A serious non-Buddhist

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: A serious non-Buddhist

Post by Sam Vara »

:focus: , Please.
User avatar
Radix
Posts: 1274
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2022 8:42 pm

Re: A serious non-Buddhist

Post by Radix »

Sam Vara wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 9:40 pmSo that looks like a lot of speculation based on personal observation, but to avoid accusations of unfairness I invite you to balance it with the "definitions of certain terms, abstractly defined". Where are they?
I'm looking for such definitions. I assume they exist. Many terms are defined in the suttas already.

The RCC defined "who is a Roman Catholic" in the Catechism of the RCC. If they can do it, why wouldn't other religions do similar for their adherents?

As a general principle, I try to start from definitions of terms.

No, you're doing that, and you impose it on me. You're describing _your_ method, not mine.
I'm happy to admit to that, but stand by its truth. Little here but opinions based on reading rather than practice. Citations provided if required.
Whatever I say, you look for ways to interpret my words in such a manner that it makes me look bad, evil, wrong.
It's one of the reasons why I don't take up your offer to organize a meeting with some people you suggested. In organizing this meeting, you'd somehow have to explain to them why you want them to go to such lengths to talk to someone. What would you say about me to them? I do not trust you would be fair toward me in that, predisposing the other person negatively toward me, setting me up for failure from the onset. You had your two chances, and you wasted them long ago.
Western Buddhism is the perfect ideological supplement to rabid consumerist capitalism.
Glenn Wallis
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: A serious non-Buddhist

Post by Sam Vara »

Radix wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 11:14 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 9:40 pmSo that looks like a lot of speculation based on personal observation, but to avoid accusations of unfairness I invite you to balance it with the "definitions of certain terms, abstractly defined". Where are they?
I'm looking for such definitions. I assume they exist. Many terms are defined in the suttas already.
Well, good luck with it, but that's not what you were doing above, is it? As my post shows, a lot of speculating based on what you have seen and read here and in everyday life, but distinctly light on the suttas.
The RCC defined "who is a Roman Catholic" in the Catechism of the RCC. If they can do it, why wouldn't other religions do similar for their adherents?
The RCC also proclaim belief in God the father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, etc. Why don't other religions do similar for their adherents?
Whatever I say, you look for ways to interpret my words in such a manner that it makes me look bad, evil, wrong.
No, I don't. When you criticise Buddhism without good reason - which is frequent - I will demonstrate that lack of good reason, but I don't try to make you look any particular way.
It's one of the reasons why I don't take up your offer to organize a meeting with some people you suggested. In organizing this meeting, you'd somehow have to explain to them why you want them to go to such lengths to talk to someone. What would you say about me to them? I do not trust you would be fair toward me in that, predisposing the other person negatively toward me, setting me up for failure from the onset. You had your two chances, and you wasted them long ago.
The meeting would simply be an open-access zoom meeting with monastics and lay supporters. I wouldn't need to explain anything at all; you would appear, and I would appear, separately, and take part as per the others. It was in response to your constant claims to have been mistreated by "Buddhists", that they are hypocrites, or demonstrate Nietzschean power-struggles, or make sexist comments to you, etc., etc, without ever providing any evidence. (Citations provided!) I've been associating with people who call themselves Buddhists since the 1980s, and, although I've obviously met a few clowns and obnoxious types, the mismatch between what you and I have experienced is so marked that I think your claims are baseless. As are erstwhile claims about the repressive nature of your country (citations provided!) which prevents you from practising. So had you taken part, you would have seen examples of people who are largely sincere, usually kind and polite, and occasionally inspiring; or, we would have both seen how differently we construe the same situation.
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: A serious non-Buddhist

Post by Pulsar »

