Was Buddism convoluted with Hindu beliefs?

[Shawn0001]

"They have to be deaths incured either in the imposition or upholding of an ideology"

OK, please explain your meaning here. What does it mean to say 'deaths incured either in the imposition or upholding of an ideology'? I will go back to your language and assert the following: None of the events to which you referred were about imposing or upholding atheism.

"the number I quoted is the highest estimate."

Fine - and what is the source of this estimate?

"Hitler was an athiest"

Then please explain this statement from Mein Kampf: "The völkisch-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will." These certainly don't sound like the words of an atheist.

"The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were motivated by Christian values. Bush called it "this crusade"..."

What values would those be? And there's nothing to indicate that Bush meant 'crusade' in the sense of 'fighting for the Cross'. Surely you are aware that 'crusade' has, over the past couple of centuries, become secularised in meaning? Or do you think that Batman, the caped crusader, is doing the work of the lord?

As boring as you have become I will take just a little more time to help you.

When priests were pulled from their churches accross the Soviet Block and shot to death in front of their congregation, those deaths were clearly about the imposition of athiesm. That is as simple an example as I can give you. The fact is that indirectly all of those deaths were caused by the same, it may not be as simple for you to understand but if you go and read about communism and the link to atheism you might understand, but I really dont have time to teach you everything.

The estimate can be found here. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

As for Hitler, I thought I already had explained my statement, just checked and I did, do try to read first in the future.

Hitler used Christianity in order to hold on to his support. Does Social Darwinism sound like a Christian to you? He was killing people to make what he thought would be a better race and you recon he was a Christian!?!?!??!?! That is very funny.

The value that was used to help garner support for the wars in Iraq and Afghan was the basic Christian value of helping others in need, dumbo.

Bush said, "God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq", shortly before conquering BABYLON, but you're probably right, I am sure he thought he was batman, LOL

christians used other races as slaves for centuries pal. spare us your so called lessons

What has that got to do with anything that I have said?

[Brickbat]

A sick display of warmongers. In the name of the warmongers no 1 reason. Religion. Hard to believe we all derived from one black African woman. Even our pal, Shakyamuni Gautama Siddharta.

"Mitochondrial Eve refers to the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA), in a direct, unbroken, maternal line, of all currently living humans, who is estimated to have lived approximately 100,000200,000 years ago. This is the most recent woman from whom all living humans today descend, in an unbroken line, on their mothers side, and through the mothers of those mothers, and so on, back until all lines converge on one person. Because all mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) generally (but see paternal mtDNA transmission) is passed from mother to offspring without recombination, all mtDNA in every living person is directly descended from hers by definition, differing only by the mutations that over generations have occurred in the germ cell mtDNA since the conception of the original "Mitochondrial Eve". From Wikipedia.

For those interested, watch " origins" doco on YouTube . Also has great insights into sustainability living.

[VincentRJ]

Of course Buddhism is conflated with Hinduism. How could it not be. If it wasn't, that would be a true miracle.

Jesus Christ was a Jew, and Gautama Buddha was a Hindu. They both criticised the practices of their times and culture, and they both strived for something better.

Others later created a new religion from the 'remembered' teachings. The nature and distortions of those newly created religions would no doubt have served the 'power' purposes of the emperors or rulers who promulgated the new religions.

'Power' is the essential ingredient in human affairs, rather than unbiased, objective truth.

[Brickbat]

Mate, all religions are " created". It is the distortion in nature. God is a concept by which we measure our pain, said John Lennon. And the powers to be create a god. Thus control the dull, stagnant, corrupted minds that aspire to hope and its twin sister, fear.

Buddha never ever taught " god". Or religion. " be a light unto thyself" said this wise mortal.

[Shawn0001]

"They have to be deaths incured either in the imposition or upholding of an ideology"

OK, please explain your meaning here. What does it mean to say 'deaths incured either in the imposition or upholding of an ideology'? I will go back to your language and assert the following: None of the events to which you referred were about imposing or upholding atheism.

"the number I quoted is the highest estimate."

Fine - and what is the source of this estimate?

"Hitler was an athiest"

Then please explain this statement from Mein Kampf: "The völkisch-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will." These certainly don't sound like the words of an atheist.

"The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were motivated by Christian values. Bush called it "this crusade"..."

What values would those be? And there's nothing to indicate that Bush meant 'crusade' in the sense of 'fighting for the Cross'. Surely you are aware that 'crusade' has, over the past couple of centuries, become secularised in meaning? Or do you think that Batman, the caped crusader, is doing the work of the lord?

As boring as you have become I will take just a little more time to help you.

When priests were pulled from their churches accross the Soviet Block and shot to death in front of their congregation, those deaths were clearly about the imposition of athiesm. That is as simple an example as I can give you. The fact is that indirectly all of those deaths were caused by the same, it may not be as simple for you to understand but if you go and read about communism and the link to atheism you might understand, but I really dont have time to teach you everything.

The estimate can be found here. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

As for Hitler, I thought I already had explained my statement, just checked and I did, do try to read first in the future.

Hitler used Christianity in order to hold on to his support. Does Social Darwinism sound like a Christian to you? He was killing people to make what he thought would be a better race and you recon he was a Christian!?!?!??!?! That is very funny.

The value that was used to help garner support for the wars in Iraq and Afghan was the basic Christian value of helping others in need, dumbo.

