NationStates Jolt Archive

http://svt.se/content/1/c6/52/39/11/safran_3.asx

This is a clip from the Aussie show "Safran vs. God" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0423675/) and that shows how the Dalai Lama isn't the open-minded saint some Buddhists or Buddhist wannabes like to think he is.

Something that's nothing new to us, shall we say, "critics of religion," but it is fun to see how surprised the hippies in the clip are at the views of their own leader. :D

Not to mention that it's time some other religion than Islam or Christianity got some less than flattering flack on these fora.

sadly, not surprising.

although, I do still like the Dolly llama (http://www.geocities.com/wesjohnsonink/DollyLlama.jpg).

Fuck. And I thought someone made a sequel to "Shaolin vs Lama."

:headbang:

Not to mention that it's time some other religion than Islam or Christianity got some less than flattering flack on these fora.

I tried, awhile back. It didn't work.

Why does he have a Buddhist and a Catholic tagging along with him?

It's an Aussie show, and a good one at that. These days Safran has found a good friend in the Melbourne Catholic Priest, Father Bob. They do a radio show together which you can listen to via podcasting.

http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/listen/podcast.htm#safran

Why does he have a Buddhist and a Catholic tagging along with him?

Symbols of which side of the same coin you're choosing between.

Why does he have a Buddhist and a Catholic tagging along with him?
ones supposed to be the dalai lama, the others supposed to be the pope...

It's an Aussie show, and a good one at that.

Yeah, they aired it a few months ago here. I loved his finishing monologues, especially this one:

"I've always wondered why rich Westerners, dismissive about religion in general, find solace in Buddhism. Well, let's talk a look at the story of Prince Siddhartha, or Buddha as he became known. Basically, it's the story of a rich kid that decided to slum it. No joke - this guy Buddha was living at home in his palace, leeching off his dad until he was 30. Then like some spoiled trust-fund baby, he decides to leave the palace and finds all this romance in self-inflicted deprivation, all the while knowing that he could ring up his dad to top off his Visa card the minute anything went wrong. Hey, Buddha, here's a spiritual insight - all these poor people you were trying to emulate would've exchanged their noble life under the bodiatry for the opulence of your dad's palace in a snap! Which brings me back to my original point - I wonder why all these rich Westerners can relate so well to Buddha? Well, maybe it's because Buddha is the prototypical spoiled rich kid acting all dirty and poor. Let's face it, if Buddha were alive today, he'd be playing bass guitar in the Strokes. Until next time, go to hell."

Symbols of which side of the same coin you're choosing between.Meh, kinda seems pointless to me.

From "society's viewpoint," same-sex relations can be "of mutual benefit, enjoyable and harmless." He supports human rights "regardless of sexual orientation." At a subsequent meeting with gay and lesbian representatives, he expressed the "willingness to consider the possibility that some of the teachings may be specific to a particular cultural and historic context." Dawa Tsering, spokesperson for the Office of Tibet commented: "His Holiness opposes violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation. He urges respect, tolerance, compassion and the full recognition of human rights for all."
Which, I admit, is still pretty shitty. "You can be gay...but not part of our club". But it's better than anything that's ever come out of the Vatican, at least.

My money's on the Pope.

http://img232.echo.cx/img232/5239/palpatineratzinger7xc.jpg

Which, I admit, is still pretty shitty. "You can be gay...but not part of our club". But it's better than anything that's ever come out of the Vatican, at least.

Oh, please. The Vatican does the whole "we don't support discrimination, and human rights abuses, and we respect everyone's equal value" and so on and so forth, too, and then you see it say things eerily similar to what the Dalai Lama says. It's the same old "hate the sin, not the sinner" crap.

Something that's nothing new to us, shall we say, "critics of religion," but it is fun to see how surprised the hippies in the clip are at the views of their own leader. :D.


Frankly, I don't see the point to this experiment. And to assume all hippies are Buddhists is also pretty stupid. As a critic of religion myself, I have found all of them pretty useless, but Buddhism is still the most progressive when you look to the basic philosophies.


Not to mention that it's time some other religion than Islam or Christianity got some less than flattering flack on these fora.

So its a contest now, to see whos religion is better?:rolleyes:
ALL religions will always be the crutch of the weak and the stone around the neck of humanity that holds us back from true progress and evolution.

Frankly, I don't see the point to this experiment. And to assume all hippies are Buddhists is also pretty stupid. As a critic of religion myself, I have found all of them pretty useless, but Buddhism is still the most progressive when you look to the basic philosophies.

That's just what I was talking about - Buddhism seems to have this good reputation in the West, how "it's better than the rest" or "more progressive" or some other nonsense. It isn't better than any of the rest, and the Dalai Lama isn't merely a cosy refugee uncle from a far away land here to teach us how to be "nice," as opposed to that naughty pope/mufti/patriarch/rabbi/...

So its a contest now, to see whos religion is better?:rolleyes:

It's a contest they all lose.

Oh, please. The Vatican does the whole "we don't support discrimination, and human rights abuses, and we respect everyone's equal value" and so on and so forth, too, and then you see it say things eerily similar to what the Dalai Lama says. It's the same old "hate the sin, not the sinner" crap.
Which is why I said it was pretty shitty. I just hadn't noticed the Vatican expressing "the willingness to consider the possibility that some of the teachings may be specific to a particular cultural and historic context". I guess what I'm saying is he's less worse...but certainly nowhere near "good".

But, I'm not actually disagreeing with you, or defending him. Religion in general is poorly disposed towards homosexuality, with the exceptions of paganism and possibly Hinduism - I'm not sure about that.

The dalai lama is anti wanking? Buddhism is now automatically the worst religion ever.

Which is why I said it was pretty shitty. I just hadn't noticed the Vatican expressing "the willingness to consider the possibility that some of the teachings may be specific to a particular cultural and historic context".

How do you think they were able to renegue on such things as evolution or the inquisition?

Religion in general is poorly disposed towards homosexuality, with the exceptions of paganism and possibly Hinduism - I'm not sure about that.

Hinduism? (http://uk.gay.com/headlines/6399) Please. (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/11/india12398.htm)

How do you think they were able to renegue on such things as evolution or the inquisition?



Hinduism? (http://uk.gay.com/headlines/6399) Please. (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/11/india12398.htm)

Introduced by British rulers, so it likely doesn't stem from Hinduism.

How do you think they were able to renegue on such things as evolution or the inquisition?
Ok, yes, you're right.

Hinduism? (http://uk.gay.com/headlines/6399) Please. (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/11/india12398.htm)
Huh, didn't know that. I thought the Kama Sutra contained homosexual acts...and I was pretty sure some of the gods were homosexual themselves.

I suppose the problem is 'Hinduism' is such a diverse collection of faiths that unanymity on one issue is unlikely. But from your articles, it sounds like 'mainstream' Hinduism is anti-gay, which I didn't know, and which is a shame. It's disappointing to consider, if not hard to believe, that that means all of the major religions of the world, accounting to some extent to the thoughts and beliefs of billions, are still stuck on intolerance. :/

Introduced by British rulers, so it likely doesn't stem from Hinduism.

Oh, please! (http://conflict-religion.boker.tv/news/conflicts/hinduism/india_water_fires_up_hindu_controversy_hindu_nationalists_attack_film_depicting_harsh_conditions_suf fered_by_widows) Hinduism is far, far, far from "the tolerant religion" Westerners seem to think.

If that's what he sincerely believes, then what of it? People believe all kinds of things.

It would be different if he were to go about trying to "save" people from the evils of homosexuality and masturbation.

Also, I'm pretty sure the Dalai Lama is the leader of only the Tibetan Buddhists.

Oh, please! (http://conflict-religion.boker.tv/news/conflicts/hinduism/india_water_fires_up_hindu_controversy_hindu_nationalists_attack_film_depicting_harsh_conditions_suf fered_by_widows) Hinduism is far, far, far from "the tolerant religion" Westerners seem to think.

Not saying it's tolerant. Hindu-Muslim violence does have to have two sides to be effective, after all. Just saying that your particular earlier example likely has less to do with Hinduism than you're portraying it to.

Oh, please! (http://conflict-religion.boker.tv/news/conflicts/hinduism/india_water_fires_up_hindu_controversy_hindu_nationalists_attack_film_depicting_harsh_conditions_suf fered_by_widows) Hinduism is far, far, far from "the tolerant religion" Westerners seem to think.
Fass, Sweden is a Western country. You speak of Westerners as though you weren't one.

you forgot poland

I'm so high right now

Not saying it's tolerant. Hindu-Muslim violence does have to have two sides to be effective, after all. Just saying that your particular earlier example likely has less to do with Hinduism than you're portraying it to.

