How about a "Victims of Buddhism" Memorial?

Politics International Politics
21

Geez, Brian… methinks you might keep your pre-judged comments at bay until after the trial is completed. Or maybe that legal nicety does not apply in this country?

Anyway, in what material way is this any different from the Catholic priest predeliction for altar boys, a la Boston Diocese, or the misogyny of umpteen Muslim clerics, or the earth Mother castration rituals (purely rumor, I am sure…)

Being a ‘man of the cloth’ (or a woman: the femal half of humanity is not that different) does not make one any better than the next sad sack out there. An unfortunate but inescapable fact is that hypocrisy is a universal human tradition, and that animal lust is not that far from the surface in many of us, no matter what clothes we like to cover our ideological nakedness in.

22

I used to work for one of the world’s leading Buddhist intellectuals, Sulak Sivaraksa. He has written volumes about the need to reform Buddhism, especially in Siam. There have also been numerous projects undertaken to implement some of these reforms. I think they have been successful on a small scale, but have not been able to achieve change on a broader scale due to inherent conservatism and people protecting their vested interests.

Of course there are problems at the level of institutions/societies/cultures but there is no need to throw the baby out with the bath water. Any individual who seriously practices Buddhism can enjoy great benefits. I think the same is true of any religion really.

23

There’s no doubt that some paths to enlightenment or nirvana on earth aren’t as bad as others. For that we should be grateful.

24

Bottlism

BroonAlcoholic

25

I think it’s amusing how Western liberals will use quaint euphemisms to describe the barbaric hellhole that was the Tibetan theocracy, whereas they describe Abu Ghraib and Gitmo in the most hyperbolic terms available in the English language.

26

I have engaged in much less degenerate behaviour since becoming a buddhist of sorts, that’s really saying something too. Buddhism is a philosphy not a political group. Sure some thug can call himself a buddhist, it’s like Bush callling himself a Christian, meaningless in any but a that pesky cynical, political exercise in hypocrisy sense, hick*.

27

“Barbaric hellhole” is a bit sweeping, don’t you think? Rural Nepal today has a low life-expectancy, really bad jails, abusive police, and debt slavery, but that doesn’t make it a hellhole. Well, unless you get stuck in the hellhole part yourself… For that matter, what do you think U.S. prison conditions are like? (Simpsons reruns interspersed with exercise periods, meals, and the occasional anal rape!)

Anyway I hope this wasn’t offered in defense of China’s “liberation” of Tibet, because the Chinese have obviously never paid much attention to what the Tibetan people actually wanted (except as a strategic or diplomatic consideration). China today resembles Nazi Germany in every relevant way (except efficiency).

By the way, boy rape continues to be a big problem among monks in the Tibetan exile community. You know, those little monks? Often the culprits are the other boys, sometimes not. Still think it’s the best educational option available?

Yes, it is possible for Buddhism (and yes it is a religion–come one, what else would it be? A science? A lifestyle, like the Grateful Dead?) to form a healthy part of a complete spiritual breakfast. But it’s easier for outsiders, and adults, to negotiate with the system. Kids who grow up with it are prey for…well, whatever. I mean, look around at what the local Buddhists do–it’s mainly about eating unhealthy vegetarian food, donating to temple projects, reciting stuff, getting blessings, and participating in various superstitious activities.

28

[quote=“Screaming Jesus”]“Barbaric hellhole” is a bit sweeping, don’t you think? Rural Nepal today has a low life-expectancy, really bad jails, abusive police, and debt slavery, but that doesn’t make it a hellhole. Well, unless you get stuck in the hellhole part yourself… For that matter, what do you think U.S. prison conditions are like? (Simpsons reruns interspersed with exercise periods, meals, and the occasional anal rape!)

Anyway I hope this wasn’t offered in defense of China’s “liberation” of Tibet, because the Chinese have obviously never paid much attention to what the Tibetan people actually wanted (except as a strategic or diplomatic consideration). China today resembles Nazi Germany in every relevant way (except efficiency).

