Buddhism By The Numbers
March 15, 2008 2:08 PM   Subscribe

This post was deleted for the following reason: this is not a good post for metafilter. either it is some sort of stunt in which case your irony is too arcane, or it's just linking to the tenets of a religion in which case, why is it good for metafitler? -- jessamyn



 
I've liked everything I've read by Thich Nhat Hanh. From the first link:

Do not be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. Buddhist systems of thought are guiding means; they are not absolute truth.

Word.
posted by lumensimus at 2:41 PM on March 15, 2008


I mean, obviously that wasn't created in a vacuum, but still nice to see that right out in front.
posted by lumensimus at 2:42 PM on March 15, 2008


I'm buddhist and I don't think this is a good post. It's like a Christian linking to the ten commandments. It's just tenets of a religion, not really "the best of the web."
posted by desjardins at 3:00 PM on March 15, 2008 [1 favorite]


I like a system of thought that has the clarity to tell you that if it doesn't make sense to you, don't believe it. Faith is a crutch.
posted by mullingitover at 3:02 PM on March 15, 2008


Do not be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. Buddhist systems of thought are guiding means; they are not absolute truth.

Things like this is why Buddhism is the only religion I don't think is complete bullshit. By contrast, I saw a discussion on a Christian forum recently where a guy said that the King James Bible is the original text of the word of God and God himself speaks English. Everyone agreed until someone mentioned "um, Hebrew? Greek?", and he was shouted down because he had no "scriptural basis" for the fact that the KJV is a rather poor translation. That's kind of like saying "the owner's manual for a 1974 AMC Rambler says that the human body is composed entirely of milk chocolate and creamy nougat", then when someone disagrees, replying "Oh yeah? Show me where it says it isn't!"
posted by DecemberBoy at 3:10 PM on March 15, 2008 [3 favorites]


If I understand what you're saying, and I think I do, these "Christians" sound delicious.
posted by dosterm at 3:19 PM on March 15, 2008 [2 favorites]


4 8 15 16 23 42
posted by ZachsMind at 3:21 PM on March 15, 2008 [1 favorite]


I'm buddhist and I don't think this is a good post. It's like a Christian linking to the ten commandments. It's just tenets of a religion, not really "the best of the web."

I'm not a buddhist but I am fan of buddhist philosophy and I agree.

It's also flamebait.
posted by tkolar at 3:31 PM on March 15, 2008


"Everyman for himself"
posted by hal9k at 3:37 PM on March 15, 2008


As far as the Five Moral Precepts goes...well, this is specifically labeled as a Zen thing. I like Buddhist sites, but this is kind of a mash-up of a post. There are many types of Buddhism. The Dalai Lama, for example, enjoys a nice juicy steak for dinner.
posted by kozad at 3:40 PM on March 15, 2008


Agreed DecemberBoy. The attraction of Buddhism for many is the very admission of fallibility. Conversely, try explaining to Christians that a cornerstone of their mythology is constructed on the mistranslation of the Hebrew word for young woman into the Greek word for virgin, when in the Septuagint, "almah" was translated as "parthenos; and see where it gets you.

As with most long-lasting moral constructs, including Christianity, there is enormous value in the philosophy of Buddhism, but the attraction is significantly diminished when it then veers into unfounded speculation and superstitious fable.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 3:42 PM on March 15, 2008 [1 favorite]


P_B: The attraction of Buddhism for many is the very admission of fallibility.

You realize that this is just as much a generalization as your callous statement regarding the "Christian response" to your enlightened deconstruction of their mythology, right?
posted by Baby_Balrog at 3:57 PM on March 15, 2008


So if what I'm reading is correct, the Beastie Boys have a new album out?
posted by sleepy pete at 4:03 PM on March 15, 2008


PareidoliaticBoy, there are dogmatic Buddhists just as there are dogmatic Christians (or Jews or Muslims or whatever). Just hang out at e-sangha forums for awhile and you're bound to see a flamewar about some Tibetan text or Pali translation. There are also groups that are banned from posting because they are considered to be spreading false dharma. It's not my place to say what is real Buddhism and what isn't, but saying that Buddhists are less dogmatic than members of other religions is unfortunately inaccurate.
posted by desjardins at 4:08 PM on March 15, 2008 [2 favorites]


any group of people is the same. a few of them get it right, but most of them have no idea what they're talking about.
posted by mr_book at 4:13 PM on March 15, 2008 [1 favorite]


In the "by the numbers" theme:

The Twelve Nidanas, aka the Twelvefold Chain of Causation

Ten Defilements (aka poisons) of the Abhidhamma.

The above is the Twofold Addendums Off the Top Of My Head.
posted by Drastic at 4:21 PM on March 15, 2008


Well I'm not well-versed in Buddhism, but my limited understanding of it had led me to believe that perhaps it was less dogmatic than other superstitions, and this post seemed to confirm that apparently erroneous belief. I guess I stand corrected then. Carry on.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 4:22 PM on March 15, 2008


It's a good rule of thumb that for any religion to be less dogmatic than any other, it'd need to be composed of a different kind of people. And for better and worse, there's only the one kind around.
posted by Drastic at 4:25 PM on March 15, 2008


Buddhist monks in debate.

"You look like a gummy bear!"
posted by desjardins at 4:29 PM on March 15, 2008


« Older Plagiarize a Presidential Candidate   |   "Just go to Gooniizu. I love Gooniizu." Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments