Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Japan Launches 'Buddha Phone'

Posted by samzenpus on from the the-eight-immortal-numbers dept.

CNETNate writes "The Japanese Odin 99 handset isn't a regular video-enabled phone. It's geared, perhaps somewhat ironically, towards the Buddhist geek. Aside from regular cell phone features, a dedicated button loads a private, customizable, animated altar on the phone's screen. The idea is to allow Buddhists to perform their dedications conveniently on-the-go. You can simulate incense burning, purification rites and play music to help you meditate wherever you happen to be. The question is, does such a device somewhat negate the values a Buddhist would stand for?"

212 comments

  1. Umm... by SCPRedMage · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The question is, does such a device somewhat negate the values a Buddhist would stand for?"

    Yes.

    --
    My sig can beat up your sig.
    1. Re:Umm... by dave562 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      +1.

      My experience with Buddhism (Chan / Zen) has been that the intention behind the practices involves becoming mindful and living in the moment. One of the key aspects of the training involves sitting in meditation and just "being". It isn't that a person lights incense for the sake of lighting incense. They might incense so that they can focus on the incense and meditate on it as it burns.

      I personally meditate on the train quite often. My Blackberry doesn't meditate for me. I do the meditating.

      Buddhism is like any other religion. There are a lot of people who get so caught up in the rituals of the religion that they don't fully understand the underlying reason for doing the ritual in the first place. It's not like once you've lit your 10,000th stick of incense, some guy named Buddha appears before you, smacks you on the forehead to open up your third eye and then you're suddenly enlightened.

    2. Re:Umm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His friends simply call him "Bud."

    3. Re:Umm... by Starayo · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's not like once you've lit your 10,000th stick of incense, some guy named Buddha appears before you, smacks you on the forehead to open up your third eye and then you're suddenly enlightened.

      That would be pretty awesome, though. I'd convert.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:Umm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's not like once you've lit your 10,000th stick of incense, some guy named Buddha appears before you, smacks you on the forehead to open up your third eye and then you're suddenly enlightened.

      That would be pretty awesome, though. I'd convert.

      Screw that. Too much grinding. Couldn't they mix up the levels? Like sometimes you burn incense, sometimes rake rocks, take pilgrimages etc?

    5. Re:Umm... by Joe+Snipe · · Score: 4, Funny

      not like once you've lit your 10,000th stick of incense, some guy named Buddha appears before you, smacks you on the forehead to open up your third eye and then you're suddenly enlightened.

      It usually takes several smacks.

      --
      Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
    6. Re:Umm... by dave562 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I can't even get the guy to talk to me, much less smack me in the head. I think he's put off by all of the conversations going on in my head all the time. ;)

    7. Re:Umm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, I was just about to post this very answer. Only without the quote. It is a funny, zen-type of a joke.

    8. Re:Umm... by gstoddart · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Buddhism is like any other religion.

      Buddhism isn't technically a religion. There really isn't a "god" to believe in, and some of the Western interpretations play down a lot of the actual parts which make it a religion and emphasize the personal growth aspect of it. You can believe in literal reincarnation and nirvana, or treat it as more of a metaphor and a way to teach a more meaningful life. There's nothing inherent to it which requires you to take it all on faith, and it's always up for debate if it proves to be wrong -- it's just held up to close examination. Many people consider themselves as Buddhists without considering it their religion. In fact, Buddhism can co-exist with a religion -- you can be Catholic and practice Buddhism.

      It's not like once you've lit your 10,000th stick of incense, some guy named Buddha appears before you, smacks you on the forehead to open up your third eye and then you're suddenly enlightened.

      Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. :-P

      Cheers

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    9. Re:Umm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Screw that. Too much grinding. Couldn't they mix up the levels? Like sometimes you burn incense, sometimes rake rocks, take pilgrimages etc?

      Paint. Arrange flowers. Serve tea. Take photographs. Observe a lake. Walk. Clean dishes.

      Many people, many paths. No shortcuts, not everything works for everyone.

    10. Re:Umm... by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      The kind of Buddhism imported to the West - secularized, made "not a religion," turned into a kind of set of technologies for personal development, stripped of any perspectives that generally clash with regular humanism - is very much unlike the Buddhisms of Asia, which are very much religions, which have real religious exclusivity, which have outright superstitions, rituals, etc.

    11. Re:Umm... by bcrowell · · Score: 1

      The kind of Buddhism imported to the West - secularized, made "not a religion," turned into a kind of set of technologies for personal development, stripped of any perspectives that generally clash with regular humanism - is very much unlike the Buddhisms of Asia, which are very much religions, which have real religious exclusivity, which have outright superstitions, rituals, etc.

      I'm sure you're right, but why does that matter? Conversely, if someone in Thailand wanted to take up Christianity, and asked me, as someone who'd grown up in Western culture, for insight, what would I say? I certainly wouldn't say just to pick some random flavor of organized Christianity and follow it. I guess I would probably say that it never hurt anyone to read the Gospels and think hard about them as a record of what one slightly crazy human being taught his students 2000 years ago.

      --
      Find free books.
    12. Re:Umm... by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      "The question is, does such a device somewhat negate the values a Buddhist would stand for?"

      Yes."

      Care to elaborate?

      I would have to say no, because cellphones are no longer fancy gadgets for the rich, they're required for communication with the rest of the world, so if you have to have one, why not have one that caters to your religious beliefs?

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    13. Re:Umm... by dave562 · · Score: 1

      When reading the old Chan scriptures and treasties (as translated by Thomas Cleary), even a thousand plus years ago, there were masters warning about the secularization of Buddhism, and the inclination of certain sorts of followers to focus in on the organized religion-like aspects of the practice. The underlying teachings themselves have a universal appeal, and those roots of the teachings are what have been transfered to the Western world.

    14. Re:Umm... by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      On the other hand eastern religions don't tend to be exclusivistic as the Abrahamic religions are and so what they practice as Buddhism is actually a syncretism of Buddhism with whatever other religions co-existed with it in the region over the centuries. They are not so concerned about where the boundaries are between real Buddhism and the other traditional religions they have incorporated into their faith.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    15. Re:Umm... by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the Tamils.

    16. Re:Umm... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      The kind of Buddhism imported to the West - secularized, made "not a religion," turned into a kind of set of technologies for personal development, stripped of any perspectives that generally clash with regular humanism - is very much unlike the Buddhisms of Asia, which are very much religions, which have real religious exclusivity, which have outright superstitions, rituals, etc.

      See, it's still Buddhism, and it's all compatible. At core, the same teachings are present in both -- The Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eight-Fold Path form the basis for the whole shebang.

      The superstitions, rituals, and what have you have generally remained as cultural things on top of the Buddhism. In the end, the trappings themselves are considered to be "empty" -- meaning in the end, they too fall away in the grand scheme of things. The Buddha is said to have eschewed such things.

      Except for in places where sects of Buddhists can clash violently (very much losing sight of Buddhism), by now the major schools of Buddhism differ largely in the odd bit of metaphysics or semantics that get pretty arcane. Even the Theravada and Mahayana traditions generally can reach consensus on most things.

      Buddhism has never been monolithic. As I said before, while it can be practiced as a religion, it is not required that Buddhism manifest as a religion.

      Cheers

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    17. Re:Umm... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the Tamils.

      Tamil's aren't Buddhist. That's the Sinhalese.

      Cheers

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    18. Re:Umm... by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      Um, that's the point. The Sinhalese (or at least, many of them, particularly in the recent past) were Buddhist nationalists quite disinterested in the non-exclusivity of which you spoke, and who wanted to maintain Buddhism as the national religion of the state, marginalizing the largely Hindu, Christian and Muslim Tamils.

    19. Re:Umm... by siloko · · Score: 1

      The question is, does such a device somewhat negate the values a Buddhist would stand for?"

      Yes.

      well I'm a Buddhist and I don't have any values - kinda difficult to negate what doesn't exist!

    20. Re:Umm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, that's why a Zen master might tell you to "kill the Buddha" if you get too caught up in the person and the rituals. I personally don't require anything at all to be mindful and in a meditative state, shurely not a smartphone ;)

    21. Re:Umm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not like once you've lit your 10,000th stick of incense, some guy named Buddha appears before you, smacks you on the forehead to open up your third eye and then you're suddenly enlightened.

      NOW you're telling me!

    22. Re:Umm... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Several of the Buddhisms of Asia are not pure Buddhism, but Buddhist philosophy take in conjunction with an established religion. Shinto in Japan, for example, is the fusion of Buddhism with belief in traditional Japanese gods (massive oversimplification here for Slashdot - go and read about both if you want to know more; Wikipedia has a good overview and links to some good books in the Further Reading section).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    23. Re:Umm... by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      The question is, does such a device somewhat negate the values a Buddhist would stand for?"

      Mu.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    24. Re:Umm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not like once you've lit your 10,000th stick of incense, some guy named Buddha appears before you, smacks you on the forehead to open up your third eye and then you're suddenly enlightened.

