View Single Post
Old 08-19-2006, 01:04 PM   #124
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Quote:
ORIGINALLY POSTED BY SKINWALKER:

I'm reminded of those who offer the bigoted perspective that certain sects of christianity aren't actually "christian." I've seen accusations that Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses, even Catholics aren't actually christian. But, in the end, they're just christians. Different flavors, to be sure, christian nonetheless.
Those who follow the teachings of Christ can be called Christian people, regardless of their denomination. Most modern "christians" do not qualify as christian people, for the simple reason that they do not even attempt to emulate Christ's basic moral examples. Take George Bush as an example. The same goes for Buddhists. Only those who follow the path of Buddha can truly be called Buddhist.

Some very christian people can be members of an organised church. But they are christian DESPITE the church, not BECAUSE of it. The same goes for Buddhists once again, a practioner of Mahayana may indeed be following the path of Buddha, but he will be doing so DESPITE Mahayana, not BECAUSE of it.

Very emotive term, by the way: Bigoted. Spare me. There's nothing bigoted about my dislike of organised religions, or more accurately, religious organisations.

Quote:
ORIGINALLY POSTED BY SKINWALKER:

The same is true with Mahayana Buddhism. Call it what you will, Spider, but the *are* Buddhists.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this. Are you saying that if a group of cabbage worshipping esquimeaux (sic) call their leafy green religious practices "Buddhism" then that makes them Buddhists?

Quote:
ORIGINALLY POSTED BY SKINWALKER:

There's not a text on religion, anthropology of religion, or sociology of religion, that I'm aware that posits otherwise.
First of all, that's completely irrelevant to ANY aspect of the argument. Secondly, I recall many discussions of the relative worth of Mahayana both in print, among Buddhists and indeed, even on this forum. You and I both participated in the last time this topic was discussed here. This is not a new debate nor a new idea. I'm sure it's been discussed since Mahayana was formed as a sect, in fact.

Quote:
ORIGINALLY POSTED BY SKINWALKER:

Moreover, Mahayanists adhere to some of the main tenets of Buddhism, including the 8 Fold Path and the 4 Noble Truths as well as Nirvana.
The fact that they use some of the same terminology as Buddha did in his teachings does not mean that they're adhering to the principles behind those teachings now, does it. Regurgitating the four noble truths by rote does not mean one applies the principle of the truths in one's daily life, nor does it mean that one is doing all the introspective self-analytical meditation that characterises the Buddhist way. And as we've seen in this thread, people can use the word "Nirvana" without at all ascribing the correct meaning to it. The plain fact of the matter is that Mahayana may indeed do some things right, I can't speak for the practices of every Mayahana tulku or temple honcho or whatever. But those right things will always be totally outweighed by all the mystic, religious airy-fairy guff wrong things that make up the rest of Mahayana's practices.

Quote:
ORIGINALLY POSTED BY SKINWALKER:

Not to mention that Buddha himself is of primary importance.
As an idol! An object of worship! That is not Buddhism. Buddha would be spinning in his celestial resting place, presuming he ever existed. Mahayana Buddhists routinely believe in celestial messengers, praying to Buddha for help or guidance, and that Buddha is in some way extant and omniscient. Total guff, in other words.

A lot like Jeet Kune Do. Bruce Lee wrote in his notes that Jeet Kune Do was his way of understanding ALL martial arts. It was his philosophy of LEARNING. It was NOT in itself a martial art. It should not be taught as a martial art, and if people were to start saying that Jeet Kune Do is this set of techniques, or it is that set of techniques, then he would have the name of Jeet Kune Do wiped out forever, because that was not what the philosophy was intended for.

Immediately after his death, nearly all his old students and some people who had never met him started claiming to "teach JKD", when they were really just teaching some moves.. People still practice this so-called art to this day... but they're not learning Jeet Kune Do, and what they're attending is not a "Jeet Kune Do class". To learn the way of Jeet Kune Do, one must quite simply read Lee's works, and try to grasp his martial philosophy.

It is almost a direct parallel to the topic of Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism. One is the true way, as it was intended, the other is a poor mockery of the way, regardless of how many half-understood snippets of the real way it contains.

Quote:
ORIGINALLY POSTED BY SKINWALKER:

In the end, you can keep calling them whatever you wish or don't wish, but it would be like calling a sphere a cube: no matter how many times you say "cube," corners won't appear. Mahayanism *is* a form of Buddhism.
I personally think that you're the one who's misguided in this respect. If you really believe that rituals, gold statue idolatry, incense burning and prayer to deified semi-mythical figures have ANYTHING to do with the teachings of Buddha, then you should re-evaluate.

Quote:
ORIGINALLY POSTED BY DAGOBAHN EAGLE:

They're both systems, however. I'm not saying Christianity and Nazism are comparable moral-wise, but they're both ideologies.
What do you mean by "They're both systems"? And they're not both political ideologies, one is a religion based on the teachings of a moralist who got nailed to a tree, and the other is a totalitarian fascist doctrine of deceit and ethnic cleansing. Completely different. Incomparable.

And yes, even attempting to compare them in this context was playing the Hitler Card.

Quote:
ORIGINALLY POSTED BY DAGOBAHN EAGLE:

There are a lot of immoral ideas in the Bible, too (such as the hatred towards homosexuals). When Fred Phelps follows them, apparently that's not the Bible's fault. Yet when neo-Nazis follow Hitler's "teachings", suddenly it's his fault.
There's a clear distinction. If people follow Christ's example, it's unlikely that they'll even be allowed to hate anyone.

When people follow Hitler's example, they ohh... I dunno... murder millions of people, conquer nations, start armed conflicts... Make rousing speeches...

You get the picture.

The bible is not very Christian at times, is it. It's commonly accepted among non-fanatics and academics that the old testament is merely a relic of the preceding doctrine of Judaism. The old Hebrew laws were quite red in tooth and claw. The most specifically anti-homosexual passages are in Leviticus, which is a book of the Hebrew Bible, or Old Testament, as I understand it.

And any member of an organised church who values the principles of the Old Testament over Christ's teachings in the new, must surely be called un-christian. An example: A man who believes in "an eye for an eye" but does not believe in "turning the other cheek". Can't really be called a "christian man", now, can he?

Quote:
ORIGINALLY POSTED BY DAGOBAHN EAGLE:

But of course I do! Timothy McVeigh, Stalin, and Chairman Mao all loved cabbage! Clearly there's a connection!
Damn right! The cabbage is evil.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,