Nebogipfel wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:Buddha believed in purdah; looking at the opposite sex; men looking at the women or women looking at the men.

Is it correct?

No idea. Have you tried asking some Buddhists?

Aren't any Buddhists here? But I was talking of Buddha; not of the Buddhists, they might not have been following Buddha recently.

paarsurrey wrote:Buddha believed in purdah; looking at the opposite sex; men looking at the women or women looking at the men.

Is it correct?

Is what correct? Looking at people? I suppose so. It's a good way of spotting if any of your friends are around. It's also a good way of spotting if there are any potentially dangerous people around.. It's a good way of spotting potential mates.
How else do you do those things? Genuinely baffled.

monkeyboy wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:Buddha believed in purdah; looking at the opposite sex; men looking at the women or women looking at the men.

Is it correct?

Is what correct? Looking at people? I suppose so. It's a good way of spotting if any of your friends are around. It's also a good way of spotting if there are any potentially dangerous people around.. It's a good way of spotting potential mates.
How else do you do those things? Genuinely baffled.

But Buddha genuinely believed it, in my opinion. I think I should quote from him for your and others perusal, as mentioned in Gospel of Buddha:

"The Gospel of Buddha

The Bikkhu's Conduct toward Women

The bhikkhus came to the Blessed One and asked him: [1]
"O Tathagata, our Lord and Master,
what conduct toward women dost thou prescribe
to the samanas who have left the world?" [2]

And the Blessed One said: [3]

"Guard against looking on a woman. [4]

"If ye see a woman, let it be as though ye saw her not,
and have no conversation with her. [5]

"If, after all, ye must speak with her,
let it be with a pure heart,
and think to yourself,
'I as a samana will live in this sinful world
as the spotless leaf of the lotus,
unsoiled by the mud in which it grows.' [6]

"If the woman be old, regard her as your mother,
if young, as your sister,
if very young, as your child. [7]

"The samana who looks on a woman as a woman,
or touches her as a woman, has broken his vow
and is no longer a disciple of the Tathagata. [8]
"The power of lust is great with men,
and is to be feared withal;
take then the bow of earnest perseverance,
and the sharp arrow-points of wisdom. [9]

"Cover your heads with the helmet of right thought,
and fight wih fixed resolve against the five desires. [10]

"Lust beclouds a man's heart,
when it is confused with woman's beauty,
and the mind is dazed. [11]

"Better far with red-hot irons bore out both your eyes,
than encourage in yourself sensual thoughts,
or look upon a woman's form with lustful desires. [12]

"Better fall into the fierce tiger's mouth,
or under the sharp knife of the executioner,
than dwell with a woman and excite in yourself lustful thoughts. [13]

"A woman of the world is anxious to exhibit her form and shape,
whether walking, standing, sitting, or sleeping.
Even when represented as a picture,
she desires to captivate with the charms of her beauty,
and thus to rob men of their steadfast heart. [14]

"How then ought ye to guard yourselves? [15]

"By regarding her tears and her smiles as enemies,
her stooping form, her hanging arms, and her disentangled hair
as toils designed to entrap man's heart. [16]

"Therefore, I say, restrain the heart,
give it no unbridled license." [17]

End Chapter 33"
http://reluctant-messenger.com/gospel_b ... ter_33.htm

And Buddha was a wise-man of East.

paarsurrey wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:Buddha believed in purdah; looking at the opposite sex; men looking at the women or women looking at the men.

Is it correct?

Is what correct? Looking at people? I suppose so. It's a good way of spotting if any of your friends are around. It's also a good way of spotting if there are any potentially dangerous people around.. It's a good way of spotting potential mates.
How else do you do those things? Genuinely baffled.

But Buddha genuinely believed it, in my opinion. I think I should quote from him for your and others perusal, as mentioned in Gospel of Buddha:

"The Gospel of Buddha

The Bikkhu's Conduct toward Women

The bhikkhus came to the Blessed One and asked him: [1]
"O Tathagata, our Lord and Master,
what conduct toward women dost thou prescribe
to the samanas who have left the world?" [2]

And the Blessed One said: [3]

"Guard against looking on a woman. [4]

"If ye see a woman, let it be as though ye saw her not,
and have no conversation with her. [5]

"If, after all, ye must speak with her,
let it be with a pure heart,
and think to yourself,
'I as a samana will live in this sinful world
as the spotless leaf of the lotus,
unsoiled by the mud in which it grows.' [6]

