Way (would-be or otherwise), it deserves repetition.
13 March 2007, on 5:30 am
And then there was the Buddhist monk who was plagued by erections during prayer. No matter what he did or thought about, up would rise his rogue member. So he sliced it off, to be rid of that imperfect part of him.
However, he probably didn’t know that erections happen for no reason, occur before birth and are cyclical even during sleep. Wives who don’t know this think their husbands are dreaming of other women…
13 March 2007, on 5:55 am
Obviously he wasn’t enlightened, though he was ‘lightened’.
13 March 2007, on 11:45 am
There’s an old trick that keeps cockroaches away from your home – lay basil leaves down. Apparently they just can’t stand the smell and go away. I wonder if there is something similar for ants???
13 March 2007, on 11:47 am
BTW, Buddhism or not, I immediately suspect any religion – or outlet that promotes it – if it puts out a “how to” on video. This clip reminded me of the SpongeBob training video…
13 March 2007, on 12:11 pm
Naomi – ee-yow! Hadn’t heard that before.
ToG – have read the Tao, not the Te. The old saying is that, “Distinguishing between a Buddhist & a Taoist is like telling 1 feather from another on a duck.”
Buddhist monk walks up to a hot dog vendor, says, “Make me 1 w/everything.” The monk gets his hot dog, & pays. The vendor takes the 20$ bill & pockets it. The monk says, “Where’s my change?” The vendor, also Buddhist, says, “Change, my son, must come from within.”
13 March 2007, on 12:53 pm
To solve the ant problem, maybe the local government authority could cite some structural problem that needs to be fixed which will necessitate the temporary evacuation of the monastery. Then send in Delbert from ‘Arachnophobia’ to wipe out the ants.
I was once involved with the Tibetan freedom movement in the late 1990’s. Tibetan Buddhism struck me as being to Buddhism what Roman Catholicism is to Christianity. It is full of superstitions, belief in demons, and has a rigid and oppressive hierarchy. There has even been violence and murder perpetrated by Tibetan Buddhist worshipers of Dorje Shugden. Go to the following link to get a primer on that controversy: http://www.cesnur.org/press/Newsweek.htm
I remember in 1998 when some Shugden worshippers were protesting the Dalai Lama’s visit here in NYC, I saw a picture of some of the protesters and there were some who were white people, either Americans or Europeans, dressed in monk’s robes. I was thinking to myself, “These idiots really believe there is an entity called Dorje Shugden?” It amazes me that one can reject a belief in the god of the Bible, and then turn around and embrace arcane superstitions from the East. They’re both wrong!
While I deplore what the Chinese have done to Tibet, a lot of people seem to have bought into the idea that Tibet before the Chinese invasion in 1950 was a place of harmony and enlightenment.
For me, Buddhism, and Eastern philosophy in general, was appealing because of its emphasis on controlling the self, restraining one’s emotions and desires so that we do not become consumed by our lusts. When I find myself getting angry when I am stuck in traffic and in a hurry to get somewhere, sometimes I tell myself that it is not the traffic that is making me angry, it is my desire to get to my destination that is making me angry. It doesn’t always work, but there are moments when I can calm myself. Beyond that though, I have no use for the concept of nirvana, for prayer wheels and all that other crap.
13 March 2007, on 2:09 pm
Lol, it’s the other morons on the road that make me angry. The ones right on my ass expecting me to go faster, the ones putting on their signals after they’re halfway in my lane, the ones who wait till the lane runs out before attempting to merge and thereby creating an emergency situation. Those fuckheads.
13 March 2007, on 2:36 pm
hey Rev, was that last comment supposed to go in the truck driving post?
13 March 2007, on 3:01 pm
I was hoping that Chris would respond to my post #10 and come back to enlighten me why he does not think that life is impermanent.
Perhaps he’s just not keen to share his arcane knowledge regarding his eternal life?
Ho hum.
13 March 2007, on 3:05 pm
lol, no, it was a rant in response to the last part of Tommykey’s post.
13 March 2007, on 3:11 pm
Revenant – I’m getting the discussions mixed up…and at the beginning of the other thread Julie said that driving had nothing to do with religion! LOL! We can link religion and anything together…eventually. LOL!
14 March 2007, on 2:21 am
I sometimes, when telling someone about my atheism, will say that, if I were to have any similarity of thinking to any religion, it might be to some aspects of Buddhism.
Of course, the main aspect is the “no god” aspect.
The first thing I glommed onto regarding Buddhism was touched on by Krystalline Apostate…namely:
“All bound into Maya, the illusion of the world.”
