Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:
Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: July 30, 2025, 08:04:48 pm »

The quote you are referring to reads:

Quote
present-day Zionist agents (such as CIA/Mossad-backed Tenzin Gyatso) are attempting to subvert Siddhartha’s teachings by giving Tibetan Buddhism and other compromised sects primacy in public consciousness, along with emphasis on dubious sources such as the Dunhuang manuscripts and murals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunhuang_manuscripts

Quote
Pelliot retrieved a large number of documents from Caves 464 and 465 in the northern section of the Mogao Caves. These documents mostly date to the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368)

Firstly, the Yuan dynasty had a pro-Tibetan bias:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuan_dynasty

Quote
Buddhism had a great influence in the Yuan government, and the Tibetan-rite Tantric Buddhism had significantly influenced China during this period.
...
Kublai Khan, the founder of the Yuan dynasty, favored Buddhism, especially the Tibetan variants. As a result, Tibetan Buddhism became the de facto state religion. The top-level department and government agency known as the Bureau of Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs (Chinese: 宣政院; pinyin: xuānzhèngyuàn) was set up in Khanbaliq (modern Beijing) to supervise Buddhist monks throughout the empire.

All of this stuff should therefore be excluded. This leaves (back to first link):

Quote
Most of the manuscripts originate from a cache of documents produced between the late 4th and early 11th centuries. These were sealed in what is now known as the Library Cave (Cave 17) sometime in the early 11th century.

The problem here is:

Quote
From 1907 onwards, Wang began to sell them to Western explorers

Which brings us to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Dunhuang_Programme

Quote
The International Dunhuang Project (IDP) is an international collaborative effort to conserve, catalogue and digitise manuscripts, printed texts, paintings, textiles and artefacts from the Mogao caves at the Western Chinese city of Dunhuang and various other archaeological sites at the eastern end of the Silk Road. The project was established by the British Library in 1994
...
The IDP was initially founded with 3-year grant from the Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation,[18] and had only one member of staff.[16]

( https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/chiang-ching-kuo-who-succeeded-his-father-chiang-kai-shek-married-a-woman-emigra/msg27336/#msg27336 )

What could the IDP's agenda possibly be?

https://thediplomat.com/2015/11/tibet-taiwan-and-china-a-complex-nexus/

Quote
the Dalai Lama has travelled three times to Taiwan, in March 1997, March 2001, and September 2009. The first trip was during the tenure of President Lee Teng-hui, the second was after the victory of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) under the leadership of President Chen Shui-bian, and the third was right after the KMT had been reelected to power under President Ma Ying-jeou. All visits evoked fierce condemnation from China.
...
But is this coalescing of Tibet-Taiwan forces meant to counter Beijing?
...
For instance, in his March 10 statement in 1994, when the Tibetans had just begun stabilizing relations with Taiwan, the Dalai Lama had argued that better relations with the “Chinese living in free countries, especially in Taiwan” would help in explaining the Tibetan situation to them, which he hoped “will gradually percolate to China.”

Therefore, even if we generously assume that all the collectors are submitting all the manuscripts they have to the IDP (which is dubious in itself, since any of the collectors ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Dunhuang_Programme#Collections ) could be serving their own agendas by withholding parts of what they possess), the IDP could trivially be withholding from the public whatever they want by claiming that whatever is being withheld is stuff that they have not gotten around to processing yet. If I had to guess, whatever is being released is curated to give a pro-Tibetan slant. albeit probably not more so than the Yuan dynasty stuff, which ironically will be used as an argument that they reinforce one another and hence are similarly reliable!

