I think so. I remember he was from Malta. Fairly young. Whined about the women employees of the hotel he worked at taking time off for menstrual pain.
He would get really pissed off when I asked him for data to back up his bullshit conspiracy stuff
Yes let us do that…but perhaps instead of cherry picking (which you have consistently done in this thread) lets get the full thing in context shall we?
The point I was making that even Zen, as you pointed out, an outwardly benign way of life can be corrupted by men, and condone or ignore violence…Just like nearly every religion we know of except, as I said, perhaps Jainism
can be corrupted by men, and condone or ignore violence
ANYTHING can be corrupted by men. If you say that, even atheism can be corrupted by men, and atheism isn’t even a religion!
perhaps Jainism
with your logic, if there’s a violent group big enough to commit mass shootings and bombings in the “name of jainism” you’d call jainism a violent religion.
Well hello, Good catch up.
Umm yes that would be a fair comment, except I would more like ly say that is a terrorist group operating in the name of Jainism. Same as I would for any Abramic group operating the same way and claiming justified violence in the name of their religion.
If someone committed violence in YOUR name I would condemn them exactly the same way…and wouldnt need to quote mine…
1 Like
well, i guess that means we have different definitions of what constitutes a violent religion.
Because i’d only consider a religion violent if they directly call for violence.
But if they say something as vague as:
- don’t give a fuck about earthly matters - zen
- morality comes from you and me and not some diety - atheism (not a teaching but where else do you get your morality?)
- spiritual purity and enlightenment - jainism
i don’t consider that a violent ideology, especially if they say:
- Panatipata veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures. - Zen and Buddhism- spiritual purity and enlightenment through nonviolence. Ahimsa - Jainism
I will only consider it a violent religion once they start directly calling for violence. Otherwise, they are just violent PEOPLE, not a violent RELIGION.
also calling someone or something violent based on what they DID NOT say or show is ABSURD and borders on false accusations. You don’t see how silly it is if i accuse you of being violent on the basis of the things you DID NOT SAY?
what kind of people makes claims NOT even based on EVIDENCE shown to them?
Im not sure whether you have a real problem with reading and comprehension or if this is your normal mode of discussion.
Either way, I dont play that way.
1 Like
you’re going to sound like a theist reinterpreting the contexts of your words.
saying
“Even zen is violent becausd of its base philosophy”
then changing it to
“I never said the religion is violent”
is kinda like in the bible saying:
“thou shall not kill”
and the next pages over you get
“leave no one alive”
what evidence do you have that zen is an ideal vehicle to behave violently? they literally tell you not to harm anyone.
The notion of “anything can be corrupted,” aka what you want to mean, is just a truism.
but your words: “Even zen is violent becausd of its base philosophy” is an accusation with no evidence.
bringing up samurai and Kōdō Zen just brings up violent people and not a violent religion
your position is so silly when i said atheism is violent you started demanding evidence
Wait what? How? Why? 
This is hard to process!!!
also, looking back, who are you to talk about reading comprehension when you literally interpret earthly detachment as a call to violence and then asking for evidence when somebody calls atheism violent as a way to show how absurd your unevidenced accusations are?
That aside, what little exposure I’ve had to Buddhism rejects theism and focuses on the self.
I think it might be misleading to lump Zen Buddhism in with the violent nature of the Samurai. Samurai practiced a Bushido code incorporating elements of Zen into their philosophy.
Any philosophy or theist dogma is only as peaceful as its adherents…and since adherence requires being human…well…
1 Like
That is truer of westernized Buddhism and of some buddhist sects vs others. Even where a deity is absent there is sometimes a rather florid cosmology and demigods and “ascended masters” and “hungry ghosts” and the like.
Another thing many don’t realize is that meditation (as a massed, organized lay movement) was for most of history a practice of the monastic orders, not the common adherents. Meditation for the laity was popularized first in Burma after the Brits deposed the Burmese king who was also the religious leader of Buddhism there. This resulted in the dismantling of the monastery system, etc., and it was thought that encouraging meditation amongst the laity was the best way to preserve Buddhist practice, given the circumstances. This made lay meditation more generally popular and by the time the West adopted it (and even studied and secularized it), it came to be associated as more of an inherent part of Buddhism than it actually once was.
1 Like
I’m a latecomer to this thread, but one point that immediately springs to my mind is this.
Any religion that relies on faith to any degree sets the stage for division between those who believe it by faith and those who don’t. At this point, unless said religion is actually true and DOES change human nature for the better, then human nature just kicks in, with all of its tribalism and xenophobia. These innately human characteristics will eventually lead to schisms within the religion and purges, pogroms and persecutions outside of it.
So what starts as a religion of peace won’t end up as one - because of human psychology. Humans are naturally competitive, combative and destructive. Religion just gives those traits an excuse to express themselves with self-righteous fervour.
For the record, when I said, ‘Any religion that relies on faith to any degree’ I meant all of them. Including Buddhism. It takes faith to believe that Siddhartha Gautama achieved nirvana. I’d even go so far as to say that it takes faith to believe anything that is not supported by objective evidence.
The caveat to that statement being that if you infer the existence of something for which there is no objective evidence (like the existence of exoplanets in remote galaxies) then you are not using evidence-free faith. You are using logical inference, based upon the objective evidence you DO have.
This is where many religionists trip themselves up. Falsely thinking that both science and logic employ faith. No, they don’t.
Thank you,
Walter.
2 Likes