By the way, boy rape continues to be a big problem among monks in the Tibetan exile community. You know, those little monks? Often the culprits are the other boys, sometimes not. Still think it’s the best educational option available?

Yes, it is possible for Buddhism (and yes it is a religion–come one, what else would it be? A science? A lifestyle, like the Grateful Dead?) to form a healthy part of a complete spiritual breakfast. But it’s easier for outsiders, and adults, to negotiate with the system. Kids who grow up with it are prey for…well, whatever. I mean, look around at what the local Buddhists do–it’s mainly about eating unhealthy vegetarian food, donating to temple projects, reciting stuff, getting blessings, and participating in various superstitious activities.[/quote]

This is a very offensive post, towards many different groups of people. Once the mods get hold of it, it will probably will be deleted. Which is why I’m quoting it - I don’t want it deleted. He says some very offensive things but they are offensive things that deserve debate, not airbrushing.

29

Maybe, but it certainly wasn’t the hippy paradise those morons at the “Free Tibet” booth on the University of Texas make it out to be. Of the 1.25 million Tibetans living in rural areas in 1950, 700,000 were serfs. Those who tried to escape faced lovely punishments such as eye gouging, hamstringing, amputation, etc. More severe crimes were punished with disembowelment. And I know all about the usual fate of thoseyoung monks…ugh.

Certainly not. China hardly intervened in the oppressive Tibetan social hierarchies. But I understand things have changed somewhat as millions of Han Chinese have colonized Tibet and the Chinese government has more of a presence.

30

It’s a big world. Buddhism has existed in countless forms and geographic regions. Isn’t it a little unfair to condemn it solely on the basis of practices in rural Tibet, a “medieval” environment of poverty, harsh living and extreme religious beliefs and practices?

Isn’t that akin to condemning Christianity because 50 million were killed in the Crusades and heretics were burned at the stake?

Perhaps participants in this discussion should be more honest and discuss the more calm, peaceful, compassionate reality of Buddhism in modern Japan, SE Asia, Europe and America.

Btw, in the enlightened community of forumosa, we all know Tibet was far from utopia before the Chinese invaded, we all know that back home among the untraveled there are many clueless supporters of “Free Tibet” who have an unrealistic utopian view of pre-Chinese Tibet, we all know they are ignorant of the facts, and it’s been discussed on this forum repeatedly. So, I don’t believe there’s any need to go into all that again. And, in any event, I don’t believe fixation on rural Tibet makes for fair criticism of Buddhism as a whole. Nor is it fair to make broad sweeping generalizations about “liberals” on the basis of a few "Free Tibet"ans who don’t know their history.

31

I’m not sure what I said that could be offensive, that also isn’t either true or at least a legitimate POV.

Besides Tibet we’ve also mentioned the pernicious effects of Buddhism on Sri Lankan, Thai, Bhutanese, Burmese, and to a lesser extent Taiwanese society. Japan and Korea haven’t come up yet, but I’m sure it wouldn’t be hard. Now is it right to blame “Buddhism” as a whole for the negative actions of its leaders and institutions? Well…yes. Granted, religions exist in relation to the societies that support them (a kind of symbiosis, I guess), and folk religiosity can mitigate or negiotiate with elite demands, but try to think of the practical effect of Buddhism, as opposed to its philosophical presence. What “Buddhism” really amounts to is diverting resources to monks, temples, and the like, and focusing lots of attention on the sangha’s leadership role.

On the other hand, I admit that the same argument could be made for many other areas of life. After the Victims of Communism and Buddhism memorials, maybe there should be one for victims of love, victims of family, of occupational accidents, of traffic…of just getting out of bed in the morning. There is risk everywhere, I recognize that. And religion does seem to be one of the great human universals. Not sure whether Buddhism’s rough edges can be smoothed, given its social and political context, but believe it or not, I do wish it well.