What's more likely is that it has more to do with Hinduism, and religion, than you're willing to acknowledge.

Fass, Sweden is a Western country.

No shit, Sherlock.

You speak of Westerners as though you weren't one.

I speak of Westerners as though I've heard the "ooh, Buddhism is so progressive" Richard Gere-like bull and "Hinduism is so tolerant" silliness so many other Westerners seem to have bought hook, line and sinker, and are so prone to regurgitate in their New Age spiritualist propaganda.

What's more likely is that it has more to do with Hinduism, and religion, than you're willing to acknowledge.

From that example, we really don't know. There is a small Christian population in India, after all, and its likely they have a higher percentage in the police, if only as a holdover from British rule. It could be from either source.

Not doubting you, but give us another, more definitive example.

From that example, we really don't know. There is a small Christian population in India, after all, and its likely they have a higher percentage in the police, if only as a holdover from British rule. It could be from either source.

Not doubting you, but give us another, more definitive example.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/1999/09/30/india1626.htm

http://hrw.org/english/docs/1999/09/30/india1626.htm

So it's unlikely to be Christians currently enforcing the anti-sodomy laws. Could still be several other sources. Come to think of it, Muslims would also be quite likely.

The question is simple, and you really aren't answering it: what part of Hinduism condemns gays?

No shit, Sherlock.
Check the toilet, my dear Watson.



I speak of Westerners as though I've heard the "ooh, Buddhism is so progressive" Richard Gere-like bull and "Hinduism is so tolerant" silliness so many other Westerners seem to have bought hook, line and sinker, and are so prone to regurgitate in their New Age spiritualist propaganda.
Fair enough.

There are many different sects of Buddhism, the Dalai Lama just represents a rather small group of them in comparison to the other mainstream ones in the east.
The fact that his particular group is the most well known in the west doesn't mean it's the main Buddhist sect in the world, his views don't necessarily match most Buddhist's.

Though to be honest with you, the issues raised in that vid tend to be ignored by most people in the east anyway. Views over there on these things tend to be along the line of "we dislike it, but we won't bother raising a fuss if you don't bother everyone else".

I want to see proof of their sources. Most Buddhists do not believe the thing the clips claim. Most Buddhists think that homosexual sex is fine as long as they follow the same rules as heterosexual sex (basically, there has to be love involved). Abortion depends on the person, as does masturbation (depends on if you're a lay person or monk and which version of Buddhism you follow). Plus, only Tibetan Buddhists follow the Dalai Lama. Oh, and there are different sects of Tibetan Buddhism. The path of Tibetan Buddhism I follow says homosexual relationships are just fine, abortion should not be outlawed, and masturbation should be avoided (but it's not a sin). Like I said, there are different paths.

That's just what I was talking about - Buddhism seems to have this good reputation in the West, how "it's better than the rest" or "more progressive" or some other nonsense. It isn't better than any of the rest, and the Dalai Lama isn't merely a cosy refugee uncle from a far away land here to teach us how to be "nice," as opposed to that naughty pope/mufti/patriarch/rabbi/...
Well, technically, in what I've read of Buddhism, there's nothing against sex within a loving relationship, nothing about which gender the participants are, so long as they love each other. While that may not be everyone's cup of tea, it's at least reasonable. The Dalai Lama does not represent the views of every buddhist, in fact, there are many different schools of buddhism which hold completely different views.
Although comparing the Dalai Lama's role to the Pope's role isn't a bad one, as long as you keep in mind that neither religious leader speaks for all the adherants to each religion and they throw their own biases into their proclamations.

So it's unlikely to be Christians currently enforcing the anti-sodomy laws. Could still be several other sources. Come to think of it, Muslims would also be quite likely.

Yeah, the BJP is a Muslim party. :rolleyes:

The question is simple, and you really aren't answering it: what part of Hinduism condemns gays?

Since when does what a holy book says matter to what the adherents of a religion do? The Bible has a basic message of love, and, well, we see how that goes. But, in any case, the Manu Smrti mentions "maithunam pumsi" ("unnatural offence with a male").

Hinduism? (http://uk.gay.com/headlines/6399) Please. (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/11/india12398.htm)
You have seen the man-on-man action in the Kama Sutra, haven't you? The views of a group of bigoted hindhus don't necessarily represent the actual religion.

Well I am surprised. I thought Buddhism was far more tolerant than that.

Well I am surprised. I thought Buddhism was far more tolerant than that.
It is, the Dalai Lama isn't.

