Are Buddhists useless in the fight against Islam?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joe on June 2, 2012 at 23:59

Brother Mark, I wanted to write a response to this, but it would have taken a lot of room here and further detracted from the point of this discussion. So I have created a new Discussion here:

http://4freedoms.ning.com/group/christians/forum/topics/is-christia...

Brother Mark said:

My point is only that I believe that it would be a serious mistake if we should "fall a sleep" on the Christians as well. The atrocity's of Christianity historically, make what Islam as done not much more than a drop in the bucket.Yes I know,not for a while, right? That's nice, Islam had it's relatively "quiet" period also between what is termed it's second and third jihad. Here's a sample.... http://notachristian.org/christianatrocities.html

 

Permalink Reply by Mark on June 3, 2012 at 9:26

Allan,

Brother Mark said:
"A slight modification of option two would therefore have been most correct:

• you are right, it wasn't even a cheap shot, but I'm now going to try to justify it"

"It would not make sense for him to say this and agree with you about it being a failed cheap shot, because he never intended it as such.  As far as he was concerned, it was and always will be a perfectly legitimate criticism, which he is prepared to provide evidence for.  To go back to the dictionary definition where W = "monks run scams":"

 Let's remember...

3. "Please tell me, what form of words should Shiva have used in reply?  I can't find one.  None of these make sense:"

The context of the question was what I would think should Shiva should have replied with... not  what Shiva might have feasibly replied with. Should I really need to remind you of this? 

"BM's response is logically correct, but it was a linguistic complexity that caught Shiva out.  In Buddhist terms, I would call BM's behaviour "unkind"."

There are those who believe that when you walk a spiritual path, you should just bend over at their convenience and lick up whatever is being offered. Otherwise it should be used as a mark against their spiritual conviction, I disagree.

When we are assertive, we're called "arrogant" or "sarcastic" and when we then try our best to adjust and appease then we're called "condescending".  Think what you wish, at least you were able to finally acknowledge that my response was logically correct after implying that I was picky about logic...but got it all wrong. It took you long enough.

Perhaps the lesson that you should learn, is not to go and unnecessarily provoke something that has already been resolved between the parties in question. Something tells me that you seem to enjoy the quarreling pay off, or else there would have been no need. If so, how sad.

With metta,

Brother Mark:)

Alan Lake said:

Brother Mark,
this problem is not with the concept of cheap shot per se, the problem is to make that fit in with some kind of consistent world view coming from you.  I will try explain.

Lets use the first definition as it is more specific.  But it needs the word "unfair" to be explained.  Consider this statement to a Roman Catholic priest:
"We have to question your motives, because after all, the RC church now has a big history of child abuse".
This is not a cheap shot, because people would think it a reasonable shot to make.

Consider this one to a blind respondent:"You obviously haven't read this because you're blind and it takes so long to go thru things in Braille", would be a cheap shot.  This is a cheap shot, because it would be considered very bad taste to not try to be helpful and considerate to someone in those circumstances.

An unfair comment, it seems to me, is one where the weakness is judged to be 'hors de combat', i.e. not something to be brought into the fight, and we have general agreement about those things.  

So yes, we now move to Alanlakedictionary.com, if you will allow me to try make some progress with this definition weakness, and get:

• Cheap shot:  a critical statement that takes advantage of a known weakness of the target deemed to be 'hors de combat'

Now we reform this into propositional logic:
cheapshot = (is-a-criticism-using-weakness-W) & (W-is-a-well-known-weakness) & (W-is-hors-de-combat)

Here the weakness W would be that "Buddhist monks run scams" 

Now, if cheapshot is false, then since
                ¬(a & b & c) implies ¬a or ¬b or ¬c
at least one of those 3 assertions must be false.  Lets try review these:

• a: (is-a-criticism-using-weakness-W): both Shiva and BM think this is true
• b: (W-is-a-well-known-weakness): Shiva is asserting this.  BM is denying this
• c: (weakness-W-is-hors-de-combat): Shiva is denying this. Surely BM would deny that "Monks running scams" is something we've politely decided to turn a blind eye to, so he is also denying this.