Related:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/jews-have-nothing-in-common-with-us!/msg5164/#msg5164
Posted by: SirGalahad
« on: July 30, 2025, 04:26:39 am »

@90sRetroFan In the old article on Buddhism, you mentioned the Dunhuang manuscripts and murals as a dubious source. Can you elaborate on this? I would like to know which manuscripts you consider dubious, if not all of them

I'm trying to learn more about Zen Buddhism by reading the actual texts, but the book I'm reading for the Platform Sutra relies on the version of it found in Dunhuang, since that's actually the earliest copy of it that we have
Posted by: rp
« on: March 11, 2025, 05:48:45 pm »

https://x.com/Yaduvam/status/1899490209462653025?t=L046PyTIOPIPg-Yj_NQhpA&s=19
Quote
Territories "conquered by Dhamma" according to the Major Rock Edict No.13 of Ashoka the Great (260–218 BCE)
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: November 06, 2024, 06:35:32 pm »

"even when being sawed limb from limb by bandits, a monk should have and extend thoughts of loving kindness towards the bandits."

This is a good example of why I did not understand your presumption that I would prefer Theravada back here:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/ancient-world/buddhism/msg25939/#msg25939

It is no coincidence that combat training is not included in the curriculum of Theravada monks but have often been included in that of Mahayana monks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaolin_kung_fu

Quote
Historical discoveries indicate that, even before the establishment of Shaolin temple, monks had been armed and also practiced martial arts.[2]
...
The oldest evidence of Shaolin participation in combat is a stele from 728 that attests to two occasions: a defense of the monastery from bandits around 610 and their role in the defeat of Wang Shichong at the Battle of Hulao in 621.
...
Stele and documentary evidence shows the monks historically worshiped the Bodhisattva Vajrapani's "Kinnara King" form
...
On 21 July 1553, 120 warrior monks led by the Shaolin monk Tianyuan defeated a group of pirates and chased the survivors over ten days and twenty miles.[14] The pirates suffered over one hundred casualties and the monks only four.[14]
Posted by: SirGalahad
« on: November 06, 2024, 11:41:16 am »

@90sRetroFan What are your thoughts on this sutta?

https://suttacentral.net/mn21/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=sidebyside&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin

This is a particularly famous one in Buddhist circles, because it describes how, even when being sawed limb from limb by bandits, a monk should have and extend thoughts of loving kindness towards the bandits. I’ve provided a link that includes the English and Pali side-by-side, to avoid discrepancies in translation.

“Mettā” (loving-kindness) and “dosa” (already covered in our earlier discussion) are the main keywords here. The only thing I would point to as a major discrepancy caused by the translation is “anyone who had a malevolent thought”, which should really be something more like “anyone who’s mind was corrupted”, if we translate the Pali more directly. But the “heart of love”/loving-kindess portion of the translation appears to be accurate to the Pali
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: April 16, 2024, 12:23:28 am »

Let me illustrate the difference between hatred (good) and vera (bad) using a simple example. If X initiated violence against Y and Y decides to retaliate, but before being able to do so X is already killed by Z, if X felt hatred towards Y, X will be grateful towards Z (because Z gave X what X deserved), but if X felt vera towards Y, X will redirect the vera towards Z (because Z denied Y the chance for victory over X*).

(* This is a frequent wuxia trope.)
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: April 15, 2024, 10:10:56 pm »

Quote
For not by hatred do hatreds cease

This makes no sense in the context of the initial actions:

Quote
“He abused me, he struck at me, he overcame me, he robbed me,”

These are not actions of hatred, but actions of domination. (As I always say, bullies never hate their victims.) Therefore if the teaching is to not seek to dominate in reaction to being dominated, I would agree, and would interpret the above quote as actually meaning such.

From your link:

Quote
vera：[nt．] enmity； hatred．

I suggest enmity is the better translation, specifically in the sense of rivalry (with its inherent egotism and hence reinforcement of self/non-self distinction), which fits my point.

