Slashdot Mirror

said that afflictions were caused not by diseases but by what they say [biblehub.com]

I see nothing in that quote referring to diseases. It is saying that we can see and hear horribly things and still be pure of heart. But if we speak evil, then we truly damage ourselves. Buddha said the same thing about how lying leads to self-affliction.

It'd be pretty great if they could get those writings out intact and scan them.
From what I've seen Buddhism is a waning religion, and is probably the only one that most people can't really speak against, since, you know, what has a Buddhist ever done to you?

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi...

I can call myself anything I want (like these folks), but claims won't change reality.

Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding...

The larger issue is: can we teach without worrying about cheating?

Socrates didn't give exams or grade his students. Why do teachers teach with a closed fist, holding some knowledge back? (See Maha-parinibbana Sutta, Part 2 The Journey to Vesali, Paragraph 32.)

There are better ways to transmit knowledge, without enforcing censorship. Testing is really a kind of "security through obscurity".

Instead, I propose let students help each other openly, if they choose to do so. The good students will help others more, so if you still want to find them you can.

Declaring that the free and open sharing of knowledge is cheating says more about the control issues of the teachers than it does about the students.

"how are you going to continually assess students to make sure the class is learning, and not just following patterns or playing a game."

What do you know about learning? "Those who can't, teach." Teachers try to validate themselves by requiring students to pay attention to them, or else!

I prefer Socrates's method: teach for free, and don't give exams. If you end up in a state of aporia, that's okay. As Confucius says in The Analects, Book II Chapter XVII: "Yu, shall I teach you what knowledge is? When you know a thing, to hold that you know it; and when you do not know a thing, to allow that you do not know it;-- this is knowledge."

Instead of obsessing over whether a student is learning or not, and spending time trying to evaluate others, just concentrate on transferring knowledge; if you want to give assignments, ask the students to figure out something you don't know how to do yet. Work with the students to further knowledge, instead of acting as their adversary and withholding knowledge "with the closed fist of the teacher who keeps some things back" (Maha-parinibbana Sutta: Last Days of the Buddha, Part 2, Verse 32).

Andrew, I think you need to read more about Buddhism.

The Buddha always encouraged to help people, actually that is the whole point of him teaching, to help others understand suffering and be free from it.

Here is just one example that can be read in the rules for Buddhist monks:

"One when he discovered a monk lying in his soiled robes, desperately ill with an acute attack of dysentery. With the help of Ananda, the Buddha washed and cleaned the sick monk in warm water. On this occasion he reminded the monks that they have neither parents nor relatives to look after them, so they must look after one another. If the teacher is ill, it is the bounden duty of the pupil to look after him, and if the pupil is ill it is the teacher's duty to look after the sick pupil. If a teacher or a pupil is not available it is the responsibility of the community to look after the sick"

Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/desilva/bl132.html

In the other direction, you have some belief systems that have a notion similar to hell but no equivalent of heaven. For example, in some forms of Buddhism, there are very unpleasant things one can be reincarnated to to suffer for milllenia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naraka_(Buddhism) but there's no real equivalent of heaven. So one can not only have a belief in heaven with no belief in hell, one can have a belief in hell with no belief in heaven.

Actually, in the original teachings of nearly all forms of Buddhism there are many realms of existence, including heaven and hell and everything in between.

The link above is to the cosmology of Theravada, the most Orthodox form of Buddhism, which most all other schools of Buddhism are rooted in. Beings live out their lives in each realm of existence, pass away according to their deeds and actions, and are reborn again in yet another realm. Life in all realms is transitory.

With this as the background, one of the main drives for enlightenment, awakening, and Nibbana / Nirvana, is to put an end to this process of transmigration, the round of rebirths called samsara, and acheive the cessation of the turmoil of repeated existence.

Buddhism does not have teachings about "soul and such".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html

I suggest reading about Kamma (Karma in Sanskrit). The typical western interpretation of the word is far from what was taught by the Buddha.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/kamma.html

Buddhism does not have teachings about "soul and such".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html

I suggest reading about Kamma (Karma in Sanskrit). The typical western interpretation of the word is far from what was taught by the Buddha.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/kamma.html

Any religion that promotes supernaturalism or offers mythology as a substitute for reality is bad.

