Did you read my Lamaism links? I had no idea that version of Buddhism was a hybrid with an earlier religion. Lamaism is steeped in secret rites, etc.

What you're trying to do is advocate a modern Westernized version of Buddhism over the ancient versions of it.

But I already did the critical comparison between Buddhism and Christianity several years ago.

Christianity is way ahead of Buddhism in the most critical category: spiritual rebirth.

I stumbled across an interview with Allan Wallace and he was asked essentially is Buddhism working in the west - it was a pretty interesting piece.

A couple paragraphs from one of his answers I thought was pretty good and illustrates quite a different mind set towards religious thinking, and kind of echoes a bit about what I posted earlier:

Wallace is probably correct - that only a few lamas are actively seeking to adjust to Western tendcies and mores; one I can think of was Chyogam Trungpa - however, probably more relevant to today is the Dali Lama. The Dali Lama seems to continually try to invoke a conversation with Western scientist about the life, universe and everything.

So I guess, my question is what is it about Buddhism that is appealing to someone in a Western culture? And conversely what is it about the West that draws in Buddhists? I guess, in a larger sense - given that the cultures are different (contemplative v. non-contemplative), what would a symbiotic relationship between the two look like?

Does this even make sense?

This sentence doesn't make a lot of sense yet there are some problems off the top. First off, I'm not trying to dominate anyone. I simply think you post nonsense constantly that I like to counter. But, even if I was trying to dominate another person, that alone is not "emotionally irrational."

When you remove your conspiracy theories and dramatic theories the world is much simpler then you make it out to be.

You make erroneous and/or irrational posts. (see last post for examples) I counter them. You labelling this "misognyist" or "an emotionally irrational act of dominating another person" (my rephrase) doesn't change the simple fact that you make bad posts and people point it out.

Once again you demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of the words you use. Even if I was "emotionally irrational" that is not a criteria of being misogynist.

Let's help you out since you seem to lazy to look up the words you abuse.
Please learn the definition of words before you use them and abuse them.

Even if I had the uncontrollable compulsion to dominate someone publicly it wouldn't make me a misogynist. Its a little embarrassing how you keep using words wrong.

Not really. Someone can hate women and have no behaviour trying to dominate them. Also, people can be dominant over people but not because they're women.

For the record, I could care less that you're a woman. Its the quality of your posts that makes you a forum attention getter. Not the fact that you're a woman.

I've spent most of my life working for female bosses. I have a 15 year relationship with my wife. All of these women regularly contradict me. Since I'm as gender focused as you it doesn't really bother me. I just enjoy how consistantly wrong you are.

I like Buddhism - I don't profess to be a lay practioner and of course not a monk. As such I feel OK with saying this -

With your every post in this thread, that you started, you continually demonstrate your utter lack of understanding about Buddhism and bring in to question the quality/sincerity of your self-described "research."

You come off as very intellectually dishonest, closed minded and only want to perpetuate a certain agenda. You, over and over again, dismiss any arguments that are contrary to your own - it seems, without any thought or contemplation.

I do not care if someone says Christianity > Buddhism, I equally don't care if someone says Buddhism > Christianity - it makes no difference. What matters is the discussion and you have brought nothing to the table except an apparent chip on your shoulder because some peeps don't like Christianity.

Seriously, if you even went half way on a sincere attempt to understand Buddhism you would know why your above quoted post is ridiculous and why you should be embarassed by it. Really, you treat it like its some kind of contest - I said it before - how high school can you be.

Is there a way to ignore people on here?

I remember the results of her study on this. She examined the souls of 1000 Christians and 1000 Buddhists and confirmed that Christianity was leading in the spiritual rebirth race. I give her props on performing a methodical study in this area.

yes.

Click the persons username, then click view public profile, then click user lists, then click add to ignore list.

Read the OP again.

This thread is "what does the West really know about Buddhism?" Not "Let's learn about Buddhism".

Aw strawmanning again.

I made no study. If I had I would have mentioned one. So why did you attribute one to me when you've been claiming you don't strawman?

A doctrinal comparison is enough. A study isn't even necessary.

I think that sums up your thread nicely - lets discuss what we don't know and not learn anything.

Sorry I don't believe you.

The evolutionary topic of dominance says otherwise about your actions. I guess you are afraid of losing status on here so you keep making up things and twisting things.

Your current pecking order at work or home has nothing to do with this and is unverifiable. It has no bearing on this forum's pecking order. They are two totally separate environments.

Well your last link was on topic at least.

Wallace more or less said Tibetan conditions to achieve enlightenment may be unobtainable in The West.

You'd have to read a truckload more about Buddhism before you could do a critical comparison or say with any real certainty that Christianity was ahead of Buddhism in any way.

I would bet my next paycheck that you can't even tell me the eight parts of the Noble Eightfold Path without googling it. And that falls under the heading of "very basic Buddhism". And there is absolutely no way you have even studied, much less comprehended (and I mean no insult, because it's very complex) paticca-samuppada (dependent origination or dependent co-arising).

