Buddhism split from Actively Looking for God?

[jadeus]

Wrong. (http://www.enabling.org/ia/vipassana/Archive/D/DeSilva/WomenInBuddhism/womenInBuddhismSwarnaDeSilva.html)

No! believe me they did say that. My grandmother came from Japan and was one of the first Buddhists in America. I have access to some great texts. But I'm not going to say that the Christains were about equal rights for women either. By 1250, Buddhists changed the theory that enlightenment was for men. (they said women could be reborn as a man to achieve enlightenment before that). Believe it or not, it is Islam that first gave women rights back in 630ad-ish. Yet, women have rights in America that they haven't seen in a long time. And I consider us christain based.


Communism was an ideological development of Christian Europe, and did not arise from Buddhism.

I'm talking about China were all of thier history was based. However, look at the Gaza. Maybe not the best argument.

[You mean the Greek ideal of democracy.

see my previous post

[jadeus]

Jadeus...

Your response is both inconsistent and incorrect. Why you seem so bothered by people pointing out where you are factually wrong is beyond me, but if you wish to be taken seriously on this board and in these debates, a certain amount of intelligent study is a must.

However, let us take your post one point at a time.

You originally made the assertion,

As has been pointed by two different posters, you are wrong about this.

Try this link (http://www.enabling.org/ia/vipassana/Archive/D/DeSilva/WomenInBuddhism/womenInBuddhismSwarnaDeSilva.html) and this one. (http://www.hundredmountain.com/Pages/readingroom_pages/buddhistwomen_winter01.html)

(from the last link).

Your response to this,

is bogus. You can refuse to admit that you are wrong, and continue to embarrass yourself in the process; or you can learn something about Buddhism. I did look it up; you are wrong.

You may have had inexperienced teachers in your youth, but this does not excuse your ignorance of Buddhist doctrine when your claim is so easily refuted by a 3-second internet search.

I'm just bothered that you negate my arguments by finding some minor detail I missed. It's so frustrating that you don't think I know my Buddhist facts. I am a direct decendent from a Buddhist scolar and these minor detail bore me. But if you insist I go to your level, I found this. You could look it up but it would require you to find a text from T'ien-t'ia. Good luck!! I doubt you will find this on the internet.

"The Great Teacher (T'ien-t'ai) Chihiche was present and heard him preach. 'Durring my fifty years of teacihng,' said the Buddha, " I have preached various sacred doctrines, all in order to bring benefit to living beings. In the sutras of the first forty-two years, I taught that it was not possible for women to attain Buddhahood. But now with the Lotus Sutra, I declare that women can become Buddhas."

Many sects followed the previous sutras (Buddha Amida). There was an issue in Japan about the fact women could not enter a temple while menstrating, so how could they trancend this life condition.

Dude!! I didnt just make this up. I dont trust whatever I read on the Internet and I did not even waste my time.

I do understand however, that Christians were as sexist as them.


Next, you claimed,

Buddhism was [i]developed in India, near the Ganges. It underwent further extension and modification in other countries (including the US), but it
developed in India. Buddhism didn't reach China for five hundred years, see here. (http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/chin_timeline.htm)

Your response to my point, changes nothing except an attempt to squirm out of your error.

Once again, any misconceptions you might have formed while young can be easily dispelled by the internet. And we note that India is NOT a totalitarian country where dissent is crushed. Not. Sorry.

I have studied Buddhism. Apparently you haven't.

Again....so what? It went from Pataliputra, to Kashgar, to Kucha, to Tun-huang, to Lo-yang. From there it spred to present day Korea and Japan. From Japan to USA via MY GRANDMOTHER!!!!!!! Ohh- dont recgnize those city names? Most are gone but you should look them up in the inernet (may take you more then 3 mins though). Then you can figure out what present day county they are in. My reference to China is specific to today's political situation (they want to nuke us) and that human rights are at an all time low there. Oh wait...that has always been bad there. I hope they have an Enlightenment as Western culture did. I don't remember hearing anything about a bill of rights in India either and I'm not sure that the situation with Pakistan make that a great place to raise kids right now either.


Next you claimed,

First, as has been pointed out, democracy is NOT a Christian ideal. If you believe it is, then cite verse and scripture from the Bible indicating so. Christ says nothing about democracy. It has been pointed out to you that democracy is a Greek invention; a pagan invention.

Second, we didn't give Japan this "Christian ideal", we gave them, by force a constitution which included that. Hardly a gift; more of an imposed mandate.

Third, what have they done with it? That constitution is still in force, so far as I know - gee, and in a non-Christian country, too. How amazing that non-Christians could be democratic (and kind, and ethical etc.)

Your response to this point,

is also mostly nonsense. The fundamental idea of America didn't apparently include women or blacks in their concept of democracy now did it?

Your comments about the 'enlightenment' and the 'Feudal systems overthrow' are non-sequiturs. And since the 'Enlightenment' didn't have anything to do with 'Democracy' it scarcely matters, now does it?

OK....the Enlightenment made the Monarchs do some reforming and eventualy lead to the Great Democracy of America. Enlightenment had nothing to do with Democracy? HAHAHAHAHAHA.

I dont care how it was 50 years ago. WOMEN AND BLACKS CAN VOTE IN AMERICA!! (thankyou for voting Republican btw)

from here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Enlightenment)

Fourth, Japan and China both possessed feudal societies which were overthrown by non-Christian internal forces; so once again, you are in error.


You didn't respond to my last point: "America is, in some respects freer, and in some respects less free than other countries." so we won't address that.

Now, let's take the other... aspects of your post:

A pity.

AMERICA IS GREAT! Why is that so hard for you to see? If you like these other cultures so much, then go to them (if they will accept you) I'm not going to have a fact food fight with you.

[RGD]

Ok Loser..I'm just bothered that you negate my arguments by finding some minor detail I missed.

If it were only minor details that you missed, then I might be forgiving. But your errors are major, significant, and easily corrected. You just don't bother to correct, or even admit that you were in the wrong. This does not indicate that you wish to keep your mind open to learning.

It's so frustrating that you don't think I know my Buddhist facts. I am a direct decendent from a Buddhist scolar and these minor detail bore me.

I am a Buddhist (this week, anyway), and if you consider a question of whether 50 percent of the human race is excluded from enlightenment to be a 'minor detail', then you clearly have no idea of what 'minor detail' means.

But if you insist I go to your level, I found this. You could look it up but it would require you to find a text from T'ien-t'ia. Good luck!! I doubt you will find this on the internet.

Ah, what a pity. The correct spelling is, of course, T'ien T'ai and it's right here (http://www.tientai.net/Teachings.htm) on the internet. 2 second search.

Really, you might try the internet; it's a very useful tool.

Many sects followed the previous sutras (Buddha Amida). There was an issue in Japan about the fact women could not enter a temple while menstrating, so how could they trancend this life condition.

Where you are going wrong is that you presume that the various practises of Buddhism in Japan represent what the Buddha actually said. I agree that Japan is a sexist country, with many traditions of repression of women. But to presume that the Buddha said those things is simply... wrong.

Dude!! I didnt just make this up. I dont trust whatever I read on the Internet and I did not even waste my time.

In other words, you didn't even bother to double-check your references, nor to realize that Buddhism is a great deal more than the few, erroneous details that you remember from your childhood.

I do understand however, that Christians were as sexist as them.

So far as I can tell, no society in history has ever been non-sexist, though some were better than others, obviously.

Again....so what? It went from Pataliputra, to Kashgar, to Kucha, to Tun-huang, to Lo-yang. From there it spred to present day Korea and Japan. From Japan to USA via MY GRANDMOTHER!!!!!!! Ohh- dont recgnize those city names? Most are gone but you should look them up in the inernet (may take you more then 3 mins though). Then you can figure out what present day county they are in. My reference to China is specific to today's political situation (they want to nuke us) and that human rights are at an all time low there. Oh wait...that has always been bad there. I hope they have an Enlightenment as Western culture did. I don't remember hearing anything about a bill of rights in India either and I'm not sure that the situation with Pakistan make that a great place to raise kids right now either.

All this is irrelevant to your original point. You stated that Buddhism developed in a country which is now a totalitarian communist state. In fact, what you've just said makes you more wrong; if you believe that Buddhism developed in all these places, then it clearly did not develop in a single, now communist state. Your original claim was factually incorrect.

I might also note that Buddhism did not come to America via your grandmother:

As in Europe, scholars in America became acquainted with a number of Buddhist ideas in the nineteenth century. Some of the oldest universities in America had departments of oriental studies where scholars studied Buddhist texts.

During the second half of the nineteenth century, Chinese immigrants settled in Hawaii and California. These immigrants brought a number of Mahayana Buddhist practices with them and built numerous temples. The Japanese Buddhist immigrant who arrived later, not only built temples but also invited over to America, the Japanese monks who belonged to the various Mahayana Buddhist sects. However, Buddhist activities remained largely confined to these immigrant communities.

from here. (http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhistworld/to-west.htm)

OK....the Enlightenment made the Monarchs do some reforming and eventualy lead to the Great Democracy of America. Enlightenment had nothing to do with Democracy? HAHAHAHAHAHA.

But that's NOT what you said. Don't you even read your own posts?

I dont care how it was 50 years ago. WOMEN AND BLACKS CAN VOTE IN AMERICA!! (thankyou for voting Republican btw)

This does not appear to be relevant to any point you made in response to my posts; I can only presume that you meant it for someone else.

AMERICA IS GREAT! Why is that so hard for you to see?

Since I said nothing to counter this concept, and indeed, I like America very much (despite it's somewhat juvenile culture), I fail to see what you're shouting about.

If you like these other cultures so much, then go to them (if they will accept you) I'm not going to have a fact food fight with you.

In order to have a food fight, you need to have food. Your side of the table is looking conspicuously empty.... (sorry Graymouser - won't happen again.)

[jadeus]

Ah, what a pity. The correct spelling is, of course, T'ien T'ai and it's right here (http://www.tientai.net/Teachings.htm) on the internet. 2 second search.