You have seen the man-on-man action in the Kama Sutra, haven't you?

And you've read about David and Jonathan, or Ruth and Naomi, or Daniel and Ashpenaz in the Bible?

The views of a group of bigoted hindhus don't necessarily represent the actual religion.

They get to pick and choose which parts they emphasise just like everyone else, and we see Hinduism isn't all that cosy any more.

It is, the Dalai Lama isn't.
It will eventually end up like Christianity (or Islam), with the priesthood picking and choosing what to believe for the faithful.

And you've read about David and Jonathan, or Ruth and Naomi, or Daniel and Ashpenaz in the Bible?
I didn't say that the Bible or christianity were inherently homophobic either.

They get to pick and choose which parts they emphasise just like everyone else, and we see Hinduism isn't all that cosy any more.
That doesn't mean that that sort of behaviour is actually religion-based instead of bigorty-based.

Yeah, the BJP is a Muslim party. :rolleyes:

Didn't see any mention of the BJP in your articles, but I may just have not been looking hard enough. I'm lazy that way.

Since when does what a holy book says matter to what the adherents of a religion do? The Bible has a basic message of love, and, well, we see how that goes. But, in any case, the Manu Smrti mentions "maithunam pumsi" ("unnatural offence with a male").

D'accord, point accepted. And I agree that what the book says doesn't matter, an organization objecting on "Hindu" grounds as opposed to unspecified ones would've worked as well.

I want to see proof of their sources.

You mean, the ones listed on-screen as they were quoted?

It will eventually end up like Christianity (or Islam), with the priesthood picking and choosing what to believe for the faithful.
Um... you are aware that Buddhism has so many compeating sects that it almost puts Christianity to shame.

Hell, in the city next to me there's about 20 different temples and each one is a different sect.

I want to see proof of their sources. Most Buddhists do not believe the thing the clips claim. Most Buddhists think that homosexual sex is fine as long as they follow the same rules as heterosexual sex (basically, there has to be love involved). Abortion depends on the person, as does masturbation (depends on if you're a lay person or monk and which version of Buddhism you follow). Plus, only Tibetan Buddhists follow the Dalai Lama. Oh, and there are different sects of Tibetan Buddhism. The path of Tibetan Buddhism I follow says homosexual relationships are just fine, abortion should not be outlawed, and masturbation should be avoided (but it's not a sin). Like I said, there are different paths.

They actually listed all the sources of interviews with the Dali Lama at the bottom of the screen with each claim. I'm not sure what more proof you want.

San Fransisco Chroncile, June 1997

Dimanche Magazine, Jan 2001

Reuters, 22 Jan 2001

Beyond Dogma, by the Dali Lama (1996)

Those were the sources listed with each quote from the Dali Lama.

And just out of curiousity, what sect of Tibetan Buddhism do you follow that claims homosexual sex, etc. is alright, and who is its spiritual leader (since it obviously isn't the Dali Lama)?

It will eventually end up like Christianity (or Islam), with the priesthood picking and choosing what to believe for the faithful.
The Dalai Lama is hardly representative of all Buddhists though. He's a tibetian buddhist, he has absolutlely no authority with buddhists from any other region or even with all tibetian buddhists. Buddhism is a very diverse and flexible religion, it has been combined with all kinds of regional religions to form completely different versions of the same thing in different places. One can combined buddhism with one's own ideas if one wants to and basically pick and choose what to follow. But nowhere in buddhist literature are same sex relationships condemned. The only sort of sex that is considered negative is sex outside a loving relationship.

I didn't say that the Bible or christianity were inherently homophobic either.

And yet we see many of the adherents manage to find them so.

That doesn't mean that that sort of behaviour is actually religion-based instead of bigorty-based.

It is as "religion based" as everything else people who call themselves religious do - religion is convenient to excuse the "they're icky, I don't like them" factor.

The Dalai Lama is hardly representative of all Buddhists though. He's a tibetian buddhist, he has absolutlely no authority with buddhists from any other region or even with all tibetian buddhists. Buddhism is a very diverse and flexible religion, it has been combined with all kinds of regional religions to form completely different versions of the same thing in different places. One can combined buddhism with one's own ideas if one wants to and basically pick and choose what to follow. But nowhere in buddhist literature are same sex relationships condemned. The only sort of sex that is considered negative is sex outside a loving relationship.
Hmm, so I wonder where he comes out with such statements. I guess then Buddhism lacks the central authority that Christianity and Islam enjoyed?