      That would be pretty awesome, though. I'd convert.

      I joined Christianity to learn that cool water to wine trick. Does anybody know which level they teach it on?

    25. Re:Umm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tamil's aren't Buddhist. That's the Sinhalese.

      I thought they were tigers...

    26. Re:Umm... by Abreu · · Score: 0, Troll

      what one slightly crazy Son of God taught his students 2000 years ago.

      [ducks!]

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    27. Re:Umm... by Abreu · · Score: 1

      Wasn't that a CSI quote?

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    28. Re:Umm... by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      That Buddhism has a history of influence is not unusual among religions: Christianity itself is a blend of Hellenic and Judaic thought, and Islam is a distillation of Abrahamic religion with pre-Islamic Arab beliefs. Many contemporary versions of Christianity (e.g., Santeria, the religions of contemporary Mayan and Andean peoples) are also hybrids of Christianity and other practices.

      Japanese religion is complicated by the fact that there is a pronounced absence of religious feeling in modern Japan. I have described Japanese religiosity as "ironic religion" - an ability to play with a range of traditions and traditional practices that is as much a symptom of post-modernity as anything else. It is not a characteristic of Buddhism (and the history of Buddhism in Japan is comparable to other religious histories) as it is characteristic of Japan. In many ways, Japanese religion is the very opposite of Western religion: belief is considered irrelevant, but ceremonial practices are maintained as a way of preserving national cultural identity and community membership.

      It is incorrect to describe Shinto as a fusion of Buddhism with traditional beliefs. Shinto is a distinct practice from Buddhism, although most Japanese sample from both. (The cliche is that you go to the Shinto shrine for weddings and Buddhist temples for funerals.)

      I actually know a good deal about Buddhism, and especially Japanese religion, and studied it at a pretty advanced level. I also used to identify as Buddhist, but I stopped when I came to see Western Buddhism as an attempt to dress up secular humanism with a quasi-religious veneer.

    29. Re:Umm... by Joe+Snipe · · Score: 1

      The pupils of the Tendai school used to study meditation before Zen entered Japan. Four of them who were intimate friends promised one another to observe seven days of silence.

      On the first day all were silent. Their meditation had begun auspiciously, but when night came and the oil lamps were growing dim one of the pupils could not help exclaiming to a servant: "Fix those lamps."

      The second pupils was surprised to hear the first one talk. "We are not supposed to say a word," he remarked.

      "You two are stupid. Why did you talk?" asked the third.

      "I am the only one who has not talked," concluded the fourth pupil.
      Source

      --
      Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
  2. C&E by merreborn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I suppose this represents a form of religion no more watered down than that practiced by your average "christmas and easter christian" over here in the states.

    The world is full of people who don't take their professed religions seriously.

    1. Re:C&E by ZigiSamblak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The world is full of people who don't take their professed religions seriously.

      Which seems preferable to a world full of religious extremists to me, but then I am an atheist.

    2. Re:C&E by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      hmmm.....funny, the Buddha Gautama was an atheist, too...................

    3. Re:C&E by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      And why can't one take religious seriously and not be a violent extremist, or even a bigot?

    4. Re:C&E by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Funny

      The world is full of people who don't take their professed religions seriously.

      On behalf of agnostics worldwide, I -might- be offended by that statement.

    5. Re:C&E by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      BRILLIANT!

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    6. Re:C&E by JanneM · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "And why can't one take religious seriously and not be a violent extremist, or even a bigot?"

      I don't know. Why?

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    7. Re:C&E by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 1

      The world is full of people who don't take their professed religions seriously.

      Maybe so; or maybe you just don't understand the religion or its practitioners.

    8. Re:C&E by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a difference. The US is full of people who feel the need to profess a religion, but then don't take it seriously. Japan and Taiwan are full of people who have no problem saying "I'm not religious". They might go to shrines twice a year, but they have no qualms about admitting they don't take it seriously at all. Most Americans I have met like to pretend at least, and a good number of them actually are serious. The percentage of actually religious people in Japan is small, which leads me to wonder who the target market for this phone is.

    9. Re:C&E by JeanPaulBob · · Score: 1

      "And why can't one take religious seriously and not be a violent extremist, or even a bigot?"

      I don't know. Why?

      Ah, the delicious^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hnoxious irony of "All people who take religion seriously are bigots!"

    10. Re:C&E by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooh, nice come-back. Do you want your lollipop now?

      Yeah, I know he opened himself up to a schoolyard riposte, but it was still childish to give it to him. A serious reply would be describing the dearth of serious, religious, non-violent, non-extremests. (hint: you probably know some personally.)

    11. Re:C&E by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      No, he's right. There are still a great many people who take their religion seriously, but I think they are now in the minority. I've spoken to many people who confess that they don't know much about their church, and only attend on Easter and Christmas.

      Case in point: How many supposed-Christians view porno on the web with impunity? They either don't take their religion seriously enough to know about Matt 5:28, or don't care enough to live the lifestyle outlined by the religion. (I'm not even delving into disputed territory. This is clean-cut and universally understood.)

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    12. Re:C&E by mokus000 · · Score: 1

      Do you take your atheism seriously?

      --
      Additive identity, multiplicative cancellation, distributive multiplication over addition: pick any two (unless 1 = 0)
    13. Re:C&E by thousandinone · · Score: 1

      Hey now, if I'm not married and the porn star isn't either, that shit ain't adultery!

    14. Re:C&E by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why question the questioning of a premise instead of explaining why you don't think it is false?

    15. Re:C&E by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why can't one take religious seriously and not be a violent extremist, or even a bigot?

      You can, but then the media ignores you in favor of the guy bombing things.

    16. Re:C&E by ildon · · Score: 1

      Stop being bigoted against bigots.

    17. Re:C&E by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The world could do with more Benny Hill disciples.

    18. Re:C&E by 2short · · Score: 1


      I don't; just doesn't seem worth getting excited about. If I were going to spend any time being "serious" about not believing in things, where would it end? Do you "take seriously" your lack of belief in Thor, Vishnu, Zeus or the Easter Bunny?

    19. Re:C&E by mokus000 · · Score: 1

      If I were ever in a situation where those disbeliefs were relevant, then yea, I do think I'd take them seriously. For example, if someone offered to build me a shrine to Vishnu for free, I would turn it down precisely because of my disbelief. I don't actively profess my disbelief in Vishnu either, though, and I certainly don't go around making remarks to the effect that those who do believe are ok, as long as they don't really act like they do.

      I don't think ZigiSamblak's was saying that though, so I hope this doesn't come off sounding like a challenge - as far as I can tell, he was just contrasting extremes. I do like to point out, though, that the "serious == extremist" meme is really quite silly.

      --
      Additive identity, multiplicative cancellation, distributive multiplication over addition: pick any two (unless 1 = 0)
    20. Re:C&E by 2short · · Score: 1

      Well, then in the sense of "serious" you describe, I guess I do take my atheism seriously. I describe my attitude as not serious, because periodically someone hears I'm an atheist and tells me I'm wrong and I don't get offended (I may become less interested in their opinions). Yet when I hear someone beleives in some particular God, I avoid saying they are wrong, because they tend to get offended. It seems to be a problem to say someone is wrong about their religious beliefs, despite the fact that, whatever your religion, most of the world thinks you are wrong. Point being, I know atheists who are chronically excited about the fact they are atheists, and eager to tell other people they are wrong. I am not generally one of them, so that's why I say I'm not serious. I do actually like discussing it sometimes, but I tend to stick to anonymous strangers on the internet, because if they get offended I don't care (nothing personal).

      "I certainly don't go around making remarks to the effect that those who do believe are ok, as long as they don't really act like they do."

      Hmmm, apply the silly example test of (adult) belief in Santa Claus, and I conclude: It's fine to act like you believe, but those who really do believe are not OK. I don't see how that changes if instead of Santa it's Thor, Vishnu, or Jehovah.
      It's only more so.

      I

    21. Re:C&E by mokus000 · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, apply the silly example test of (adult) belief in Santa Claus, and I conclude: It's fine to act like you believe, but those who really do believe are not OK. I don't see how that changes if instead of Santa it's Thor, Vishnu, or Jehovah.
      It's only more so.
      I

      One way it changes is due to the infamous non-falsifiability of systems like religions that make metaphysical claims. The Santa hypothesis in its usual American form, doesn't fall into that category. One all-nighter on 24 December will decide it.

      The only reasonable basis I can think of for saying that "those who really do believe are not OK" is that there really is no God of any kind. But if there really is a Vishnu, Jehovah, or Santa Claus, then the true state of things would be more like "it's OK (or not, depending on which god) to act like you don't believe, but those who really do not believe are not OK." So it seems you've made the jump from believing there is no god to believing a consequence of there being no god - specifically, that those who believe there is one are not OK. But isn't that begging the question?