I myself would not even attempt a critical comparison of Buddhism and Christianity because frankly I do not know enough about Christianity. But I'm quite certain that I could speak intelligently about Christianity for many, many more hours than you could about Buddhism.

No offense intended.

Honestly, your posts would improve if you never used the term strawman again. To the best of my knowledge you've never used it correctly. This is no exception.

Let me bash my head against a brick wall and try to help you.

As one can see I haven't replaced your position with an unequivalent proposition. I am merely mocking the meaninglessness of your statement.

I am not refuting your position that "Christianity is way ahead of Buddhism in the most critical category: spiritual rebirth. " - I am poking fun at the very notion that you're saying anything of substance. Since there is no proof that 'spirits' are anything more then a manmade concept referring to immeasureable object, your entire statement is nonsense.

Not only can you not show that spirits are nothing more then a madeup concept, you could not measure what religion had more of an effect in any manner on a spirit if it did exist.

Your entire statement is nonsense.

Here's the important part... I am not strawmanning anything. I am mocking the foolishness of your actual statement.

Wow. I'm going to bet that you are the only person on this forum who didn't recognize this as sarcasm. Your inability to discern things still never fails to surprise people. No wonder you misrepresent nearly everything you read. You have the reading comprehension of a child.

No its not.

Who cares? You can't properly use simple words, you don't believe anything that contradicts what you want to believe, you would fail out of an basic logic class, the more you read the less you learn... Its hardly meaningful that you don't believe it. I would be more worried if you started agreeing with people.

Yes... I make up things like dictionary definitions showing how you don't even know the meaning of the words you type. I haven't made anything up. You make baby Jesus cry.

Most of what you say and believe is not only unverifiable but contrary to all evidence. That doesn't stop you.

There really isn't much of a pecking order in the forum other then the fact that most of the forum thinks you're irrational and constantly wrong, ill informed, etc.

As usual... you fail to counter any arguments. At the very least, have the dignity to admit you don't what misognyst means and that your messiah complex keeps making you get confused... criticizing Splenda for being irrational is completely different then hating women. And no matter how many times someone mocks your posts it says nothing about women. (hint: you are not all women. You are not even representative of the average woman.)

Ugh - you have been doing this to me in this whole thread - take it one step further.

He said the Tibetan method may not be the right method for Westerners. If it is shown that the success that Tibetan method does produce success in the West, it should be modified to suit the Western mind. Much like Japan has a certain flavor of Buddhism, India has its own flavor of Buddhism.

I think Wallace's point was that you can't just assume a formula that worked in Tibet will work here - the conditions are different, i.e., the culture is different. If you just try to thrust the Tibet model on the West, all you'll get are fundamentalist, rigid & arrogant thinking - "My way is the only way." This is pretty much the opposite of Buddhist thinking.

This is also the essence of my question from that same post - essentially, how will Buddhism seek to interact with the West. My best guess is that the Dali Lama would like to see a decent amount of interaction with scientist and he believes the next step in science will necessarily involve an exploration of how and where our consciousness interacts with the world. This seems to make sense with what I know about Buddhism and the general importance Buddhism places on empirical reasoning and thought.

I don't think exhaustive knowledge is necessary if a critical connection or comparison is made.

FHP

From the person whose proof that Japan had a problem with sexism was that while women work in the West, in Japan women serve men tea!

Just how much does she have to learn about about subject when you are able to make judgements from such trivial facts?

She already knows that Jesus is the best... she can then read the information about any subject on the back of a matchbook and make all kinds of judgements about it.

It helps that God works directly through her on this forum. He makes sure she knows just the right amount of info to be correct. Most of us who don't have God working through us would have missed the whole "Japanese women serve men tea" nugget that showed how superior the west is to Japan.

Maybe not, but basic knowledge of both sides is certainly necessary for a critical comparison, and you do not have basic knowledge of Buddhism.

Critical comparisons are made off of critical observations.

You really need to acquire your own knowledge of Christianity instead of blindly critiquing someone else's when you don't even know what there insights were.

Geez - this is horrible.

worst.thread.ever

I think it's a facinating thread.

Look at the things learned in it: Tantric sex slaves, Harrar's connection to the SS, etc.

It's really an expose. I like expose threads but people always have to debate in them for some reason.

Tantric sex slaves? Where?

I thought we weren't supposed to learn anything.

Anywho - WTF are you talking about? Perhaps it slipped by me but sex slaves? LOL

Seriously - if you don't like people putting down your beliefs, why do you feel its OK to put down others. I don't think anything in said in here about Buddhism that isn't already known.

This thread turned into a demonstration of your closed mindedness and intolerance - this thread had potential to be a really cool discussion of how Buddhism will interface with Western cultures, instead you pissed all over it, for what it appears to be entirely selfish reasons.

BTW, Tantric practices extend beyond Buddhism and was around before Buddhism came on the scene.

Srsly, do you really think anybody posting on here was aware of Tantric sex slaves before I posted a link?

This isn't a closed minded thread. It's an expose.

Yes, seriously, I do -

http://www.leavingsiddhayoga.net/emperors.htm

It actually is probably a good discussion point about Buddhism and the West