So Shiva is asserting:  a & b & ¬c
BM is asserting:          a & ¬b & ¬c

The only difference between them is in the assertion or denial of b, so Shiva is asserting that "Monks run scams" is a well known weakness, and BM is denying it.  Shiva then goes on to give some evidence for his belief.  So that part is all consistent for both parties.

The problem is to find out what it is that BM is complaining about.  The complaint seems to be that "monks run scams" is a cheap shot, but then it transpires that BM's complaint is that it was an attempted cheap shot which was so cheap that it failed.

However, look at Shiva's assertion:   a & b & ¬c,
i.e. Shiva NEVER INTENDED HIS ALLEGATION AS A CHEAP SHOT.  It was always a genuine fair shot.  I read it that way, and I think most people here read it that way.  I wanted to hear evidence for it, but I never thought it was something that we're all supposed to politely ignore.

BM's response is logically correct, but it was a linguistic complexity that caught Shiva out.  In Buddhist terms, I would call BM's behaviour "unkind".  In a final post, I will say what Shiva's reply should have been, if he were to avoid the correction from Brother Mark.

Brother Mark said:

Cheap shot:  2: a critical statement that takes unfair advantage of a known weakness of the target

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cheap%20shot

The unfair advantage category wouldn't apply here because as something un true as the generalize statement that was being made, wouldn't have an unfair advantage. Therefore it wouldn't even qualify as a cheap shot.

cheap shot:  n.   An unfair or unsporting verbal attack on a vulnerable target.

 http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cheap+shot

To reiterate ...the reason why I didn't consider it an unfair or un sporting comment  is because I simply thought that it was incorrect in the first place. This is why I made the statement of it not even qualifying as a cheap shot. Unfair or unsporting doesn't mean un truthful...then again, if you don't believe that this was a case of "unnecessary roughness" then you would have to agree with me also!

Permalink Reply by Mark on June 7, 2012 at 2:35

Shiva,

 

 

" I am pretty sure that if islam had come before Buddhism, then the teaching of Buddha would be different"... 

 

Buddhism scripturally speaking is not a historical development but a teaching that is discovered and rediscovered by someone seeking true enlightenment when the teaching is lost or no longer being taught, ideally then to be taught to others.

 

"The question should be, Didn't Buddha forbid soldiers from going into the monastery so that they avoid can avoid fighting in the Kingdom of Magadah, when several generals entered the Sangha "?

3. Critics of the Doctrine of Ahimsa
1. There were persons who objected to the doctrine of Ahimsa. They said that it involved surrender or non-resistance to evil.
2. This is a complete misrepresentation of what the Blessed Lord taught by his doctrine of Ahimsa.
3. The Blessed Lord has made his position clear on various occasions so as to leave no room for ambiguity or misunderstanding.
4. The first such occasion to which reference should be made is the occasion when he made a rule regarding the entry of a soldier in the Sangh.
5. At one time the border provinces of the kingdom of Magadha were agitated. Then the Magadha king Seniya Bimbisara gave order to the Commander of the army: ' Well now, go and ask your officers to search through the border provinces for the offenders, punish them and restore peace." The Commander acted accordingly.
6. On hearing the orders of the Commander the officers found themselyes placed in a dilemma. They knew that the Tathagatha taught that those who go to war and find delight in fighting, do evil and produce great demerit. On the other hand, here was the king's order to capture the offenders and to kill them. Now what shall we do, asked the officers to themselves.
7. Then these officers thought: "If we could enter the order of the Buddha we would be able to escape from the dilemma."
8. Thus these officers went to the bhikkhus and asked them for ordination; the bhikkhus conferred on them the pabbajja and upasampada ordinations and the officers disappeared from the army.
9. The Commander of the army .finding that the officers were not to be seen, asked the soldiers: "Why, how is it that the officers are nowhere to be seen ?" " The officers, lord, have embraced religious life of the bhikkhus," replied the soldiers.
10. Then the Commander of the army was annoyed, and became very angry: "How can the bhikkhus ordain persons in the royal army ? " 
11. The Commander of the army informed the king of what had happened. And the king asked the officers of justice: "Tell me, my good sirs, what punishment does he deserve who ordains a person in the royal service ?"
12. "The Upagghaya, Your Majesty, should be beheaded; to him who recites (the Kammavaka), the tongue should be torn out; to those who form the chapter, half of their ribs should be broken."
13. Then the king went to the place where the Blessed One was; and after obeisance informed him of what had happened.
14. " The Lord well knows that there are kings who are against the Dhamma. These hostile kings are ever ready to harass the bhikkhus even for trifling reasons. It is impossible to imagine the lengths to which they might go in their ill-treatment of the bhikkhus if they find that the bhikkhus are seducing the soldiers to leave the army and join the Sangh. Pray Lord to do the needful to avert the disaster."
15. The Lord replied: " It was never my intention to allow soldiers under the cloak of Ahimsa or in the name of Ahimsa to abandon their duty to the king or to their country."
16. Accordingly the Blessed One made a rule against the admission of persons in royal service to the Sangh and proclaimed it to the bhikkhus, saying: "Let no one, 0 Bhikkhus, who is in the royal service, receive the Pabbajja ordination. He who confers the Pabbajja ordination on such a person will be guilty of a dukkata offence."
http://www.ambedkar.org/buddhism/BAHD/45F.Buddha%20and%20His%20Dhamma%20PART%20VI.htm 