And yet we see many of the adherents manage to find them so.
Yes they do, that doesn't make it right or consistent with the religion they claim to follow.

It is as "religion based" as everything else people who call themselves religious do - religion is convenient to excuse the "they're icky, I don't like them" factor.
Yeah, that's basically all there is to it.

Hmm, so I wonder where he comes out with such statements. I guess then Buddhism lacks the central authority that Christianity and Islam enjoyed?
Er... Christianity and Islam haven't had central athorities for centuries either.

Didn't see any mention of the BJP in your articles, but I may just have not been looking hard enough. I'm lazy that way.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/1999/09/30/india1626.htm

It took them a whole sentence to mention it. I can see how it must have been hard to keep reading that long.

Hmm, so I wonder where he comes out with such statements. I guess then Buddhism lacks the central authority that Christianity and Islam enjoyed?
It's likely due to the society he was raised in, it was much more conservative than the rest of the world. I also don't know too much about lamanism (the religion buddhism blended with in Tibet) so it is possible that lamanaism has some condemnations against same sex relationships. Or it's just his personal beliefs.

It is as "religion based" as everything else people who call themselves religious do - religion is convenient to excuse the "they're icky, I don't like them" factor.
Not all religious people do so, Fass.

It's likely due to the society he was raised in, it was much more conservative than the rest of the world. I also don't know too much about lamanism (the religion buddhism blended with in Tibet) so it is possible that lamanaism has some condemnations against same sex relationships. Or it's just his personal beliefs.
I am rather clueless on Buddhism, so I'll have to go with what you say. Never been a religion with much appeal to me, unlike Satanism.

One can combined buddhism with one's own ideas if one wants to and basically pick and choose what to follow.

This is a Westernized, pop-culture view of Buddhism. Most mainstream Buddhist sects aren't that flexible, and although they adopted pre-existing beliefs when they were formed, today they adhere to rigid systems of dogma.

But nowhere in buddhist literature are same sex relationships condemned. The only sort of sex that is considered negative is sex outside a loving relationship.

Except for the Buddhist literature of the Dali Lama, such as Beyond Dogma, right? The name is pretty ironic in itself. Or wait, is this not Buddhist literature for some reason?

Religious studies was my major in school, and I can't say I'm even a tiny bit shocked at this video. Most Eastern religions are just as dogmatic and prejudicial toward minorities (like gays) and women as Western monotheism. Western pop-culture just doesn't like to portray them in that light, due to the recurring drift away from Western monotheism in the West and the rising popularity in Eastern religion due to its influence on New Ageism.

And most Westerners who claim to practice Buddhism are in fact practicing a distorted, watered-down version that they have read about in a New Age phamplet rather than that of an established sect, or what you will find practiced in the East.

Yes they do, that doesn't make it right or consistent with the religion they claim to follow.

Because you can judge their own religion better than they do, or impugn their "claims" to follow it?

Yeah, that's basically all there is to it.

Hence why there are very few major religions that are all that much "better" or "tolerant" or "progressive."

This is a Westernized, pop-culture view of Buddhism. Most mainstream Buddhist sects aren't that flexible, and although they adopted pre-existing beliefs when they were formed, today they adhere to rigid systems of dogma.



Except for the Buddhist literature of the Dali Lama, such as Beyond Dogma, right? The name is pretty ironic in itself. Or wait, is this not Buddhist literature for some reason?

Religious studies was my major in school, and I can't say I'm even a tiny bit shocked at this video. Most Eastern religions are just as dogmatic and prejudicial toward minorities (like gays) and women as Western monotheism. Western pop-culture just doesn't like to portray them in that light, due to the recurring drift away from Western monotheism in the West and the rising popularity in Eastern religion due to its influence on New Ageism.

And most Westerners who claim to practice Buddhism are in fact practicing a distorted, watered-down version that they have read about in a New Age phamplet rather than that of an established sect, or what you will find practiced in the East.

Hear, hear!

http://hrw.org/english/docs/1999/09/30/india1626.htm

It took them a whole sentence to mention it. I can see how it must have been hard to keep reading that long.

I meant in your articles that refer to gays. Saying the BJP is anti-Christian is irrelevant.

Not all religious people do so, Fass.