Bush said, "God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq", shortly before conquering BABYLON, but you're probably right, I am sure he thought he was batman, LOL

I will ignore your ad hominem statements (though, if anything, you are the one having problems reading). I was clear in the distinction I asserted between acts committed to promote atheism versus acts committed to promote a wider ideology of which atheism may have been a non-central element. In addition, killings of priests/monks/etc may not always be committed for religious reasons because (as I explained previously) religious institutions often represent a competing power base to those holding political power. A good demonstration of this would be the assassination of Archbishop Romero in El Salvador in 1980: he was murdered by the military not because of his religious beliefs but because of his influence with the people. The mass killings of monks in Myanmar a few years ago was also not intended to 'convert' the population to atheism.

So this is where your argument breaks down. Nation X may be communist, may feel threatened by non-communist Nation Y, may pre-emptively invade Nation Y and install a communist government, and may kill one million people in the process. Perhaps some number of these will even be intentional killings of priests, etc. But it would be erroneous to state that all those one-million deaths were a result of a desire to impose atheism; rather, the desire to spread communism and/or nationalism would be the key motivators. The key intent of the invasion was not to spread atheism, so atheism cannot be 'blamed' for the one million deaths.

Next: The estimates you link to are certainly higher than those cited by (for example) Steven Pinker, who has done an exhaustive review of violence through-out history. But let's not count angels on the heads of needles.

You've moved the discussion past Hitler into social Darwinism and are now asserting that social Darwinism is incompatible with Christian ideology. Well, that may be true at a conceptual level, but I suggest you do some reading about the western eugenics movement that greatly influenced Hitler's thinking -- you will see that many Protestant leaders supported the eugenics movement (though Catholic leaders to a lesser extent). Moreover, many religious people supported slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries, a practice would seem incompatible with the teachings of Jesus (the point being that people can quite effectively compartmentalise their belief systems).

"I was clear in the distinction I asserted between acts committed to promote atheism versus acts committed to promote a wider ideology of which atheism may have been a non-central element."

Yes, you made that clear but it was your idea alone and not one I agree with. If the politics involve the imposition of atheism for whatever reason, then atheism is in part to blame. By your reasoning Christianity is not to blame for many of the deaths at the hands of missionaries as they were trying to impose capitalism and promote trade, Christianity was seen as a necessary way to control the people and it also helped garner support from home as people felt that their religion would help other people. Most people acossiate those deaths as being at least in part due to Christianity.

You appear to be struggling to understand, "highest estimate", well done for finding a lower one.

It is my assertion that Hitler was an atheist and that this is evidenced by his actions such as Social Darwinism. Of course many things that Christians do or have done is incompatible with the words of the religion, however I fail to see any logic in mentioning the support of eugenics by people who considered themselves Christians yet failed themeselves to live by the most basic rules of their religion. Are you trying to say that anything that a Christian does must be a Christian thing to do?

[AYJAYDEE]

"They have to be deaths incured either in the imposition or upholding of an ideology"

OK, please explain your meaning here. What does it mean to say 'deaths incured either in the imposition or upholding of an ideology'? I will go back to your language and assert the following: None of the events to which you referred were about imposing or upholding atheism.

"the number I quoted is the highest estimate."

Fine - and what is the source of this estimate?

"Hitler was an athiest"

Then please explain this statement from Mein Kampf: "The völkisch-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will." These certainly don't sound like the words of an atheist.

"The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were motivated by Christian values. Bush called it "this crusade"..."

What values would those be? And there's nothing to indicate that Bush meant 'crusade' in the sense of 'fighting for the Cross'. Surely you are aware that 'crusade' has, over the past couple of centuries, become secularised in meaning? Or do you think that Batman, the caped crusader, is doing the work of the lord?

As boring as you have become I will take just a little more time to help you.

When priests were pulled from their churches accross the Soviet Block and shot to death in front of their congregation, those deaths were clearly about the imposition of athiesm. That is as simple an example as I can give you. The fact is that indirectly all of those deaths were caused by the same, it may not be as simple for you to understand but if you go and read about communism and the link to atheism you might understand, but I really dont have time to teach you everything.

The estimate can be found here. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

As for Hitler, I thought I already had explained my statement, just checked and I did, do try to read first in the future.

Hitler used Christianity in order to hold on to his support. Does Social Darwinism sound like a Christian to you? He was killing people to make what he thought would be a better race and you recon he was a Christian!?!?!??!?! That is very funny.

The value that was used to help garner support for the wars in Iraq and Afghan was the basic Christian value of helping others in need, dumbo.

Bush said, "God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq", shortly before conquering BABYLON, but you're probably right, I am sure he thought he was batman, LOL

christians used other races as slaves for centuries pal. spare us your so called lessons

What has that got to do with anything that I have said?

you claim hitler couldnt be a christian because of his unchristian actions and i merely point out many if bnot most christians do the same.

[Shawn0001]

you claim hitler couldnt be a christian because of his unchristian actions and i merely point out many if bnot most christians do the same.

As I said, Hitler claimed to be a Christian but it is clear from his actions that he did not believe in the morals himself. Likewise many Christians break their own rules but this only says something about the individual not about the religion itself. Many people use a religion as a title for themselves as they feel it will help them to fit in, that was all that Hitler did, he used the name of Christianity in order to hold the support of the people. If he had of been honest about his atheist beliefs then he might have appeared a little too similar to the communists he was fighting.

[rockyysdt]

I am not interested in wars religiously motivated or not.

I am interested in following the Buddha's original teaching.

If this was polluted later by Hinduism, then my quest is to discard this if possible.

There are several interpretations of Anatta which is pivotal to practice and the path.

[Brickbat]

My friends, Buddha shut his thoughts. The mouth follows. The Heart opens. That was his message. He asked not to be followed. He pointed the way. Jhate, Jhate, Para Jhate, Bodhi Swaha, he proclaimed.