Although this is not a story I believe that comes from the Tipitaka, it comes from generally accepted tradition based on the Tipitaka, as an example here it is a part of the procedure when being fully ordained to acknowledge that you aren't in the service of the government.

In short, there is a difference between someone acting as a draft dodger so to speak, and someone earnestly seeking the dhamma path. There is also the stipulation that if you are have  debts that have not been paid, you can't likewise enter the sangha,because  there were those who would try to relieve themselves of such debts by joining the monastic order.

"To expand this, by him forbidding soldiers to evade fighting, was he endorsing buddhists to fight ?" 

To fight as a soldier would also mean to kill as one also, therefore because this would go against a very basic and critical precept, I highly doubt it.

I would say that not only Buddhism is useless in fighting islam, but all the major religions are to some degree useless, it is Buddhism that is weakest, it need not be, as Alan Pointed out in the case of Sri-lanka and Vietnam. 

 

I understand that there are those who would like to use Buddhism as a tool in the fight against Islam (hence the title of this discussion) however, if all that we have to offer is the same color of flag but with a different name as we advocate violence, regardless of how justifiable that might be to others, then we would cease to be Buddhist. Buddhism does not know any ethnicity or territory and even if Islam were to take over the entire world then it would have to start feeding on itself from within, I doubt that the mightiest army will ever quiet humanity's quest for a better state of spiritual development.

Please study the Buddhist teaching. This would be a good place to start.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/

 

Remember, If I don't get back to you after this it's because I might sometimes be tempted by some to be drawn back in the multi conversation sphere, I'll need to keep this very narrow for now, due to a lack of time.

 

Have a great day!

 

Brother Mark:)

shiva said:

Please Mark keep it simple, as I am not well versed in Buddhism like you and Alan, by keeping it simple I may learn more

Also there are others here who are like me, who do not know so much, so the debate between you and Alan most probably went over our heads.

Cheers

Permalink Reply by Mark on June 8, 2012 at 15:22

It seems as if the problem of my comments being visible or available has been solved!

Thank you Alan!

Brother Mark:)

Mark said:

Hi everyone!

For some reason my comments seem difficult to retrieve, I've ma naged to pick some back up from my word doc but the rest I'll have to summarize:

1. I questioned the claim that what Allan calls "Buddhist scripture" is actually such. This is important to me because  many claim that this or that is the Buddhist teaching when it is not. There are many such stories of our "scripture".

2. I thought that the word "died" for these areas was a bit much.

3. I questioned the word "selfishly".

4. I questioned the word "conceitedly"

Permalink Reply by Joe on June 8, 2012 at 20:13

There has been a lot of heat and smoke in this thread, and even before that heat and smoke, Paul asked if someone could sum up an answer to the initial question posed by the thread. http://4freedoms.ning.com/xn/detail/3766518:Comment:103206 This is my attempt to do so. 