      One basic issue involved is whether it's reasonable to believe any particular thing. Most people agree that self-contradiction or contradiction of a more deeply-held belief is grounds for dismissal or reinterpretation of a philosophy, and that is where the Santa idea gets knocked down. Beyond that, though, I don't think anyone can make any universally acceptable claims even about a methodology to determine what's rational. When we talk about what is or is not reasonable to believe, we're basically mucking about at the foundations of human belief where everything is either circular or arbitrary. Usually both. That goes for Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists and even agnostics alike. The only "loophole" I'm aware of is illustrated by the Christian belief that Yahweh created humans with built-in knowledge of Himself. And of course, that loophole only works if the belief exploiting it is true, so in discussing whether or not it is, it's generally considered inadmissible.

      I do actually like discussing it sometimes, but I tend to stick to anonymous strangers on the internet, because if they get offended I don't care (nothing personal).

      Same here - and FWIW, I'm not offended. Anonymous strangers on the internet, especially those that actually think about what they say, generally don't offend me.

      --
      Additive identity, multiplicative cancellation, distributive multiplication over addition: pick any two (unless 1 = 0)
    22. Re:C&E by 2short · · Score: 1

      "One way it changes is due to the infamous non-falsifiability of systems like religions that make metaphysical claims. The Santa hypothesis in its usual American form, doesn't fall into that category. One all-nighter on 24 December will decide it."

      Oh come on, everybody knows Santa won't come if you don't go to bed!

      "The only reasonable basis I can think of for saying that 'those who really do believe are not OK' is that there really is no God of any kind."

      I'm assuming Santa does not exist. Adults who truly believe in Santa are "not OK", that is, they are irrational, unless you believe it is potentially rational to truly believe in Santa. In which case I can make up a more ridiculous example.

      Those who truly believe are asserting conclusions which they claim are extremely important to their lives. These conclusions are not made rational by the existence of a God of "any kind". They are made rational only by having good rational reasons to conclude the existence of a God of the specific kind they believe in. So I'm not assuming that God doesn't exist. I'm assuming that believers don't have good rational reasons for believing in the specific God they favor.

      "When we talk about what is or is not reasonable to believe, we're basically mucking about at the foundations of human belief where everything is either circular or arbitrary. Usually both. That goes for Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists and even agnostics alike."

      Well, since I haven't offended you yet, let me try again by saying that's horseshit. It is reasonable to believe things for which one has good evidence and it is reasonable to disbelieve things for which one does not. Irrational beliefs must rest on circularity, arbitrariness, or bad ideas of what constitutes evidence; in short, on irrationality. Rational belief and rational disbelief has no such need.

      I took a bunch of undergraduate Philosophy. I can navel-gaze and question the ability to know anything (beyond ones own existence) with the best of them. So when I say something is "rational" please assume I mean to stipulate the assumption that it is possible to perceive an independently existing world and form accurate conclusions based upon those perceptions. If that's not true, I just don't care, no matter how much it makes Maxwell spin about in his grave.

      In that context, I say athiesm is rational. There is no evidence for God, so I don't believe it. Those who do are not, in this matter, rational.

    23. Re:C&E by mokus000 · · Score: 1

      I took a bunch of undergraduate Philosophy. I can navel-gaze and question the ability to know anything (beyond ones own existence) with the best of them. So when I say something is "rational" please assume I mean to stipulate the assumption that it is possible to perceive an independently existing world and form accurate conclusions based upon those perceptions. If that's not true, I just don't care, no matter how much it makes Maxwell spin about in his grave.

      I'm right with you on this, and that's the kind of rationality I'm talking about too. What I'm asserting is that the sound application of that rationality is not well-definable precisely because its application is necessarily circular and/or arbitrary. Not because of questions about the existence of an external reality, but because of question about its nature. The question isn't whether reality is rational, because if it isn't there's not much point trying to reason about its rationality. The question is rather what are the axioms to which we can apply reason to derive conclusions?

      As for evidence, I don't know what evidence a Hindu claims for the existence of Vishnu, so I'll go with what I do know. I do know that many Christians claim at least 2 forms of evidence for Yahweh's existence. First is the aforementioned assertion that humankind was created with knowledge of him which has been somehow corrupted but still remains - and that their own recognition of his existence and nature is a form of real evidence. Second is the historical event of the resurrection of Christ. Whether you accept it as fact or not is something I don't care to go into, but it is evidence that is claimed.

      Obviously, acceptance of these forms of evidence is highly circular, as their interpretation depends on the conclusion they are trying to draw from them. On the other hand though, its rejection has the same kind of problems. These questions can't really be addressed from a neutral starting point because there isn't one. To say that there isn't evidence is to assert that what others see as evidence is not - but saying that is beginning with the conclusion already in mind that there is no Yahweh, is it not? Is that not circular?

      BTW, if you're really only trying to offend me, you have still not succeeded. Does that offend you? ;-)

      --
      Additive identity, multiplicative cancellation, distributive multiplication over addition: pick any two (unless 1 = 0)
    24. Re:C&E by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "BTW, if you're really only trying to offend me, you have still not succeeded."

      I'm not *only* trying to offend you, I'm tying to convince you your fundamental beliefs are bullshit; offending you is just a side benefit :)

      "Obviously, acceptance of these forms of evidence is highly circular, as their interpretation depends on the conclusion they are trying to draw from them"

      Yup, bingo. No more needs to be said to dismiss them.

      "On the other hand though, its rejection has the same kind of problems."

      No, it doesn't. Some argument why you think so would be appreciated.

      Type of evidence number one: "I just know" isn't evidence. If you think it is, discussions using the word "evidence" may be futile with you.

      Type of evidence number two, the "historical" resurrection of Christ: It is reported only in the Bible, and events which I assume you do not accept as historical truth are reported with more secondary verification in the Bagavad Gita and the supermarket tabloids.

      "These questions can't really be addressed from a neutral starting point because there isn't one. To say that there isn't evidence is to assert that what others see as evidence is not - but saying that is beginning with the conclusion already in mind that there is no Yahweh, is it not? Is that not circular?"

      No it isn't. There is a neutral starting point and it is non-belief. We (even you) regularly disbelieve things for which we do not yet have any evidence. Are you ducking now, or do you disbelieve the there is an arrow moments from hitting your head? Until you have reason to believe, you do not duck. Obviously, even you accept non-belief as the default in any other matter.

      As long as I've got a cooperative believer on the hook: Does your understanding of the ultimate truth of the universe substantially match that of your parents? If so, do you accept that it would not if you had been born to parents from a different 30% of the world? Does that not make you question the truth of that understanding? The discussion above is entertaining in a can-I-point-out-your-obvious-fallacies way, but these are the questions that really interest me.

    25. Re:C&E by 2short · · Score: 1

      I don't know why that got posted as Anonymous Coward. I don't think I checked "post anonymously" the box, but what do you expect from an admitted atheist drunkard like myself... well OK, previously I've only admitted the atheist part, but in any case, it's me, I swear.

  3. Buddha or Odin ? by billstewart · · Score: 1

    The question isn't just whether being attached to this sort of material object is the kind of value a Buddhist would have, but also What Would Odin Do with this kind of phone? Is it a replacement for the ravens Huginn and Muninn ? Can you use the phone with only one eye?

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  4. Depends on your kind of Buddhism by Grond · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you're talking about Tibetan Buddhism, then no, this doesn't really 'negate the values a Buddhist would stand for.' To wit: "His Holiness the Dalai Lama has said that having the mantra on your computer works the same as a traditional prayer wheel. Since a computer's hard disk spins hundreds of thousands of times per hour, and can contain many copies of the mantra, anyone who wants to can turn their computer into a prayer wheel."

    A Zen Buddhist might look at it differently, though.

    1. Re:Depends on your kind of Buddhism by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      Since a computer's hard disk spins hundreds of thousands of times per hour, and can contain many copies of the mantra, anyone who wants to can turn their computer into a prayer wheel.

      What if you have a solid state drive?

    2. Re:Depends on your kind of Buddhism by synthesizerpatel · · Score: 5, Funny

      Three Zen Buddhist monks standing on a hill on a breezy day observe a prayer flag flapping in the wind.

      The first monk says "Flag is moving."

      The second monk says "Wind is moving."

      The third monks cell-phone plays the crazy-frog ring-tone as he gets spam SMS'd by his provider.

      All three monks fail to achieve enlightenment.

    3. Re:Depends on your kind of Buddhism by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      "His Holiness the Dalai Lama has said that having the mantra on your computer works the same as a traditional prayer wheel. Since a computer's hard disk spins hundreds of thousands of times per hour, and can contain many copies of the mantra, anyone who wants to can turn their computer into a prayer wheel."

      Wow, and I thought the "spin a wheel = say a prayer" trick of theirs was already the height of efficient communion with the divine. Now, one can pray just by firing up the computer to look at porn! Awesome!

