I thought Buddhism wasn't about threatening people with Hell

Whether you're exploring Buddhism for the first time or you're already on the path, feel free to ask questions of any kind here.

Re: I thought Buddhism wasn't about threatening people with Hell

Postby undefineable » Tue Oct 16, 2012 12:44 am

Ikkyu wrote:it is in some sense immoral to believe something without evidence, as the philosopher William Alston I believe suggested. This is because if we posit the existence of bodhisattvas, rebirth, karma, etc. without sufficient evidence what we are invariably doing is halting the search for truth in the universe. We are not opening ourselves to all possibilities.


:rolleye: On the contrary, since science seems to have outlined all imaginable modes of existence that can be empirically evidenced, and to have reached a point of being mostly corporate-funded rather than neutral, any new 'discoveries' it makes will likely amount to no more than the fleshing out of its established paradigms. These, as I've said before, don't often seem to go far beyond the simple statement 'Physical energy, in some spooky way, is that which truly exists' in their analysis of what there is. In our time, examining matters beyond the scientifically proven (let's keep an agnostic attitude and not rush to 'posit') is to explore other ways in which things may be, given the wealth of evidence available to us beyond the concrete and empirically-established facts which (not coincidentally) religion in the west used to treat as its own province. So, to 'limit the search for truth in the universe' and to 'not open ourselves to all possibilities', as you put it (I prefer 'reality' to 'universe' since the term 'universe' may be and has been used to rule out such self-evident facts of life as consciousness), is the result of NOT positing or even examining possibilities beyond the scope of scientific paradigms.

Ikkyu wrote:if you can't be certain about something why believe it?


I don't really 'believe' I'll remember my current life in a future enlightenment, but life can be so dire -as well as beautiful in the same breath- that the possibility of such things overrules the little we have to lose from exploring them.

Ikkyu wrote:It's the same reason I'm happy to entertain a belief in flying spaghetti monsters, invisible pink unicorns, cannibalistic chocolate chip muffins from Saturn and the fact that it will rain televisions in Delaware on February 13th, 2087. I can't rule out these possibilities, so it's fair for me to believe them, right?


You can rule them out - They're absurd. A Bodhisattva, on the other hand, is just a particular kind of person - Hardly the same kind of thing. Do you rule out the existence, conversely, of beings who can't fully interpret the experience of their senses? ;)

Ikkyu wrote:I'm not being sarcastic to be a jerk here, but to demonstrate my point. Do you understand what I'm getting at?


Yes, but you're writing as if you've 'a priori' refused to get a handle on the basic concepts involved. For example, your 'comedy beliefs' are usually used to argue against belief in a Personal God, because they fall into the category of arbitrary creatures/persons that a Personal God also falls into by definition. It would be difficult to knowingly interpret the whole of Buddhist teaching and practice as falling within that category.
"Removing the barrier between this and that is the only solution" {Chogyam Trungpa - "The Lion's Roar"}
undefineable
 
Posts: 500
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:34 am

Re: I thought Buddhism wasn't about threatening people with Hell

Postby Indrajala » Tue Oct 16, 2012 1:13 am

undefineable wrote: :rolleye: On the contrary, since science seems to have outlined all imaginable modes of existence that can be empirically evidenced, and to have reached a point of being mostly corporate-funded rather than neutral, any new 'discoveries' it makes will likely amount to no more than the fleshing out of its established paradigms.


It is seldom recognized, but science is subject to the law of diminishing returns, too. New discoveries cost more and more while the results become less and less valuable. For instance, discovering a new particle cost how many hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars which may help physicists understand the big bang. That isn't a game changer like genetics or radiation. I've read that as time goes on there are fewer patents issued per X number of scientists.

We might be approaching the limits to human knowledge concerning the material universe. To make further serious discoveries will cost more and more resources which we are rapidly exhausting, and even then those discoveries might not prove terribly valuable to humanity as a whole. For better or worse we might not get Star Trek in real life. Progress is finite.