When Brother Mark was challenged that his diagnosis of the problem of jihad is inadequate and only a first step ('the scriptures of islam are evil') http://4freedoms.ning.com/xn/detail/3766518:Comment:102673, instead of meeting the challenge with further detail he just re-iterates the point on which he was challenged, and will not move from that in terms of any kind of agreement on practical steps that resistance can take. It seems the only step available to him, is to engage in a form of buddhist dawah as a weapon against both islamic dawah and jihadist terrorism. http://4freedoms.ning.com/xn/detail/3766518:Comment:103151 "We should resist evil of which scriptural Islam as a doctrine certainly qualifies." Is there any evidence from history that significant numbers of muslims have been tempted into buddhism by the power of buddhist dawah? If not, doesn't this look like a failed strategy?

Brother Mark says "there are plenty of ways to fight the evil of Islam as a scriptural doctrine rather than say, bombing the local mosque", as if acts of guerilla warfare are what we are proposing. http://4freedoms.ning.com/xn/detail/3766518:Comment:102980 He offers no suggestions for what might be done, other than guns versus blogging. http://4freedoms.ning.com/xn/detail/3766518:Comment:103189 . See also http://4freedoms.ning.com/xn/detail/3766518:Comment:103218 One might think there was a middle path, but apparently not. Of course, by there not being a middle path, it means that buddhists can exempt themselves from any action other than dawah, because the only alternative in this scenario is guns and bombs.

Brother Mark asserts that a buddhist could use violence in self-defence if attacked on a street corner, but any buddhist is a heretic if he says a buddhist can kill someone to stop a massacre. http://4freedoms.ning.com/xn/detail/3766518:Comment:103151

When it is put to him that buddhism (as a religion) is dependent for its survival on the secular state he rejects it is intrinsically true, accepting that the protection of the state is "helpful". http://4freedoms.ning.com/xn/detail/3766518:Comment:102601 . BM later articulated the doctrine of Ahimsa "a part of the procedure when being fully ordained to acknowledge that you aren't in the service of the government": http://4freedoms.ning.com/xn/detail/3766518:Comment:103811 The upshot of that is that buddha himself recognised that the religious institutions of buddhism are dependent on a (secular) government for survival.

Brother Mark presents buddhism as an eternal truth that will be found again even if it vanishes. "Buddhism scripturally speaking is not a historical development but a teaching that is discovered and rediscovered by someone seeking true enlightenment when the teaching is lost or no longer being taught…" http://4freedoms.ning.com/xn/detail/3766518:Comment:103811 With this kind of naive view, we should not be surprised that religious buddhists are not prepared to do anything to ensure that buddhism survives (beyond dawah). This credulousness is to be found in a later comment too: "even if Islam were to take over the entire world then it would have to start feeding on itself from within, I doubt that the mightiest army will ever quiet humanity's quest for a better state of spiritual development". http://4freedoms.ning.com/xn/detail/3766518:Comment:103811 No evidence has been offered to show that a country that has succumbed to islam has ever risen from that abject, totalitarian fear into any state of spirituality. History shows that islamisation is a one-way street, without the help of military action like the Reconquista in Spain, and people like Charles Martel (which action Brother Mark decries on another thread).

From this exchange with a buddhist who is 'actively resisting' islam, we have to conclude that buddhists are useless in the fight against islam.  Brother Mark thinks the buddhists are doing "a decent job" with their active resistance: http://4freedoms.ning.com/xn/detail/3766518:Comment:102980 . I'm not sure many of us would have the blindness to claim that the EDL is doing a decent job at resisting islamisation, or Robert Spencer, or even Geert Wilders. And a mere 200km away from Brother Mark, thousands of buddhists have been assassinated by jihadis in the past few years. Most of the buddhists in southern Thailand have migrated to parts of the country where the state can protect them. Those buddhists who remain in southern Thailand have become an armed citizen's militia. But apparently we can't expect the real buddhists to take up arms to resist islam.

Considering that all real buddhists can offer is some dawah, we have the right to expect to see many books written by them subjecting islam to critique. Yet of all the books against islam of which I am aware, I cannot think of any written by buddhists. Since this is all we can expect, perhaps people could counter my ignorance of this oeuvre by adding to a list of books by buddhists criticising islam. In the absence of such type-written resistance, I think we might conclude with Alan, that buddhism is parasitical.  Indeed, we might go further, and posit as Shiva did, that buddhism is dangerous in conditions of war.