The T'ien-T'ia (here we go with the spelling again) I quoted was what he heard from the Buhhda himself (re-read what I said) and there ws a big deal about how women cannot escape the cycle of birth and death becuase they menstrated. IT IS A FACT! Your libralized Buddhist writing will not tell you that.

Really, you might try the internet; it's a very useful tool.

Umm what is this thing I'm on here? A computer?

All this is irrelevant to your original point. You stated that Buddhism developed in a country which is now a totalitarian communist state. In fact, what you've just said makes you more wrong; if you believe that Buddhism developed in all these places, then it clearly did not develop in a single, now communist state. Your original claim was factually incorrect.

Yeah..it only stayed in China for like 1000 years under Fu Hsi, Shen Nung, and Huang ti.....and they built temples all over. Dengyo and T'ien-t;ai and all of that studying at Mount Ta-su (in China)...yeah, I'm wrong and your right. China had nothing to do with Buddhism. :confused: My point was that none of that part of the world is talking about human rights.

I might also note that Buddhism did not come to America via your grandmother:

She was the 5the member of the Nichren Sect.

order to have a food fight, you need to have food. Your side of the table is looking conspicuously empty.... (sorry Graymouser - won't happen again.)

You not very Buddhist at all if you ask me.

[RGD]

My point was that none of that part of the world is talking about human rights.

jadeus, we cannot read your mind, only your posts. You said Buddhism developed in a country which is now a totalitarian communist state.

this was factually wrong. If you now wish to claim that you meant something else, then you are changing the goalposts and expecting us to read your mind - or simply refusing to admit that you were wrong.

In any event, Buddhism developed in India, what is now the worlds' largest democracy. Certainly it had a developmental period in China, but your remark is like claiming that Christianity developed in France, because it has been there for over a thousand years.

[show_no_mercy]

Now that I think about it, your reference to how Buddhism relates to Communism is awkward -- especially since Buddhism fell out of favor for Confusionism up until the Communist Revolution in China -- and even then, Confusionism (all ideologies that take power away from the state, actually) which centers on family and filial piety was seen as the enemy of The State.

I'm not 100% sure of the historicity of this, but the ideals for Communism come from Karl Marx, who was German. Communism is a foreign idea as far as the Chinese context is concerned. I'm not sure how you thought you could try to connect Communism to Buddhism, but it seems as though it is terribly flawed. :down:

[RGD]

I might also note that Buddhism did not come to America via your grandmother

She was the 5the member of the Nichren Sect.

Congratulations. That's very commendable. However, it does not change the fact that From Japan to USA via MY GRANDMOTHER!!!!!!!

is, like most of your statements, factually wrong. Buddhism came to America earlier than the various Japanese sects.

In addition, I suspect you need a little clarification there: Nichiren died in 1282; your grandmother could not have been a member of the original Nichiren sect; do you mean she was a member of the Nichiren Shu, the Nichiren Shoshu, or the Soka Gakkai movement?

[jadeus]

But theories are explanations of facts, and if the facts are not correct then the theories are garbage. You must begin with accurate facts before you can move on to interesting theories.

So far, you have presented neither accurate facts nor any interesting theories, so I'm puzzled about what you actually wish to discuss - if anything.

You talk but you don't listen do you? Just quotes from the Sutras, dictionary definitions, facts from prehistory to modern times. I've only had four years of calculus and was a physics buff. And yeah, I was raised a Buddhist and know MORE THEN YOU about it. Actually, I know least about Christianity then anything. Nothing I have said has been inaccurate unless taken out of context (your ignorance). I'm very good at this and based on the fact you have all come down to assaulting my character, I am going to claim my victory.

[RGD]

You talk but you don't listen do you?

If I wasn't listening, then I wouldn't be responding to your posts, would I? Do be logical.

Just quotes from the Sutras, dictionary definitions, facts from prehistory to modern times.

Yes, some of those things have been brought up. You've been wrong every time.

I've only had four years of calculus and was a physics buff.

Neither of which has anything to do with the topics you're having trouble discussing.

And yeah, I was raised a Buddhist and know MORE THEN YOU about it.

So far, you've been wrong about most everything you've said. That doesn't appear to make it likely that you know more than I do about the subject.

Actually, I know least about Christianity then anything.

That's quite possible.

Nothing I have said has been inaccurate unless taken out of context (your ignorance).

Sigh. Several people have pointed out that most everything you've posted has been inaccurate - about Buddhism, history, science, etc.

I'm very good at this and based on the fact you have all come down to assaulting my character, I am going to claim my victory.

ROTFLMAO.

So far, no one has assaulted your character; only your lack of knowledge. If you truly wish to claim victory on the basis of something which has not happened, then... well, I feel very, very sorry for you.

[jadeus]

In addition, I suspect you need a little clarification there: Nichiren died in 1282; your grandmother could not have been a member of the original Nichiren sect; do you mean she was a member of the Nichiren Shu, the Nichiren Shoshu, or the Soka Gakkai movement?

Yeah...you got it SGI. Mr. Williams was the first and was close family friend. I take most of my Buddhist fact from original Nichren writng (I love him!) and I'm very sceptical of the SGI since thier breakup with the priest hood.

My poor family is worse then you people about all of this. We just don't talk about it anymore. My belief in God freaked them out big time. I'm sorry..I can't help it. I belive in God and I cannot stop. I didn't do this on purpose. I came to this through reason and not faith. It's very strange and I have yet to lead anyone through the same reasoning. It's no wonder you can't understand me. But I know my facts....almost too well.

[lpetrich]

I take most of my Buddhist fact from original Nichren writng (I love him!) and I'm very sceptical of the SGI since thier breakup with the priest hood.Using Nichiren's writings as a primary source on Buddhism is almost too absurd to be taken seriously -- like using Mary Baker Eddy's writings as a primary source on Xtianity.

...the ultimate ancestor about 4 billion years ago.Was it Carl Woese who referred to that as the "Common Progenote" which gave rise to the Eukaryota, the Archaea and the Bacteria?Yes, that's his term, though there was likely some evolution before that common ancestor. Like a RNA-world organism inventing DNA and proteins.
I believe so, but I don't think there's a good consensus on the subject.I'm not sure what RGD means here.

But this is more properly E/C material.

[RGD]

Yeah...you got it SGI. Mr. Williams was the first and was close family friend. I take most of my Buddhist fact from original Nichren writng (I love him!) and I'm very sceptical of the SGI since thier breakup with the priest hood.

My poor family is worse then you people about all of this. We just don't talk about it anymore. My belief in God freaked them out big time. I'm sorry..I can't help it. I belive in God and I cannot stop. I didn't do this on purpose. I came to this through reason and not faith. It's very strange and I have yet to lead anyone through the same reasoning. It's no wonder you can't understand me. But I know my facts....almost too well.

Well, I'm sorry you have this problem with your family; religious differences should not divide people in that fashion.

But as for your latter claim.... Grow up, please, and try to open your mind to learning. It will help.

[jadeus]

You've been wrong every time.

Neither of which has anything to do with the topics you're having trouble discussing.

So far, you've been wrong about most everything you've said. That doesn't appear to make it likely that you know more than I do about the subject.


[QUOTE=RGD]Sigh. Several people have pointed out that most everything you've posted has been inaccurate - about Buddhism, history, science, etc.

I feel like a child but "I know you are but what am I". I mean..wait..they were wrong and I've backed up everything I said. The Ideas of linking Buddhism to China was a gerneralization. More specificly, the exact route of the Buddha or Buddhist texts could be of some benifit. Maybe if you understood the generalization in the first place I wouldn't have to walk you through it so meticulusly. I have proven several people wrong about Luther and Di Vinci in the context of the Enlightenment (which is another general idea about a period of time- which I had to hold your hand through) Look at your posts..You this and you that (you being me -shall I walk you through that too). I back myself up and then you change the subject.

You've been wrong every time.

Neither of which has anything to do with the topics you're having trouble discussing.

You think that if I had the same facts as you I would come to the same opinions. This is just not true and I think we are both talking about the same facts but have a different opinion. I'm sorry for pointing out to you the sexist roots of Buddhism. If it makes you feel better it is not a current belief anymore and that doesnt mean you shouldn't practice it. I'm not a women and I'm not very sensitive to these things sometimes. I think it sucks personally. One of my original points was that religion lead us to overcome our vestigial animal instics of week over the strong. This has happened in all cultures. I think this is what makes you angry.

[jadeus]

I feel like a child but "I know you are but what am I". I mean..wait..they were wrong and I've backed up everything I said. The Ideas of linking Buddhism to China was a generalization. More specifically, the exact route of the Buddha or Buddhist texts could be of some benefit. Maybe if you understood the generalization in the first place I wouldn't have to walk you through it so meticulously. I have proven several people wrong about Luther and Di Vinci in the context of the Enlightenment (which is another general idea about a period of time- which I had to hold your hand through) Look at your posts..You this and you that (you being me -shall I walk you through that too). I back myself up and then you change the subject.



You think that if I had the same facts as you I would come to the same opinions. This is just not true and I think we are both talking about the same facts but have a different opinions. I'm sorry for pointing out to you the sexist roots of Buddhism. If it makes you feel better it is not a current belief anymore and that doesn’t mean you shouldn't practice it. I'm not a women and I'm not very sensitive to these things sometimes. I think it sucks personally. One of my original points was that religion leads us to overcome our vestigial animal instincts of strong over the week. This has happened in all cultures. I think this is what makes you angry.
Too many errors for such a critical audience. I had to correct my spelling.

[jadeus]

But as for your latter claim.... Grow up, please, and try to open your mind to learning. It will help.

To learn what? Erase the fact that I have found the Buddha said women can't achieve enlightenment? Or should I accept the fact the Chinese culture had no effect on Buddhism? Or Luther had nothing to do with the Enlightenment? All are wrong..sorry. It's not like I'm saying a square has three sides or anything. Would you like me to believe that too?

[graymouser]

Split from this thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=111290) as a derail. And off to NAR&P.