    4. Re:Depends on your kind of Buddhism by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      >A Zen Buddhist might look at it differently, though.

      Heck, any Buddhist might look at it differently. Or agree. Or both. Or neither. :)

      The phrase 'herding cats' springs to mind. Just as it should be.

      This one thinks that prayer wheels are probably a bit silly, but they do look cool - 'rich and diverse cultural shiny stuff' and all that.

      Not a patch on sorting out your own personal mind-junk, habits and general daftness*, though.

      (*not the good daftness. Please leave that alone.)

      (ps. why is proper formatting in plain text now broken? Can't put in a paragraph break to save my life!)

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    5. Re:Depends on your kind of Buddhism by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      (appologies for self-reply)

      Apparently it's the previews that are broken.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    6. Re:Depends on your kind of Buddhism by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      What if you have a solid state drive?

      You put your entire PC on a turntable. If you don't, you die and come back as a buggy-whip salesman.

    7. Re:Depends on your kind of Buddhism by youngone · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Seems to me that you're just as likely to achieve enlightenment looking at porn as any other way. In the west we tend to think of Buddists as being somehow peaceful, because that nice Mr. Dalai Lama is so, well, nice. When it comes right down to it though Buddism is just as expoitative as any other religious cult. Just because lots of people believe something don't make it so. http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=52,1731,0,0,1,0 http://www.mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=559110 The above links are just a couple of cases of people being a**holes. What fairy tales they profess to believe in makes no odds.

    8. Re:Depends on your kind of Buddhism by DrMrLordX · · Score: 1

      Well, electrons spin too, don't they?

    9. Re:Depends on your kind of Buddhism by Gnodab · · Score: 0

      as a zen buddhist, I think that it better be able to make phone calls, or else it is a useless phone!

    10. Re:Depends on your kind of Buddhism by drolli · · Score: 1

      And if you are talking about Japanese Buddism, which is half-merged into shintuism at some points, then it really does not matter. I have seldom seen a place (i live in Japan) where religion is lived in such a flexible way as here.

    11. Re:Depends on your kind of Buddhism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BONDAGE IS:
      1) Ignorance: to ignore the Reality of this moment. It is blindness to the direct perception that this moment neither arises, persists, nor perishes.
      2) Intention: instability of mind, caused by ignorance, that sets the mind to leaning. All actions produced by such a mind are willed.
      3) Consciousness: to discriminate between separate objects of mind, and to see them as persisting from moment to moment.
      4) Mind & Body: to see a distinct, persistent, self-identical mind and body supporting consciousness. Thus a subject is discerned, along with its objects.
      5) Six Senses: to conceive a world of mind objects, external to the body and mind, as being taken in through the windows of the senses.
      6) Contact: To conceive that through sensation the subject makes contact with an objective world, "out there."
      7) Feeling: To react emotionally to the objects of mind, while remaining isolated from them.
      8) Craving: To experience wanting and craving, since mind objects are conceived as being apart from "me." the subject.
      9) Grasping: To grasp at what appears "out there." It's the hopeless wish that this moment will either vanish or last.
      10) Being: To conceive (believe in) the persistence (existence) of self and other.
      11) Birth: To conceive (believe) that all beings have come into existence.
      12) Death & duhkha: To conceive (believe) that all beings will die.
      LIBERATION IS:
      1) Ignorance: To see the Reality of this moment. It is to perceive directly that this moment neither arises, persists, nor perishes.
      2) Intention: To see no substance in any object of mind. Hence the mind leans neither toward nor away. All actions produced by such a mind are unwilled.
      3) Consciousness: To see all mind objects as momentary and conditional.
      4) Mind & Body: To see no persistent mind or body--no subject-- since there are no distinct and persistent mind objects available to perception.
      5) Six Senses: To see sensation as a function of Mind alone--that the objects of Mind are never external to Mind, but are always Mind itself
      6) Contact: To realize there's no connection or distinction between the senses and a world external to Mind.
      7) Feeling: Not being swept away by emotion. Since nothing is perceived as external to Mind, feeling is ever intimate.
      8)Craving: Not to want. Since nothing is perceived as being "out there," there's no sense that anything is lacking.
      9) Grasping: to see all of experience as utter fluidity and, therefore, as nothing to grasp, own or fear.
      10) Being: To see all as stream.
      11) Birth: To see that nothing is born.
      12) Death & Duhkha: To see that nothing dies.

    12. Re:Depends on your kind of Buddhism by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      It may be useless as a phone, but it would still be useful as a koan.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    13. Re:Depends on your kind of Buddhism by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      I believe the correct answer was that the wind moves the flag.

    14. Re:Depends on your kind of Buddhism by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      The flag and the wind are still. The monks' perspective through time is moving.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    15. Re:Depends on your kind of Buddhism by MadLad · · Score: 4, Informative

      That would be the answer according to a dualistic, naive conception of reality and causality (which most of us have, most of the time) but it's not the correct answer in the Buddhist version of the story.

      In the traditional story, the 'third monk' is actually the teacher of the other two monks. Following their two inadequate answers, he rebukes them and says:

      "It is the mind that moves."

      The monks' answers are deemed inadequate because they are dualistic: they make a distinction, in a fundamental way, between the wind and the flag (and, in fact, movement as such), and then try to think whether movement begins with the one or with the other, or whether movement can be considered apart from that which moves.

      But to distinguish 'movement', 'flag', or 'wind' as particularities of what is, beforehand, an unparticularised situation, is a movement of the mind. It is the monks' dualistically inclined minds which move towards a view, and any particular view is partial and therefore inadequate. So the master's answer is the 'correct' one, as it's the most accurate and apposite statement of what's happening.

    16. Re:Depends on your kind of Buddhism by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It was in the days of the rains that their prayers went up, not from the fingering of knotted prayer cords ... but from the great pray-machine in the monastery of Ratri, goddess of the Night.

      The high-frequency prayers were directed upward through the atmosphere and out beyond it, passing into that golden cloud ... which is seen as a bronze rainbow at night and where the red sun becomes orange at midday.

      Yama tended the pray-machine and the giant metal lotus he had set atop the monastery roof turned in its sockets. For six days he had offered many kilowatts of prayer, but the static kept him from being heard on high.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:Depends on your kind of Buddhism by Ma'at · · Score: 1

      You posted links to two stories of people who claim to be Buddhists being assholes. The asshole monk was defrocked, the article about the asshole businessmen points out repeatedly that their assholeness was extremely un-Buddhist. How does either of those examples even begin to prove your assertion that 'Buddhism is just as exploitative as any other religious cult'?

    18. Re:Depends on your kind of Buddhism by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

      Do they spin in the right direction though(clockwise)? Otherwise you'd be turning them into damnation wheels.

  5. Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    From a Buddhist perspective the physical act of doing their rituals is rather arbitrary, as the reality in which we live is an illusion. Thereby it's the end result on a spiritual level which is what is important. If you approach your rites on a physical altar, digital altar, or on an altar even in your own mind, it's all the same.

    1. Re:Not really by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      Not all Buddhists think reality is an illusion. Now, if you want to talk about how our perception of reality through our senses and mental constructs can be illusionary... Perhaps that is what you meant, but the wording you used can often be misinterpreted as another school of thought. I agree about the rest of your point, though.

  6. Nirvana Faster, Better.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just the modern way to achieve nirvana. In the past, for example, it could take you several years to walk across China. Today however, we can take the train in a few days or a plane flight in a few hours.

    Why can't we achieve Nirvana in a new more modern and faster way than our forefathers?

    1. Re:Nirvana Faster, Better.... by Laxori666 · · Score: 1

      Maybe it is more modern, but I doubt it can be "faster".

    2. Re:Nirvana Faster, Better.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mr. Hoffman might be able to help you

  7. Not Really by Mephistopholies · · Score: 1

    As long as you remember that the phone is an illusion you are set.

    --
    "We must not, my friend, be the bubbles of our own liberal sentiments"
    --John Adams in a letter to Thomas Jefferson
  8. WWBD? by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

    The question is, does such a device somewhat negate the values a Buddhist would stand for?"

    Well, when I am faced with these dilemas, I always ask: What would Buddha do?

    --
    Similar to the upcoming US election results
    1. Re:WWBD? by straponego · · Score: 1

      Mu? Meh.

  9. depends on the kind of Buddhism by bcrowell · · Score: 1

    The answer to any question like this completely depends on the kind of Buddhism. Some types of Buddhism are big on the golden statues, impressive displays of candles, etc. Others (like some types of Zen) have none of that. If you're the type of Buddhists who's into the golden statues, I don't see any fundamental reason why you couldn't be into this gadget. Buddhism in general is extremely diverse. You can have Buddhists who are atheists, and other Buddhists who consider the Buddha to be very much like a Jesus-type personal savior. You can have Buddhists (e.g., some Tibetan Buddhists) who believe in astrology and elaborate cosmologies, and others who don't believe in any of that. Historically, Buddhism does not have the kind of history of strong central control that Christianity did. Christianity had the Catholic church ("Catholic" means "universal"), which, e.g., massacred sects like the Cathars ("Kill them all, the Lord will recognize His own").