The point of Buddhism (as I understand it) is to be a set of practice instructions that, if you follow them, will lead to the end of suffering (without needing to die and go into some afterlife). You don't even need faith - you can start doing the practice out of curiosity, and keep doing it once you see that it is working. The supernatural/mythological aspects are hardly the most important. At best you perhaps like them and as a result undertake the practice. At worst you simply don't need to address them at all.

That is not to say that people can't turn it into a religion, perhaps to the point of killing others in the name of it/with its aid (see "Zen at War"). But the good stuff is in there.

Christianity only demands that Christians do not take slaves...

Where in the Bible is that? The Old Testament explicitly okays slavery, and I don't think Jesus ever condemned it.

Some religions have other names for forced labourers, like for example Hinduism's "dalits" or buddhism's many forms of forced labourers, like "vasala", who should be forced to work by the point of a sword.

Dalits have been the targets of hideous discrimination, but I don't know that they've ever been forced laborers, and reform movements within Hinduism have been trying to purge the caste system for centuries.

"Vasala" just means "outcast". In Buddhism, what makes a person an outcast is one's misdeeds -- "Not by birth is one an outcast; not by birth is one a brahman. By deed one becomes an outcast, by deed one becomes a brahman."

If you can cite any sutra where the Buddha tells people to force these outcasts at swordpoint to work -- indeed, if you can cite a sutra where the Buddha tells people to point a sword at anyone -- I'd appreciate the information.

Islam for example, demands muslims not only support slavery...

No more so than Christians or Jews, whose holy books also speak positively of slavery.

There are of course also atheists who have defended slavery -- Mao, for example, effectively enslaved millions.

>>Show me a canonical text that actually says what you claim.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn15/sn15.014.than.html

And you can find further discourse and analysis online.

Apologies can be accepted in the form of Oreos in the mail.

Richard Stallman encourages seeking payment for software.

Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible -- just enough to cover the cost.

Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If this seems surprising to you, please read on.

The word ``free'' has two legitimate general meanings; it can refer either to freedom or to price. When we speak of ``free software'', we're talking about freedom, not price. (Think of ``free speech'', not ``free beer''.) Specifically, it means that a user is free to run the program, change the program, and redistribute the program with or without changes......

Stallman's philosophy stands in opposition to unbundling the various legal rights: Sell or don't sell. One or the other. Don't try to join the rentier class by selling a limited licence. Charge a fee for a service, like a doctor or a lawyer.

It is not that hard to grasp that Stallman encourages people to charge money for software. Other worldly Buddhist monks can reject the GNU GPL because it permits resale. I expect posters on slashdot to have at least this minimum grasp of the financial side of software licensing.

Richard Stallman encourages seeking payment for software.

Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible -- just enough to cover the cost.

Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If this seems surprising to you, please read on.

The word ``free'' has two legitimate general meanings; it can refer either to freedom or to price. When we speak of ``free software'', we're talking about freedom, not price. (Think of ``free speech'', not ``free beer''.) Specifically, it means that a user is free to run the program, change the program, and redistribute the program with or without changes......

Stallman's philosophy stands in opposition to unbundling the various legal rights: Sell or don't sell. One or the other. Don't try to join the rentier class by selling a limited licence. Charge a fee for a service, like a doctor or a lawyer.

It is not that hard to grasp that Stallman encourages people to charge money for software. Other worldly Buddhist monks can reject the GNU GPL because it permits resale. I expect posters on slashdot to have at least this minimum grasp of the financial side of software licensing.

Richard Stallman encourages seeking payment for software.

Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible -- just enough to cover the cost.

Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If this seems surprising to you, please read on.

The word ``free'' has two legitimate general meanings; it can refer either to freedom or to price. When we speak of ``free software'', we're talking about freedom, not price. (Think of ``free speech'', not ``free beer''.) Specifically, it means that a user is free to run the program, change the program, and redistribute the program with or without changes......

Stallman's philosophy stands in opposition to unbundling the various legal rights: Sell or don't sell. One or the other. Don't try to join the rentier class by selling a limited licence. Charge a fee for a service, like a doctor or a lawyer.

It is not that hard to grasp that Stallman encourages people to charge money for software. Other worldly Buddhist monks can reject the GNU GPL because it permits resale. I expect posters on slashdot to have at least this minimum grasp of the financial side of software licensing.