-Wayne

[Magic Primate]

I've done some research on Japanese Buddhism and can confirm that women were largely excluded from the esoteric (Shingon and Tendai) sects and given an inferior status in almost all of the others. Women were barred from entering the most holy Esoteric sites although there are stories of women who practiced in spite of this. A story in the Lotus Sutra about the Dragon (Naga) Princess is used to justify the idea that women must transform into men before they can attain enlightenment. The most 'progressive' in that sense were the Zen sects, which even(!) allowed them to be ordained as priests.

Great sexual inequality in Japan has been and is, however, the norm, as it has been to a lesser extent in the rest of the Far East.

The inequality is less severe in most of the schools of the Asian mainland, but generally nuns have to abide by a greater number of precepts than monks. Even Gautama Buddha apparently took some convincing (from Ananda I think, they lacked the capacity to understand and practice the teachings of non-attachment to self, he said apparently) to allow women into the sangha, but he did allow them. There are other places in the sutras which argue that enlightenment is for all sentient beings.

BTW: Although it would be hard to argue that SGI were not Buddhists, their teachings differ greatly from traditional and mainstream schools. They are really a (highly intolerant) cult within Buddhism.

[Alf]

AMERICA IS GREAT! Why is that so hard for you to see? If you like these other cultures so much, then go to them (if they will accept you) I'm not going to have a fact food fight with you.

It is true that it is a general consensus among most americans that america is the greatest or at least among the greatest countries in the world.

However, looking at it from outside as someone who wasn't born there and isn't living there but has been there and know a bit of what is going on both in US as well as in other countries - I have also spent some 3 years of my life living and working in Taiwan but apart from those 3 years and about a year in the US I have spent most of my life in Norway where I am born. I think I have a fairly different view.

Yes, US is great for some parts but there are many things that is questionable about the US. For one thing it isn't as democratic as most americans thinks. They believe US is the best democracy in the world, and that is bluntly speaking open for debate.

The recent vote prohibiting gay marriage is an example of a tendency where a majority disrespects a minority - something that is unthinkable in "true" democracies. A very important principle in a democracy is the respect for the minority just because 51 percent of the population thinks that the other 49 percent can be slaves it doesn't mean you can do that. Similarly, just a simple minority vote cannot dictate arbitary decisions and step on the minorities rights but in US they do and so US isn't a "true democracy".

The fact that it is perfectly possible to have a situation where a minority gets to elect the president simply because the vote was a small win for the president in a big state and a huge loss in a smaller state - so less number of votes but greater number of electorates who vote who is the president also shows that US isn't as democratic as they think it is.

In the US you have a high number of homeless and other people who fall outside of the society. The welfare you have to take care of these people is minimal and some of you - in particular from the compassionate christian right wants it to be even less.

The educational system in the US plainly sucks - unless you have the money to send your children to a private school you can generally forget about any future for your kids.

The health system similarly sucks. Essentially your wallet decides your chances of survival and the sicker you are the less is your chance of getting any health insurance - this hurts precisely those people who would need some form of health plan.

The general morality in US sucks. In US you can go and watch a movie and it disturbed me greatly when the people watching the movie started to laugh when a guy got his head smashed and you saw the brain fall out. At the same time you can watch a TV show and see detailed pictures how a person gets tortured and mutilated - when the hero in the movie comes to the scene and see the horror you cannot however hear him swear - that is a no no and while seeing one person murdering another is commonplace in entertainment it is a big no no to see one person make love to another person. The message to the children is clear - killing or harming someone is fun while love and sex is taboo. So much for Hollywood.

I can go on, but the point is that the "America is great" is an opinion and although it is generally shared among all americans and even many foreigners share it, even I also - contrary to what you might think after reading the above - generally agree to it in broad terms - it isn't however, an opinion which is undisputable and in particular instances as shown above it is patently wrong.

I also think it is fundamentally wrong to vote in someone who believe themselves to take orders from some God - a president is responsible to his people and as such he should ignore whatever God tells him to do - he is voted in by the people and not by God. Anyway, who am I to complain, Norway's current prime minister is a theologian and ordained priest - I didn't vote for him though, I have always voted for other candidates :)
Seems like Norway, US and Iran are the few countries where theocracy is live and well.

Alf

[salyed]

Just for those who are interested in the position of women becoming Buddhas within the Japanese Pure Land Buddhist tradition of Jodo Shinshu (Shin Buddhism), I direct you to the following web-page:

Rennyo's View of the Salvation of Women (http://www.shindharmanet.com/writings/women.htm)

A good quote:

"We may conclude that while Shinran recognized the traditional view of women in Pure Land teaching, he also employed passages which express a broader perspective, leaving aside the stipulation concerning the transformation of women and making clear the complete equality and nondiscrimination of women in deliverance. Despite Shinran's historically conditioned acceptance of the 35th Vow in the Kamakura period, Minamoto holds that his essential message was to overcome the discrimination of women within the feudal society."

I think it is fair to say that this perspective on women in Shin Buddhism was able to evolve from a limited and biased understanding (which was based upon the socio-cultural mores of the culture at the time of the Buddha and persisted from there to China and Japan - where women were discriminated against) to a more egalitarian and non-sexist understanding as you have today. If only other religious views could evolve as well... :banghead:

[RGD]

I'm not 100% sure of the historicity of this, but the ideals for Communism come from Karl Marx, who was German. Communism is a foreign idea as far as the Chinese context is concerned. I'm not sure how you thought you could try to connect Communism to Buddhism, but it seems as though it is terribly flawed.

To be fair, jadeus was not trying to say that Communism was connected to Buddhism. Jadeus was trying, I think, to say that Buddhism developed in China, a country which is now a totalitarian and ostensibly communist state.

Indeed, Marx and Engels invented Communism (which, as someone once remarked, is a political system which most closely approximates the Christian ideal.)

We must always keep in mind the difference between Communism as a theory, and Communism as it was implemented. Not that it ever has been, of course....

[Magic Primate]

Unfortunately I don't think Rennyo's progressive ideas made a radical long term impact on Shin Buddhism, let alone Buddhism as a whole.

[RGD]

I feel like a child but "I know you are but what am I". I mean..wait..they were wrong and I've backed up everything I said. The Ideas of linking Buddhism to China was a gerneralization. More specificly, the exact route of the Buddha or Buddhist texts could be of some benifit. Maybe if you understood the generalization in the first place I wouldn't have to walk you through it so meticulusly. I have proven several people wrong about Luther and Di Vinci in the context of the Enlightenment (which is another general idea about a period of time- which I had to hold your hand through) Look at your posts..You this and you that (you being me -shall I walk you through that too). I back myself up and then you change the subject.

How old are you? You can choose not to answer that question, of course, but I'm curious.

Let us review:

You claimed that Buddhism was invented in China. You were were wrong.

You claimed that Luther initiated the Enlightenment. You were wrong.

You claimed the the Buddha stated that women couldn't receive enlightenment. You were wrong.

You stated that Buddhism came to America via your grandmother. You were wrong.

You claimed that Leonardo and Michelangelo were somehow connected with the Enlightenment (or the Reformation; it was hard to tell what you meant). You were wrong.

Etc.

You clearly stated that you were into "unsupported assumptions." On that fact, alone, you appear to be correct.

[RGD]

Unfortunately I don't think Rennyo's progressive ideas made a radical long term impact on Shin Buddhism, let alone Buddhism as a whole.

Regrettably, I think you are correct. What seems clear is that the cultural context of a religion has a great deal to do with the tenets any given religion espouses.

Not that Buddhism is really a religion per se, of course.

[RGD]

You think that if I had the same facts as you I would come to the same opinions.

No, I think that if you had the same facts I do that you would come to the same conclusions. Your opinions are just that: your opinions.



That's what I just said.

I'm sorry for pointing out to you the sexist roots of Buddhism.

Buddhism has no more sexist a root than Christianity; the Buddha specified enlightenment for all, men and women alike. The fact that various Japanese sects disregarded this tenet is not a comment on Buddhism, it's a comment on Japan.

Buddhism is far more than the incredibly narrow sliver of belief that Nirichen advocated.

If it makes you feel better it is not a current belief anymore and that doesnt mean you shouldn't practice it.

Excuse me? You just said that one should practice the tenet that women are denied enlightenment. You need to work on your grammar.

I'm not a women and I'm not very sensitive to these things sometimes.

It shows.

I think it sucks personally. One of my original points was that religion lead us to overcome our vestigial animal instics of week over the strong. This has happened in all cultures. I think this is what makes you angry.

You keep thinking I'm angry. You are wrong. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I am amused by your responses, but you haven't said anything that could make anyone angry.

You are projecting, apparently. Nasty habit, that.

Oops. Missed another one. In response to my admonition to learn.

To learn what? Erase the fact that I have found the Buddha said women can't achieve enlightenment?

The Buddha didn't say that. Various sexist disciples of the Buddha said that long after he was dead.

Or should I accept the fact the Chinese culture had no effect on Buddhism?

Since that's not your original claim, this comment is irrelevant.

Or Luther had nothing to do with the Enlightenment?

He didn't. You are completely wrong about this.

All are wrong..sorry.

True. All are wrong.

It's not like I'm saying a square has three sides or anything. Would you like me to believe that too?

No. That would be silly. But it's also a trivial matter of definition; these other points are points of history and your postings.

If you are vague in your posts, or your posts don't accurately reflect what you are thinking, then you cannot logically argue that we are wrong to correct you.

[Answerer]

I had read almost all of the posts. And the conclusion I get is this:

1) The Japanese are sexists (not surprisingly based on their culture and beliefs), not Buddhism.

2) America is far from great (just look at the number of people voting for Bush, simply fucked up), it is only considered "great" in comparsion to some nations.

[salyed]

Unfortunately I don't think Rennyo's progressive ideas made a radical long term impact on Shin Buddhism, let alone Buddhism as a whole.

Well, I'll make sure that I let the female Shin Buddhist ministers (priests) here in America that I am personally familiar with know that. Actually, modern Shin Buddhism is non-sexist and egalitarian (it comes with not viewing the Pure Land Sutras as literal - check out such books as "Ocean" by Kenneth Tanaka or the books by Taitetsu Unno on Shin Buddhism). Now, this of course does not mean that individual people (whether Japanese or not are sexist - but the organizations are not promoting sexism). So there was a long-term impact on Shin Buddhism.