In my somewhat recent ‘rant’ I brought up a homespun ‘proof’ of the non-existence of a god by referring to the “pretty picture” version of reality that most people use to instill an awe of nature; followed by the appeal: “How could you not believe…” yada, yada.
I see all that as more of an example of how everything really IS illusion.
Zoom in…closer…closer…(power of 10 style?)…into the microscopic…into the molecular…then further into the atomic…then the Quantum Physics’ elusive particles…all seemingly endless illusions.
That level of the microcosmic is of course, just the oposite of the macrocosmic illusion…that of observing galaxies etc…that are really not where they appear to be. We’re just experiencing and interpreting the light; which has finally reached us after billions of years. Even the Hubble, or NASA pictures are a further extension; or ‘internet’ illusion so to speak; or…oh, fuck it!
You get the idea. It reminds me also of one of Dawkins talks about the unimaginable strangeness of the Universe. I know Stardust is hip to this site; but check this TED page for some really interesting talks…and even for some amazing prodigy music talents, as well.
Look, in particular for “Mind-Bending Nature” with Richard Dawkins and David Deutsch
http://www.ted.com/tedtalks
When I (20 years ago) first got into doing some partime commercial window washing; which I
Was that you, Naomi?], I used to look, somewhat dismayed at the rather large task ahead…”so many friggin’ windows!”…and feel almost depressed at the work load ahead.
still do, occasionally [All safely on the ground...using extendable poles etc...
NO SNICKERING!
I finally decided to take what I called a “Zen” approach…in other words; focusing totally on the “now” that I was ‘mopping and squeegeeing’…yeah, you got it…the job went MUCH easier…and before I ‘knew it’…”Shazam!”…I was done! I realize that it’s not REALLY Zen Buddhism…but who cares! “It’s my party, and I’ll ZEN if I want to?”
I coitenly have no interest in joining, tithing, practicing, chanting, prayer wheel spinning [who the fuck thought THAT bullshit up?...What!...ask Old Git?]…huge horn blowing [Hey!...I already play sllide trombone!]…or anything [Blowing?] that anyone might dream up to add as a fuckhead ritual!
I served my time as a good Catlick kid…even, albeit, as an altar boy…thank you very much!
“What’s that?…was I ‘altared’ much?…you mean my ‘altar’ ego?…
Fork off!”
14 March 2007, on 2:57 am
As to ants: there’s an Avon product (I think it’s Skin So Soft, unsure) that ants absolutely loathe. An Avon Lady knocking on a Buddhist monastery door – pretty funny image, no?
Tommy:
Who exactly is that directed at? I’m not embracing any such thing, if that’s the inference.
Some of the shit that the Chinese govt. has done is horrific.
& Tibet is not w/o warts of its own, ’tis true.
Now, I saw the Penn ‘n Teller ‘Holier than Thou’ segment, starting investigating. They refer to 1 Michael Parenti. I started researching for a post I wanted to do.
Parenti wasn’t a go-to guy for info. His links were non-existent, he cited books that were unavailable online, & it just all seemed so slapped-together.
Tibet’s been a part of China since 1720, BTW. This doesn’t exonerate China by ANY stretch, but Tibet hasn’t been autonomous for centuries.
14 March 2007, on 2:12 pm
KA, that excerpt of mine was not directed at you. It was directed at the Americans and/or European worshippers of Tibetan Buddhism who were protesting the Dalai Lama’s stand on Dorje Shugden worship. Unless of course you are a Shugden worshipper!
Tibet was never really part of China. Yes, the Manchus, who conquered China itself, also made themselves overlords of Tibet as well, though they did not rule directly. No native Chinese dynasty, be it the Han, the Sui, the Tang, the Song, or the Ming, ever ruled over Tibet. But of course it is all academic. China is there now and I don’t see anything that can make them leave. It is one of those things I just learned to swallow and accept.
14 March 2007, on 3:51 pm
Tommy:
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.
14 March 2007, on 4:09 pm
I was surprised to read somewhere that there were actually some Tibetans in Pakistan.
14 March 2007, on 4:38 pm
tommy, the Tibetans you read about in Pakistan, were they Tibetan Buddhist or Tibetan Muslims in Pakistani-controlled Baltistan?
14 March 2007, on 7:19 pm
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?
14 March 2007, on 11:57 pm
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.
15 March 2007, on 4:58 am
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.
15 March 2007, on 10:35 am
If they had a tapeworm would they let it kill them?
27 March 2007, on 5:41 am
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.