Radix wrote
I think it might be best to imagine the Buddha a bit like a stern and somewhat grumpy Hindu sadhu.
"Et to Brute" Is that what Ceasar said when he was stabbed in the back by the one he trusted?
Buddha a Hindu sadhu! one who copied hindu meditations that prevailed before him, according to some.
A Buddha without imagination?
Is that the limit of your imagination my Dearest Radix?
Surely you are joking? Buddha grumpy? you are not the first one though, others on the forum have said worse things about the Buddha, such as Buddha probably said some obnoxious things like "Shit" etc. It is better not to repeat such things. Thee of little faith!
With love :candle:
Bundokji
Posts: 6494
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: A serious non-Buddhist

Post by Bundokji »

Pulsar wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 1:40 am Thee of little faith!
There could be a lot of faith in such descriptions.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
User avatar
Radix
Posts: 1274
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2022 8:42 pm

Re: A serious non-Buddhist

Post by Radix »

Pulsar wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 1:40 am Radix wrote
I think it might be best to imagine the Buddha a bit like a stern and somewhat grumpy Hindu sadhu.
"Et to Brute" Is that what Ceasar said when he was stabbed in the back by the one he trusted?
Buddha a Hindu sadhu! one who copied hindu meditations that prevailed before him, according to some.
A Buddha without imagination?
Google "buddha head on coffee table". It's this kind of hobby Buddhism that I oppose.

It only speaks of the poverty of modern culture that we don't have any role models for how to look earnest, and, more importantly, be earnest.
Buddha grumpy? you are not the first one though, others on the forum have said worse things about the Buddha, such as Buddha probably said some obnoxious things like "Shit" etc. It is better not to repeat such things. Thee of little faith!
Really, it makes me one of "little faith" because I refuse to imagine the Buddha as some kind of politically correct smiley character?
Western Buddhism is the perfect ideological supplement to rabid consumerist capitalism.
Glenn Wallis
User avatar
Radix
Posts: 1274
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2022 8:42 pm

Re: A serious non-Buddhist

Post by Radix »

Sam Vara wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 12:09 amI've been associating with people who call themselves Buddhists since the 1980s, and, although I've obviously met a few clowns and obnoxious types, the mismatch between what you and I have experienced is so marked that I think your claims are baseless.
We are worlds apart. We have very different values in life, so we see things very differently.
But, like most people, you believe that if someone doesn't see things your way, they are wrong, bad, evil, lying.

Millennia of philosophy down the drain. All hail plebeian mediocrity!
Western Buddhism is the perfect ideological supplement to rabid consumerist capitalism.
Glenn Wallis
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: A serious non-Buddhist

Post by Sam Vara »

Radix wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 8:36 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 12:09 amI've been associating with people who call themselves Buddhists since the 1980s, and, although I've obviously met a few clowns and obnoxious types, the mismatch between what you and I have experienced is so marked that I think your claims are baseless.
We are worlds apart. We have very different values in life, so we see things very differently.
Sure.
But, like most people, you believe that if someone doesn't see things your way, they are wrong, bad, evil, lying.
Well, I make no claim to be different from "most people", but in this case I'm only talking about calling out baseless claims, not about labelling someone as bad, evil, etc. I've not used those terms.
Millennia of philosophy down the drain. All hail plebeian mediocrity!
Ah, are we getting back to Bill Vallicella? :thumbsup: :focus:
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: A serious non-Buddhist

Post by thepea »

Sam Vara wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 9:08 pm
Well, I make no claim to be different from "most people", but in this case I'm only talking about calling out baseless claims, not about labelling someone as bad, evil, etc. I've not used those terms.
You do have the characteristic of Spiritual bullying those who hold different views to you.
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: A serious non-Buddhist

Post by Sam Vara »

thepea wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 9:30 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 9:08 pm
Well, I make no claim to be different from "most people", but in this case I'm only talking about calling out baseless claims, not about labelling someone as bad, evil, etc. I've not used those terms.
You do have the characteristic of Spiritual bullying those who hold different views to you.
How so? I'm happy to take this up elsewhere - PM? - but I'm not keen on derailing this thread any more. It's not about me, but I'm happy to answer if you say what you mean elsewhere.
Post Reply