Translated, Gone, Gone, Gone beyond, Nirvana

[Brickbat]

Buddha was made into a God ( he must be rolling in his grave!!) by Emperor Ashoka 300 years after his death. Same as what the Romans did in the 4th century AD with Yesheau Ben Yusuf , to form Roman Catholic Church.

All to control the masses.

[rockyysdt]

My friends, Buddha shut his thoughts. The mouth follows. The Heart opens. That was his message. He asked not to be followed. He pointed the way. Jhate, Jhate, Para Jhate, Bodhi Swaha, he proclaimed.

Translated, Gone, Gone, Gone beyond, Nirvana

Yes.

That is part of it.

The essence is that knowing dhamma is not enough.

You must practice it.

If the teaching is polluted so will the practice.

[Brickbat]

There is no " you" when there is no thought. As Hueing Ng said, " what dust is there to clean on what mirror" . And was made the 6 th Buddhist Patriarch for that insight. no thought is going beyond the shore into Nirvana ( bodhi swaha)

[AYJAYDEE]

you claim hitler couldnt be a christian because of his unchristian actions and i merely point out many if bnot most christians do the same.

As I said, Hitler claimed to be a Christian but it is clear from his actions that he did not believe in the morals himself. Likewise many Christians break their own rules but this only says something about the individual not about the religion itself. Many people use a religion as a title for themselves as they feel it will help them to fit in, that was all that Hitler did, he used the name of Christianity in order to hold the support of the people. If he had of been honest about his atheist beliefs then he might have appeared a little too similar to the communists he was fighting.

nonsense. hitler , like many phoney christians, believed he was a christian.

[rockyysdt]

There is no " you" when there is no thought. As Hueing Ng said, " what dust is there to clean on what mirror" . And was made the 6 th Buddhist Patriarch for that insight. no thought is going beyond the shore into Nirvana ( bodhi swaha)

You are talking Dharma or Higher language.

Most is meaninglessness to the unenlightened without wisdom born of experience through correct practice.

Hence the need for original teaching.

In fact, there are now a number of roads all claiming to be Dharma, some pointed in the opposite direction.

[AYJAYDEE]

There is no " you" when there is no thought. As Hueing Ng said, " what dust is there to clean on what mirror" . And was made the 6 th Buddhist Patriarch for that insight. no thought is going beyond the shore into Nirvana ( bodhi swaha)

You are talking Dharma or Higher language.

Most is meaninglessness to the unenlightened without wisdom born of experience through correct practice.

Hence the need for original teaching.

In fact, there are now a number of roads all claiming to be Dharma, some pointed in the opposite direction.

are you hinting that youre enlightened?

[rockyysdt]

Far from it.

Doing a lot of study and some practice.

Bikkhi Buddhadasa spoke of higher language which just can't be understood using logic or standard language.

Simple words such as void, death and birth to name three.

The other thing is that the teachings have been corrupted.

My understanding is that there are about six branches teaching radically different things.

There's even allegations a prominent sect secretly disseminated their teaching so they could claim a second independent source.

That's one reason why most will look at you blankly if you ask them about Anatta.

To some it is emptiness, to others its reunification with Atman or the pure self, to others it is void which is not empty, and so on.

Edited June 24, 2015 by rockyysdt

[AYJAYDEE]

Far from it.

Doing a lot of study and some practice.

Bikkhi Buddhadasa spoke of higher language which just can't be understood using logic or standard language.

Simple words such as void, death and birth to name three.

The other thing is that the teachings have been corrupted.

My understanding is that there are about six branches teaching radically different things.

There's even allegations a prominent sect secretly disseminated their teaching so they could claim a second independent source.

That's one reason why most will look at you blankly if you ask them about Anatta.

cant go too far wrong with buddhadassa and achaan cha

[Shawn0001]

you claim hitler couldnt be a christian because of his unchristian actions and i merely point out many if bnot most christians do the same.

As I said, Hitler claimed to be a Christian but it is clear from his actions that he did not believe in the morals himself. Likewise many Christians break their own rules but this only says something about the individual not about the religion itself. Many people use a religion as a title for themselves as they feel it will help them to fit in, that was all that Hitler did, he used the name of Christianity in order to hold the support of the people. If he had of been honest about his atheist beliefs then he might have appeared a little too similar to the communists he was fighting.

nonsense. hitler , like many phoney christians, believed he was a christian.

No, he didn't believe he was a Christian, he knew exactly what he believed in but he was not an honest man.

The two greatest influences on Hitler were Nietzsche and Machiavelli. Nietzsche was one the most fundamental atheists to have lived and Machiavelli was extreme in his anti-Christian ideology and taught the use of deceit by leaders in order to hold power.

It was through deceit of the people that Hitler gained and held power, his deceit of the people involved convincing them that he was a Christian and that he was fighting against atheism as that ideology had already become associated with their enemy, communism.

[Docno]

As boring as you have become I will take just a little more time to help you.

When priests were pulled from their churches accross the Soviet Block and shot to death in front of their congregation, those deaths were clearly about the imposition of athiesm. That is as simple an example as I can give you. The fact is that indirectly all of those deaths were caused by the same, it may not be as simple for you to understand but if you go and read about communism and the link to atheism you might understand, but I really dont have time to teach you everything.

The estimate can be found here. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

As for Hitler, I thought I already had explained my statement, just checked and I did, do try to read first in the future.

Hitler used Christianity in order to hold on to his support. Does Social Darwinism sound like a Christian to you? He was killing people to make what he thought would be a better race and you recon he was a Christian!?!?!??!?! That is very funny.

The value that was used to help garner support for the wars in Iraq and Afghan was the basic Christian value of helping others in need, dumbo.