    --
    Find free books.
  10. Not quite by Jangchub · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, it depends on what tradition of Buddhism the practitioner follows, their personal path, his or her Guru or Teacher (if they have one), that guru's teaching style, and not least of all the individual's personality and life situation. I spent five years as a live-in volunteer at a Buddhist center where I practiced and received traditional training and met many Buddhists of many types, with and without cell phones; simple westerners that were ordained monks and Tibetan Rinpoches who drove Mercedes.

    The idea that a Buddhist is some Vietnamese guy with saffron robes and a shaved head chanting "Ommm" all day is not quite in touch with reality. I am not directing this at you personally but at your posts blasé answer: I have found in my conversations that the majority of people who voice any opinion about Buddhism have gleaned their learning from pop culture and suffer greatly from the root cause of samsara: ignorance.

    1. Re:Not quite by SCPRedMage · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If it helps any, I think that such crass commercialization negates pretty much any value system.

      --
      My sig can beat up your sig.
    2. Re:Not quite by Jangchub · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We can agree that it is quite stupid and an exploit of a spiritual practice (it seems easier to me to sell snake oil and useless consumer junk to spiritual people than to more secular individuals but that's just a hunch) but the original assertion that it is against some tenet of Buddhism is a simple answer to a complex question.

    3. Re:Not quite by jellybear · · Score: 1

      If it is also negating your ego and your preconceived notions, then it is sort of buddhist after all.

    4. Re:Not quite by commodoresloat · · Score: 1, Funny

      The idea that a Buddhist is some Vietnamese guy with saffron robes and a shaved head chanting "Ommm" all day is not quite in touch with reality.

      That is true. These days, Buddhists can choose from several different colors of robe.

    5. Re:Not quite by jonlandrum · · Score: 1

      The idea that a Buddhist is some Vietnamese guy with saffron robes and a shaved head chanting "Ommm" all day is not quite in touch with reality. I am not directing this at you personally but at your posts blasé answer: I have found in my conversations that the majority of people who voice any opinion about Buddhism have gleaned their learning from pop culture and suffer greatly from the root cause of samsara: ignorance.

      Actually, I've spent considerable time in northern Thailand, and the image of a "Guy with saffron robes and a shaved head chanting 'Ommm' all day" is surprisingly accurate.

      --
      \\//_ Live long and prosper.
    6. Re:Not quite by Nutria · · Score: 3, Insightful

      it seems easier to me to sell snake oil and useless consumer junk to spiritual people than to more secular individuals but that's just a hunch

      Considering that most geeks think of themselves as secular, and have (or aspire to have) iPhones, iPods, Androids, Crackberries, multitools and just about the whole ThinkGeek inventory, I'd say that it's an invalid hunch.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    7. Re:Not quite by rubycodez · · Score: 3, Informative

      pfft, most all the citizens you dealt with over there were Buddhists. Buddhists in business suits, Buddhists in swim suits, Buddhists in school uniforms, even naked Buddhist pole dancers......

    8. Re:Not quite by F34nor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The funny part about this is that Buddhism IS SECULAR. There is no debate here either. Buddha specifically said he knew nothing about god, the afterlife, or anything spiritual. All he figured out was why humans suffer on earth and how to eliminate suffering. Life is suffering, wanting things makes you suffer, to end suffering end desire, and don't be a dick. Where's god? Nowhere. Just because the Tibetans hybridized his teachings with tantric yoga or because Asians like to burn incense and build gold Buddhas has no impact on his teachings and philosophy.

    9. Re:Not quite by Haeleth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Buddhism is not purely defined by what Buddha said. You cannot discount thousands of years of teaching and tradition as having "no impact".

      The plain and simple fact is that the vast majority of Buddhists in the world today believe in spiritual things. Good luck convincing them that the religion they have followed all their lives is really a secular philosophy.

    10. Re:Not quite by Haeleth · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nice try. Next you'll be expecting us to believe that Christians don't all have tonsures and habits.

    11. Re:Not quite by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Buddhism is not purely defined by what Buddha said. You cannot discount thousands of years of teaching and tradition as having "no impact".

      The plain and simple fact is that the vast majority of Buddhists in the world today believe in spiritual things. Good luck convincing them that the religion they have followed all their lives is really a secular philosophy.

      Well said. If Christians actually followed the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, the world would be a much better place. If Muslims actually followed the ethical code written down by Mohammed, the same applies. Every one of our great religious traditions (with the possible exception of Judaism) was founded by a great moral teacher with real and humane insights, and then corrupted into something almost diametrically opposite usually within the first couple of hundred years.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    12. Re:Not quite by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I think you'd be surprised by how many geeks identify themselves as Buddhists, particularly among the successful Silicon Valley group.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    13. Re:Not quite by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      The funny part about this is that Buddhism IS SECULAR. There is no debate here either. Buddha specifically said he knew nothing about god, the afterlife, or anything spiritual.

      Really? Then in the Avatamsakata Sutra why does Buddha ascend to heaven and have a chat with Indra and his buddies? Even though Buddhism may consider the Buddha nature higher than any god, it inherited the whole Vedic pantheon. Furthermore, the notion of reincarnation that is central to Buddhism is completely supernatural.

      I know Western elites have tried hard to rip everything supernatural out of Buddhism to appease their sensibilities and then present it to the world as "real Buddhism", but it doesn't at all jive with Buddhism as actually practiced by billions of followers over the last 2500 years.

    14. Re:Not quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it depends on what tradition of Buddhism the practitioner follows, their personal path, his or her Guru or Teacher (if they have one), that guru's teaching style, and not least of all the individual's personality and life situation.

      As a Buddhist, I can confirm that.

      By the way, I guess (and this is really just a guess) that many Buddhist teachers would agree that it doesn't matter if your altar is a "real" or "virtual" one. What matters if it helps you concentrate and get your mind in the state you want (it's a symbolic thing)

    15. Re:Not quite by Amouth · · Score: 1

      its funny how their followers - the start . the ones others looked up too become drunk with power..

      maybe humanity's greatest flaw is how easy we are blinded buy a sence of power.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    16. Re:Not quite by shiba_mac · · Score: 1

      Even a crass, commercial value system?

    17. Re:Not quite by F34nor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I just listened to a Art Bell Coast to Coast with Graham Hancock http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzKp2PeXeWI where he argues that major religions are based on direct contact with the supernatural by the prophet but then the followers become rapidly divorced from that union through human power structures.

      I live in the Gulf and I love to tell people that I think that the companions of the prophet and the apostles were for sure influenced by the devil to create the shitstorm that is modern region. I don't believe in the devil per se but I love getting people hackles up. I mean how could Islam go from men and women praying next to each other in Medina to the most misogynistic of behaviors in one caliphate. Same with the church, Peter was for sure Satan's bitch.

      Anyone can become directly linked with god but most people are terrified of that for an infinite number of reasons; fear of insanity, loss of control, loos of ego centrism, cognitive dissonance, and a host of others. Basically most people are big blubbering vaginas who are terrified of everything except getting drunk and making an ass out of themselves.

    18. Re:Not quite by F34nor · · Score: 1

      I am not saying that the world and or Buddhism is not supernatural, I am just saying he specifically did not talk about it. To quote Wikipedia... "The sutra was written in stages, beginning from at least 500 years after the death of the Buddha." So you point has no bearing on what the man himself did or did not believe.

      One of my Yoga teachers pointed out that after the rise of aesthetic yoga practices there was a blow back that took India to tantra. Or in short, the Indians can't not drape flowers on things.

      People are not smart, they are not devoted, and they are not aesthetic without thousands of hours of practice and powerful social controls. Just because people have dumbed down, widened, or softened various religions doesn't change the kernel that created the system. Sometimes fundamentalism is great, sometimes it is Wahhabi.

    19. Re:Not quite by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      As the Buddha left behind no personal writings, and all sutras date from at the earliest a century after his death, discussions about what the man himself did or did believe are pointless. For the tenets of the religion/philosophical system/what-have-you called Buddhism, one can only go by the sutras and the tradition carried out by believers. All of these, except for the rather haughty redefinition of Buddhism by Westerners over the last half century, squarely believe in the supernatural.

    20. Re:Not quite by MadLad · · Score: 1

      Quite right. Buddhism may be more intellectual than other religions, but its final application is to the "inmost yearnings of the human heart". That means it is a religion. It is also very definitely a 'spiritual' tradition, in that it contains methods for realising our ultimate nature and aligning our way of being with that nature. And Buddhism should not try to disavow either of those simply because the terms 'religious' and 'spiritual' are unfashionable.