Didn't the Buddha talk about how thoughts of sensuality, ill will, and harmfulness blind us, but thoughts of renunciation, non-ill will (to be understood as not just absence of ill will but positive qualities of love and generosity), and harmlessness produce knowledge and vision?

Why yes, he did. In fact, right intention, one path factor of eight on the Buddhist path, is composed of intention to develp thoughts on each of these. How anyone following the Buddhist path could blind themselves with their religion (or way of life, whatever you like to call it), by practising it with intentions of gaining the goal is beyond me.

Keeping the Breath in Mind

Hmm -- the Dhammapada, and in fact the entire Pali Canon, are full of repeated recommendations to exert oneself diligently to achieve nibbana. The Buddha dreamt up numerous encouragements and inducements to get people to practice. Here are a few references:

• http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/conversat ion.html#persistence
• http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/samma-vayamo.ht ml
• http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an0 8-080.html
• http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an1 0-051.html
• http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp/ 02.html

Hmm -- the Dhammapada, and in fact the entire Pali Canon, are full of repeated recommendations to exert oneself diligently to achieve nibbana. The Buddha dreamt up numerous encouragements and inducements to get people to practice. Here are a few references:

• http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/conversat ion.html#persistence
• http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/samma-vayamo.ht ml
• http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an0 8-080.html
• http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an1 0-051.html
• http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp/ 02.html

Hmm -- the Dhammapada, and in fact the entire Pali Canon, are full of repeated recommendations to exert oneself diligently to achieve nibbana. The Buddha dreamt up numerous encouragements and inducements to get people to practice. Here are a few references:

• http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/conversat ion.html#persistence
• http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/samma-vayamo.ht ml
• http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an0 8-080.html
• http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an1 0-051.html
• http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp/ 02.html

Hmm -- the Dhammapada, and in fact the entire Pali Canon, are full of repeated recommendations to exert oneself diligently to achieve nibbana. The Buddha dreamt up numerous encouragements and inducements to get people to practice. Here are a few references:

• http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/conversat ion.html#persistence
• http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/samma-vayamo.ht ml
• http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an0 8-080.html
• http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an1 0-051.html
• http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp/ 02.html

Hmm -- the Dhammapada, and in fact the entire Pali Canon, are full of repeated recommendations to exert oneself diligently to achieve nibbana. The Buddha dreamt up numerous encouragements and inducements to get people to practice. Here are a few references:

• http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/conversat ion.html#persistence
• http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/samma-vayamo.ht ml
• http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an0 8-080.html
• http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an1 0-051.html
• http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp/ 02.html

Years ago I did a yoga retreat, and learned enough of the history to discover that some millenia ago, yoga and meditation were the hot happening things that occupied the brainiest people then living, the then-equivalent of today's startups and stock options and IPOs. Interesting.

This essay describes a historical cycle that takes place in Thailand, repeating every century or two. Somebody goes out into the forest and meditates like crazy, rediscovers the Buddha's original findings, and starts a monastic forest tradition. Then the local authorities re-domesticate Buddhism, harnessing it for nationalistic and social purposes. After a few generations the forest tradition burns out, leaving behind a state-endorsed religion that discards the investigative orientation on which the forest tradition thrived. A century or so later, somebody else starts the whole thing up again.

While I agree that it's wishful thinking to try to match up the beliefs of any religion too directly with contemporary science, I must point out here that there are different kinds of Buddhism. Radically different kinds.

Your parent poster probably had something like Theravada in mind.

Disclaimer: IANABE (I Am Not A Buddhist Either)

It is not at all uncommon to find things similar to the one described at the beginning of Buddhist scriptures and suttas. It was considered a meritotious act to distribute copies of the scriptures; in China and Japan, the rich would donate to the temples and monestaries to have a copy of a particular sutta(e.g the diamond) or a set of suttas (e.g the Digha Nikaya, or Long Discourse) published. It was even considered the duty of monks to expound the teachings to anyone who asked(notice that this includes "anyone who asks", not prostelytizing to the uninterested or followers of other religions). So there is really nothing all that odd about the inscription on the inside of this particular book. Anyone familiar with this tradition could probably tell you about it and probably better than I. I really fail to see what it has to do with the GPL; to be honest, if I didn't know better I would call this a crosspost from segfault. If you wanna know a bit more about the suttas, check out Access to Insight, or Dharmanet.

PS- yes, I do know how to spell "sutra". It's Sanskrit, I use Pali. These things happen.