Of course not all of them do so. Not all of them blow themselves up, either, but we all know how Christianity and Islam and Judaism have elements to them that don't exactly resemble a Hallmark Card, which makes it a bit weird that so many in the West seem to think that the New Age religions don't.

Because you can judge their own religion better than they do, or impugn their "claims" to follow it?
Well, I wouldn't say it's a matter of judging anything, just that if they took an objective look into their own scripture instead of interpreting it the way they want to see it then they'd notice that there are more important things.

Hence why there are very few major religions that are all that much "better" or "tolerant" or "progressive."
I never said there were. Certain branches of some religions are though.

This is a Westernized, pop-culture view of Buddhism. Most mainstream Buddhist sects aren't that flexible, and although they adopted pre-existing beliefs when they were formed, today they adhere to rigid systems of dogma.
Funny, I know buddhists who treat it this way. Not westernized buddhists either...

Except for the Buddhist literature of the Dali Lama, such as Beyond Dogma, right? The name is pretty ironic in itself. Or wait, is this not Buddhist literature for some reason?
The Dalai Lama doesn't speak for all buddhists.

Of course not all of them do so. Not all of them blow themselves up, either, but we all know how Christianity and Islam and Judaism have elements to them that don't exactly resemble a Hallmark Card, which makes it a bit weird that so many in the West seem to think that the New Age religions don't.
Ok, I can agree with that.

But, in any case, the Manu Smrti mentions "maithunam pumsi" ("unnatural offence with a male").

Ignorant fool.

Manu Smriti is a smriti written by Manu (a king) and has no standing as a bonafide hindu scripture. Smritis are written for the times. Shrutis are the ones that are considered bonafide scriptures.

Manusmriti is no more a hindu scripture than kamasutra is.

Googling will only get you so far.

The Indian society is now a conservative society (add to that the victorian influence from the colonial era). It was not always so. Google pics of kajuraho and statues depicting bestiality inside temples and you will get to know that it is hard to stereotype hinduism.

Well, I wouldn't say it's a matter of judging anything, just that if they took an objective look into their own scripture instead of interpreting it the way they want to see it then they'd notice that there are more important things.


I never said there were. Certain branches of some religions are though.

Just curious, what would an "objective" look into scripture actually consist of?

I meant in your articles that refer to gays. Saying the BJP is anti-Christian is irrelevant.

You think they're tolerant of Islam, when you see what they've been to Christianity?

But, I do think it's hilarious, your defence of Hinduism being based in the assumption that "oh, that might have been Muslims, because, you know, it's usually Muslims that do that!"

Just curious, what would an "objective" look into scripture actually consist of?
Reading and analyzing it without looking for something that agrees with your pre-existing beliefs?

And here I was thinking Buddhists spent their time high all the time. :(

Now I need to find a new favorite religion...

And here I was thinking Buddhists spent their time high all the time. :(

Now I need to find a new favorite religion...

Rastafarians spend their time high all the time and are very trendy.

Although, like a lot of religions, when people really learn about it then it might not seem as neat as it originally did.

And here I was thinking Buddhists spent their time high all the time. :(

Now I need to find a new favorite religion...
If you think they spend their time high all the time you haven't read a damn thing about Buddhism. One of the five precepts forbids all intoxicants.

Ignorant fool.

Manu Smriti is a smriti written by Manu (a king) and has no standing as a bonafide hindu scripture. Smritis are written for the times. Shrutis are the ones that are considered bonafide scriptures.

Manusmriti is no more a hindu scripture than kamasutra is.

Googling will only get you so far.

http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9371223?query=sacrament&ct=

"Most authoritative of the books of the Hindu law code (Dharma-shastra)."

As will looking in such things as, oh, Encyclopaedias, apparently, which directly contradict you. :rolleyes:

The Indian society is now a conservative society (add to that the victorian influence from the colonial era). It was not always so. Google pics of kajuraho and statues depicting bestiality inside temples and you will get to know that it is hard to stereotype hinduism.

And, in the past, Islam used to be more progressive than Christianity, but what is it today? We can ask the same thing about Hinduism.

You think they're tolerant of Islam, when you see what they've been to Christianity?

But, I do think it's hilarious, your defence of Hinduism being based in the assumption that "oh, that might have been Muslims, because, you know, it's usually Muslims that do that!"

I don't claim they're tolerant of Muslims, nor am I defending Hinduism in general. I was just saying that you provide no evidence whatsoever that specifically anti-gayness is a Hindu belief. In any case, you vaguely provided some later, so this is irrelevant.