WOMEN IN BUDDHISM -- By Rev. Patti Nakai (http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma/womenbuddhist.html)

WOMEN'S LIBERATION IN BUDDHISM (http://www.livingdharma.org/Living.Dharma.Articles/Women'sLibInBuddhism-Nakai.html)

And from the Tricycle blog on related topics:

Religion has played a large part in this year's run up to the presidential election. Each party and their main candidate has tried to claim the mantle of authentic religious sentiment as a tactic of legitimization. Despite America's fundamental and ever-increasing pluralism, in practical terms this plays out as a grab for Christian votes, with smaller constituencies such as Buddhists left out of the fray.

It's probably just as well that Buddhists don't have to put up with their religion being dragged about to shill for competing politicians(although when major election are decided by a mere 527 votes, perhaps the country's leaders might have reason to cast an occasional glance at America's more than 25 million Buddhist sympathizers). It seems safe to say that few American Christians of any political persuasion are wholly pleased with how their religion is used to justify virtually every possible position that comes along.

However, this loss of attention, and thus some ability to shape what issues are debated in the first place, has the obvious effect of relative disenfranchisement. It is certain Christian Americans who force divisive issues, such as school pledges to God or gay marriage bans, into the political debates--but it is all Americans who have to deal with the consequences. It is interesting, therefore, to observe how American Buddhist organizations publicly react to such issues. These topics are of no central religious concern to Buddhism, but are made urgent by their linkage to larger agendas of political and economic power in America.

The pledge of allegiance, originally a non-religious oath that was theocized in 1954, became an issue when it was ruled unconstitutional by a California judge in 2002. Though thrown out on technical grounds by the Supreme Court, the ruling was instantly fastened onto by hardline conservative Christians intent on exploiting the issue for political capital, and sure enough it has reared its ugly head in the swirl of election-year politics. The result was last week's passing by the House of Representatives of a bill forbidding the Supreme Court to even consider future challenges to the pledge. It was a dark day for American democracy, as the bill (approved by a large, overwhelmingly Republican, majority) was the most blatantly illegal piece of legislation sanctioned by the House in living memory. Since the bill violates the separation of powers, it will undoubtedly fail to stand as law. But the damage is already done--religion, rather than elevating the governmental process, has palpably degraded it. The irony is that religion in American politics is inherently divisive and polarizing, automatically ensuring that anger, ill-will, and disappointment will result, to say nothing of the devolution of civilized discourse or community cohesion.

How have American Buddhists reacted to the pledge debacle? Buddhism is a non-theistic religion. Thus it should come as no surprise that voices supporting the current pledge have been absent from Buddhist conversations. In fact, an amicus brief was filed supporting the California decision by 23 Buddhist organizations representing every major Buddhist lineage in the country. Furthermore, the most significant of all the amicus briefs--filed by Americans United for Separation and Church and State and the American Civil Liberties Union--appended a letter from President George Bush in response to a letter from the Honpa Hongwanji Mission of Hawaii, the country's oldest Buddhist organization. Bush's response avoided the particulars of the Buddhist inquiry and used logic that directly contradicted the government's appeal of the California decision, ensuring that it will be a key piece of evidence when the issue is inevitably raised again in the courts.

As for gay marriage, this issue became a hot political topic when Bush called for a Constitutional amendment banning homosexual unions. The issue generated enormous amounts of heat, but as legislation died for now when it became apparent that most people weren't ready to tinker with the country's foundational document. Nonetheless Christians have managed to succeed with the issue on the state level--earlier this month Lousiana amended its constitution to ban gay marriages, and similar measures will appear on the ballots of up to eleven other states this year.

Buddhists have been noticeably quieter on this issue. While establishing oaths to God is transparently anti-Buddhist, sanctioning or condemning homosexual marriage, or homosexual relationships generally, is not nearly as clear an issue for Buddhists. Leaving aside the monastic regulations, which discourage homosexual and all other forms of sexuality, there are no widely respected Buddhist canonical sources that deal with the subject. Anti-homosexuality laws did not exist in most of the Buddhist countries of Asia prior to the imposition of European colonialism, and even today the matter is mainly greeted with a shrug. The attitude of most Asian Buddhists seems to be indifference or vague opposition to homosexual unions, but the issue generates no significant emotion either way. And while every significant Buddhist lineage in America signed on to oppose the pledge, public proclamations on gay marriage have been few.

For opponents of constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, however, what few stands have been taken should be encouraging. The first was taken by the Buddhist Peace Fellowship, which expressed full support for same-sex marriage. But the BPF is overwhelmingly made up of white American converts, who arguably tend to bring pre-formed liberal attitudes into Buddhism when they enter the Dharma. For this reason, and because Asian-Americans make up the bulk of American Buddhists, last month's proclamation by the Minister's Association of the Buddhist Churches of America (Jodo Shin-shu) is potentially more significant. The BCA, like its sister organization the Honpa Hongwanji Mission of Hawaii, is one of the oldest and largest American Buddhist organizations, with a membership primarily composed on Japanese-Americans born into the faith. Thus it is worth noting the position the organization's priests took on the issue:

"Whereas there is no negative judgment of homosexuality in the Buddhist religion; whereas a number of BCA ministers have been performing same-sex weddings for a period of at least thirty years; whereas we wish to affirm the worthiness of all persons, independent of sexual orientation: Now therefore be it resolved, that the Ministers Association of the Buddhist Churches of America opposes any governmental prohibition of same-sex marriage."

There are only two public pronouncements on the issue, but since they represent the voices of converts and cradle Buddhists alike, they do appear to represent a slowly emerging American Buddhist consensus on the issue of gay marriage. Since neither advocates of homosexual marriage or Christians adversaries are likely to let the issue die anytime soon, it will be interesting to see if this early consensus grows or provokes its own opposition.

[lenrek]

...By 1250, Buddhists changed the theory that enlightenment was for men. (they said women could be reborn as a man to achieve enlightenment before that)...

Is it possible you give some explanation on what do you mean by enlightenment? Is Buddha the only enlightened being? Are Arahants enlightened beings? Are Bodhisattva enlightened beings?

[jadeus]

I thought we had come to some kind of peace but I guess not so here we go!!!!

How old are you? You can choose not to answer that question, of course, but I'm curious.

Let us review:

You claimed that Buddhism was invented in China. You were were wrong.

Here is what I said (again)

Again....so what? It (buddhism) went from Pataliputra, to Kashgar, to Kucha (all in present day INDIA), to Tun-huang, to Lo-yang. From there it spred to present day Korea and Japan. From Japan to USA via MY GRANDMOTHER!!!!!!! Ohh- dont recognize those city names? Most are gone but you should look them up in the internet (may take you more then 3 mins though). Then you can figure out what present day county they are in. My reference to China is specific to today's political situation (they want to nuke us) and that human rights are at an all time low there. Oh wait...that has always been bad there. I hope they have an Enlightenment as Western culture did. I don't remember hearing anything about a bill of rights in India either and I'm not sure that the situation with Pakistan makes that a great place to raise kids right now either.

I never said it was INVENTED? in China but you discounting the Chinese influence on Buddhist

I also stated:

Yeah..it only stayed in China for like 1000 years under Fu Hsi, Shen Nung, and Huang ti.....and they built temples all over. Dengyo and T'ien-t;ai and all of that studying at Mount Ta-su (in China)...yeah, I'm wrong and your right. China had nothing to do with Buddhism. My point was that none of that part of the world is talking about human rights.

You claimed that Luther initiated the Enlightenment. You were wrong.

You obviously don't know enough about this to have an intelligent conversation about this. I won't even watste my time. Maybe you should read up on it.

You claimed the the Buddha stated that women couldn't receive enlightenment. You were wrong.

Here is something writen by Magic Primate about this:

I've done some research on Japanese Buddhism and can confirm that women were largely excluded from the esoteric (Shingon and Tendai) sects and given an inferior status in almost all of the others. Women were barred from entering the most holy Esoteric sites although there are stories of women who practiced in spite of this. A story in the Lotus Sutra about the Dragon (Naga) Princess is used to justify the idea that women must transform into men before they can attain enlightenment. The most 'progressive' in that sense were the Zen sects, which even(!) allowed them to be ordained as priests.

Great sexual inequality in Japan has been and is, however, the norm, as it has been to a lesser extent in the rest of the Far East.

The inequality is less severe in most of the schools of the Asian mainland, but generally nuns have to abide by a greater number of precepts than monks. Even Gautama Buddha apparently took some convincing (from Ananda I think, they lacked the capacity to understand and practice the teachings of non-attachment to self, he said apparently) to allow women into the sangha, but he did allow them. There are other places in the sutras which argue that enlightenment is for all sentient beings.

-I am sceptical to blame Japan for the sexism of Buddhism. My guess is it goes back much further.

I also stated this:

The Great Teacher (T'ien-t'ai) Chihiche was present and heard him preach. 'Durring my fifty years of teacihng,' said the Buddha, " I have preached various sacred doctrines, all in order to bring benefit to living beings. In the sutras of the first forty-two years, I taught that it was not possible for women to attain Buddhahood. But now with the Lotus Sutra, I declare that women can become Buddhas."


You stated that Buddhism came to America via your grandmother. You were wrong.

Say what you want about the SGI but before they came here to America there wer no major Buddhist estblishments here. You can discount the work my beautiful grandmother did if you like. She recently had a historian visit her from Japan. I never said she was the first, but it was not a major movenment here in the US even 50 years ago before she came. (I don't think the few priest the Universitys braught over constitutes a movement. Chinese imegrants that build the rain roads brought it with them too)

However, I guess you like to insult 83 year old women.

You claimed that Leonardo and Michelangelo were somehow connected with the Enlightenment (or the Reformation; it was hard to tell what you meant). You were wrong.

I related them to the Renaissance (or the same period as the Reformation)

I provided this dictonary deffinition for you: please re-read

Renaissance=

The Renaissance is generally regarded as beginning in Florence, where there was a revival of interest in classical antiquity. Important early figures are the writers Petrarch, Dante, and Boccaccio and the painter Giotto. Music flourished, from madrigals to the polyphonic masses of Palestrina, with a wide variety of instruments such as viols and lutes.The period from the end of the 15th century has become known as the High Renaissance, when
Venice and Rome began to share Florence's importance and Raphael, Leonardo da Vinci, and Michelangelo were active. Renaissance thinking spread to the rest of Europe from the early 16th century and was influential for the next hundred years.