32

Nonsense. The less savory practices of a few purported buddhists in those countries have been mentioned – a random, scattershot, anecdotal condemnation of a few – which you are apparently trying to use to condemn Buddhism as a whole, which may be a sly rhetorical method on your part, but is totally unsatisfactory as an attempt at logical analysis.

I am extremely confident that Buddhism, in general, has had a calming, peaceful positive influence on the peoples who have experienced it and any few token examples you might raise to the contrary are aberrations and not representative of any broad trend concerning Buddhism. Instead of the greedy, wrongful military government of Mynamar, consider the populace as a whole (I’ve spent some time there and found the [buddhist] people of burma to be the kindest, calmest, most generous, peaceful people I’ve ever met). Or consider the mostly calm, easygoing [buddhist] people of Thailand, with their constant “mai pen rai” and “bo pen yang”, which translates to don’t worry about it, it’s ok, no biggie, who are also a very positive example of the influence of Buddhism.

This portion of your argument is therefore irrelevant and improper, because it’s based on an assumption you have leapt to – that there’s something wrong with Buddhist leaders and institutions – for which there has been no evidence or support of any kind, just a few cheap attempts at rhetorical slight of hand.

33

Rather than focusing on instances of individual behaviour if you look at the nations in the world where the majority of the people are Buddhist human rights and democracy are seriously lacking. Several of them are in a state of civil war (Sri Lanka and Burma), others have conflicts bordering on civil war (Thailand and Laos) and others have authoritarian regimes with no democratic rights (Vietnam).

Saying all Thai people are happy and easy-going is just as bad as saying all the Tibetans are peace-loving and perfect. The reality is not quite so rosy. It is easy to make these kind of generalisations but I don’t think they are useful. Life is infinitely more complex.

In my own personal experience some of the friendly, most hospitable people I have met were Muslims. But look at how they are stereotyped by most people.

34

Saying all Thai people are happy and easy-going is just as bad as saying all the Tibetans are peace-loving and perfect. The reality is not quite so rosy. It is easy to make these kind of generalisations but I don’t think they are useful. Life is infinitely more complex.[/quote]

That’s why I didn’t say all.

Of course generalizations are not always correct. But we all – yes all – make generalizations from time to time, because they can be useful for analyzing situations, comparing and contrasting, and drawing conclusions (which may or may not be true), that help us to make meaning out of the infinite bits of information that we confront in life.

I fully agree that all thais and all buddhists are not easygoing and peaceful, but based on my experiences I’ve found that in general they tend to be, at least compared to other cultures.

Could be. I don’t dispute that.

35

After the “Victims of Buddhism” memorial is erected, next to come are the memorials for the “Victims of Islam” and the “Victims of Christianity”. In the course of history, certainly Christianity and Islam have allowed many more to suffer the yoke of serfdom and slavery than Buddhists, not to mention those killed, imprisoned, ostracized or denied what we today consider fundamental basic rights.

It’s good that the memorial for Buddhism victims gets made first, since Buddhism came first. However, I don’t think it would be safe to suggest that there be a “Victims of Judaism” shrine, and I’m certainly not sure which of the monuments should be the largest, or who would be interested in going to visit such a place.

36

Human rights in Thailand are a lot better than they are in China (especially in occupied Tibet, and especially if you are Buddhist).

And in Burma? the Myanmar authorities are not particularly Buddhist, now are they.

Some of the most hospitable people I have met in my many travels across the world have been Buddhist. And some have been Muslims. But the Buddhists did not rip me off and steal my camera and traveller’s cheques the moment I left the house…

The Buddhists don’t care what I believe in or not, they just see and respect that you’re a good person. Muslims on the other hand think that an atheist is worse than a Jew, worse than a Christian, and feel God has told them explicitly to fuck me over. Which is kind of impossible, seeing as god is a myth and belief in god is a self-perpetuating delusion.

I know which religion I have more respect for, and it started a long way before 2001.