But on the bright side we have the yogic sciences to explore. Instead of astronauts we can have psychonauts.
Flower Ornament Depository (Blog)
Indrajāla's Contemplations (Blog)
Exploring Classical Chinese (Blog)
Dharma Depository (Site)

"Hui gives me no assistance. There is nothing that I say in which he does not delight." -Confucius
User avatar
Indrajala
 
Posts: 5972
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm
Location: Taiwan

Re: I thought Buddhism wasn't about threatening people with Hell

Postby Sherab Dorje » Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:53 am

Ikkyu wrote:It's the same reason I'm happy to entertain a belief in flying spaghetti monsters, invisible pink unicorns, cannibalistic chocolate chip muffins from Saturn and the fact that it will rain televisions in Delaware on February 13th, 2087. I can't rule out these possibilities, so it's fair for me to believe them, right?

I'm not being sarcastic to be a jerk here, but to demonstrate my point. Do you understand what I'm getting at?
Tell you what Ikkyu, you go ahead and believe all that nonsense and I will go ahead and believe 2500 years of the continuously developed theory and practice (praxis), we'll hook up in about 15 years and compare notes. How does that sound?

I understand what you are getting at, but how does causing doubt in something proven to be "correct" help anybody or anything?
:namaste:
PS "psychonauts" I like it!!!
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: I thought Buddhism wasn't about threatening people with Hell

Postby catmoon » Tue Oct 16, 2012 9:20 am

Ikkyu wrote:
Look: I don't hate Buddhism. I think it is in some ways a very practical philosophy which has helped many people. 'Can't go wrong with compassion and wisdom, right? But the way I look at it, it is in some sense immoral to believe something without evidence, as the philosopher William Alston I believe suggested. This is because if we posit the existence of bodhisattvas, rebirth, karma, etc. without sufficient evidence what we are invariably doing is halting the search for truth in the universe. We are not opening ourselves to all possibilities. We are basically saying, "this is the way it is and that isn't," when clearly we don't know that with certainty. And if you can't be certain about something why believe it? (Or spend the rest of your sex-deprived life sleeping four hours a night and sitting still for eight hours a day a Zen monastery, for that matter. (c.f. "The Empty Mirror".)) Sure, you could say that we can't be certain that we will eat breakfast tomorrow or go to work on our morning shift, but it's very likely that this is the case. Can we make a similar statement about abstract metaphysical realities? I'm just saying that if Buddhists want to present Buddhism as a scientifically rigorous and rational religion they need to consider these things.


Some of Buddhism is rigorous and rational, some less so, and some not at all. So what I did was to put rebirth and karma in a bin labelled "Provisionally True". I'll work with those ideas until something more useful comes along. So far it hasn't. Thus neither you nor I put much credence in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or pink unicorns, but a while back you asked what reason there is differentiate between such fantasies and dharma. It think the primary reason Dharma has the edge here is that belief in such things might credibly result in one becoming a kinder and wiser person. OTOH, I really do not think a heartfelt belief in pink unicorns would be very efficacious.
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2995
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: I thought Buddhism wasn't about threatening people with Hell

Postby Sherab Dorje » Tue Oct 16, 2012 11:26 am

Ooopppssss. Spelling mistake in last post.
believe 2500 years of the

I meant: "believe [in] 2500 [of]..."

Sorry!
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: I thought Buddhism wasn't about threatening people with Hell

Postby undefineable » Tue Oct 16, 2012 1:47 pm

catmoon wrote:Some of Buddhism is rigorous and rational, some less so, and some not at all. So what I did was to put rebirth and karma in a bin labelled "Provisionally True". I'll work with those ideas until something more useful comes along. So far it hasn't. Thus neither you nor I put much credence in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or pink unicorns, but a while back you asked what reason there is differentiate between such fantasies and dharma. It think the primary reason Dharma has the edge here is that belief in such things might credibly result in one becoming a kinder and wiser person. OTOH, I really do not think a heartfelt belief in pink unicorns would be very efficacious.