Reformation=

The roots of the Reformation go back to the 14th-century attacks on the wealth and hierarchy of the Church made by groups such as the Lollards and the Hussites. But
the Reformation is usually thought of as beginning in 1517 when Martin Luther issued ninety-five theses criticizing Church doctrine and practice. In Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Saxony, Hesse, and Brandenburg, supporters broke away and established Protestant
churches, while in Switzerland a separate movement was led by Zwingli and later Calvin.

The fact that these two movments happened at about the same time period (15-16 cent) relates the two.

For clarity

the Enlightenment) a European intellectual movement of the late 17th and 18th centuries emphasizing reason and individualism rather than tradition. It was heavily influenced by 17th-century philosophers such as Descartes, Locke, and Newton, and its prominent exponents include Kant, Goethe, Voltaire, Rousseau, and Adam Smith.

The two previous movments MUST lead western culture to the this one. That seems obvious to me.

You clearly stated that you were into "unsupported assumptions." On that fact, alone, you appear to be correct.

Are you Happy now---they are supported

[Magic Primate]

I'll make sure that I let the female Shin Buddhist ministers (priests) here in America that I am personally familiar with know that. Actually, modern Shin Buddhism is non-sexist and egalitarian (it comes with not viewing the Pure Land Sutras as literal

I think that the equal status of female priests in modern America has more to do with the feminist movement than Rennyo, although no doubt he is regarded as a precedent.

[salyed]

Say what you want about the SGI but before they came here to America there wer no major Buddhist estblishments here. You can discount the work my beautiful grandmother did if you like. She recently had a historian visit her from Japan.

That's incorrect. The Buddhist Churches of America which is the American branch of Jodo Shinshu preceded SGI by many years and claims the most adherents in the Japanese-American population both then and now (and not SGI which has a larger overall membership due to the influx of converts - although you will note that SGI never tells you how many of those converts remain with SGI over a long period of time - quite an exodus and revolving door).

Shin Buddhism first reached the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1889 with the arrival of the Rev. Soryu Kagai of the Honpa Hongwanji Temple, Kyoto, Japan, who was sent to serve the needs of the Japanese immigrating to the Hawaiian Islands.

Some ten years later, in 1899, Reverends Shuei Sonoda and Kakuryo Nishijima were dispatched from the Honpa Hongwanji to San Francisco, California to minister to the growing Japanese population on the mainland United States.

Within a short time thereafter, Shin Buddhist temples and groups were established throughout the West Coast.

During World War II, the Japanese American population on the West Coast was moved to United States government established relocation centers or relocated to non-security areas of the Midwest and Eastern parts of the country. This led to the establishment of Shin Buddhist temples in the major population centers east of the Mississippi River.

Today, there are more than 100 Shin Buddhist temples, branch temples, fellowships and groups which comprise the Buddhist Churches of America.

I know that SGI likes to denigrate other forms of Buddhism, particularly Jodo Shinshu (Shin Buddhism) as "not authentic", but they are completely inaccurate. Do some research please.

http://www.buddhistchurchesofamerica.com/

[salyed]

I think that the equal status of female priests in modern America has more to do with the feminist movement than Rennyo, although no doubt he is regarded as a precedent.

The Buddhist Churches of America is the American branch of the Honpa Hongwanji branch of Jodo Shinshu and do their training and get their ordination in Japan.

[Magic Primate]

I am sceptical to blame Japan for the sexism of Buddhism. My guess is it goes back much further.

Attitudes to women in Japan no doubt made this worse, and it probably goes back to the dominant values of the society in which Buddha was born rather than some unique enlightened insight of his. He will have accepted many of the assumptions and values of his society unchallenged and indeed, AFAIK the vocation of the acetic/holyman was largely or exclusively the preserve of males in Vedic society. This is the origin also of the idea of reincarnation (reinterpreted as rebirth) and I would guess many or all of the precepts.

Anyway, anyone Buddhist or otherwise who takes what Gautama says or is reported to have said unquestioningly is a fool, in my mind. He also had some outdated (by our standards) ideas about the nature of the material world and the central nervous system, but few would accept those models as undisputed fact.

It was not unusual for women to be fully ordained as priests in what are now China and Korea.

I do think, however that some westerners have a somewhat idealised view of Buddhism as an ethically flawless faith. I don't think the truth is as rosy as some make out, although they probably have a better record than Christianity, for example.

[jadeus]

Thank you! Thisis some great information. I have afew things to say about what you stated:

The pledge of allegiance, originally a non-religious oath that was theocized in 1954, became an issue when it was ruled unconstitutional by a California judge in 2002. Though thrown out on technical grounds by the Supreme Court, the ruling was instantly fastened onto by hardline conservative Christians intent on exploiting the issue for political capital, and sure enough it has reared its ugly head in the swirl of election-year politics. The result was last week's passing by the House of Representatives of a bill forbidding the Supreme Court to even consider future challenges to the pledge. It was a dark day for American democracy, as the bill (approved by a large, overwhelmingly Republican, majority) was the most blatantly illegal piece of legislation sanctioned by the House in living memory. Since the bill violates the separation of powers, it will undoubtedly fail to stand as law. But the damage is already done--religion, rather than elevating the governmental process, has palpably degraded it. The irony is that religion in American politics is inherently divisive and polarizing, automatically ensuring that anger, ill-will, and disappointment will result, to say nothing of the devolution of civilized discourse or community cohesion.

I remember growing up and having to do the Pledge. I was raised a Buddhist and when the "one nation....under ____", I would remain silent. It did make me feel different and I became assamed of being Buddhist. In 4th grade, we had a section on religion and the teacher said, "Jade, you are a Buddhist aren't you?" I looked at her and fearing public humiliation I said, "Nope!" This issue is close my heart but now that I'm older and wiser, I realize that this IS a Christian society. I have only in the past few years embraced my Japenese heritage. I'm 1/4 Japenese with blonde hair and most people can't tell I'm a Jap at all. However, I realized the greatness of Japenese society and now I am leaning Japanese and researching my grandmothers past.

Enough therapy - lol

As for gay marriage, this issue became a hot political topic when Bush called for a Constitutional amendment banning homosexual unions. The issue generated enormous amounts of heat, but as legislation died for now when it became apparent that most people weren't ready to tinker with the country's foundational document. Nonetheless Christians have managed to succeed with the issue on the state level--earlier this month Lousiana amended its constitution to ban gay marriages, and similar measures will appear on the ballots of up to eleven other states this year.

Here is where I disagree with the Buddhist platform. I was making a point in the diccusion about how the major religion of a region effects the politcal climate. I was making the point that China, India, and pre-war Japan had not developed systems of government that relfected a growing movement toward individual human rights. However, the Christian societies were. I related this to the Christian belief that all men were created in the image of GOD and this therefore albeit 4000 years later regonized that this meant all men and women or beings. The idea that all people where humble compared to God made wealth, heritage, and power irrelevent and therefore equallized the king and the peasent. Buddhist on the other hand set criteria for Enligtenment and realized that not everybody could achieve this state as the Buddha did. One of those was being a woman in the first place because of menstration. How can one achieve spiritual stability in the highest world when once a month they were fill with hormons. I'm taking some poetic justice here but this is what I see as to why they believed this. There was also a distiction between the preist and the lay person. It is this Hiarchy that led to the repressive regeims in the regions where this religion developed. Chriatians went through the same type of inequity by giving preists the ability to absolve someones sins giving then a higher connection to God. Luther felt that only God himself could absolve anyone and the priests had no right to judge who was and was not to go to heaven. Priests where only a channel for which God can be connected to man.

ON the issue of Hommosexuality, the Christians clearly stated that is was wrong and a sin in the eyes of God. I had an issue with Buddhism that the sect I practiced had libralized the Buddhist view of morality. Moral guidlines, however, were clearly cover by the Sutra and very strict. The five precepts was a basic concept intented for all lay people. They are: not to kill, not to steal, not to commit unlawful sexual inercourse (adulty and hommosexuality), not to lie, and not to drink intoxicants. I believe that Buddhist should emphisize these ideals and not support hommosexuality. Just my humble opinion.

[RGD]

I thought we had come to some kind of peace but I guess not so here we go!!!!

I don't recall ever reaching 'peace' with you. I do recall pointing out your errors. Apparently I have to do so again.

Here is what I said (again)

Again....so what? It (buddhism) went from Pataliputra, to Kashgar, to Kucha (all in present day INDIA), to Tun-huang, to Lo-yang. From there it spred to present day Korea and Japan. From Japan to USA via MY GRANDMOTHER!!!!!!! Ohh- dont recognize those city names? Most are gone but you should look them up in the internet (may take you more then 3 mins though). Then you can figure out what present day county they are in. My reference to China is specific to today's political situation (they want to nuke us) and that human rights are at an all time low there. Oh wait...that has always been bad there. I hope they have an Enlightenment as Western culture did. I don't remember hearing anything about a bill of rights in India either and I'm not sure that the situation with Pakistan makes that a great place to raise kids right now either.

I never said it was INVENTED? in China but you discounting the Chinese influence on Buddhist

No, child. What you said was that Buddhism developed in China.

As has been pointed out, this is factually incorrect. Buddhism developed in India, then later spread to China (where further sects developed), and Japan (more secting) and other places.

What you are doing is moving goalposts in order to avoid admitting error.

I also stated:

Yeah..it only stayed in China for like 1000 years under Fu Hsi, Shen Nung, and Huang ti.....and they built temples all over. Dengyo and T'ien-t;ai and all of that studying at Mount Ta-su (in China)...yeah, I'm wrong and your right. China had nothing to do with Buddhism. My point was that none of that part of the world is talking about human rights.

But my point wasn't that China had no influence on Buddhism. My point was that it didn't develop there. Develop in the sense of 'originate'. Nor is your argument valid: using your logic, I would be able to state that "Christianity developed in France." No one would accept that usage of the word "developed."