      Whether Buddhism is truly nontheistic is debatable. Certainly it rebuts the notion of an anthropomorphic creator God. But doesn't the notion of the Dharmakaya make it a kind of pantheism?

      But finally, who cares? Not Buddhists, who are supposed to understand well the emptiness of names and labels.

    21. Re:Not quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      such crass commercialization negates pretty much any value system.

      And that's a GOOD thing!
      Negating all values is the first step to freedom and independence.
      After all values have been smashed, one can then either begin the process of revaluing new values of one's choice, or just embrace the grandiose nihilism of a valueless existence.

    22. Re:Not quite by SCPRedMage · · Score: 1

      Commercialization can ruin ANYTHING. ESPECIALLY commercialization.

      --
      My sig can beat up your sig.
    23. Re:Not quite by Abreu · · Score: 2

      Sorry, but instead of buying a Mercedes, a buddhist with money should instead be financing an organization that feeds and clothes the poor... ...or maybe sending money to Ubuntu, I don't know...

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    24. Re:Not quite by Abreu · · Score: 1

      True, the particular variety of Buddhism practiced in Thailand is a big part of the reason why people are always smiling at you... Seriously, I've travelled a lot and nowhere have I seen friendlier people or better customer service

      naked Buddhist pole dancers......

      Oh yeah! Me and my wife had a great conversation with a couple of them

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    25. Re:Not quite by treeves · · Score: 1

      What about crass commercialization AS a value system? It is one, even if not one you'd choose or admit to.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    26. Re:Not quite by JeanPaulBob · · Score: 1

      If Muslims actually followed the ethical code written down by Mohammed, the same applies.

      So you're assuming that the things we don't like in sharia law are twisting Mohammed's teachings?

      Do you say that based on careful study of the Qur'an? Or is that an assumption, coming from PC sensibilities?

    27. Re:Not quite by Jangchub · · Score: 1

      I know this is a zombie comment, but man I wish I had an option for +1 Fuck Yeah!

    28. Re:Not quite by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 1

      If Muslims actually followed the ethical code written down by Mohammed, the same applies.

      So you're assuming that the things we don't like in sharia law are twisting Mohammed's teachings?

      Do you say that based on careful study of the Qur'an? Or is that an assumption, coming from PC sensibilities?

      I have read the Koran, but I wouldn't say I'd studied it carefully. Nevertheless, as a matter of fact, Mohammed's teaching gives very substantial rights and protections to women, and outlaws attacks on non-combatants, as just two examples. His teaching on this is honoured more in the breach than in the observance by modern so-called 'radical' Muslims. There are many others.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    29. Re:Not quite by F34nor · · Score: 1

      Yes it comes from study.

      The Koran has only one verse about women veiling and it refers only to the wives and daughters of the prophet. The Hadith only has one major secontion related to veiling the says that Mohammed PBUH said that Aisha should wrap her cloak around her naked breast to be shown as a person of the book. The Bedoins used these to enforce their property rights over women and create the horrific system of honor based on a woman's ird. Muslims constant conflict bedoin tradion and culture with Islam to the detriment of the world.

      The current Suni jurispurdence comes from the Wahabbi sect and is extreme. Everyone one who had a different view was marinalized or destoyed. Where are the Sufis? They desired direct supernatural contact with G-d and were destoyed for it.

      Men and women prayed next to each other in the Medina once Mohammed PBUH was dead Abu Baker attacked womens right and instituted all sorts of fucked up things like stoning adultures to death. He also removed something like 200 of the Hadiths put in my Fatima Mohammed's wife.

    30. Re:Not quite by F34nor · · Score: 1

      Once again... I am not dicounting the supernatural at all. I am only saying the Buddha was directly quoted in the sutras as saying he knew nothing about God/god or the afterlife.

    31. Re:Not quite by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      That is to say that in some sutras the authors put those words into Buddha's mouth, but the bulk of the corpus indicates that Buddhism squarely inherited the Vedic pantheon. What Buddha thought himself is irrelevant to Buddhism, really, because the historical figure is pretty much lost. All one can go by are the writings, which were written long after his death. The case is much like that for Christianity, where people fight all the time about what Jesus really meant, when one can either take something on faith and stop arguing about it, or accept that the historical figure is unrecoverable and stop fighting about it.

  11. It's a really stupid idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't Buddha himself have cringed at the idea of people making statues of him?

  12. interesting by pbjones · · Score: 1

    A niche market for religious 'phones, A phone that uses GPS to point to Mecca? a phone that changes background colour to suit the various festivals and seasons? First one to the patent office gets the prize.

    --
    There was an unknown error in the submission.
    1. Re:interesting by ickleberry · · Score: 1

      Thuraya SO-2510, check it out. I had one for a while - a nice little handset, also the smallest satellite phone in the world. Too bad the build quality isnt that great

    2. Re:interesting by compro01 · · Score: 1

      A phone that uses GPS to point to Mecca?

      The iphone has an app (iSalat) that does this already.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    3. Re:interesting by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      How appropriate that the Jesus Phone would have such a feature.

  13. Re:Chrisitian equivalent by SCPRedMage · · Score: 2, Funny

    Buddy Christ, actually.

    --
    My sig can beat up your sig.
  14. Polly McPee by dissy · · Score: 4, Funny

    You can simulate incense burning, purification rites and play music to help you meditate wherever you happen to be.

    You could, but only once, then you need to buy a new Buddha phone.

    1. Re:Polly McPee by orngjce223 · · Score: 1

      Last I checked, the magic blue smoke doesn't smell anything like incense smoke...

      --
      Note: I was 13 when I wrote most of this. Take with several grains of salt.
    2. Re:Polly McPee by Zordak · · Score: 1

      YOU LET IT OUT?!?!?! Well, there's your problem. The magic blue smoke only smells like incense INSIDE the little grail. If you let it out, that changes the smell.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    3. Re:Polly McPee by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Why didn't Sony think of that? Your battery isn't on burning, it's simulating incense. They could have saved a fortune!

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  15. Whose sensibilities is this supposed to offend? by hdon · · Score: 3, Funny

    It offends me more than it would most Tibetan Buddhists! How can you market this "phone?" It looks to me like a phone with some very simple software installed. The controlling powers that make a phone with specific software on it into a commodity worth seeking after are people I find very offensive indeed!

    1. Re:Whose sensibilities is this supposed to offend? by Phydaux · · Score: 1

      I don't think a Buddhist would choose to be offended.

  16. Re:Chrisitian equivalent by vlad30 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So would a phone geared towards Christians(surprised this hasn't happened yet...) have a bloody Christ figure on a crucifix?

    Just add a paypal donation button every religion will be onboard in 5.4.3.....

    --
    Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
  17. Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does a phone have a Buddha-nature?

  18. Buddhist Hot Dog Vendor by clyde_cadiddlehopper · · Score: 1

    Sure, but can it make me one with everything? (nod to Robin Williams)

    --
    Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
  19. Re:Something odd... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

    There's many things terribly odd about all religion/philosophy.

    Fixed that for you.

  20. A Jewish version by sageres · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As a Jew, I am supposed to pray three times per day, so thanks to the collections of programs like these: (http://www.pilotyid.com/hebrew-texts.php) -- I now pray from my Treo. Beats carrying a book around with me. Except for Shabboth of course, when we are not allowed to use a phone. But I found that lots and lots of people are doing it, and hey -- just like the printing press invention revolutionized publication of religious literature around the world, from Bible to Koran and Talmud, the same way the technology revolutionizes an aspect of religion, that one hundred years from now we'll look at as a standard practice... And who knows what other inventions will revolutionize it farther?

    1. Re:A Jewish version by Veggiesama · · Score: 1

      And who knows what other inventions will revolutionize it farther?

      I'm looking forward to Akoonahs and embark on my own iVision-Quest.

  21. Chinese not Japanese. Submitter should read TFA by Bushcat · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's a Chinese-made phone available in China and Hong Kong. Submitter should comprehend what s/he reads. CNET reporting CNET Japan reporting on a Chinese product does not make it a Japanese product or a Japanese launch.

    1. Re:Chinese not Japanese. Submitter should read TFA by tkh · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. He is absolutely right.

    2. Re:Chinese not Japanese. Submitter should read TFA by Zalbik · · Score: 2, Informative

      Submitter should comprehend what s/he reads.

      From TFA:
      "Japanese 'Buddha phone' launches"
      "The Odin 99 has landed on the streets of Japan"

      Unless the submitter could read Japanese, how exactly were they supposed to be aware that this was a Chinese product? TFA clearly indicated it was Japanese.

      This was a screw up by CNET (no surprise), NOT the submitter.

    3. Re:Chinese not Japanese. Submitter should read TFA by oheso · · Score: 1

      Screw up by CNET reporting on CNET. T(original Japanese)FA clearly says it's a Chinese phone. Now, off to read the Chinese article that the Japanese article almost certainly cribbed ...