As Greg hinted, there's also the fact that no-one claims to have any direct personal experience of the truth of those 'comedy beliefs', and that if they did, they'd also sound less absurd if the path to such experience began with something easily verifiable like the typical fruits of regular meditation, which -as you point out- sound enticingly positive in any case. 8-)

By way of contrast, those who claim direct personal experience of God are typically found at the margins of theistic religions, often as 'heretics'. Even in Hinduism, I believe it's 'Bhakti', rather than the Vedantas, that's considered mainstream-?
"Removing the barrier between this and that is the only solution" {Chogyam Trungpa - "The Lion's Roar"}
undefineable
 
Posts: 500
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:34 am

Re: I thought Buddhism wasn't about threatening people with Hell

Postby Indrajala » Tue Oct 16, 2012 2:19 pm

Ikkyu wrote: This is because if we posit the existence of bodhisattvas, rebirth, karma, etc. without sufficient evidence what we are invariably doing is halting the search for truth in the universe. We are not opening ourselves to all possibilities.


Who says we don't have evidence?

We can infer rebirth and karma. There's evidence for reincarnation. Look into Ian Stevenson and Jim Tucker from U of Virginia.

We can personally experience the reality of bodhisattvas and other such beings like devas and so forth.

Human civilization has generally always had the conviction that such beings exist and either benefit or harm the world depending on various factors. As John Greer the Archdruid suggests the universe seems to behave as if gods exist, though we don't immediately see it, much like how neutrinos apparently exist though we don't immediately perceive them.



We are basically saying, "this is the way it is and that isn't," when clearly we don't know that with certainty. And if you can't be certain about something why believe it? (Or spend the rest of your sex-deprived life sleeping four hours a night and sitting still for eight hours a day a Zen monastery, for that matter. (c.f. "The Empty Mirror".))


If you give up sex and properly practice meditation you'll be blissed out better than any orgasm. As Ajahn Brahm has said celibate monks give up sex to get something even better.

There are great benefits and joys to meditation if done properly, which is why many people can spend their whole lives pursuing it. Ajahn Brahm is a self-proclaimed meditation junky.



Sure, you could say that we can't be certain that we will eat breakfast tomorrow or go to work on our morning shift, but it's very likely that this is the case. Can we make a similar statement about abstract metaphysical realities? I'm just saying that if Buddhists want to present Buddhism as a scientifically rigorous and rational religion they need to consider these things.


I'm not particularly interested in justifying Buddhadharma to materialist scientists unless we get to discuss things on equal terms. Buddhism isn't materialist science and works on totally different assumptions and methods to explore reality and more importantly achieve liberation from suffering.

Truth be told Buddhists will have a more fruitful encounter discussing things with philosophers, not scientists.
Flower Ornament Depository (Blog)
Indrajāla's Contemplations (Blog)
Exploring Classical Chinese (Blog)
Dharma Depository (Site)

"Hui gives me no assistance. There is nothing that I say in which he does not delight." -Confucius
User avatar
Indrajala
 
Posts: 5972
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm
Location: Taiwan

Re: I thought Buddhism wasn't about threatening people with Hell

Postby hefalump » Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:04 pm

I'm not particularly interested in justifying Buddhadharma to materialist scientists unless we get to discuss things on equal terms. Buddhism isn't materialist science and works on totally different assumptions and methods to explore reality and more importantly achieve liberation from suffering.

Truth be told Buddhists will have a more fruitful encounter discussing things with philosophers, not scientists.
:quoteunquote:

I know sometimes science can come across as cold and materialistic. While I totally see your point about the scientific method, I really don't think that scientific and philosophical modes of thought are mutually exclusive. In fact, as a physicist who has an increasingly developed interest in Buddhism and applies it's principles in daily action and thought wherever possible, I have often thought how similar they are (though perhaps here I display my own ignorance of both ;) ). Science can develop like a flowering in the mind.