"If the woman be old, regard her as your mother,
if young, as your sister,
if very young, as your child. [7]

"The samana who looks on a woman as a woman,
or touches her as a woman, has broken his vow
and is no longer a disciple of the Tathagata. [8]
"The power of lust is great with men,
and is to be feared withal;
take then the bow of earnest perseverance,
and the sharp arrow-points of wisdom. [9]

"Cover your heads with the helmet of right thought,
and fight wih fixed resolve against the five desires. [10]

"Lust beclouds a man's heart,
when it is confused with woman's beauty,
and the mind is dazed. [11]

"Better far with red-hot irons bore out both your eyes,
than encourage in yourself sensual thoughts,
or look upon a woman's form with lustful desires. [12]

"Better fall into the fierce tiger's mouth,
or under the sharp knife of the executioner,
than dwell with a woman and excite in yourself lustful thoughts. [13]

"A woman of the world is anxious to exhibit her form and shape,
whether walking, standing, sitting, or sleeping.
Even when represented as a picture,
she desires to captivate with the charms of her beauty,
and thus to rob men of their steadfast heart. [14]

"How then ought ye to guard yourselves? [15]

"By regarding her tears and her smiles as enemies,
her stooping form, her hanging arms, and her disentangled hair
as toils designed to entrap man's heart. [16]

"Therefore, I say, restrain the heart,
give it no unbridled license." [17]

End Chapter 33"
http://reluctant-messenger.com/gospel_b ... ter_33.htm

And Buddha was a wise-man of East.

You're at it again. What the fuck is wrong with you? Do you have a single opinion of your own that doesn't need some quote from another source to speak for you?

I asked two clear questions directly to you. You have answered neither and posted the gospel of Bhudda at me.

paarsurrey wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:Buddha believed in purdah; looking at the opposite sex; men looking at the women or women looking at the men.

Is it correct?

Is what correct? Looking at people? I suppose so. It's a good way of spotting if any of your friends are around. It's also a good way of spotting if there are any potentially dangerous people around.. It's a good way of spotting potential mates.
How else do you do those things? Genuinely baffled.

But Buddha genuinely believed it, in my opinion. I think I should quote from him for your and others perusal, as mentioned in Gospel of Buddha:

"The Gospel of Buddha

The Bikkhu's Conduct toward Women

The bhikkhus came to the Blessed One and asked him: [1]
"O Tathagata, our Lord and Master,
what conduct toward women dost thou prescribe
to the samanas who have left the world?" [2]

And the Blessed One said: [3]

"Guard against looking on a woman. [4]

"If ye see a woman, let it be as though ye saw her not,
and have no conversation with her. [5]

"If, after all, ye must speak with her,
let it be with a pure heart,
and think to yourself,
'I as a samana will live in this sinful world
as the spotless leaf of the lotus,
unsoiled by the mud in which it grows.' [6]

"If the woman be old, regard her as your mother,
if young, as your sister,
if very young, as your child. [7]

"The samana who looks on a woman as a woman,
or touches her as a woman, has broken his vow
and is no longer a disciple of the Tathagata. [8]
"The power of lust is great with men,
and is to be feared withal;
take then the bow of earnest perseverance,
and the sharp arrow-points of wisdom. [9]

"Cover your heads with the helmet of right thought,
and fight wih fixed resolve against the five desires. [10]

"Lust beclouds a man's heart,
when it is confused with woman's beauty,
and the mind is dazed. [11]

"Better far with red-hot irons bore out both your eyes,
than encourage in yourself sensual thoughts,
or look upon a woman's form with lustful desires. [12]

"Better fall into the fierce tiger's mouth,
or under the sharp knife of the executioner,
than dwell with a woman and excite in yourself lustful thoughts. [13]

"A woman of the world is anxious to exhibit her form and shape,
whether walking, standing, sitting, or sleeping.
Even when represented as a picture,
she desires to captivate with the charms of her beauty,
and thus to rob men of their steadfast heart. [14]

"How then ought ye to guard yourselves? [15]

"By regarding her tears and her smiles as enemies,
her stooping form, her hanging arms, and her disentangled hair
as toils designed to entrap man's heart. [16]

"Therefore, I say, restrain the heart,
give it no unbridled license." [17]

End Chapter 33"
http://reluctant-messenger.com/gospel_b ... ter_33.htm

And Buddha was a wise-man of East.