    4. Re:Chinese not Japanese. Submitter should read TFA by tkh · · Score: 1

      It is very funny that the submitter is the author of the CNET article. Go follow the link on the name of the submitter.
      So, it is a screw up by the submitter as well. :)

    5. Re:Chinese not Japanese. Submitter should read TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Photos: Japanese 'Buddha phone' launches, plays Nirvana is updated.

      Update: One of our buddies from CNET Japan has pointed out this phone is actually only available in China, not Japan, as we previously said. Sorry for any confusion.

  22. Man, Sometimes the Satire Writes Itself... by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 5, Funny

    Other Models On Deck If This One's a Success:

    1. The Muslim Phone: All Voice Mail Self Destructs in 5 Seconds

    2. The Catholic Phone: Reaches Out And Touches... small children.

    3. The Jewish Phone: Features downloadable "whine-tones"

    4. The Hindu Phone: Comes in only Bright Blue, but six different models, one for each hand.

    5. The Wiccan Phone: You can't actually answer it, it just has one big "ignore" button

    6. The Jehovah's Witness Phone: Can be programmed to also ring your doorbell.

    7. The Mormon Phone: Comes in His and Hers... and Hers... and Hers... and also Hers sets.

    OK, that's top of the head, low-hanging fruit... the rest are up to you...

    1. Re:Man, Sometimes the Satire Writes Itself... by InspectorxGadget · · Score: 1

      The agnostic phone: you're never sure whether it is currently vibrating in your pocket.

      Not as far fetched as some might think... http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-06-12-cellphones_N.htm

    2. Re:Man, Sometimes the Satire Writes Itself... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Funny

      The agnostic phone: you're never sure whether it is currently vibrating in your pocket.

      Actually, I was thinking - The agnostic phone: There's no earpiece, so while you can dial a number and talk into it, you're never sure if you've made a connection or if there's anyone listening at the other end.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:Man, Sometimes the Satire Writes Itself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other Models On Deck If This One's a Success:

      1. The Muslim Phone: All Voice Mail Self Destructs in 5 Seconds

      2. The Catholic Phone: Reaches Out And Touches... small children.

      3. The Jewish Phone: Features downloadable "whine-tones"

      4. The Hindu Phone: Comes in only Bright Blue, but six different models, one for each hand.

      5. The Wiccan Phone: You can't actually answer it, it just has one big "ignore" button

      6. The Jehovah's Witness Phone: Can be programmed to also ring your doorbell.

      7. The Mormon Phone: Comes in His and Hers... and Hers... and Hers... and also Hers sets.

      OK, that's top of the head, low-hanging fruit... the rest are up to you...

      8. The Atheist Phone: Refuses to work at all, as working would prove it's existence.

      9. The Scientology Phone: Now with built-in Dianetic auditing!

      10. The Satanist Phone: Can only dial numbers in the area code 666.

      11. The Voodoo Phone: Complete with set of pins.

    4. Re:Man, Sometimes the Satire Writes Itself... by markov_chain · · Score: 1

      Russian Orthodox phone: It answers *you*!

      --
      Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
    5. Re:Man, Sometimes the Satire Writes Itself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scientology phone: Your bill gets higher and terms of use get more restricting every month. You can only use the Scientology phone to contact other Scientology phone users.

    6. Re:Man, Sometimes the Satire Writes Itself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russian Orthodox phone: It answers jew!

      Has a better ring to it.

    7. Re:Man, Sometimes the Satire Writes Itself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since the phone is actually named "Odin", I feel I must suggest:

      9: The Norse Paganism version: Reminds you once a year to sacrifice nine males of various species and hang them from a tree.

    8. Re:Man, Sometimes the Satire Writes Itself... by MikeTheMan · · Score: 1

      Scientology Phone: Costs $2000 and doesn't actually do anything

  23. where is my evolution phone by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    i want a cellphone with a evolution theme, you know like dinosaurs on it or maybe a Fred Flinstone wallpaper

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:where is my evolution phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All phones are the evolution phone: from the bricks we carried around in the past, to the home portable phone, to the home touch phone, to the rotary phone, to...

    2. Re:where is my evolution phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what the hell? your consensual reality is different than mine!

    3. Re:where is my evolution phone by mcvos · · Score: 1

      This thread is about religion. Keep your science out of it.

  24. Re:Something odd... by dave562 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Where do you get the idea that Buddhism can only be enjoyed by "those sheltering themselves away from others through their wealth"? That's almost as abhorrent a teaching as the belief that sitting in peaceful meditation is akin to completely extinguishing the mind so that thoughts are completely absent.

  25. It's not Japanese, but Chinese by Bored+Grammar+Nazi · · Score: 1

    The article says that it's a Chinese phone. And the smaller print in the box is indeed Chinese, not Japanese.

    The title of the CNET Japan's article clearly states that the phone comes from China. The whole review is written in a "WTF?" undertone. You would think that the CNET UK writer would have gotten in touch with his Japanese colleague in order to confirm the source of the device.

    And yes, I live in Japan and can read the original article.

    1. Re:It's not Japanese, but Chinese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its official! samzenpus is racist! Apparently, he thinks all Asians look the same.

  26. as someone who practices Zen by Gnodab · · Score: 0

    I've been practicing Seon (a korean sect of Zen) for a number of years now, under Pohwa Sunim of the Joyge (could be spelling that wrong) order. Zen is all inclusive, including non-inclusive. That includes that phone :). The whole alter thing...meh. Even buddha said, basically, "hey, I'm just a guy who figured out how to live a happy life. Don't idolize me." Playing music with your phone to meditate to? Meh. Irrelevant. What is relevant, is what people hear with. One could say, "well people listen with their ears, you idiot zen guy!" and I would simply remind them that corpses have ears too, but they can't hear! Anyways, all in all it's kind of silly that it even exists, in my opinion.

    1. Re:as someone who practices Zen by jasonmanley · · Score: 2, Funny

      How do you know a corpse can't hear?
      Does the tympanic membrance still vibrate in a corpse? If so does this mean that the ear has registered the sound?
      Does the absence of - measureable - brain waves or other responses to auditory stimuli automatically mean that it is not registering?
      Hmmm ... I wonder ...

      --
      http://projectleader.wordpress.com
  27. Odin the War god by Peter+H.S. · · Score: 1

    The handset is called "Odin 99". Odin, or Wotan, also happens to be a Norse warrior god that Germanic tribes worshipped by hanging people in trees and impale them by spears:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odin

    Coincidence?

    --
    Regards

    1. Re:Odin the War god by Bambi+Dee · · Score: 1

      Odin: Receives wisdom of runes will hanging from World Tree. Buddha: Englightened while meditating under Sacred Fig tree.

    2. Re:Odin the War god by Peter+H.S. · · Score: 1

      Clever analogy :-)

      --
      Regards

  28. If you meet the Buddha... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...inside your phone, take the battery out!

  29. I was preparing by taucross · · Score: 1

    I was preparing for an onslaught of +5 insightful.

    --
    "In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
    1. Re:I was preparing by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      There were a lot of +5 posts, but they got modded up to +6, achieved enlightenment, and disappeared from Slashdot.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  30. John Safran vs God by CuteSteveJobs · · Score: 1

    > Buddhism can be as counter-intuitively and/or violently expressed as any of them.

    Huh? Can be in theory, but usually isn't. Certainly far, far less than Christianity, Islam or Judaism. But like Christianity and Islam, there are different interpretations of Buddism. The Dalai Lama's version I'm afraid is not very nice. The man is a complete jerk. Yes, I know we in the west have an image of him as a peaceful lovely man but he's an absolute zealot. I recommend you check out the "John Safran vs God" TV Series (6 parts - you can find it through Google):

    In one segment he takes the Pope and Dalai Lama and Western perceptions of them. It turns out the Dalai Lama is a real creep. I hope if Tibet ever gets its freedom it isn't handed over to this guy to rule because he makes Benedict look like a hippy marijuana-smoking fornicating abortion doctor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTRV5Wg4M30

    Should point out in fairness other schools of Buddism aren't like this. Just like Dalai Lama.

  31. You are going to hell for that! by CuteSteveJobs · · Score: 4, Funny

    You have made SEVEN gods very angry. The only thing that can save you is converting to Atheism.

    1. Re:You are going to hell for that! by Robin47 · · Score: 1

      I believe the term is deconvert.

    2. Re:You are going to hell for that! by mokus000 · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, he probably made thousands of others happy to see those seven taken down a peg ;-)

      (BTW, there's a whole lot more than seven covered by that list. Religions and gods don't all come in 1:1 correspondence. Heck, gods aren't even always in 1:1 correspondence with themselves...)

      --
      Additive identity, multiplicative cancellation, distributive multiplication over addition: pick any two (unless 1 = 0)
    3. Re:You are going to hell for that! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Heck, gods aren't even always in 1:1 correspondence with themselves.