The development and application of quantum mechanical theory is very philosophical in nature and not based on the need for hard facts and firm end results. Ditto string theory. I feel that a discussion about the nature of the universe we inhabit can be fruitful between these perspectives. Sometimes they are not that different, science is as broad a term as religion.

:D :D
hefalump
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 1:07 pm

Re: I thought Buddhism wasn't about threatening people with Hell

Postby Indrajala » Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:17 pm

hefalump wrote:I know sometimes science can come across as cold and materialistic. While I totally see your point about the scientific method, I really don't think that scientific and philosophical modes of thought are mutually exclusive. In fact, as a physicist who has an increasingly developed interest in Buddhism and applies it's principles in daily action and thought wherever possible, I have often thought how similar they are (though perhaps here I display my own ignorance of both ;) ). Science can develop like a flowering in the mind.

The development and application of quantum mechanical theory is very philosophical in nature and not based on the need for hard facts and firm end results. Ditto string theory. I feel that a discussion about the nature of the universe we inhabit can be fruitful between these perspectives. Sometimes they are not that different, science is as broad a term as religion.

:D :D


One thing I've seen is that there is science itself and then the community of scientists. Some of the membership and most vocal leaders like Dawkins and his colleagues are extremely set in their ways and rather intolerant towards people who have differing views on things. I know they don't represent everyone of course.
Flower Ornament Depository (Blog)
Indrajāla's Contemplations (Blog)
Exploring Classical Chinese (Blog)
Dharma Depository (Site)

"Hui gives me no assistance. There is nothing that I say in which he does not delight." -Confucius
User avatar
Indrajala
 
Posts: 5972
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm
Location: Taiwan

Re: I thought Buddhism wasn't about threatening people with Hell

Postby hefalump » Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:01 pm

One thing I've seen is that there is science itself and then the community of scientists. Some of the membership and most vocal leaders like Dawkins and his colleagues are extremely set in their ways and rather intolerant towards people who have differing views on things. I know they don't represent everyone of course.


I know, it's quite a strange issue. Science as a discipline is inherently creative, yet the scientific community is often inherently aggressive, elevating those who shout the loudest (pretty much anyone who's ever been to a scientific conference can attest to this). You get the big names and their disciples, and the people who applaud them rather than get in their way and risk being ripped to shreds and so the big names get louder. They get more powerful and sometimes others are drawn to that power. This cycle is destructive to growth and I think we are starting to see the problems in this. The discipline has opened up in recent years to a broader range of practitioners and over time this should bring greater reflection and understanding. And hopefully a more peaceful atmosphere in which to create.

:D :D
hefalump
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 1:07 pm

Re: I thought Buddhism wasn't about threatening people with Hell

Postby Red Faced Buddha » Wed Oct 17, 2012 6:48 pm

Ikkyu wrote:
Look: I don't hate Buddhism. I think it is in some ways a very practical philosophy which has helped many people. 'Can't go wrong with compassion and wisdom, right? But the way I look at it, it is in some sense immoral to believe something without evidence, as the philosopher William Alston I believe suggested. This is because if we posit the existence of bodhisattvas, rebirth, karma, etc. without sufficient evidence what we are invariably doing is halting the search for truth in the universe. We are not opening ourselves to all possibilities. We are basically saying, "this is the way it is and that isn't," when clearly we don't know that with certainty. And if you can't be certain about something why believe it? (Or spend the rest of your sex-deprived life sleeping four hours a night and sitting still for eight hours a day a Zen monastery, for that matter. (c.f. "The Empty Mirror".)) Sure, you could say that we can't be certain that we will eat breakfast tomorrow or go to work on our morning shift, but it's very likely that this is the case. Can we make a similar statement about abstract metaphysical realities? I'm just saying that if Buddhists want to present Buddhism as a scientifically rigorous and rational religion they need to consider these things.