False Leftists calling racist crimes "hate crimes" does not mean the racists are in fact motivated by hatred either (they are not). We have to take mainstream translations involving the word "hatred" in general with the same scepticism as we take the term "hate crime".
Posted by: SirGalahad
« on: April 15, 2024, 09:42:31 pm »

It appears that the verse in question isn’t referring to dveṣa/dosa, as in one of the Three Poisons. The verse in question uses the word “vera” instead, which also means hatred:

https://dictionary.sutta.org/browse/v/vera/

The original quote below:

Quote
“Akkocchi maṁ, avadhi maṁ, ajini maṁ, ahāsi me”,
“He abused me, he struck at me, he overcame me, he robbed me,”

ye taṁ na upanayhanti veraṁ tesūpasammati.  [4]
those who do not bear ill-will towards this their hatred is appeased.


Na hi verena verāni sammantīdha kudācanaṁ,
For not by hatred do hatreds cease at any time in this place,

averena ca sammanti, esa dhammo sanantano.  [5]
they only cease with non-hatred, this truth is (surely) eternal.

Note that you’re specifically instructed to do this, even if the person actually did wrong against you. I feel like the Buddha just didn’t really care about justice or retribution. He only really seemed to care about eliminating suffering in the victims of samsara, and helping them to leave as quickly as possible
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: April 15, 2024, 07:57:41 pm »

"hatred"

This is a mistranslation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvesha

Quote
Dvesha (Sanskrit: द्वेष, IAST: dveṣa; Pali: 𑀤𑁄𑀲, romanized: dosa; Tibetan: zhe sdang) is a Buddhist and Hindu term that is translated as "hate, aversion".[1][2][3]

Aversion is a better translation. Aversion motivates pushing away (making it someone else's problem) whereas hatred motivates proactively chasing down (for the sake of destroying). It is therefore aversion which is selfish, and hatred which is selfless. Given that the whole point of Buddhism is to remove the self/non-self distinction, it is aversion which is poisonous to this pursuit, whereas hatred is consistent with it.
Posted by: SirGalahad
« on: April 15, 2024, 06:45:06 pm »

I feel like it’s hard to square our endorsement of hatred for enemies with the Buddhist texts, which instruct the opposite: to remove hatred and ill will, even towards bad people. One of the most famous quotes passed around is (from the Dhammapada) “Hatred cannot cease through hatred. It can only cease through non-hatred”.

I personally am still trying to figure out what I think of hatred, and whether (if at all) it should ever be accepted as an emotion for me to feel. You don’t necessarily need to feel hatred towards your enemies to fight against them. Although I think there’s a potential latent danger in destroying all feelings of hatred as a Buddhist monk might do, since you’re more likely to forget WHY evil needs to be opposed or fought against in the first place. That hatred is, if anything, a reminder

Also, I feel like the Buddhist concept of karma disincentives people from carrying out our version of ahimsa. From what I’ve gathered from the Pali Canon, karma is an amoral force, and isn’t supposed to necessarily be “fair” (one of the many reasons why Buddhists want to transcend samsara in the first place). So you might be in a situation where you logically deduce that ending someone’s life is the best option, even a justifiable one on a theoretical level, but the act of killing always puts you in a bad mind state and accrues negative karma. So if you want to carry out ahimsa, then you must be prepared to make a karmic sacrifice and (likely) end up suffering in one of the hell realms when you’re reborn

This conception of “karmic sacrifice” is probably how a lot of Buddhists justified participating in wars (including purely defensive ones). I’m not saying that the law of karma is wrong or doesn’t exist. I think it’s likely that the universe really DOES work this way. But I think it might sow doubt in a lot of people. Because if you’re about to carry out ahimsa KNOWING that you’ll suffer immensely for it and be tortured in the next life, then you’re obviously going to be a lot more hesitant than someone who follows a religion or philosophy where karma isn’t really a concept. Granted, the Buddhist hell realms are temporary, but you’re still supposedly there for a long time before being reborn again
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: April 13, 2024, 11:28:01 pm »

"you prefer Theravada in terms of actual teachings"

I'm not sure where you got this impression from. Even on the main site, I said:

Quote
Only the Chan (cognate with Zen) monasteries which grew all their own food on their own land (unlike traditional Buddhist monasteries which relied on alms) were able to maintain intellectual independence

All Theravada monasteries rely on alms whereas at least some Mahayana (Chan) monasteries do not, so Mahayana gets a higher rating on this count.