Buddhist Critiques of Islam
===========================

0

Permalink Reply by Alan Lake on June 11, 2012 at 12:23

Message from Admin Team: COC Violation by member: Mark

Relevant Post:    http://4freedoms.ning.com/group/buddhists/forum/topics/are-buddhist...
Clause Breached:  4.7.4 Strange Mental Models
Warning Level:      YELLOW
Explanation:
The explanation is given in this post which Mark is responding to:
http://4freedoms.ning.com/group/buddhists/forum/topics/are-buddhist...

It appears that Mark does not yet have the mental model of 'Other Minds', therefore is unable to understand the sense and implications of 'purport' in this context.

Mark said:

Allan,

Brother Mark said:
"A slight modification of option two would therefore have been most correct:

• you are right, it wasn't even a cheap shot, but I'm now going to try to justify it"

"It would not make sense for him to say this and agree with you about it being a failed cheap shot, because he never intended it as such.  As far as he was concerned, it was and always will be a perfectly legitimate criticism, which he is prepared to provide evidence for.  To go back to the dictionary definition where W = "monks run scams":"

 Let's remember...

3. "Please tell me, what form of words should Shiva have used in reply?  I can't find one.  None of these make sense:"

The context of the question was what I would think should Shiva should have replied with... not  what Shiva might have feasibly replied with. Should I really need to remind you of this? 

"BM's response is logically correct, but it was a linguistic complexity that caught Shiva out.  In Buddhist terms, I would call BM's behaviour "unkind"."

There are those who believe that when you walk a spiritual path, you should just bend over at their convenience and lick up whatever is being offered. Otherwise it should be used as a mark against their spiritual conviction, I disagree.

When we are assertive, we're called "arrogant" or "sarcastic" and when we then try our best to adjust and appease then we're called "condescending".  Think what you wish, at least you were able to finally acknowledge that my response was logically correct after implying that I was picky about logic...but got it all wrong. It took you long enough.

Perhaps the lesson that you should learn, is not to go and unnecessarily provoke something that has already been resolved between the parties in question. Something tells me that you seem to enjoy the quarreling pay off, or else there would have been no need. If so, how sad.

With metta,

Brother Mark:)

Alan Lake said:

Brother Mark,
this problem is not with the concept of cheap shot per se, the problem is to make that fit in with some kind of consistent world view coming from you.  I will try explain.

Lets use the first definition as it is more specific.  But it needs the word "unfair" to be explained.  Consider this statement to a Roman Catholic priest:
"We have to question your motives, because after all, the RC church now has a big history of child abuse".
This is not a cheap shot, because people would think it a reasonable shot to make.

Consider this one to a blind respondent:"You obviously haven't read this because you're blind and it takes so long to go thru things in Braille", would be a cheap shot.  This is a cheap shot, because it would be considered very bad taste to not try to be helpful and considerate to someone in those circumstances.

An unfair comment, it seems to me, is one where the weakness is judged to be 'hors de combat', i.e. not something to be brought into the fight, and we have general agreement about those things.  

So yes, we now move to Alanlakedictionary.com, if you will allow me to try make some progress with this definition weakness, and get:

• Cheap shot:  a critical statement that takes advantage of a known weakness of the target deemed to be 'hors de combat'

Now we reform this into propositional logic:
cheapshot = (is-a-criticism-using-weakness-W) & (W-is-a-well-known-weakness) & (W-is-hors-de-combat)

Here the weakness W would be that "Buddhist monks run scams" 

Now, if cheapshot is false, then since
                ¬(a & b & c) implies ¬a or ¬b or ¬c
at least one of those 3 assertions must be false.  Lets try review these:

• a: (is-a-criticism-using-weakness-W): both Shiva and BM think this is true
• b: (W-is-a-well-known-weakness): Shiva is asserting this.  BM is denying this
• c: (weakness-W-is-hors-de-combat): Shiva is denying this. Surely BM would deny that "Monks running scams" is something we've politely decided to turn a blind eye to, so he is also denying this.