How is believing in things like rebirth,karma,etc halting the search for truth in the universe?I'll admit there's not much proof for some of those things,but that doesn't mean you have to throw those beliefs away just because they haven't been proven yet.
A person once asked me why I would want to stop rebirth. "It sounds pretty cool. Being able to come back. Who wouldn't want to be reborn."
I replied. "Wanting to be reborn is like wanting to stay in a jail cell, when you have the chance to go free and experience the whole wide world. Does a convict, on being freed from his shabby, constricting, little cell, suddenly say "I really want to go back to jail and be put in a cell. It sounds pretty cool. Being able to come back. Who wouldn't want that?"
Red Faced Buddha
 
Posts: 185
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 4:16 am
Location: The Middle of Nowhere

Re: I thought Buddhism wasn't about threatening people with Hell

Postby Son » Tue Oct 23, 2012 10:59 pm

hefalump wrote:
I'm not particularly interested in justifying Buddhadharma to materialist scientists unless we get to discuss things on equal terms. Buddhism isn't materialist science and works on totally different assumptions and methods to explore reality and more importantly achieve liberation from suffering.

Truth be told Buddhists will have a more fruitful encounter discussing things with philosophers, not scientists.
:quoteunquote:

I know sometimes science can come across as cold and materialistic. While I totally see your point about the scientific method, I really don't think that scientific and philosophical modes of thought are mutually exclusive. In fact, as a physicist who has an increasingly developed interest in Buddhism and applies it's principles in daily action and thought wherever possible, I have often thought how similar they are (though perhaps here I display my own ignorance of both ;) ). Science can develop like a flowering in the mind.

The development and application of quantum mechanical theory is very philosophical in nature and not based on the need for hard facts and firm end results. Ditto string theory. I feel that a discussion about the nature of the universe we inhabit can be fruitful between these perspectives. Sometimes they are not that different, science is as broad a term as religion.

:D :D



Oh, yes.
I once said that scientific thought and spiritual thought are two sides of a river, and philosophy is the bridge that connects them.
Put this way, it would seem that the truth of Buddhism is hidden in the deep of the river itself, subtle and difficult to perceive...
User avatar
Son
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 7:07 pm

Re: I thought Buddhism wasn't about threatening people with Hell

Postby lobster » Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:53 pm

thought this cartoon if not seen might be helpful :popcorn:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5Z_EoyO_F8&sns=em
User avatar
lobster
 
Posts: 952
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 9:06 pm

Re: I thought Buddhism wasn't about threatening people with Hell

Postby GarcherLancelot » Mon Nov 05, 2012 7:25 am

Ikkyu wrote:"If his passions and thoughts are in the proportion of nine to one, he will sink into the wheel of fire and be reborn where wind and fire meet. He will dwell in the intermittent hell if his passions are great, in the unintermittent one if they are very strong, and in the avici hell if he is completely dominated by extremely violent ones. If in addition he slanders the Mahayana, breaks the Buddhaís precepts, distorts the Dharma when preaching it to deceive his patrons for selfish gain or for fame, and commits the five rebellious acts and ten grave sins he will be reborn (in turn) in all the avici hells. Although the above are self-inflicted retributions resulting from individual evil deeds, all sinners endure the same kinds of suffering which originate from (the same) concurrent causes."

- Surangama Sutra

Josef wrote:
ClearblueSky wrote: But drinking alcohol, and that leading to a rebirth where you have acid poured on your face for a huge amount of years? I don't see the logic in that.

Neither do I.
I think they are parables, nothing more.
But then again, I don't really dig Sutra's.


Pretty specific conditions under which a person can be tortured. How much of these "holy texts" can we really take literally? And how do we know when to dismiss the content of sutras like this as historical, cultural or personal additions/innovations on part of the author? How do we know which parts are allegorical and which parts are literal? I guess we really DO have to cherry pick with Buddhist texts unless we want to believe in unconscionable irrationality.





