Philosophy Now Forum

Tom. Can I recommend Ode to a Nightingale?
Also, can I join with Artistic Solution in wishing you many more years of spirited argumentative life?
All best. Jax

Bartleby says:" I would prefer not to."

reasonemotion wrote:
any other suggestions?

Chaz Wyman wrote:
Yeah. If you care about other people then don't be a Buddhist.



Perhaps CW, this is more to your liking......

“No sight so sad as that of a naughty child," he began, "especially a naughty little girl. Do you know where the wicked go after death?"

"They go to hell,".

"And what is hell? Can you tell me that?"

"A pit full of fire."

"And should you like to fall into that pit, and to be burning there for ever?"

"No, sir."

"What must you do to avoid it?"

"I must keep in good health and not die.”

Where is that from?

As for Buddhists...
Daddy why was I only born with no legs?
That is because in previous life you were an evil little fucker.
What can I do to get them back?
Feel ashamed and abase yourself before those who have two arms. Now shut up and keep the table-top steady.

That extract was from Jane Eyre.... my apologies I should have included that.

Regarding the remainder of your post, "Daddy why was I born with.... blah blah blah." A weak response and totally forgettable. You can do better than that.

Well forgive me if my response is not as good and Charlotte Bronte, but at least I do not quote other authors without citing them.

Maybe you have something worthy to say other than cheap shots at people who do?

As for Buddhists...
Daddy why was I only born with no legs?
That is because in previous life you were an evil little fucker.
What can I do to get them back?
Feel ashamed and abase yourself before those who have two arms. Now shut up and keep the table-top steady.

CW you seem to discount your own vitriolic attacks on others.

You are right, it is unworthy of me to respond in this manner. I stand corrected.

Your attack on Christian ideology was, also an attack, but a subtle proxy attack. Does that really give you the moral high ground.
My attack was not personal. It was a reflection on an entire ideology, which travel in the east has demonstrated to me can offer many disabled people a very desolate life indeed.

Look at the untold suffering that man has caused himself by continually fighting terrible wars in which millions have been slaughtered and maimed! Martin Luther called war "the greatest scourge that can afflict humanity.

Far too many of Man's inventions, such as weapons of war, too-rapid transportation, towering skyscrapers, pesticides, lethal chemicals, drugs etc., are death-dealing and destructive and cause all sorts of suffering.

Today there are THREE-AND-A-HALF MILLION SQUARE MILES of desert in the Northern part of Africa because men have disturbed the ecological balance of nature. As a result, untold numbers of people are dying of starvation there every day and there is a huge surplus of food in other parts of the World--MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS OF TONS A YEAR- no one needs to go hungry! But while the Western World spends hundreds of millions of dollars on storing or destroying these surpluses and on exercise and diet programmes to lose weight, and pay farmers NOT to grow crops, the poor nations of the World starve!

I understand how you feel and felt when you witnessed the extreme dire circumstances people have to endure, I was affected that way when I visited India, but to me the fault of their suffering and others like them in the world is man's fault and man's alone and we should not dismiss man's role in this ever increasing tragedy.

My understanding would be, not to trust my fellow man and seek solace somewhere else other than my place of misery. Everybody needs something to cling to and this need not necessarily be a religion.

I said I stand corrected and I meant that. Let me say, you also should temper your pride and sometimes dictatorial attitude. Constructive criticism.

PS. I've never been to India, but Bangkok with its conspicuous luxury - nay - opulence- alongside the tragedy of what can only be described as 'scraps of life' made quite a shocking juxtaposition.

Brad Pit is not available for discussion but he would probably remember the film "Seven years in Tibet" in which Buddhists were carrying earthworms away when they prepared the ground for the construction of a cinema. Because the earthworms should not have been hurt.

Buddhist monks in Burma went to the streets and risked their lives for the sake of the country´s future, so that other people could (perhaps) live in a more free and democratic country.

They were not saving the worms for the worms own good, but to avoid themselves acquiring bad karma for killing.
The privileged position of the priest in such societies provides them the luxury of being able to avoid bad karma - this is a luxury that ordinary lower caste people do not have, and have to till the soil for their lives and to provide the parasitic priests with free food.

As for the priests in Burma they were participating in a power struggle with the military not for democracy but to recover power over the people that the priesthood had lost the the Junta.

This may apply to Tibetan Lamaism but not sure it can be applied to the Burmese Buddhists as they were killed for protesting in the pro-democracy movements and I think they did not have the kind of power structure you describe. Anyone can become a monk there , just as any monk can leave and return to civil life. They pretty much grow there own veg, do not demand stipends and depend upon alms or begging to help fill their bowl.

Yes, they are beggars as they are in most countries. The ideological pressure to feed them often means that the poor go hungry whilst the priesthood never does.