Bush said, "God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq", shortly before conquering BABYLON, but you're probably right, I am sure he thought he was batman, LOL

I will ignore your ad hominem statements (though, if anything, you are the one having problems reading). I was clear in the distinction I asserted between acts committed to promote atheism versus acts committed to promote a wider ideology of which atheism may have been a non-central element. In addition, killings of priests/monks/etc may not always be committed for religious reasons because (as I explained previously) religious institutions often represent a competing power base to those holding political power. A good demonstration of this would be the assassination of Archbishop Romero in El Salvador in 1980: he was murdered by the military not because of his religious beliefs but because of his influence with the people. The mass killings of monks in Myanmar a few years ago was also not intended to 'convert' the population to atheism.

So this is where your argument breaks down. Nation X may be communist, may feel threatened by non-communist Nation Y, may pre-emptively invade Nation Y and install a communist government, and may kill one million people in the process. Perhaps some number of these will even be intentional killings of priests, etc. But it would be erroneous to state that all those one-million deaths were a result of a desire to impose atheism; rather, the desire to spread communism and/or nationalism would be the key motivators. The key intent of the invasion was not to spread atheism, so atheism cannot be 'blamed' for the one million deaths.

Next: The estimates you link to are certainly higher than those cited by (for example) Steven Pinker, who has done an exhaustive review of violence through-out history. But let's not count angels on the heads of needles.

You've moved the discussion past Hitler into social Darwinism and are now asserting that social Darwinism is incompatible with Christian ideology. Well, that may be true at a conceptual level, but I suggest you do some reading about the western eugenics movement that greatly influenced Hitler's thinking -- you will see that many Protestant leaders supported the eugenics movement (though Catholic leaders to a lesser extent). Moreover, many religious people supported slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries, a practice would seem incompatible with the teachings of Jesus (the point being that people can quite effectively compartmentalise their belief systems).

"I was clear in the distinction I asserted between acts committed to promote atheism versus acts committed to promote a wider ideology of which atheism may have been a non-central element."

Yes, you made that clear but it was your idea alone and not one I agree with. If the politics involve the imposition of atheism for whatever reason, then atheism is in part to blame. By your reasoning Christianity is not to blame for many of the deaths at the hands of missionaries as they were trying to impose capitalism and promote trade, Christianity was seen as a necessary way to control the people and it also helped garner support from home as people felt that their religion would help other people. Most people acossiate those deaths as being at least in part due to Christianity.

You appear to be struggling to understand, "highest estimate", well done for finding a lower one.

It is my assertion that Hitler was an atheist and that this is evidenced by his actions such as Social Darwinism. Of course many things that Christians do or have done is incompatible with the words of the religion, however I fail to see any logic in mentioning the support of eugenics by people who considered themselves Christians yet failed themeselves to live by the most basic rules of their religion. Are you trying to say that anything that a Christian does must be a Christian thing to do?

"I was clear in the distinction I asserted between acts committed to promote atheism versus acts committed to promote a wider ideology of which atheism may have been a non-central element."

Yes, you made that clear but it was your idea alone and not one I agree with. If the politics involve the imposition of atheism for whatever reason, then atheism is in part to blame. By your reasoning Christianity is not to blame for many of the deaths at the hands of missionaries as they were trying to impose capitalism and promote trade, Christianity was seen as a necessary way to control the people and it also helped garner support from home as people felt that their religion would help other people. Most people acossiate those deaths as being at least in part due to Christianity.

Most definitely not my idea alone. Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris (just for starters) have thoroughly discredited your argument on this one. Go do a search on Youtube for Dawkins' interview at the Oxford Society and you'll see him kick that one into the trash. Or better yet, read the God Delusion or the End of Faith.

You appear to be struggling to understand, "highest estimate", well done for finding a lower one.

No struggle at all. Pinker's book provides a summary of the literature on violent death to make the argument that the world has becoming a less violent place over the centuries. He's not citing his own estimates but multiple estimates from other experts in the field. So congratulations on finding an estimate that's off the top of the scale.

It is my assertion that Hitler was an atheist and that this is evidenced by his actions such as Social Darwinism. Of course many things that Christians do or have done is incompatible with the words of the religion, however I fail to see any logic in mentioning the support of eugenics by people who considered themselves Christians yet failed themeselves to live by the most basic rules of their religion. Are you trying to say that anything that a Christian does must be a Christian thing to do?

1. You argued that Hitler could not be religious because he was also a 'social Darwinist' and social Darwinism is incompatible with Christian values. I am clearly demonstrating that one CAN be both support 'social Darwinism' (in this case, eugenics) AND espouse Christian values. Easy.

2. I love your final sentence: "Are you trying to say that anything that a Christian does must be a Christian thing to do?" Because you seem to believe that anything an espoused atheist does must be motivated by atheist principles (if such things can be said to exist).

[Shawn0001]

"I was clear in the distinction I asserted between acts committed to promote atheism versus acts committed to promote a wider ideology of which atheism may have been a non-central element."

Yes, you made that clear but it was your idea alone and not one I agree with. If the politics involve the imposition of atheism for whatever reason, then atheism is in part to blame. By your reasoning Christianity is not to blame for many of the deaths at the hands of missionaries as they were trying to impose capitalism and promote trade, Christianity was seen as a necessary way to control the people and it also helped garner support from home as people felt that their religion would help other people. Most people acossiate those deaths as being at least in part due to Christianity.

You appear to be struggling to understand, "highest estimate", well done for finding a lower one.

It is my assertion that Hitler was an atheist and that this is evidenced by his actions such as Social Darwinism. Of course many things that Christians do or have done is incompatible with the words of the religion, however I fail to see any logic in mentioning the support of eugenics by people who considered themselves Christians yet failed themeselves to live by the most basic rules of their religion. Are you trying to say that anything that a Christian does must be a Christian thing to do?

"I was clear in the distinction I asserted between acts committed to promote atheism versus acts committed to promote a wider ideology of which atheism may have been a non-central element."

Yes, you made that clear but it was your idea alone and not one I agree with. If the politics involve the imposition of atheism for whatever reason, then atheism is in part to blame. By your reasoning Christianity is not to blame for many of the deaths at the hands of missionaries as they were trying to impose capitalism and promote trade, Christianity was seen as a necessary way to control the people and it also helped garner support from home as people felt that their religion would help other people. Most people acossiate those deaths as being at least in part due to Christianity.

Most definitely not my idea alone. Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris (just for starters) have thoroughly discredited your argument on this one. Go do a search on Youtube for Dawkins' interview at the Oxford Society and you'll see him kick that one into the trash. Or better yet, read the God Delusion or the End of Faith.

You appear to be struggling to understand, "highest estimate", well done for finding a lower one.

No struggle at all. Pinker's book provides a summary of the literature on violent death to make the argument that the world has becoming a less violent place over the centuries. He's not citing his own estimates but multiple estimates from other experts in the field. So congratulations on finding an estimate that's off the top of the scale.

It is my assertion that Hitler was an atheist and that this is evidenced by his actions such as Social Darwinism. Of course many things that Christians do or have done is incompatible with the words of the religion, however I fail to see any logic in mentioning the support of eugenics by people who considered themselves Christians yet failed themeselves to live by the most basic rules of their religion. Are you trying to say that anything that a Christian does must be a Christian thing to do?

1. You argued that Hitler could not be religious because he was also a 'social Darwinist' and social Darwinism is incompatible with Christian values. I am clearly demonstrating that one CAN be both support 'social Darwinism' (in this case, eugenics) AND espouse Christian values. Easy.

2. I love your final sentence: "Are you trying to say that anything that a Christian does must be a Christian thing to do?" Because you seem to believe that anything an espoused atheist does must be motivated by atheist principles (if such things can be said to exist).

I am sure it's wise to listen to the most fundamental atheists on this, not like they are in anyway biased, is it?

Are you still wanting to argue that Hitler was not an atheist or that he was a Christian? I did not argue that Hitler could not have been religious because of his social darwinism, I gave it as an example of how ludicrous it is to claim that this man was a Christian. Do at least try not to put words into my mouth.

All that Dawkins and his ilk actually go on is Hitlers speaches, which at times were very much pro-Christianity. What Dawkins and the others fail to do is actually look at what Hitler did, what he studied, what he said and wrote in private, all they go on is his speaches!?!?! And people actually listen to those purposely deceptive propaganda merchants for atheism. They are utter hypocrites so obssessed with muddying the name of organised religion that they have to obsfucate the truth about past atheists.

We know from Mein Kampf that Hitler was not being honest in his speaches as is made clear in this quote:

"The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision. The whole art consists in doing this so skilfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. But since propaganda is not and cannot be the necessity in itself … its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect… it's soundness is to be measured exclusively by its effective result"

We know that Hitler hated Christianity as is made clear in these quotes from Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944:

"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things."

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure."

"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar."

"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."

Are you starting to get it now? Hitler wasn't a Christian, he just said he was and Dawkins has said it too as he hates the idea of Atheism being muddied by Hitler.

"I am clearly demonstrating that one CAN be both support 'social Darwinism' (in this case, eugenics) AND espouse Christian values. Easy." Clear demonstration? Just by saying Dawkins said so? hahhahahhahahhahahahhahahhahaha

"Because you seem to believe that anything an espoused atheist does must be motivated by atheist principles (if such things can be said to exist)." Which it cannot so your statement is tosh.

[Brucenkhamen]

Which it cannot so your statement is tosh.

Actually the statements of both of you are tosh because they aren't on topic.

The topic is "Was Buddism convoluted with Hindu beliefs?"

[gk10002000]

It depends which version of Buddhism you refer to. The simple, basic psychological revelation of how need and desire can lead to suffering, i.e. the 4 Noble Truths and then the 8 fold path, or the folksy, story telling verbal sagas that entertained millions of villagers and people over the centuries that could not read or write. Buddhism in its essence, from my engineering and scientific point of view is very simple and wonderful.

[rockyysdt]

It depends which version of Buddhism you refer to. The simple, basic psychological revelation of how need and desire can lead to suffering, i.e. the 4 Noble Truths and then the 8 fold path, or the folksy, story telling verbal sagas that entertained millions of villagers and people over the centuries that could not read or write. Buddhism in its essence, from my engineering and scientific point of view is very simple and wonderful.

This is but one nub of the issue.

What is its essence?

Scientifically essence may have innumerable values.

[VincentRJ]

One major reason why I'm attracted towards Buddhism at the philosophical level is because I've come across anecdotes, analogies, teachings and advice in the Buddhist scriptures which simply make sense to me and which appear to be wise.

However, sometimes certain concepts in the scriptures do not make sense and create doubt in my mind. How does one deal with this situation?

Fortunately, the Pali Canon addresses such problems, in the form of the Kalama Sutta, which is purported to be advice delivered by the Buddha to a group of skeptical villagers whom he encountered during his travels.

Here it is. The Kalama Sutta, Angutarra Nikaya 3.65, Sutta Pitaka, Pali Canon.

1. Do not believe in something merely because it is reported.

2. Do not believe in something because it has been practiced by generations, or has become a tradition or part of a culture.