If your point was that Buddhism underwent a period of development in China, then you should have said that. You didn't. As I pointed out earlier, we can't read your mind; if your posts are badly or ambiguously worded, then you suffer the consequences.

You claimed that Luther initiated the Enlightenment. You were wrong.

You obviously don't know enough about this to have an intelligent conversation about this. I won't even watste my time. Maybe you should read up on it.

I have. Luther's actions triggered the Reformation. The Reformation is not the Enlightenment. Do try to understand the difference between a religious movement that began in the 16th century, and an intellectual movement that began in the 18th century.

Here is something writen by Magic Primate about this:

I've done some research on Japanese Buddhism and can confirm that women were largely excluded from the esoteric (Shingon and Tendai) sects and given an inferior status in almost all of the others. Women were barred from entering the most holy Esoteric sites although there are stories of women who practiced in spite of this. A story in the Lotus Sutra about the Dragon (Naga) Princess is used to justify the idea that women must transform into men before they can attain enlightenment. The most 'progressive' in that sense were the Zen sects, which even(!) allowed them to be ordained as priests.

Great sexual inequality in Japan has been and is, however, the norm, as it has been to a lesser extent in the rest of the Far East.

The inequality is less severe in most of the schools of the Asian mainland, but generally nuns have to abide by a greater number of precepts than monks. Even Gautama Buddha apparently took some convincing (from Ananda I think, they lacked the capacity to understand and practice the teachings of non-attachment to self, he said apparently) to allow women into the sangha, but he did allow them. There are other places in the sutras which argue that enlightenment is for all sentient beings.

-I am sceptical to blame Japan for the sexism of Buddhism. My guess is it goes back much further.

Your guesses are worthless; it has been shown that you are wrong. I fail to understand why you have so much trouble understanding that your statements were based on a particular and somewhat narrow understanding of Buddhism promulgated by a particular sect in Japan? And that the beliefs of that sect do not reflect either the Buddha's original intentions or the understanding of Buddhism everywhere?

I also stated this:

The Great Teacher (T'ien-t'ai) Chihiche was present and heard him preach. 'Durring my fifty years of teacihng,' said the Buddha, " I have preached various sacred doctrines, all in order to bring benefit to living beings. In the sutras of the first forty-two years, I taught that it was not possible for women to attain Buddhahood. But now with the Lotus Sutra, I declare that women can become Buddhas."

Same problem. Your understanding of the beliefs of the various sects of Buddhism is grossly incomplete; you are trying to generalize from a single sect. You are wrong about what Buddha claimed, and appear unwilling to admit it.

Say what you want about the SGI but before they came here to America there wer no major Buddhist estblishments here.

Let's see. This is NOT what you originally claimed, but let's look into that.

The SGI was formally organized in 1975; the Soka Gakkei was formally organized in America in 1960.

Now, the Zen Studies Society was founded in New York in 1956; the San Francisco Zen Center was established in 1962; the Byodo-In temple in Oahu was built in 1968.

Buddhism was well established in America long before 1975 (the SGI date). Again, you are relying on your personal family information. It is not accurate.

You can discount the work my beautiful grandmother did if you like. She recently had a historian visit her from Japan.

I have not done so. To accuse me of this is to lie.

I never said she was the first, but it was not a major movenment here in the US even 50 years ago before she came.

You stated, and I quote, that Buddhism came to America via your Grandmother. As I pointed out, it didn't. She didn't even found the SGI. I appreciate that you admire your grandmother, but she would probably be disturbed your making inaccurate statements about her.

(I don't think the few priest the Universitys braught over constitutes a movement. Chinese imegrants that build the rain roads brought it with them too)

Again, you didn't say movement. This is the heart of your problem; you do NOT make your points clear, or you retroactively change the meaning of what you say. It does not make for good debate.

However, I guess you like to insult 83 year old women.

I'm not insulting 83 year old women. I'm pointing out that your claim that Buddhism came to America via your grandmother is nonsense and is contradicted by facts.

You, on the other hand, like to pepper your posts with gratuitious insults and outright prevarication. Your problem, of course; it doesn't bother me.

I related them to the Renaissance (or the same period as the Reformation)

But relating them to the Renaissance does nothing to relate them to the Reformation which was your original point. The continuity of art in the countries undergoing the Reformation - a point you made to establish that the Reformation did not represent a theological break, only a political one, is only meaningful if you talk about artists working in those countries. Neither Leonardo nor Michelangelo did so.

I provided this dictonary deffinition for you: please re-read

Renaissance=

The Renaissance is generally regarded as beginning in Florence, where there was a revival of interest in classical antiquity. Important early figures are the writers Petrarch, Dante, and Boccaccio and the painter Giotto. Music flourished, from madrigals to the polyphonic masses of Palestrina, with a wide variety of instruments such as viols and lutes.The period from the end of the 15th century has become known as the High Renaissance, when
Venice and Rome began to share Florence's importance and Raphael, Leonardo da Vinci, and Michelangelo were active. Renaissance thinking spread to the rest of Europe from the early 16th century and was influential for the next hundred years.

Reformation=

The roots of the Reformation go back to the 14th-century attacks on the wealth and hierarchy of the Church made by groups such as the Lollards and the Hussites. But
the Reformation is usually thought of as beginning in 1517 when Martin Luther issued ninety-five theses criticizing Church doctrine and practice. In Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Saxony, Hesse, and Brandenburg, supporters broke away and established Protestant
churches, while in Switzerland a separate movement was led by Zwingli and later Calvin.

I read them before. They are not relevant to your attempted point:

The fact that these two movments happened at about the same time period (15-16 cent) relates the two.

No it does not. This is specious logic. Using your logic, the White Lotus Rebellion was related to the administration of Thomas Jefferson.

Logic, please. Use some logic.

For clarity

the Enlightenment) a European intellectual movement of the late 17th and 18th centuries emphasizing reason and individualism rather than tradition. It was heavily influenced by 17th-century philosophers such as Descartes, Locke, and Newton, and its prominent exponents include Kant, Goethe, Voltaire, Rousseau, and Adam Smith.

The two previous movments MUST lead western culture to the this one. That seems obvious to me.

Just because you think it's obvious does NOT MAKE SOMETHING TRUE. You have done nothing to support this logic chain which, at the moment, exists only in your mind.

I apologize for shouting, but it's very hard to make you understand the lack of logic in your posts.

Are you Happy now---they are supported

Sigh. Yet another false statement.

It is clear that conversation with you is virtually impossible, since we're never going to get to any discussion of interesting topics while you fight so strenuously the idea that you might be mistaken about something.

I wash my hands of the entire business. :banghead:

[Magic Primate]

The Buddhist Churches of America is the American branch of the Honpa Hongwanji branch of Jodo Shinshu and do their training and get their ordination in Japan.

OK. I'm not sure what your point is.

I'm not sure of the current status of women in the Shin sect in Japan (I know they can be ordained as nuns at least ), but I'm sure women Buddhists generally still have an inferior status there as in most areas of Japanese society. And as I said, any modern improvement is likely to have more to do with feminism than Rennyo.

[Answerer]

Great sexual inequality in Japan has been and is, however, the norm, as it has been to a lesser extent in the rest of the Far East.

Bull, the sexual inequality in Japan is much serious than you think. Indeed, among the worst in Far East.


The inequality is less severe in most of the schools of the Asian mainland, but generally nuns have to abide by a greater number of precepts than monks. Even Gautama Buddha apparently took some convincing (from Ananda I think, they lacked the capacity to understand and practice the teachings of non-attachment to self, he said apparently) to allow women into the sangha, but he did allow them. There are other places in the sutras which argue that enlightenment is for all sentient beings.

Buddha talked about female's capacity to follow his path. However, this doesn't quote with your accusation that the Buddha's so-called sexist view that woman should have less rights or abilities than Man. They are two distinct things.


-I am sceptical to blame Japan for the sexism of Buddhism. My guess is it goes back much further.

Of course, you are half Japanese. So, it shouldn't be too hard to know why you are sceptical. At any rate, are you planning now to link sexism of ancient society with Buddhism?

I was making the point that China, India, and pre-war Japan had not developed systems of government that relfected a growing movement toward individual human rights. However, the Christian societies were. I related this to the Christian belief that all men were created in the image of GOD and this therefore albeit 4000 years later regonized that this meant all men and women or beings.However, the Christian societies were.

Read your history text carefully, christianity was not responsible for implementation of a democracy and liberal society. Democracy was a product of the enlightenment. I'm sick of listening to christian who love to equate modern society with christianity.


I related this to the Christian belief that all men were created in the image of GOD and this therefore albeit 4000 years later regonized that this meant all men and women or beings. The idea that all people where humble compared to God made wealth, heritage, and power irrelevent and therefore equallized the king and the peasent.

Ha, I don't know where you get this but status of kings and peasants was never equalized in the pre-modern Europe. And the pope and cleric were far from being humble.



Buddhist on the other hand set criteria for Enligtenment and realized that not everybody could achieve this state as the Buddha did.

That was being realistic. Besides, in Buddhism, everyone will get enlightened eventually, so whats the hurry? Only those who can't wait to be enlightened in this life could not see why Buddha's original intention in setting 'guidelines'.



One of those was being a woman in the first place because of menstration. How can one achieve spiritual stability in the highest world when once a month they were fill with hormons. I'm taking some poetic justice here but this is what I see as to why they believed this.

Why not? Their achievement were most probably greater than those who did nothing except to complain Buddha's way is unfair, this and that.



There was also a distiction between the preist and the lay person. It is this Hiarchy that led to the repressive regeims in the regions where this religion developed.

Compared with Christianity, this is nothing. Anyway, please show me one religion that is flawless.


Chriatians went through the same type of inequity by giving preists the ability to absolve someones sins giving then a higher connection to God. Luther felt that only God himself could absolve anyone and the priests had no right to judge who was and was not to go to heaven. Priests where only a channel for which God can be connected to man.

Oh I see, you are a protestant. So, by your reasoning, Luther's way must be right while all the catholics (including the pope), muslims and Buddhists must be wrong and corrupted, is it?