The Dalai Lama doesn't speak for all buddhists.

I'm not sure anyone on this thread has claimed that the Dalai Lama speaks for all Buddhists. This seems to be the non sequitur response to avoid the fact that the Dalai Lama, and thus major sects of Buddhism, (as well as what I originally addressed, that there is Budhdist literature, such as the Dalai Lama's Beyond Dogma, that condemns homosexuality), don't approve of homosexuality.

Therevada has also traditionally interpreted one of the five precepts of right conduct, "I undertake to abstain from sexual misconduct", to exclude homosexual relationships. Yes, many modern Buddhists interpret it to be inclusive of homosexuals as appropriate, but this hasn't always been the case. The ambiguity potentially leaves it up for personal interpretation or that of local leaders.

When it comes down to it, we can find as many Buddhist teachers throughout history who have condemned homosexuality (Gampopa, Longchenpa, etc.) as we have that have abstained from commentary or supported it, and as many that interpret it as unacceptable today as those that interpret it as acceptable. Its the same with virtually any religion; there are Christians that support homosexuality, and those that condemn it, etc. The point is that Buddhism isn't really any more liberal or permissive than any other popular religion, although the pseudo-intellectuals in the West have been attempting to portray it as such with the onset of the New Age movement and the withdrawl from traditional Western monotheism.

I don't have anything against most religions as religion.

I do have issues with most religious leaders.

I found this topic interesting, since the pope and dali lama (and sometimes the Bahai leadership) are the examples I use of how religion gets corrupted completely away from its founding intent.

Mohammad was smart enough to see this, and even with the precautions he took, Islam still fractured six ways from Sunday.

But any rate, the Buddhism practiced by most Americans is to Tibetean Buddhism as historic gnosticism was to the Pauline church.

My personal beliefs are close enough to gnosticism that I could reasonably claim to be a gnostic, and hence a Christian.

I don't, because all modern sects of Christianity, except, to an extent, the descendents of the Puritans (I was raised a Unitarian) are very different from the original teachings of Christ.

So while I agree with most of what Christ taught (as I intepret it), I'd never call myself a Christian, since that would get "real" Christians lecturing me on n ot following the seven signs of a true church or whatever it's called.

Similarly, I find it rather odd that people who purport try to follow the original teachings of Buddha call themselves Buddhists, when they are so fundamentally at odds with the majority of Buddhists. And they throw in a lot of new age dreck and drivel as well, removing it from both the founding principles and the modern adherents.

Admittedly, Sufi'ism is similar in relation to Islam, but it has a longer tradition and smarter adherents, and coexists with more traditional versions of Islam in its Kurdish strongholds.

If you think they spend their time high all the time you haven't read a damn thing about Buddhism. One of the five precepts forbids all intoxicants.

*raises intoxicant* Here's to sarcasm.

you forgot poland

I'm so high right now
In Buddhist Southeast Asia, Poland forgets YOU!

Dude, getting high sounds pretty good right now ...

http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9371223?query=sacrament&ct=

"Most authoritative of the books of the Hindu law code (Dharma-shastra)."

As will looking in such things as, oh, Encyclopaedias, apparently, which directly contradict you.

Britannica can suck my dick.

Hindu law code != hinduism the same way how shariat != islam.

Funny how hindus are governed by the Indian civil and penal code and not by Manu's laws even though they are hindus and are supposedly bound by mumbo jumbo of yore.

And, in the past, Islam used to be more progressive than Christianity, but what is it today? We can ask the same thing about Hinduism.

You are repeating the same mistake.

Behaviour of a society != ideals of the religion that the society claims to follow.

Progressiveness of mediaval islam is not due to islam. It was due to the influx of ideas from conquered lands and not due to islamic teachings in itself. It is the the same way with the progressiveness and the conservativeness of Indian society, more so because hinduism is a non-centralized religion unlike islam.

Dude, whatever googling you may do, even inluding reading of translations, you will still come up short with what I know of my people and my religion.....mainly because the western scholarship is woefully inadequate (and even misleading) on hinduism.

You are repeating the same mistake.

Behaviour of a society != ideals of the religion that the society claims to follow.

Progressiveness of mediaval islam is not due to islam. It was due to the influx of ideas from conquered lands and not due to islamic teachings in itself. It is the the same way with the progressiveness and the conservativeness of Indian society, more so because hinduism is a non-centralized religion unlike islam.