So Shiva is asserting:  a & b & ¬c
BM is asserting:          a & ¬b & ¬c

The only difference between them is in the assertion or denial of b, so Shiva is asserting that "Monks run scams" is a well known weakness, and BM is denying it.  Shiva then goes on to give some evidence for his belief.  So that part is all consistent for both parties.

The problem is to find out what it is that BM is complaining about.  The complaint seems to be that "monks run scams" is a cheap shot, but then it transpires that BM's complaint is that it was an attempted cheap shot which was so cheap that it failed.

However, look at Shiva's assertion:   a & b & ¬c,
i.e. Shiva NEVER INTENDED HIS ALLEGATION AS A CHEAP SHOT.  It was always a genuine fair shot.  I read it that way, and I think most people here read it that way.  I wanted to hear evidence for it, but I never thought it was something that we're all supposed to politely ignore.

BM's response is logically correct, but it was a linguistic complexity that caught Shiva out.  In Buddhist terms, I would call BM's behaviour "unkind".  In a final post, I will say what Shiva's reply should have been, if he were to avoid the correction from Brother Mark.

Brother Mark said:

Cheap shot:  2: a critical statement that takes unfair advantage of a known weakness of the target

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cheap%20shot

The unfair advantage category wouldn't apply here because as something un true as the generalize statement that was being made, wouldn't have an unfair advantage. Therefore it wouldn't even qualify as a cheap shot.

cheap shot:  n.   An unfair or unsporting verbal attack on a vulnerable target.

 http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cheap+shot

To reiterate ...the reason why I didn't consider it an unfair or un sporting comment  is because I simply thought that it was incorrect in the first place. This is why I made the statement of it not even qualifying as a cheap shot. Unfair or unsporting doesn't mean un truthful...then again, if you don't believe that this was a case of "unnecessary roughness" then you would have to agree with me also!

Permalink Reply by Alan Lake on June 11, 2012 at 12:29

Message from Admin Team: COC Violation by member: Mark

Relevant Post:    http://4freedoms.ning.com/group/buddhists/forum/topics/are-buddhist...
Clause Breached:  4.7.3 Strange Use of Language
Warning Level:      YELLOW
Explanation:
This violation can be quite difficult to pin down, but will be manifested by discussions which don't make sense if we go back to make a summary. 

Joe said:

There has been a lot of heat and smoke in this thread, and even before that heat and smoke, Paul asked if someone could sum up an answer to the initial question posed by the thread. http://4freedoms.ning.com/xn/detail/3766518:Comment:103206 This is my attempt to do so. 

When Brother Mark was challenged that his diagnosis of the problem of jihad is inadequate and only a first step ('the scriptures of islam are evil') http://4freedoms.ning.com/xn/detail/3766518:Comment:102673, instead of meeting the challenge with further detail he just re-iterates the point on which he was challenged, and will not move from that in terms of any kind of agreement on practical steps that resistance can take. It seems the only step available to him, is to engage in a form of buddhist dawah as a weapon against both islamic dawah and jihadist terrorism. http://4freedoms.ning.com/xn/detail/3766518:Comment:103151 "We should resist evil of which scriptural Islam as a doctrine certainly qualifies." Is there any evidence from history that significant numbers of muslims have been tempted into buddhism by the power of buddhist dawah? If not, doesn't this look like a failed strategy?

Brother Mark says "there are plenty of ways to fight the evil of Islam as a scriptural doctrine rather than say, bombing the local mosque", as if acts of guerilla warfare are what we are proposing. http://4freedoms.ning.com/xn/detail/3766518:Comment:102980 He offers no suggestions for what might be done, other than guns versus blogging. http://4freedoms.ning.com/xn/detail/3766518:Comment:103189 . See also http://4freedoms.ning.com/xn/detail/3766518:Comment:103218 One might think there was a middle path, but apparently not. Of course, by there not being a middle path, it means that buddhists can exempt themselves from any action other than dawah, because the only alternative in this scenario is guns and bombs.