(If you can successfully convince some Theravada monasteries to grow their own food, I would be happy to re-evaluate.)
Posted by: SirGalahad
« on: April 13, 2024, 10:41:41 pm »

Quote
My appreciation for Mahayana is significantly pragmatic, as I believe it is much easier to interpret with political applications in mind. This is to be expected, as Mahayana sutras often addressed individuals in positions of power

and

Quote
If you think you can come up with a convincing political application of Theravada, by all means go ahead!

I took this to mean that you prefer Theravada in terms of actual teachings, but that Mahayana Buddhists are easier to rally on a pragmatic level for the reason that you mentioned. But maybe I misunderstood
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: April 13, 2024, 08:31:47 pm »

"You don’t just pray to a Buddha in the hopes that they’ll take you to a Buddhaland themselves."

I agree, but these are the people who can't get there within the foreseeable future anyway, even if they put the work in. Yet if they are putting the work in, we become obligated to guide them as best we can, thereby reducing the time we can spend guiding those who actually stand a chance. Better to just tell the former group to just wait for their bloodlines to disappear. This is what:

"reliance on a chant to a character called Amitabha Buddha"

really means.

"in order to reach a higher realm where achieving enlightenment is supposedly more conducive."

This is indeed the case, because the higher realm is the one with their bloodlines absent.

"It is less a matter of artificially improving the existing generation - which, owing to human characteristics, is impossible in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred - and more a matter of securing from the very start a better road for future development." - Adolf Hitler

"Even though any lay Buddhist could theoretically become a monk RIGHT NOW and achieve enlightenment within this life time, Pure Land Buddhists just procrastinate and wait until they’re transported by Amitabha Buddha to a pure land."

Do you really want to manage an overwhelming majority of inferior monks who will not only fail to achieve enlightenment but also probably corrupt the monastery? Procrastinating might be the least harmful thing they can do.

"didn’t you imply in our earlier discussion that you consider Theravada more authentic than Mahayana in general anyways?"

Please link to the exact quote.
Posted by: rp
« on: April 13, 2024, 08:22:47 pm »

"Exactly. This is why we need National Socialism, which via state control over reproduction is the only way to keep heritable Gnostic bloodlines around long enough to outlast non-Aryan and even non-heritable-Gnostic Aryan bloodlines"
Ok. But how would you identify a heritable Gnostic Aryan as opposed to a non heritable Gnostic Aryan? What specific character trait (if any) separates the two?
Posted by: SirGalahad
« on: April 13, 2024, 08:06:04 pm »

My problem with Pure Land Buddhism is its reliance on a chant to a character called Amitabha Buddha, in order to reach a higher realm where achieving enlightenment is supposedly more conducive. The first reason why I object to it, is because the whole point of the Buddha’s teachings, was that you needed to put in the work yourself, to be reborn in a higher realm. You don’t just pray to a Buddha in the hopes that they’ll take you to a Buddhaland themselves. The other reason why I don’t think it makes sense, is because it’s significantly more defeatist than the other sects of Buddhism right from the beginning. Even though any lay Buddhist could theoretically become a monk RIGHT NOW and achieve enlightenment within this life time, Pure Land Buddhists just procrastinate and wait until they’re transported by Amitabha Buddha to a pure land. All lay Buddhists are technically procrastinators, but Pure Land Buddhism takes that up to a doctrinal level, which I take issue with

Maybe I just don’t know enough about Pure Land Buddhism, but I find it inauthentic in terms of what I think the Buddha actually said and taught. Also, didn’t you imply in our earlier discussion that you consider Theravada more authentic than Mahayana in general anyways? Or are you simply siding with Pure Land Buddhists for pragmatic reasons, similar to the ones that you mentioned earlier for Mahayana?