is buddism evil...???

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Still, in his own mind, based on Buddhism.
Yes a loony sect, which fundamentalist branch of any religion isn't?

You sound like someone claiming that Nazism was a branch of Christianity because it had 'facets of Judeao-Christian thought'.

Aum isn't a branch of Buddhism; you're simply wrong about that.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
The question is a bit vague. Have you got a story?

It was a honest question, more than an accusation. I remember vaguely the conflict between the Tamils (mostly Hindus) and the Sinhala (mostly Buddhists) there.

Edit - Found this:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Buddhist-Fundamentalism-and-Minority-Identities-in-Sri-Lanka/Tessa-J-Bartholomeusz/e/9780791438336

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You sound like someone claiming that Nazism was a branch of Christianity because it had 'facets of Judeao-Christian thought'.

Aum isn't a branch of Buddhism; you're simply wrong about that.

I haven't mentioned nazism at all.
If Aum himself says he based his ideology on Buddhism, then who are we to correct him?

Now, read my initial posting:
"Fundamentalists are always evil - or fools.
Religion doesn't matter, there are fundamentalists of every religion."

From this point of view, it doesn't matter if Aum is christian or Buddhist - he is a fundamentalist, and he has a religion.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
From this point of view, it doesn't matter if Aum is christian or Buddhist - he is a fundamentalist, and he has a religion.

There you go back-pedalling again. We're talking about the possibility of Buddhist fundamentalism, so if he's not a Buddhist then your argument is bunk.

In case you don't want to remember, you were answering the following question by Bosse:
Have you got any stories about acts of terror committed by Buddhist fundamentalists?

Originally posted by Palynka
There you go back-pedalling again. We're talking about the possibility of [b]Buddhist fundamentalism, so if he's not a Buddhist then your argument is bunk.[/b]

And I say again - if Aum himself thinks he is a Buddhist, then what can we say about it?
Back-pedalling? Because I refer to what I said earlier that wasn't understood?

Edit: Copied from Wikipedia:
"As Asahara believed the Buddhist path to be the most effective, he selected original Shakyamuni Buddha sermons as a foundation for Aum doctrine;..."

Originally posted by Palynka
It was a honest question, more than an accusation. I remember vaguely the conflict between the Tamils (mostly Hindus) and the Sinhala (mostly Buddhists) there.

Edit - Found this:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Buddhist-Fundamentalism-and-Minority-Identities-in-Sri-Lanka/Tessa-J-Bartholomeusz/e/9780791438336

I didn't take it as one -- I just didn't know what you were talking about.

Now I can see that Buddhist fundamentalism does indeed exist, having arisen within the specific context of Sri Lankan political history. This page here -- http://www.tamilnation.org/tamileelam/fundamentalism/index.htm -- probably isn't very objective but it affords insight nonetheless.

Fundamentalism always seems to imply distortion ...

Originally posted by FabianFnas
And I say again - if Aum himself thinks he is a Buddhist, then what can we say about it?
Back-pedalling? Because I refer to what I said earlier that wasn't understood?

If I say I'm Swedish, what can you say about it?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
If I say I'm Swedish, what can you say about it?

You're welcome.
Do you feel as you are Swedish?
Does Aum feel that he is Buddhist?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I didn't take it as one -- I just didn't know what you were talking about.

Now I can see that Buddhist fundamentalism does indeed exist, having arisen within the specific context of Sri Lankan political history. This page here -- http://www.tamilnation.org/tamileelam/fundamentalism/index.htm -- probably isn't very objective but it affords insight nonetheless.

Fundamentalism always seems to imply distortion ...

Yes, this is my point all along. Most of the fundamentalism is rooted in political history and power struggles, not in the intrinsic characteristics of the religion itself.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
And I say again - if Aum himself thinks he is a Buddhist, then what can we say about it?
Back-pedalling? Because I refer to what I said earlier that wasn't understood?

Edit: Copied from Wikipedia:
"As Asahara believed the Buddhist path to be the most effective, he selected original Shakyamuni Buddha sermons as a foundation for Aum doctrine;..."

So now you agree with me that it does matter if he's a Buddhist or not. Good for you for getting back on track.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You're welcome.
Do you feel as you are Swedish?
Does Aum feel that he is Buddhist?

Yes, I feel Swedish today. I'll change my nationality after lunch.

Shoko Asahara -- Aum Shinrikyo was the name of the movement -- formed a new religion, composed of bits of this and that.

Apparently he feels that he is Christ. How do you feel about that?

Originally posted by Palynka
So now you agree with me that it does matter if he's a Buddhist or not. Good for you for getting back on track.

I think we can very well look at it as a coin's two sides:
Are we talking about fundamentalists and if there is a such in the Buddhistic religion?
Or are we talking about Buddhism and some fundamentalist obscure branch of it?
I see this discussion as multidimensionell. We can look at the coins both sides and compare the findings.

Or are we just looking for the ultimate Truth? Then I have to tell you - the are no unambiguous one Truth. That's what debating is all about, to compare several individual trues.

Or do you just want to win a discussion? Then I let you win right away, it's not that important to me.

Congrats!

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Fundamentalism always seems to imply distortion ...

This is an interesting point. Fundamentalism is usually seen as an intolerance for deviations from the "true interpretation" (as seen by them).

Originally posted by Palynka
This is an interesting point. Fundamentalism is usually seen as an intolerance for deviations from the "true interpretation" (as seen by them).

'By their fruits shall ye know them" -- fundamentalist fruits always seem twisted and bitter.

Originally posted by FabianFnas

Or do you just want to win a discussion? Then I let you win right away, it's not that important to me.

Congrats!

OK, good-bye.

Bosse the Swede