      Indeed. While Judaism implements the simple 1:1 godding model, Hinduism implements a more flexible 1:M model, making it a much better choice for running your multigodded code.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:You are going to hell for that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have made SEVEN gods very angry. The only thing that can save you is converting to Atheism.

      What? You want him to piss off the God of Atheism as well with such a crass display of opportunism?

    5. Re:You are going to hell for that! by mokus000 · · Score: 1

      And my own chosen God implementation, the Christian one, has 3 different God interfaces all handled by one all-powerful back-end.

      --
      Additive identity, multiplicative cancellation, distributive multiplication over addition: pick any two (unless 1 = 0)
    6. Re:You are going to hell for that! by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      The Hindus and Wiccans are both polytheists, so he's actually managed to piss off SEVERAL HUNDRED gods.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    7. Re:You are going to hell for that! by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

      um, 5 of those share the same god! Of course, the 2 in the middle have infinite deities.

    8. Re:You are going to hell for that! by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

      Sorry, that's the Catholic version. Not all christianity agrees about the trinity.

    9. Re:You are going to hell for that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hindu alone has much more than seven gods, you insensitive monotheist clod!

    10. Re:You are going to hell for that! by mokus000 · · Score: 1

      Ok, *a* Christian one. Not Catholic though.

      --
      Additive identity, multiplicative cancellation, distributive multiplication over addition: pick any two (unless 1 = 0)
  32. The world changes, why shouldn't we? by tecnico.hitos · · Score: 1

    The Bible is old, this is a fact. It is based in a different culture and a different age. It was written, compiled and translated by men. There is no way of being sure what was the original message, but then again we are in a different context.

    I doubt even Jesus would do things the same way if he appeared again.

    Religion is more than following what a book says. It involves beliefs. If you don't actually believe, following a set of rules doesn't make any difference. People might disagree with the standards of the religion they follow, at the point they may end up with a different set of beliefs. Religion is actually something very personal.

    There are many different Christian churches with different sets of beliefs. This is no surprise. Even if someone doesn't try to adapt religion to their needs they might still disagree about some interpretation or even some ethical matter. Remember also that Christ was a jew and didn't do things the same way the other jews did (See Matt 12).

    --
    The good, the evil and the vacuum tubes.
  33. RE: YEEEEEEES!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GREAT!

    This is what the world needs!

    Now, I want a Buddha app on my iTouch(iPod Touch)!

    YEEEEEHHHHHAAAA!!!!!

  34. Talk to the Buddha, at home, on the road, anytime! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you meet the Buddha on your phone, kill him.

  35. Siemens C60 for buddhists too by Roman+Mamedov · · Score: 1

    My Siemens C60 phone (a 2003 model) has an option called "Buddhist year". Just enabled it and it shows year 2552 instead of 2009. No other alternative calendars offered, just the regular one and the Buddhist one.

  36. Re:Take Seriously by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    Ever notice there are almost no Buddhist Terrorists?

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  37. offtopic - sig by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    Beautiful-scary sig.
    It looks suspiciously like "Cheap Fast Quality - Pick two"...
    Or is it more pointing to some version of the Godel flaw in Russell?

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    1. Re:offtopic - sig by mokus000 · · Score: 1

      Heh, no particular reference in there other than the "cheap fast quality, pick two" you mention. It was just something I noticed about the relationship between multiplication and addition in an arbitrary ring. At the time, I believe I was trying to define the integers, rationals, reals, and complex numbers as products of unsigned base monoids and various symmetry groups as signs.

      It's been a while since I gave it much thought, actually. Probably about time to think of something new.

      --
      Additive identity, multiplicative cancellation, distributive multiplication over addition: pick any two (unless 1 = 0)
  38. Re:Agnostics by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    There's a meeting of Agnostics Anonymous next week. I think. But the group leader won't call me back to confirm.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  39. Re:SMS! by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 2, Funny

    The monastery provides the local service.

    The SMS reads:
    "Your Phone is Moving."

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  40. Re:does a phone ... by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    Mu.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  41. Re:Seon (a korean sect of Zen) by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    Hi.

    Do you know any info about Master Seung Sahn?
    I like his book Compass of Zen.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  42. Dharma can talk about is the wrong Dharma by assemblerex · · Score: 1

    True Dharma is within, not in a phone( unless it dials dead relatives you miss or buddha.)

  43. Wrong Sid by nick_davison · · Score: 1

    some guy named Buddha appears before you, smacks you on the forehead to open up your third eye

    Try following Sid Arthur, not Sid Vicious. Whole different Sid.

  44. More importantly, what is answering the phone? by Cragen · · Score: 1

    The idea of meditation is to watch the mind. What, if any, difference is there from a mind that is upset from being on a really high ladder (fear of heights) and a mind that is upset from watching the Star Trek scene where Kirk and Sulu fight Romulans on a 20-foot round platform that is about 5 miles up in the sky? I am so afraid of heights that I could not watch that scene. Could not actually open my eyes. Degree of FEAR would obviously be wildly different if it were actually me on that platform. (I probably would've just fainted dead away.) Still, just typing this makes my hair stand on end. So, my point is that this mental exercise is still valid as long as I am aware enough to benefit from the experience. And that is what meditation is alll about. Becoming more aware. Your mileage may vary, but I think the goal (for us Buddhists, anyway) is generally similar. If you are "offended" by such a thing as this phone, or "entranced" by it, or even not caring about this story in the least, and are not aware of your mind and its interaction (or lack of), then you are just running on automatic. (Takes one to know one, I guess.) Happy Wednesday!

  45. Re:Seon (a korean sect of Zen) by catchy_handle · · Score: 1

    I think so, he was into "don't know know mind" right? He liked to hit people with sticks, the pain/confusion you felt when getting whacked by a stick out of the blue was your "don't know mind", if you could stay in that space, or go back to it at will, you are close.

    He also was fond of saying buddha was everything and nothing, buddha is shit on a stick. I like this thought. It's kept me interested in this way of looking at life.

  46. Now a Monkey Magic phone... by BlogTheHaggis · · Score: 1

    ...THAT would be cool!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iUMWy4hqAg

  47. And the answer is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mu

  48. Re:Take Seriously by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    There are. Look in Sri Lanka, Japan through much of the 20th century, and China. Now, many people would argue that these are not real Buddhists, but the same is true of Islamic terrorists and Christian terrorists like the IRA, as they both have holy books that preach against killing.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  49. Voodoo phone by janwedekind · · Score: 1

    8. The Voodoo Phone: It's black and experts operate it with the display turned off

  50. Re:Seon (a korean sect of Zen) by AkiraRoberts · · Score: 1

    He's got quite a number of books. And, while the Compass of Zen is a rather awesome intro to Buddhism in general and Zen in particular, I found Dropping Ashes on the Buddha - basically a compilation of his lectures and dharma talks - to be even better. And, while it seems a bit hard to track down these days, The Whole World Is a Single Flower is a nice compilation of koans, both traditional and from assorted Western sources, with Seung Sahn's commentary.

    --
    words, words, words, lemur, words, words words
  51. Does the phone have the Buddha nature? by boyfaceddog · · Score: 1

    Ring!

    --
    Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
  52. Re:Something odd... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for that admittedly ignorant post. I suggest your do some research on Buddhism and it's roots before you post on this subject again.

  53. Unask this... by Fallen+Andy · · Score: 1

    Mu

  54. MinMo by lupinstel · · Score: 1

    I bet that this runs on Windows Mobile; since life as we know leads to suffering.

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Cthulhu.
  55. Re:Chrisitian equivalent by Abreu · · Score: 1

    Well, when I first saw the article I immediately thought "Jesusphone!" but I didn't picture it as a crucifix... more like a multicolored "WWJD" on the screen

    --
    No sig for the moment.
  56. Tendency ? by vplata · · Score: 1

    I think it's even worse than pope2you.net =( !

  57. Re:Something odd... by tabrnaker · · Score: 1
    What's odd about it? Not everybody turns into Einstein just by reading about his life. You don't become a mechanic just by driving a car. Buddha didn't become enlightened by reading stuff, he became enlightened through contemplation.

    Religions get off track because they are populated by ordinary people who instead of communing with reality by themselves, look to others for what reality is.

    Is it really so hard to comprehend that the sheep scatter and go astray when the shepherd is absent?

  58. Talking about spiritually enlighted! by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

    We're not talking about Bubbah here! Unless that 10,000th stick of incense kills the neighbours ...
    Then you might get friends with a christian-type bubbah telling your soul belongs to jezus but your ass belongs to his ...

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  59. but, go ask him yourself! by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

    They got a phone for sale to get in touch with your inner enlightment ..

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  60. I might like this by thepod · · Score: 1

    I already use my iPhone as a meditation timer and to read Sutras online. In fact, there are several apps available specifically for this purpose. So, this is just an extension of that. Anything that helps you in your practice can't be bad!

  61. the title is incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    s/Japan/China/g