ON the issue of Hommosexuality, the Christians clearly stated that is was wrong and a sin in the eyes of God. I had an issue with Buddhism that the sect I practiced had libralized the Buddhist view of morality.

Sorry to disappoint you, but before you attempt to force Buddhist to condemn every single homosexual. I urge you to have a better understanding of Buddhist tolerance first.


Moral guidlines, however, were clearly cover by the Sutra and very strict. The five precepts was a basic concept intented for all lay people. They are: not to kill, not to steal, not to commit unlawful sexual inercourse (adulty and hommosexuality), not to lie, and not to drink intoxicants. I believe that Buddhist should emphisize these ideals and not support hommosexuality. Just my humble opinion.



And before, you teach Buddhists what to do, please advise your fellow catholics christians on their not so recent sexual slander (involving kids of the same sex). It is a shame to see that while you guys can't seem to control your church, you have the guts to comment on other religions.

So much for double standards. :down: :down: :down:

[salyed]

OK. I'm not sure what your point is.

I'm not sure of the current status of women in the Shin sect in Japan (I know they can be ordained as nuns at least ), but I'm sure women Buddhists generally still have an inferior status there as in most areas of Japanese society. And as I said, any modern improvement is likely to have more to do with feminism than Rennyo.

You are obviously not familiar with Shin Buddhism. It is a non-monastic Buddhist tradition so there are no monks or nuns. Shin ministers (priests) are all laity (non-monastic) and it is open to both men and women. Modern improvement in this area has consistenly happened even since the time of Shinran through the time of Rennyo and to the modern time (and can be documented in their writings). The interpretation of the Jodo Shinshu sect on the equality of women in terms of Amida's Vow has consistently evolved since the Shin tradition has founded, and is not just the result of modern feminism. (In fact, it is probably those teachings which made Japanese culture more open to any inroads and progress in that area - not to say that there still is not a long way to go.) In modern Shin thought, women are clearly viewed as equals.

I cannot speak for the other Buddhist sects nor for particular Japanese individuals who may or may not follow the teachings of the school of Buddhism that they may be affiliated with. But I can say that Shin doctrine as it has evolved clearly does not support or teach gender discrimination. And I can say that America has a long-standing history of gender discrimination that is still ongoing as well (glass ceiling, anyone?).

[Sturmrabe]

nice debate, but jade, I must say, claiming 1 person brought buddhism to America is just asking to get owned...

I love a good heated debate :thumbs:

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

i'm not even really sure what this thread is about... nevertheless, it should be clearly understood that Anuttara Samyak Sambodhi is not gender specific.

the interested reader is directed to these Sutras:

http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/mahayana-writings/gangottara-sutra.htm

http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/mahayana-writings/lions-roar-of-queen-srimala-sutra.htm

i'll just excerpt a bit from the Lions Roar of Queen Srimala:

"The Lord spoke forth: "Queen, in your former lives I have made you practice toward enlightenment; and in future lives I shall assist you." Queen Srimala prayed: "Whatever the merit I have performed in this and in other lives, by that merit, Lord, may I always see you, assisting me."

Thereupon, Queen Srimala along with all her lady attendants and entire retinue bowed to the feet of the Lord. The Lord prophesied to Queen Srimala amid the assembled group that she would attain the incomparable right perfected enlightenment."

[jadeus]

Yes, you’re starting to get. What I said was very complex. It requires linking people and Ideas over several centuries. I agree that more specific detail only forged by points.

1) Religions evolve and develop in the cultures they are practiced in. Exactly, France had a major impact on Christianity with philosophers like Descartes just as the monks of china had an impact on Buddhism. China had such an impact on Buddhism, due to the length of time it was the centre of Buddhism, it can be considered the largest cultural influence on the religion. The deeper meaning of what I'm saying is that people themselves have a dynamic impact between religion, culture, and Government. Therefore, these three things impact each other regionally.

2) By relating Luther to the Enlightenment, I was pointing out that this religious movement impacted the cultural movement. I further related this idea by noting the religious themes of di Vinci and Michelangelo.

3) You don't believe me about my grandmother. You don’t have to I really don't care. My grandmother's entire family was killed by the Atomic bomb. You don't have to believe me about that either. My grandfather was US military and brought her over with a 1-year-old child, my father. My father, a 1/2 Japanese biker hair down to his shoulders, was in Hawaii for the SGI (then NSA) convention when he came across a photo shoot. It was Daisaku Ikada, president of the Soka Gakkai, with a group of people including Mr. Williams. It was funny!! They asked him to join the shoot. They sent the photo with my father, in his cut-off jeans and no shirt, and Ikada. LOL- unprecedented - LMAO

Anyway, just another story you don't have to believe. You obviously know you stuff about Buddhism in America. I was only involved with the SGI and only recently looked into other forms of Buddhism.

4) I am learning the nature of debate on these forums. It not like conversation where what you say flies away in the air and can be forgotten. What you say here is in stone and is quoted. (How cool) I also learned the nature of the people on this forum. You have to be accurate. Not typical Internet bullshit.

[jadeus]

Of course, you are half Japanese. So, it shouldn't be too hard to know why you are skeptical. At any rate, are you planning now to link sexism of ancient society with Buddhism?

It has less to with the fact I'm 1/4 Japanese and more to do with the fact that the centre of Buddhist thought on the mainland predated and overshadowed Japanese influence. I am critical of the Japanese despite my heritage. Specifically I am critical at the use of stem cell research.



Read your history text carefully, Christianity was not responsible for implementation of a democracy and liberal society. Democracy was a product of the enlightenment. I'm sick of listening to Christian who love to equate modern society with Christianity.

Yes, read my text carefuly. I am linking religion, culture, and government to the region. If you read carefuly you see my point is that there is an inverse relationship. Stricter Religions lead to governments with more freedom and libral religion lead to stricter governments. There relationship is inversley related possibly?

Oh I see, you are a protestant. So, by your reasoning, Luther's way must be right while all the catholics (including the pope), muslims and Buddhists must be wrong and corrupted, is it?

I am not a protestant. I just happened to be reading a book about him right now. I would have talking about Aquinas if I was reading him. But as I said before, I was linking the religious event with the cultural event. If I go to church it's usually catholic because I like the architecture (another culture/religious relation). I am a building engineer.



Sorry to disappoint you, but before you attempt to force Buddhist to condemn every single homosexual. I urge you to have a better understanding of Buddhist tolerance first.

Like I said, I'm not sure why Buddhists don’t talk more about the Five Precepts, four evil paths, and the eight precepts. Everyone wants to talk about the ten worlds but clam up when about the eight offenses.

And before, you teach Buddhists what to do, please advise your fellow Catholics Christians on their not so recent sexual slander (involving kids of the same sex). It is a shame to see that while you guys can't seem to control your church, you have the guts to comment on other religions.

So much for double standards. :down: :down: :down:

The evil is everywhere, not just in my backyard.

[Answerer]

It has less to with the fact I'm 1/4 Japanese and more to do with the fact that the centre of Buddhist thought on the mainland predated and overshadowed Japanese influence. I am critical of the Japanese despite my heritage. Specifically I am critical at the use of stem cell research.

Nah, the influence of the western culture, Shinto and nationalism is much stronger than Buddhism in Japan. Evidence is quite clear when you visit there.




Yes, read my text carefuly. I am linking religion, culture, and government to the region. If you read carefuly you see my point is that there is an inverse relationship. Stricter Religions lead to governments with more freedom and libral religion lead to stricter governments. There relationship is inversley related possibly?


Horseshit, christianity only produce most of the ultra-conservative parties we can currently see in the western world. And liberality got nothing to do with stricter government. Besides, secularism of the modern world divide and separate the relationship between religions and politics very clearly. Its only in the eyes of religious fanatics do such distinction become blur.


I am not a protestant. I just happened to be reading a book about him right now. I would have talking about Aquinas if I was reading him. But as I said before, I was linking the religious event with the cultural event. If I go to church it's usually catholic because I like the architecture (another culture/religious relation). I am a building engineer.

Luther got nothing to do with any cultural event. He was just a trigger and pawn for people at that time to seize power from the church. And he got nothing to do with enlightenment.



Like I said, I'm not sure why Buddhists don’t talk more about the Five Precepts, four evil paths, and the eight precepts. Everyone wants to talk about the ten worlds but clam up when about the eight offenses.

Because Buddhist aren't dogmatic, they don't force their view on others. Only religious fundamentalists do that.



The evil is everywhere, not just in my backyard.

So, you are a christian?


1) Religions evolve and develop in the cultures they are practiced in. Exactly, France had a major impact on Christianity with philosophers like Descartes just as the monks of china had an impact on Buddhism. China had such an impact on Buddhism, due to the length of time it was the centre of Buddhism, it can be considered the largest cultural influence on the religion. The deeper meaning of what I'm saying is that people themselves have a dynamic impact between religion, culture, and Government. Therefore, these three things impact each other regionally.

However, the impact was not as big as you will like to admit. By comparing China with Europe, you had already made a grave error.


2) By relating Luther to the Enlightenment, I was pointing out that this religious movement impacted the cultural movement. I further related this idea by noting the religious themes of di Vinci and Michelangelo.

For your information, Vinci and Michelangelo belonged to the era of renassiance and Luther belonged to the era of the reformation. Three of them were ot born in and had nothing to do with the period of Enlightenment.

[lenrek]

...Buddhist on the other hand set criteria for Enligtenment and realized that not everybody could achieve this state as the Buddha did. One of those was being a woman in the first place because of menstration. How can one achieve spiritual stability in the highest world when once a month they were fill with hormons...

This is the reason that you have understood why only man can become a Buddha? :eek:


...I was only involved with the SGI and only recently looked into other forms of Buddhism...

After reading the whole thread, I think, you definitely need to study into various form of Buddhism. Study one Buddhist school and attempt to equal it with all the other Buddhist schools or assume that is The Buddhism as a whole is not a good idea.

[jadeus]

NOT!!!!![Originally Posted by jadeus
Great sexual inequality in Japan has been and is, however, the norm, as it has been to a lesser extent in the rest of the Far East.

