DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Ancient World
*****************************************************
#Post#: 22849--------------------------------------------------
Re: Buddhism
By: rp Date: October 16, 2023, 9:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, I should have clarified I am referring to Buddhism as it
is practiced currently (specifically in India), and not
Siddhartha's original teachings. I completely agree that Buddha
did not advocate meat eating, which is what I attempted to
(admittedly poorly) convey with my comment about him only eating
meat that was not offered to him.
#Post#: 22852--------------------------------------------------
Re: Buddhism
By: 90sRetroFan Date: October 16, 2023, 10:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
In practice, a Jain who refuses to eat even leftover meat could
easily be initiating more violence (by instead deploying new
food for the current meal) than a Buddhist who would eat the
leftover meat (and hence not deploying the same new food until
the next meal). The Jain's psychological fixation on the
initiated violence of the slaughter that produced the meat is
actually preventing mindfulness towards the upcoming initiated
violence that we should actually be trying to prevent. This is:
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up%C4%81d%C4%81na
#Post#: 22956--------------------------------------------------
Re: Buddhism
By: rp Date: October 21, 2023, 11:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I still don't understand the Hindu logic behind supporting
animal sacrifice while being against meat eating! The only
possible scenario where animal sacrifice would not be himsa is
if the animal itself consented and offered itself up.
#Post#: 22957--------------------------------------------------
Re: Buddhism
By: 90sRetroFan Date: October 21, 2023, 3:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Those who support both animal sacrifice and meat eating could be
suspected of sacrificing animals with the motive of being able
to eat the sacrificed animals' meat afterwards. Only those who
sacrifice animals but who do not eat the meat afterwards can
claim to be sacrificing without motives other than tribute. The
focus is on the sacrificer's attitude towards the deity
receiving the sacrifice, not towards the victim being
sacrificed.
(Those who support sacrificing animals but not eating meat are
equivalent to "non-white" supporters of WN, whereas those who
support both sacrificing animals and eating meat are equivalent
to "non-white" reproductive Eurocentrists.)
#Post#: 22967--------------------------------------------------
Re: Buddhism
By: rp Date: October 21, 2023, 11:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"Those who support sacrificing animals but not eating meat are
equivalent to "non-white" supporters of WN,"
Even those who support sacrificing purely out of tribute?
#Post#: 22968--------------------------------------------------
Re: Buddhism
By: 90sRetroFan Date: October 21, 2023, 11:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I was thinking of that type of "non-white" WN ally which
goes to a WN conference and announces stuff like: "I only ever
date within my ethnicity, so don't worry about me!" In other
words, they are signalling to their gods that their motive for
going to the WN conference is not to try to gain personal access
to "white" potential sexual partners, but strictly to support
the WN cause.
#Post#: 25860--------------------------------------------------
Re: Buddhism
By: SirGalahad Date: April 10, 2024, 12:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
@90sRetroFan Which Buddhist texts/sutras/mantras do you think
are to be avoided, and what sect (if any) do you think is the
closest to what the Buddha actually taught? In a vacuum, I’d
assume that you would have endorsed Theravada the most, since
it’s the oldest existing school with the older textual canon (in
terms of being dated closer to the actual life of the Buddha),
but you seem to endorse the Bodhisattva ideal, which seems to be
more of a Mahayana thing. I’m trying to delve more deeply into
Buddhist texts, as well as into particular sects as someone
who’s been mostly non-sectarian up until now. I know that you
have a low opinion of Tibetan Buddhism, and I personally find
Pure Land Buddhism pretty suspect as well from what I’ve heard
about it. But other than that, I’ve only really read the
Dhammapada, the Udana, and the Itivuttaka so far, so I apologize
if this is a poorly worded and needlessly broad question
I’m just interested in hearing your thoughts, since I’d like to
pursue Buddhism more seriously going forward, and maybe attend
services in my local Buddhist center. I’d still classify myself
as essentially Neo-Manichaean, but Buddhism is obviously more
accessible for me at the moment
#Post#: 25862--------------------------------------------------
Re: Buddhism
By: 90sRetroFan Date: April 10, 2024, 1:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Most sutras are in Q&A format, which means they were replies by
Siddhartha to questions asked by various individuals. Siddartha
is known for adjusting his replies to suit the needs of the
particular asker (to the extent of sometimes forbidding some
(but not necessarily all) others from listening to a particular
reply knowing it would mislead them). Therefore different sutras
can be expected to be valuable to different individuals on
different pathways and/or at different levels of cultivation. A
sutra which should be avoided by one individual might be just
what another individual needs, similar to how a set of accurate
instructions on how to reach A from B will nevertheless not
bring you to A from C. To find a sutra helpful to yourself, you
should first consider what questions you would most want to ask
Siddhartha if you were to meet him in person, and then look for
the sutra with questions approximately covering the same issues
as yours.
My appreciation for Mahayana is significantly pragmatic, as I
believe it is much easier to interpret with political
applications in mind. This is to be expected, as Mahayana sutras
often addressed individuals in positions of power, for example:
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajitasena_Sutra
[quote]The Ajitasena-vyakarana-nirdesa sutra ("Explanation of
prophecy [for king] Ajitasena")[/quote]
If you think you can come up with a convincing political
application of Theravada, by all means go ahead!
#Post#: 25915--------------------------------------------------
Re: Buddhism
By: rp Date: April 13, 2024, 12:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Would you consider Buddhism a gnostic religion? I recalled
earlier how you talked about most Aryans not being "heritable
gnostics", which means that Aryan religion itself is not
necessarily gnostic? For example, I would consider Jainism the
most Aryan religion alive today, but I would not consider it a
gnostic religion.
#Post#: 25917--------------------------------------------------
Re: Buddhism
By: SirGalahad Date: April 13, 2024, 2:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Honestly, not even scholars can agree on what Gnosticism is, and
which religions are included under that branch. It seems like,
regardless of their level of expertise on the topic, everyone
has a different opinion on which sects are included and which
are excluded from the label.
Some go so far as to say that only the sects that called
THEMSELVES Gnostic, are actually Gnostic, which would exclude
90% of the other religions and sects typically labeled as
Gnostic. So I think we just kind of have to accept that most
definitions of Gnosticism will be personally motivated in some
way
I would consider Buddhism a Gnostic religion, because the core
is still there. It’s just stripped down to the bare essentials,
purely for the sake of expediency. “This world is fundamentally
flawed and dissatisfactory. It must be escaped. Here’s the
hidden knowledge required to escape it.” The only difference is
that Buddhism doesn’t care about the WHY (hence why the Buddha
refused to speak of any sort of supreme creator god or supreme
god of goodness). Buddhism only cares about the HOW, since the
Buddha thought that asking the WHY was a waste of time
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page