3. Do not believe in something because a scripture says it is so.

4. Do not believe in something because you believe a God has inspired it.

5. Do not believe in something because a teacher tells you it is so.

6. Do not believe in something because the authorities say it is so.

7. Do not believe in hearsay, rumour, speculative opinion, or acceptance to logic and inference alone.

8. Help yourself accept as completely true only that which is praised by the wise and which you test for yourself and know to be good for yourself and others.

In the light of this teaching, why would anyone be concerned that Buddhism might be conflated with Hinduism? Surely it's only the truth and wisdom of the teaching that matters.

Is not everything conflated with everything else to some degree, even if that degree of conflation is sometimes very small?

Why should one be concerned or worried that approximately 96% of the human genome is identical to that of a chimpanzee?

Or even more surprising, that 90% of our genes match those of a mouse, and 40% match those of a fruit fly, and about 18% match those of the annoying weeds that we spray or pull up from our garden.

Of course, I should mention, in case I've caused confusion here, that these percentages of genes that are identical in plants, animals and humans, and even worms in the ground, may be used differently by the different organisms.

A good analogy I've come across is to compare genes with musical instruments. Whilst the musical instruments may be identical, the music that is played will not be identical.

Edited June 27, 2015 by VincentRJ

[rockyysdt]

One major reason why I'm attracted towards Buddhism at the philosophical level is because I've come across anecdotes, analogies, teachings and advice in the Buddhist scriptures which simply make sense to me and which appear to be wise.

However, sometimes certain concepts in the scriptures do not make sense and create doubt in my mind. How does one deal with this situation?

Fortunately, the Pali Canon addresses such problems, in the form of the Kalama Sutta, which is purported to be advice delivered by the Buddha to a group of skeptical villagers whom he encountered during his travels.

Here it is. The Kalama Sutta, Angutarra Nikaya 3.65, Sutta Pitaka, Pali Canon.

1. Do not believe in something merely because it is reported.

2. Do not believe in something because it has been practiced by generations, or has become a tradition or part of a culture.

3. Do not believe in something because a scripture says it is so.

4. Do not believe in something because you believe a God has inspired it.

5. Do not believe in something because a teacher tells you it is so.

6. Do not believe in something because the authorities say it is so.

7. Do not believe in hearsay, rumour, speculative opinion, or acceptance to logic and inference alone.

8. Help yourself accept as completely true only that which is praised by the wise and which you test for yourself and know to be good for yourself and others.

In the light of this teaching, why would anyone be concerned that Buddhism might be conflated with Hinduism? Surely it's only the truth and wisdom of the teaching that matters.

Is not everything conflated with everything else to some degree, even if that degree of conflation is sometimes very small?

Hi Vincent.

One should be concerned that Buddhism might be conflated with Hinduism for two reasons.

1. Bikkhu Bhuddadasa confirms that practice without the true knowledge of Dharma (what the Buddha actually taught) is useless.

The Buddha himself talked about two well respected yogis whose tutelage he came under.

They taught him well, but as their knowledge involved the belief that purified "citta" (atman, self, I) was the goal, fell short of Awakening.

They weren't aware that a very small amount of "kilisa" (defilement) remains.

Without true Dharma, one cannot break past this barrier and smash ego.

Critical parts of the Buddhas teachings were tainted.

A certain sect even secretly distributed some of its controversial teachings so they could later say theirs was the way as several sources could be found.

This explains why there are about 5 or 6 versions of Anatta, and why many followers remain confused on the subject.

2. Testing for oneself is fine, but real true insights, if they exist, may take 30 - 40 years of dedicated/reclusive practice.

One could say, sacrificing ones life in order to test for yourself.

[VincentRJ]

One major reason why I'm attracted towards Buddhism at the philosophical level is because I've come across anecdotes, analogies, teachings and advice in the Buddhist scriptures which simply make sense to me and which appear to be wise.

However, sometimes certain concepts in the scriptures do not make sense and create doubt in my mind. How does one deal with this situation?

Fortunately, the Pali Canon addresses such problems, in the form of the Kalama Sutta, which is purported to be advice delivered by the Buddha to a group of skeptical villagers whom he encountered during his travels.

Here it is. The Kalama Sutta, Angutarra Nikaya 3.65, Sutta Pitaka, Pali Canon.

1. Do not believe in something merely because it is reported.

2. Do not believe in something because it has been practiced by generations, or has become a tradition or part of a culture.

3. Do not believe in something because a scripture says it is so.

4. Do not believe in something because you believe a God has inspired it.

5. Do not believe in something because a teacher tells you it is so.

6. Do not believe in something because the authorities say it is so.

7. Do not believe in hearsay, rumour, speculative opinion, or acceptance to logic and inference alone.

8. Help yourself accept as completely true only that which is praised by the wise and which you test for yourself and know to be good for yourself and others.

In the light of this teaching, why would anyone be concerned that Buddhism might be conflated with Hinduism? Surely it's only the truth and wisdom of the teaching that matters.

Is not everything conflated with everything else to some degree, even if that degree of conflation is sometimes very small?

Hi Vincent.

One should be concerned that Buddhism might be conflated with Hinduism for two reasons.

1. Bikkhu Bhuddadasa confirms that practice without the true knowledge of Dharma (what the Buddha actually taught) is useless.

The Buddha himself talked about two well respected yogis whose tutelage he came under.

They taught him well, but as their knowledge involved the belief that purified "citta" (atman, self, I) was the goal, fell short of Awakening.

They weren't aware that a very small amount of "kilisa" (defilement) remains.

Without true Dharma, one cannot break past this barrier and smash ego.