Brother Mark asserts that a buddhist could use violence in self-defence if attacked on a street corner, but any buddhist is a heretic if he says a buddhist can kill someone to stop a massacre. http://4freedoms.ning.com/xn/detail/3766518:Comment:103151

When it is put to him that buddhism (as a religion) is dependent for its survival on the secular state he rejects it is intrinsically true, accepting that the protection of the state is "helpful". http://4freedoms.ning.com/xn/detail/3766518:Comment:102601 . BM later articulated the doctrine of Ahimsa "a part of the procedure when being fully ordained to acknowledge that you aren't in the service of the government": http://4freedoms.ning.com/xn/detail/3766518:Comment:103811 The upshot of that is that buddha himself recognised that the religious institutions of buddhism are dependent on a (secular) government for survival.

Brother Mark presents buddhism as an eternal truth that will be found again even if it vanishes. "Buddhism scripturally speaking is not a historical development but a teaching that is discovered and rediscovered by someone seeking true enlightenment when the teaching is lost or no longer being taught…" http://4freedoms.ning.com/xn/detail/3766518:Comment:103811 With this kind of naive view, we should not be surprised that religious buddhists are not prepared to do anything to ensure that buddhism survives (beyond dawah). This credulousness is to be found in a later comment too: "even if Islam were to take over the entire world then it would have to start feeding on itself from within, I doubt that the mightiest army will ever quiet humanity's quest for a better state of spiritual development". http://4freedoms.ning.com/xn/detail/3766518:Comment:103811 No evidence has been offered to show that a country that has succumbed to islam has ever risen from that abject, totalitarian fear into any state of spirituality. History shows that islamisation is a one-way street, without the help of military action like the Reconquista in Spain, and people like Charles Martel (which action Brother Mark decries on another thread).

From this exchange with a buddhist who is 'actively resisting' islam, we have to conclude that buddhists are useless in the fight against islam.  Brother Mark thinks the buddhists are doing "a decent job" with their active resistance: http://4freedoms.ning.com/xn/detail/3766518:Comment:102980 . I'm not sure many of us would have the blindness to claim that the EDL is doing a decent job at resisting islamisation, or Robert Spencer, or even Geert Wilders. And a mere 200km away from Brother Mark, thousands of buddhists have been assassinated by jihadis in the past few years. Most of the buddhists in southern Thailand have migrated to parts of the country where the state can protect them. Those buddhists who remain in southern Thailand have become an armed citizen's militia. But apparently we can't expect the real buddhists to take up arms to resist islam.

Considering that all real buddhists can offer is some dawah, we have the right to expect to see many books written by them subjecting islam to critique. Yet of all the books against islam of which I am aware, I cannot think of any written by buddhists. Since this is all we can expect, perhaps people could counter my ignorance of this oeuvre by adding to a list of books by buddhists criticising islam. In the absence of such type-written resistance, I think we might conclude with Alan, that buddhism is parasitical.  Indeed, we might go further, and posit as Shiva did, that buddhism is dangerous in conditions of war.

Buddhist Critiques of Islam
===========================

0

Permalink Reply by Alan Lake on June 11, 2012 at 12:43

Notification from Admin: COC Violation by Member: Mark

Relevant Post:      http://4freedoms.ning.com/group/buddhists/forum/topics/are-buddhist...
Clause Breached:  4.6.3 Dropping the Ball
Warning Level:      RED
Explanation:

In this post I gave a 5-point plan for action.  This was part of a denial against repeated assertions that I wanted Mark to become violent and get weapons, even though I had never said this.

This 5-point plan of action is one of repeated requests for constructive behaviour from Mark,for which there has been a very unsatisfactory response.  For this reason, the warning is raised to RED.

Alan Lake said:

Phew, this is getting incredibly complicated.  I'm going to try and cut to the chase if I can, to speed things up, so please don't think I haven't fully read and considered all of your words.

Before I get started with this, I must thank you so much for the conversation! You really are so much fun to converse with!

I'm glad to be of service!  And thanks for the compliment.

"Former President's Richard Nixon and Ronald Regan would have loved you! Why, you could have served as an advisor to Ronald Regan in his war on Communism!"

Well, that doesn't even qualify as a cheap shot!! Why?  Because I'm taking it as a compliment, Reagan was a great orator, and, surprisingly, a keen political thinker.  We have some of his speeches here on 4F as models to follow.