[jadeus]

This is the reason that you have understood why only man can become a Buddha? :eek:

No. I understood that it was the Later Day of the Law when all could achieve enlightenment.

[Magic Primate]

No. I understood that it was the Later Day of the Law when all could achieve enlightenment.

BTW this is an idea closely associated with Lotus Sutra dominated sects ie. Nichiren/SGI and not mainstream Buddhism AFAIK

[Alf]

I had read almost all of the posts. And the conclusion I get is this:

1) The Japanese are sexists (not surprisingly based on their culture and beliefs), not Buddhism.

2) America is far from great (just look at the number of people voting for Bush, simply fucked up), it is only considered "great" in comparsion to some nations.

Well, as I was the one debunking the "america is great" idea I guess I in all fairness should also object to some degree to (2) above.

America IS great - just not as great as some americans think it is and there are many other countries also out there who are great - each in their way.

I personally agree concerning Bush but that is just me, I would have voted for Kerry if I had lived in the US :)

Alf

[radagast]

Jadeus,
One thing about debate, especially within the iidb forums, is that debating points should be supported. This isn't done consistently even here, but it is important.

You have disparaged and dismissed support, in the form of links to other areas of the web, yet you have not produced support of your own arguments, other than by saying you know a lot about Buddhism. Unless you are a Buddhist scholar, with credentials, this cannot be taken as evidence or support of arguments. i.e. you are making unsupported claims. If you do not wish to use the web (which admittedly is not a flawless form of supporting evidence), then quoting broadly acceptable sources is an excellent form of support. Generally, it is incumbent on the one making claims which depart from the generally accepted, to produce supporting evidence. It is then the other debating parties must provide evidence to the contrary.

I've intentionally tried avoiding sides in this debate, but wished to make some points as to debating methods.



From a personal, informational point of view, I have seen what I consider to be iffy positions (or perhaps personal impressions of your positions).

It seems you are imputing Nicheren views onto all Buddhism - a classic type of argument flaw (generalizing the specific to the general)

Buddhism is a system using various meditative and contemplative practices to achieve self-realization. It is highly subject to influence of the culture it's within. Just study the effects each culture has had on Buddhist practice, as Buddhism has moved into different cultures, and it becomes obvious. Trying to reverse that causality is highly suspect without much supporting evidence.

At least one minor point: you seem to assume that Sutras and precepts have the same force of law as Christian and western religious rules and law. Within a specific sect you may be correct, but within Buddhism in general it is fairly clear that no written or spoken aspects are important compared to finding one's truth, from within. Most specifically, the guidelines put down in precepts - [one of which is] meant to avoid the distractions of abusing (i.e. overdoing sex) for the lay, or engaging in it, for the monastics, that are to help enable realizing enlightenment - have somehow been transformed by your interpretation, into specific rules that hold no relationship to gaining self-realization. If a lay practitioner can engage in moderate intimate relations with a opposite sex long term partner, and that not slow progress toward self-realization, then please explain how the same situation, only being same sex, can interfere with progress toward self-realization. If it doesn't interfere with progress toward self-realization, please explain the reason for your interpretation of the precept.

While I'm no Buddhist scholar, I had read much implying that within the early Japanese and Chinese communities of Hawaii and California, many organized Buddhist groups existed much prior to 83 years ago. If you have supporting evidence to the contrary, I'd be happy to listen.

Kindest Regards,
Glenn

[Kay]

I believe that Buddhist should emphisize these ideals and not support hommosexuality.

WTF? We'd be no better than Christians if we did that!

Buddhism is about tolerance and self-enlightenment, not about harrassing ostracized and oppressed minority groups in order to make one feel better about oneself without having to actually do anything that looks like work.

If you know anything about respect, please do not attribute such hateful and intolerant ideology to Buddha again.

You claim that Buddhism is no better than Christianity when it comes to women. Please provide the relevant words of Buddha to support this. I have read every post of this thread, and I see that you have not provided any evidence which shows Buddha talking about mensurating women. You just need to quote one measly passage of Buddha's own words concerning the position of women, and you'll have thoroughly convinced me that Buddha could not see beyond the social hierarchy at that time.

Further, you suggest that Buddhism is somehow inferior to Christianity because it didn't/hasn't produced democratic societies with strong emphasis on human rights. Leaving aside the questionable state of human rights in America, I wish to submit that the political and social development in China has nothing to do with religion. That's because one emperor in the sixth century had the smarts to separate religion from the state in order to absolutely consolidate his power over the people. Buddhism in China is not an organized religion. There is no indoctrination, there is no brainwashing people into putting their hands into the air and swaying about like a mindless zombie to upbeat music, and there is no 'you-are-born-sinful-and-destined-to-pit-of-flames' to control people's minds and steer them in one direction of thought. Buddhism in China has not and can not be the focus of any social movement as Christianity can in the west.

Chinese morality came from Confucius. If you have anything against the totalitarian nature of our governance system, blame Confucius. He saw the civil war and corruption around him and didn't think to dismantle the system but sought to devise a set of behavioural rules wherein people could make the system operate. Instead of clamouring for self-determination, he urged for loyalty to one's emperor - hence reinforcing the one-party tradition that China currently enjoys.

Thus any book burning or social upheavel during imperialistic times was not fueled by any religious order, but by the state, in order to maintain its control over the people. If there are any laws in China which forbids homosexuality, it won't be based on any religious notion that some all-powerful skydaddy disapproves of anal sex but can't help watching it due to his omniscience. I

f one CCP Chairman decides to outlaw homosexuality simply because he hates people different to him, at least he's being honest about it.

[lenrek]

No. I understood that it was the Later Day of the Law when all could achieve enlightenment.

If we followed the conventional understanding of how a person (from making the aspiration, undertaking the path, until the final fruition) in becoming a Buddha, one will know, that individual will require to complete or to perfect certain Paramis (necessary qualities) for Buddhahood.

These Paramis (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/perfections.html) are wholesome acts and meritorious deeds. By following Buddhist understanding, every wholesome act will have wholesome result, and every meritorious deed will have meritorious result. According to tradition, The Buddha did not practice these Paramis in a single live span. In fact, he practise these perfection in many life-spans (countless birth).

From this link (http://www.tbsa.org/arahant.htm):

...To become a Buddha, one has to fulfill the Paramis (necessary qualities for becoming a Buddha) for four, eight or sixteen Incalculable and 100,000 worlds cycles...

By these understanding, we can imagine, the amount of fortunate kamma (karma) (http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha172.htm) and merits had the Buddha accumulated. Another thing to remember, in Buddhism, no one can defy the law of kamma, not even Buddha. With such great amount of fortunate merits accumulated, if we followed what we understood by the law of kamma, how will that individual be born into? That individual will definitely be born in the best kind of environment, heritage, and upbringing.

It is said, for the last live of a Buddha, he will always be born in the highest echelon of the society. Therefore, he will not be born among slave, he will not be born among the commoner, he will not be born among the weaker gender perceived by the society.

This is not a discrimination, this is just a natural law.

What I mentioned above is about someone becoming a Buddha. But that does not mean, Buddhahood is the only path towards Buddhist Enlightenment, which we call Nibbana (Nirvana).

From the same link (http://www.tbsa.org/arahant.htm) again:

...According to Theravada teachings, there are three kinds of beings who have reached the fourth (final) stage of enlightenment: Buddhas, Pacceka-Buddhas, and Arahants. Arahants are also called Savakas or Disciples; they are subdivided into Aggasavaka (the Best Disciples), Mahasavaka (the Great Disciples) and Pakatisavaka (the Ordinary Disciples) ...

Thus, when someone is talking about Buddhist Enlightenment, he may need to be clear which attainment he is referring.

Continue from the same link:

...Pacceka-Buddha the time is only two Incalculable and 100,000 world cycles. Among the Disciples (Arahants), for an Aggasavaka (Best Disciples), the time required is one Incalculable and 100,000 world cycles, while for a Mahasavaka (Great Disciples), it is only 100,000. But for the Pakatisavaka (Ordinary Disciples), it may be just one life, or a hundred lives, or a thousand lives, or more...

Therefore, anyone is possible to gain Buddhist Enlightenment via the path of Arahantship. And is possible to achieve that in a single life span.

If one was to read the Buddhist scriptures and look into its various records, he will notice, that there existed women who became Arahants (Enlightened Beings) (http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha204.htm), to say women cannot gain enlightenment is not true. However, if one is born in a lower echelon of the society or perhaps born in a weaker gender perceived by the society, it will be not be possible for that person to gain Buddhahood at that live time.

This is a very Buddhistic view, I am just hoping you can understand, not for you to believe. However, this is the explanation that I know, and I share this with you. Personally, I don't care much about this explanation...

[salyed]

If one was to read the Buddhist scriptures and look into its various records, he will notice, that there existed women who became Arahants (Enlightened Beings) (http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha204.htm), to say women cannot gain enlightenment is not true. However, if one is born in a lower echelon of the society or perhaps born in a weaker gender perceived by the society, it will be not be possible for that person to gain Buddhahood at that live time.


It probably should also be clarified that understandings and interpretation differ from Buddhist school to school. From my experience of ethnic Japanese-American temples (where the clergy, monastic or nonmonastic receive their final training and ordination in Japan), it was never taught that women could not become enlightened. In fact, the primary focus of the schools that arose during the Kamakura period in Japan was on "single practice" for the period of mappo where all beings could attain enlightenment (in the case of Shin, shinjin awareness from the Vow of Amida - nembutsu is seen as an expression of gratitude - "Other Power" where enlightenment does not come from self-effort - just as Amida and the Pure Land are seen as expressions of Dharmakaya). You will find similar (but not the same) things in other schools that arose in that period (the Soto, Obaku and Rinzai schools of Zen, Honen's Jodo Shu, and Nichiren Shu - Nichiren Shoshu and its offspring Soka Gakkai are unorthodox offshoots - the primary difference is that there is more of a focus on self-effort in these schools are compared to the almost exclusive "Other Power" focus on Jodo Shinshu - but, IMHO, they should be viewed as all upaya, expedient means, for different people with different temperaments and mindets).

(And, yes, I am an atheist.)