"If his passions and thoughts are in the proportion of nine to one",what is the definition of thought in this context?.. .I think I read on at least one occasion,one's mental states just before he dies might influence his next rebirth?.. . :alien:
GarcherLancelot
 
Posts: 130
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:22 am

Re: I thought Buddhism wasn't about threatening people with Hell

Postby Johnny Dangerous » Tue Nov 06, 2012 2:19 am

I imagine there might be Asian Christians out there who come to America, see some of what passes for "Christianity" here, and feel about like the OP does about Buddhism. Not to state the obvious, but not all Buddhism is the same..if this is making you question whether it's for you..maybe there is more there making you question it than just this video?

Further, the religion of "most people" is not the religion of people who are more contemplative, devout, etc..so when you see a video like this, shouldn't one of the first questions you be whose Buddhism this is? Obviously a religion of 2500 years will have things we all find un palatable, where they fit is another question I guess.
"We're chained to the world and we all gotta pull" -Tom Waits
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2911
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA

I thought Buddhism wasn't about threatening people with Hell

Postby GrahamR » Tue Nov 06, 2012 6:27 am

Dear all

Here is a lovely Theravadan Thai Temple:

http://www.odditycentral.com/pics/wat-p ... earth.html

Graham
User avatar
GrahamR
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 1:29 am
Location: Thailand

Re: I thought Buddhism wasn't about threatening people with Hell

Postby Red Faced Buddha » Wed Nov 07, 2012 1:08 am

GrahamR wrote:Dear all

Here is a lovely Theravadan Thai Temple:

http://www.odditycentral.com/pics/wat-p ... earth.html

Graham


Wow...just...wow.... :shrug:
A person once asked me why I would want to stop rebirth. "It sounds pretty cool. Being able to come back. Who wouldn't want to be reborn."
I replied. "Wanting to be reborn is like wanting to stay in a jail cell, when you have the chance to go free and experience the whole wide world. Does a convict, on being freed from his shabby, constricting, little cell, suddenly say "I really want to go back to jail and be put in a cell. It sounds pretty cool. Being able to come back. Who wouldn't want that?"
Red Faced Buddha
 
Posts: 185
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 4:16 am
Location: The Middle of Nowhere

Re: I thought Buddhism wasn't about threatening people with Hell

Postby Johnny Dangerous » Wed Nov 07, 2012 8:02 am

Just got done reading The Broken Buddha by S. Dhammika.

http://www.buddhistische-gesellschaft-b ... dhanew.pdf

In it he talks at length about Theravedas obsession with the 'negative' aspects of practice, i.e. contemplation on corpses etc...it sounds like he is saying that in Theravedin countries the focus is almost exclusivity on the negative and dour, a ton of time spent thinking about corpses, very little on Metta etc.

I am not educated enough to know how much of it is true, or to be aware of counter arugments..but I wonder if it is at play when we look at these photos.
"We're chained to the world and we all gotta pull" -Tom Waits
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2911
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA

Re: I thought Buddhism wasn't about threatening people with Hell

Postby catmoon » Wed Nov 07, 2012 8:10 am

I read that a while ago. The only problem with it is, it doesn't look at any of the positives in Theraveda, and there are many. Try reading a little Ajahn Chah and you'll see what I mean.
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2995
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: I thought Buddhism wasn't about threatening people with Hell

Postby Johnny Dangerous » Wed Nov 07, 2012 8:22 am

catmoon wrote:I read that a while ago. The only problem with it is, it doesn't look at any of the positives in Theraveda, and there are many. Try reading a little Ajahn Chah and you'll see what I mean.


If i'm remembering right actually mentions Ajan Chah and a number of other well known people in Theraveda in some detail, and praises them. His claim is that these people stand out especially because the larger culture is so ineffectual, obsessed with minutiae and negatives, etc.

Like I said I don't know enough to form an opinion really, but IF what he is saying is true, it stands to explain stuff like the photos a bit..maybe.

I guess it just struck me as having some real parallels to how Christianity often functions in the US, turning into the opposite of what it purports to be in some cases.
"We're chained to the world and we all gotta pull" -Tom Waits
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2911
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA

PreviousNext

Return to Exploring Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Adamantine, Dan74 and 14 guests

>