Do you really know about buddhism?

“Buddhist is not all kindness as there were terrorist buddhists monks in Myanmar are violent, there is at least one buddhist sect that strongly opposes the Dalai Lama and Pol Pot as well as those under him where Buddhist and Pol Pot carried out genocide.” “Well, when some dude’s philosophy gets turned into religion, it’s got potential to go south, no matter how sensible the original philosophy may be. It’s easy to twist thinking.” – Challenger  Ok, do you mean in about 483 B.C.with The First Buddhist Council on or before that? “According to the scriptures of all Buddhist schools, the first Buddhist Council was held soon after the death of the Buddha, dated by the majority of recent scholars around 400 BCE,[1] under the patronage of king Ajatashatru with the monk Mahakasyapa presiding, at Sattapanni caves Rajgriha (now Rajgir). Its objective was to preserve the Buddha’s sayings (suttas) and the monastic discipline or rules (Vinaya). The Suttas were recited by Ananda, and the Vinaya was recited by Upali. According to some sources, the Abhidhamma Pitaka, or its matika, was also included. Also the Sangha made the unanimous decision to keep all the rules of the Vinaya, even the lesser and minor rules.” Ref “By the time of the Fourth Buddhist councils, Buddhism had long since splintered into different schools. The Theravada had a Fourth Buddhist Council in the first century BCE in Tambapanni, i.e. Sri Lanka, at Aloka Lena now Alu Vihara during the time of King Vattagamani-Abaya. However it should be clarified that an anonymous local chieftain had given patronage and not the king, since he was a firm follower of the...

No Golden Rule: it’s bronze at best

“Damien, since you are concerned with values, would you find yourself in agreement with “treating others as you would want to be treated” as the core relational belief?” – Questioner   My response, to me true morality is not starting with an us or me focused morality as morality is a social interaction exchange thus it must be other focused. “treating others as they should be treated” To me I see everyone as owning themselves all equal in this right as humans. Moreover, to me morality is behavioral and a social property, there is no immoral thing one can do to themselves as one cannot violate themselves or their own consent as they choose their own actions. Thus, to me all morality is about others and our interactions with them and them with us. So, morality arises in a social context context with all things not that all things have the same moral weight. Therefore, moral relationships with life outside humans has a different moral weight or value.Such as killing 100 humans is not the same as killing 100 dogs, killing 100 fish, killing 100 flies, etc. Of course, the method of killing used should inflict the least amount of suffering to the animal or plant. And to not do that could make it immoral. Such as torturing them to death is immoral even if the killing was not.  True Morality Not the Golden Rule   Self-ownership: Abortion, Genital Mutilation, Prostitution, Drugs, and the Right to...

“The claim of hell is ridiculous and immoral, not just false.”

“The claim of hell is ridiculous and immoral, not just false.”   “Damien, don’t you ever punish a son of he doesn’t obey. Don’t you punish a pupil if he misbehaved. Doesn’t the law punish criminals if they break it. It’s a done deal , buddy.” – Challenger   My responce, equivocation as in a child is also your direct responsibility an there is nothing you should put your child to death for the non crime of not believing in a parent’s love nor rejecting the parent either and to do so would be ridiculous and immoral. Whereas it is claimed a god will put you in hell (kill you forever) for the non crime of not believing in or rejecting the god would be ridiculous and immoral.   Preposterous Idea of a Deity that Would Create...

All Kindness and Compassion Deserves Praise

Religious people are funny, they love to say that their religion is the reason they are good then wish to tell me that some great religious leader should be acknowledged is special because they are nice. Yea, all people who are kind are doing a good thing but why should we single out someone simply do to them also being religious? I thought it was your religion anyway so in the attribution of kind actions they are not somehow more special. Not to mention this undue imbalance of kindness acknowledgment; you would not justifiably be able to say that, me as an anti-religious leader should we single out and be disvalued in my earned acknowledgment for my kindness done, right? If so then the same goes the other way that one being a religious leader should not be acknowledged as special compared to all other people because they are kind. Therefore, I think it is clear all acts of kindness like those doing them are relatively equal, so all kindness and compassion deserves praise regardless the religious or antireligious thinking they may also...