Critical parts of the Buddhas teachings were tainted.

A certain sect even secretly distributed some of its controversial teachings so they could later say theirs was the way as several sources could be found.

This explains why there are about 5 or 6 versions of Anatta, and why many followers remain confused on the subject.

2. Testing for oneself is fine, but real true insights, if they exist, may take 30 - 40 years of dedicated/reclusive practice.

One could say, sacrificing ones life in order to test for yourself.

Hi Rocky,

I don't find some of these arguments convincing. Gautama didn't have the benefit of the Dharma whilst he was searching for 'Enlightenment'. He presumably worked things out for himself, presumably using the same principles that he later taught to the Kalamas after he'd attained enlightenment.

However, I agree there is some confusion about the Hindu concepts of reincarnation and the Buddhist concepts of rebirth.

From what I gather, both Christian and Hindu mythology assert the existence of a permanent 'self-type entity' or 'soul' that exists after death and which, in the case of Hinduism, is reborn into another life-form, and in the case of Christianity, dwells permanently in Heaven or Hell, or perhaps some temporary limbo.

Buddhism seems to promote a concept of 'non-self', Anatta, which I understand to mean, 'no permanent self', and therefore no 'self' that can survive death and be reborn.

Of course, the self must exist temporarily as an identity, otherwise we couldn't write emails or make references to deceased monks like Bikkhu Bhuddadasa.

The problem with the concept of 'no soul' or 'no permanent self', is in understanding how it is possible for rebirth, or some type of reincarnation to take place. What 'energy' is it that could survive physical death and result in, or connect with, a new birth?

The modern, rationalist and Western explanation is that the term 'rebirth' applies to new thoughts that continually arise in this current lifetime, rather than the physical rebirth of new babies or animals.

Because I'm a Westerner with a rationalist background, the explanation that rebirth refers to new thoughts, and/or new states of mind, or changed and reformed attitudes and so on, makes sense to me.

On the other hand, the more we know, the more we (should) realize how little we know. Our current state of scientific knowledge implies that 95% of the combined matter and energy in the universe is invisible and undetectable. We call it Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

How can one therefore be certain, in the light of this huge discrepancy between what can be observed with the best scientific instruments, and what is claimed by science to be totally invisible, that there is no energy of some description, that our best instruments cannot detect, which continues after death and is reborn into another life-form?

I have to remain agnostic on this issue.

[AYJAYDEE]

One major reason why I'm attracted towards Buddhism at the philosophical level is because I've come across anecdotes, analogies, teachings and advice in the Buddhist scriptures which simply make sense to me and which appear to be wise.

However, sometimes certain concepts in the scriptures do not make sense and create doubt in my mind. How does one deal with this situation?

Fortunately, the Pali Canon addresses such problems, in the form of the Kalama Sutta, which is purported to be advice delivered by the Buddha to a group of skeptical villagers whom he encountered during his travels.

Here it is. The Kalama Sutta, Angutarra Nikaya 3.65, Sutta Pitaka, Pali Canon.

1. Do not believe in something merely because it is reported.

2. Do not believe in something because it has been practiced by generations, or has become a tradition or part of a culture.

3. Do not believe in something because a scripture says it is so.

4. Do not believe in something because you believe a God has inspired it.

5. Do not believe in something because a teacher tells you it is so.

6. Do not believe in something because the authorities say it is so.

7. Do not believe in hearsay, rumour, speculative opinion, or acceptance to logic and inference alone.

8. Help yourself accept as completely true only that which is praised by the wise and which you test for yourself and know to be good for yourself and others.

In the light of this teaching, why would anyone be concerned that Buddhism might be conflated with Hinduism? Surely it's only the truth and wisdom of the teaching that matters.

Is not everything conflated with everything else to some degree, even if that degree of conflation is sometimes very small?

Hi Vincent.

One should be concerned that Buddhism might be conflated with Hinduism for two reasons.

1. Bikkhu Bhuddadasa confirms that practice without the true knowledge of Dharma (what the Buddha actually taught) is useless.

The Buddha himself talked about two well respected yogis whose tutelage he came under.

They taught him well, but as their knowledge involved the belief that purified "citta" (atman, self, I) was the goal, fell short of Awakening.

They weren't aware that a very small amount of "kilisa" (defilement) remains.

Without true Dharma, one cannot break past this barrier and smash ego.

Critical parts of the Buddhas teachings were tainted.

A certain sect even secretly distributed some of its controversial teachings so they could later say theirs was the way as several sources could be found.

This explains why there are about 5 or 6 versions of Anatta, and why many followers remain confused on the subject.

2. Testing for oneself is fine, but real true insights, if they exist, may take 30 - 40 years of dedicated/reclusive practice.

One could say, sacrificing ones life in order to test for yourself.

Hi Rocky,

I don't find some of these arguments convincing. Gautama didn't have the benefit of the Dharma whilst he was searching for 'Enlightenment'. He presumably worked things out for himself, presumably using the same principles that he later taught to the Kalamas after he'd attained enlightenment.

However, I agree there is some confusion about the Hindu concepts of reincarnation and the Buddhist concepts of rebirth.

From what I gather, both Christian and Hindu mythology assert the existence of a permanent 'self-type entity' or 'soul' that exists after death and which, in the case of Hinduism, is reborn into another life-form, and in the case of Christianity, dwells permanently in Heaven or Hell, or perhaps some temporary limbo.

Buddhism seems to promote a concept of 'non-self', Anatta, which I understand to mean, 'no permanent self', and therefore no 'self' that can survive death and be reborn.