But joking aside, as I said before, its not for me to tell you how to behave.  When I eventually write my book on Frames, and how there is no UFR (universal frame of reference) but we all work from our own FR (Frame of Reference), then its obvious that I can't tell you because I don't have knowledge of your FR.  For me to do that I would have to at least become a Buddhist Monk, and at most, become you, with your childhood, life history, etc.

I'm just asking you, as we would in business, to go back and please check your procedures and guidelines.  So it would be something like this:

1. Review the current state of the world, as regards your religion, and report back on how it is getting on.  This will deduce areas you are strong in, and areas you are weak in.
2. Try elucidate the reasons you are failing in the weak areas.  Try elucidate the reasons you are succeeding in the strong areas.
3. Now try to take a lesson about what can be done differently.  Are you even allowed to do things differently?  Perhaps your mission statement or code of conduct forbids any change?  Is it possible to revise the Code of Conduct or Mission Statement? etc, etc.  You can spend a few happy years of your life considering these questions.
4. Finally draw up an action plan, which hopefully will see you removing the areas of weakness and spreading the areas of strength, then implement the plan.
5. One year later (and so on every year), track progress against the plan.  Review successes and failures, consider ways in which the world has changed since step 1, and revise the plan if necessary

Can you please go away and do that?  Its something to raise at conferences, something to raise at monthly meetings, something to even raise over a cup of tea.

If you come back and say "Well, we've reviewed what's going on, and we are doing everything in the best possible way already and there is nothing to change", I'm not going to argue.  That's not my job.  I might think it wasn't a very inspiring or edifying exchange, but its not my job to try figure out how to operate your system.  All I've been trying to do from the beginning is to say:

• You've got some problems / weaknesses
• You have the possibility (however limited) of changing how you operate
• Please review what you're doing

"I highly doubt that especially in today's day and age, the only effective means of resistance is to picking up a gun and shooting at people. If that were the case, then I seriously doubt that this forum would even exist."

I doubt it as well.  But are you sure you've explored all the avenues of action available to you?

I'll start a new post now, to try keep things simple.

Alan

Brother Mark said:

Mr. Alan lake,

 Before I get started with this, I must thank you so much for the conversation! You really are so much fun to converse with!

 Regarding both your reply's to the discussion as well as a post addressed specifically to me...

   "By taking away the bright ones, Buddhism can weaken the society.  Then by encouraging an extremely pacifist approach and mindset (in this sense, the paper birds incident is relevant), it can weaken the society further.  In this sense, you could even see Buddhism as a parasite, that lives in a society until it is destroyed by its more violent neighbour or Islam.  Thus Nalanda, destroyed, but it means nothing to Buddhists, they just move on to the next area."

Let's take this step by step...

  "By taking away the bright ones, Buddhism can weaken the society."

 Alan...Haven't you heard that water will seek its own level?  and do you really think that we deplete a country of its bright one's? I believe that it would be better to say that we take some of the bright one's and make them even brighter!

"Then by encouraging an extremely pacifist approach and mindset (in this sense, the paper birds incident is relevant), it can weaken the society further.  In this sense, you could even see Buddhism as a parasite, that lives in a society until it is destroyed by its more violent neighbour or Islam."

This  of course in a general sense, would imply that war and strife and the such are due to those darn "Pacifist's", who are weakening a country's society! Former President's Richard Nixon and Ronald Regan would have loved you! Why, you could have served as an advisor to Ronald Regan in his war on Communism!

O.K. I've got an idea...Perhaps what the Buddhist's and Jain and the rest of our ilk should really do is get ourselves a thermo nuclear weapon, and show them all that we really mean business!  

Come to think of it, what was it that toppled that evil of what they were being offered as "Communism"? Was it commando strikes and missiles? Or was a key component at least, because when the people had the knowledge that there was better available for them they insisted on making the change? Yes, there was some violence involved in that perhaps ( the tearing down of the Berlin wall etc.), but we can all play our part...because as mentioned above, water seeks its own level.

Would you deny that although the Venerable Gotama (Buddha) had his own preference, that he knew of both the different pre dispositions and capacity's of people? If so, then perhaps you and I will have to do some Pali Canon scripture study together.

I highly doubt that especially in today's day and age, the only effective means of resistance is to picking up a gun and shooting at people. If that were the case, then I seriously doubt that this forum would even exist.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• Next ›
• Page