Dude, whatever googling you may do, even inluding reading of translations, you will still come up short with what I know of my people and my religion.....mainly because the western scholarship is woefully inadequate (and even misleading) on hinduism.

Behavior of a society=ideals the society does follow. Religions and ideologies evolve, so if people are currently being anti-gay and calling it a "Hindu" act, then guess what, it is a Hindu act, because they're the people who get to determine if it is or not. If you did something anti-gay, it wouldn't be a Hindu act, because you would justify it based on something other than Hinduism.

Behavior of a society=ideals the society does follow. Religions and ideologies evolve, so if people are currently being anti-gay and calling it a "Hindu" act, then guess what, it is a Hindu act, because they're the people who get to determine if it is or not. If you did something anti-gay, it wouldn't be a Hindu act, because you would justify it based on something other than Hinduism.

It would then be a hindu society's problem. If hindu religious leaders fail to rectify it, then it would be the failure of hindu religious leaders.

I fail to see how it is a problem of hinduism.

Can hindus be accused of being conservative, anti-gay, bigotted, etc etc...? Yes.

Can hinduism be accused of that? IMO, No. Show me proof. Show me quotes from bonafide scriptures - Bhagvad Gita, Srimad Bhagavatham, Vedas etc. For that you need to have read more (and associated more with real devoteees) than simple cursory googling.

Not some translations from smritis which are NOT accorded divine stature and thus have no bearing on the subject.

Dude, whatever googling you may do, even inluding reading of translations, you will still come up short with what I know of my people and my religion.....mainly because the western scholarship is woefully inadequate (and even misleading) on hinduism.
Forgive me for asking, but why can you speak as an athority on Hinduism to the point of denoucing Western scholarship on it?

Are you a trained as a cleric?

Guess we'd all better join Scientology then. It obviously is happy to accpet gays (e.g Tom Cruise)

Guess we'd all better join Scientology then. It obviously is happy to accpet gays (e.g Tom Cruise)
Yeah, it promises to cure them. How open-minded. :rolleyes:

Yeah, it promises to cure them. How open-minded. :rolleyes:
Well, if what they've done to Tom Cruise is a cure, they need to reassess their therapies.

Forgive me for asking, but why can you speak as an athority on Hinduism to the point of denoucing Western scholarship on it?

Are you a trained as a cleric?

I was. I spent my formative years in missionary schools - 5 years in a hindu missionary school - Ramakrishna Vidyalaya (3 years in an islamic school -Al-Ameen - and 4 years in a cathollic convent St.Thomas missionary school)....

Western scholarship on hinduism was and still is mostly nonsense (starting with Mueller, Dubois et al to modern day Michael Witzel, Wendy Doniger etc...)

Read about Wendy Doniger controversy in Microsoft Encarta and the Kali's child controversy in Britannica encyclopedia.

And just out of curiousity, what sect of Tibetan Buddhism do you follow that claims homosexual sex, etc. is alright, and who is its spiritual leader (since it obviously isn't the Dali Lama)?

Drikung Kagyu under Garchen Rinpoche is what I mostly follow.

Sorry, my speakers aren't working well and I didn't get to hear the whole sources. Thanks to everyone who posted them.

I want to see proof of their sources. Most Buddhists do not believe the thing the clips claim. Most Buddhists think that homosexual sex is fine as long as they follow the same rules as heterosexual sex (basically, there has to be love involved). Abortion depends on the person, as does masturbation (depends on if you're a lay person or monk and which version of Buddhism you follow). Plus, only Tibetan Buddhists follow the Dalai Lama. Oh, and there are different sects of Tibetan Buddhism. The path of Tibetan Buddhism I follow says homosexual relationships are just fine, abortion should not be outlawed, and masturbation should be avoided (but it's not a sin). Like I said, there are different paths.

Exactly. But don't expect the reactionary, simplistic idiots who listen to every half ass thing they see on TV to hear that.

I loved that program. Hilliarous.

Just for you Fass, here's some hot Tibetan Monk-on-Monk action for you:
http://shim1.shutterfly.com/procgserv/47b6da06b3127cce98548d89928b00000017109YZOW7Zzw

From when I was in Tibet at Easter and visited the Songzanlin Monastery in Shangri-La (built in 1679 for the 5th Dalai Lama - the 2nd biggest Tibetan Monastry I think).
We all noticed, and commented at the time, that some of the Monks there seemed really fond of each other.