Of course, the self must exist temporarily as an identity, otherwise we couldn't write emails or make references to deceased monks like Bikkhu Bhuddadasa.

The problem with the concept of 'no soul' or 'no permanent self', is in understanding how it is possible for rebirth, or some type of reincarnation to take place. What 'energy' is it that could survive physical death and result in, or connect with, a new birth?

The modern, rationalist and Western explanation is that the term 'rebirth' applies to new thoughts that continually arise in this current lifetime, rather than the physical rebirth of new babies or animals.

Because I'm a Westerner with a rationalist background, the explanation that rebirth refers to new thoughts, and/or new states of mind, or changed and reformed attitudes and so on, makes sense to me.

On the other hand, the more we know, the more we (should) realize how little we know. Our current state of scientific knowledge implies that 95% of the combined matter and energy in the universe is invisible and undetectable. We call it Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

How can one therefore be certain, in the light of this huge discrepancy between what can be observed with the best scientific instruments, and what is claimed by science to be totally invisible, that there is no energy of some description, that our best instruments cannot detect, which continues after death and is reborn into another life-form?

I have to remain agnostic on this issue.

the energy transferred from one birth to another has been defined as linking consciousness.

[AYJAYDEE]

One major reason why I'm attracted towards Buddhism at the philosophical level is because I've come across anecdotes, analogies, teachings and advice in the Buddhist scriptures which simply make sense to me and which appear to be wise.

However, sometimes certain concepts in the scriptures do not make sense and create doubt in my mind. How does one deal with this situation?

Fortunately, the Pali Canon addresses such problems, in the form of the Kalama Sutta, which is purported to be advice delivered by the Buddha to a group of skeptical villagers whom he encountered during his travels.

Here it is. The Kalama Sutta, Angutarra Nikaya 3.65, Sutta Pitaka, Pali Canon.

1. Do not believe in something merely because it is reported.

2. Do not believe in something because it has been practiced by generations, or has become a tradition or part of a culture.

3. Do not believe in something because a scripture says it is so.

4. Do not believe in something because you believe a God has inspired it.

5. Do not believe in something because a teacher tells you it is so.

6. Do not believe in something because the authorities say it is so.

7. Do not believe in hearsay, rumour, speculative opinion, or acceptance to logic and inference alone.

8. Help yourself accept as completely true only that which is praised by the wise and which you test for yourself and know to be good for yourself and others.

In the light of this teaching, why would anyone be concerned that Buddhism might be conflated with Hinduism? Surely it's only the truth and wisdom of the teaching that matters.

Is not everything conflated with everything else to some degree, even if that degree of conflation is sometimes very small?

Hi Vincent.

One should be concerned that Buddhism might be conflated with Hinduism for two reasons.

1. Bikkhu Bhuddadasa confirms that practice without the true knowledge of Dharma (what the Buddha actually taught) is useless.

The Buddha himself talked about two well respected yogis whose tutelage he came under.

They taught him well, but as their knowledge involved the belief that purified "citta" (atman, self, I) was the goal, fell short of Awakening.

They weren't aware that a very small amount of "kilisa" (defilement) remains.

Without true Dharma, one cannot break past this barrier and smash ego.

Critical parts of the Buddhas teachings were tainted.

A certain sect even secretly distributed some of its controversial teachings so they could later say theirs was the way as several sources could be found.

This explains why there are about 5 or 6 versions of Anatta, and why many followers remain confused on the subject.

2. Testing for oneself is fine, but real true insights, if they exist, may take 30 - 40 years of dedicated/reclusive practice.

One could say, sacrificing ones life in order to test for yourself.

I have never seen him call practice without true knowledge useless. the path must be embarked upon at some point even tho the student has not acquired true knowledge. the beginning of the journey is not useless

[rockyysdt]

Hi Rocky,

I don't find some of these arguments convincing. Gautama didn't have the benefit of the Dharma whilst he was searching for 'Enlightenment'. He presumably worked things out for himself, presumably using the same principles that he later taught to the Kalamas after he'd attained enlightenment.

Why don't you find some these arguments convincing?

Isn't the fact that, Guatama didn't have the benefit of Dharma, irrelevant to our path?

If you think in terms of a bell curve graph illustrating probability of "developing and successfully practicing a path to Awakening", Gautama turned out to be the most probable (succeeded) in our human sample.

I suspect the probability of you or I duplicating his performance would be infinitesimally improbable.

If you remove Hindi/Brahman tainting, according to Bikkhu Buddhadasa, you'll also only have one crack it it (this life).

Removing some of the Hindu/Brahman influence leaves:

Rebirth as being "moment to moment".

Realms of existence as being mind states.

Anatta as not accommodating ego, me, I, soul, nor soul/spirit as a permanent/unconditioned entity.

We are talking about pretty fundamental things.

In one, it is freedom from Dukkha in this life by awakening from the clutches of attachment to greed, aversion & delusion.

In the other, it teaches recycling endlessly through countless real lives, spread over 31 realms, governed by kharma, and escape into Nibanna (Buddhist Heaven) possible through Awakening.

Two very different things.

Edited June 29, 2015 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

I have never seen him call practice without true knowledge useless. the path must be embarked upon at some point even tho the student has not acquired true knowledge. the beginning of the journey is not useless

Quote: Buddhadasa Bikkhu:

Buddhists misunderstand Buddha Dhamma to the point of holding wrong views.

The misunderstanding has a deep and inconspicuous effect and severely jeopardizes study, practice and dissemination of Dhamma.

This is because without right views, one cannot completely eliminate suffering, but instead strays farther and farther, and holds onto oneself more strongly.

The more the self is delicate and refined, the more difficult it becomes to withdraw from it.