By the sound of it, this Buddha is giving advice about how they (the samana) should react with women. Since these samanas where more or less monks, i fail to see how this applies to the population in general. Its just advice to men who have taken a vow of chastity, not men generally. This Buddha (if he existed, and there's a big question mark over his existence!) was a misogynist, no surprises there, hes religious!

I find it strange, that someone in the 21st century, can call a misogynist "wise", just because hes a misogynist!

Shrunk wrote:Stupidest thread ever.

I dunno, it would be tough for this thread to be stupider than the sentence-rating one. I gave that thread a 1 because it was so stupid, whereas I'd just give this one a 0.

paarsurrey wrote: I have no claim to piety or scholarship; I am just an ordinary and humble man in the street.

Ordinary humble people (in the street or otherwise) do not feel the need to announce themselves as such

paarsurrey wrote:...they might not have been following Buddha recently.

Nobody has been following Buddha recently. He's been dead a long, long time

I can't believe I'm actually entering in to this cesspit of ignorant fuckwittery, but hey ho:

James is right. The clue is in the term "Bhikku" which meant a kind of monk or follower of a religious path, who has given up the idea of family life. As in most religions, such religious specialists in Buddha's time took vows of chastity. So surprise surprise, Buddha advised them that they'd be better able to keep those vows if they didn't follow nubile young wenches down the road with their tongues hanging out going "phwoooor... I'd give 'er one!!!" (or whatever the equivalent is in sanskrit).

It's a constant throughout Buddhist scripture that there are separate rules for monks and for laypeople. For example the Buddha never advised that laypeople give up sex. If you had a clue about the subject matter rather than just fishing for soundbites to express some wacko religious idea that you haven't got the guts to express directly in your own words, you'd know this.

Apart from which, your quotes don't seem to suggest that Buddha is even telling his disciples never to look at women. It sounds more Christian than muslim - like he's just telling them not to let lust enter their minds when they do. Not to "look at them" in that way.

If ye see a woman, let it be as though ye saw her not,
and have no conversation with her.[/color]

"If, after all, ye must speak with her,
let it be with a pure heart,
and think to yourself,
'I as a samana will live in this sinful world
as the spotless leaf of the lotus,
unsoiled by the mud in which it grows.'

These passage make it quite clear that the Buddha is regarding both seeing and conversing with women as an inevitable consequence of ordinary life, something that WILL happen, and advising how to avoid doing so with lust.

And finally, what the fuck does what the Buddha have to say matter anyway? I don't know anyone here who is a Buddhist, so in what universe is it logical to expect us to give a fuck, and go "ooh, we better revise our secular atheist principles then, because THE BUDDHA said so!"

As it happen I think the Buddha did do and say some wise stuff that we can learn from. But I wouldn't include the sexual repression and misogyny in that. That was just a symptom both of its time, and of religions everywhere and forever. Fuck that.

Beatsong wrote:
It's a constant throughout Buddhist scripture that there are separate rules for monks and for laypeople.

There is no separate classification like that in the truthful religion. Neither Buddha nor Jesus founded any such class.It is the clergy who later established it on their own without any express authority from them.

paarsurrey wrote:

Beatsong wrote:
It's a constant throughout Buddhist scripture that there are separate rules for monks and for laypeople.

There is no separate classification like that in the truthful religion. Neither Buddha nor Jesus founded any such class.It is the clergy who later established it on their own without any express authority from them.

"the truthful religion"?
What "truthful religion"?
You appear to be conflating Buddhism and Christianity. They have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
What Jesus supposedly said has no connection to what Buddha supposedly said.

It's all one creator god to the paarsurreys, all were it's prophets.

paarsurrey wrote:

Beatsong wrote:
It's a constant throughout Buddhist scripture that there are separate rules for monks and for laypeople.

There is no separate classification like that in the truthful religion. Neither Buddha nor Jesus founded any such class.It is the clergy who later established it on their own without any express authority from them.

Who fuckin' cares?

Paarsurrey,
In attempting to follow Buddist thought you have to be aware of certain problems.

Firstly is in trying to interpret the texts, often written in Sanskrit, the sacred language of India, and especially Sanskrit of the Vedic period, scholars, even Indian, are uncertain as to the exact interpretation. A lot of the 19century lexocographies which are used and the website you have linked to uses a translation from that era, are now known to be based on a great deal of guesswork. One of the hinderances of the 19century lexicographies is that their interpretation of Buddist philosophical terms to find Western equivalents was to aid Christian missionaries.

Secondly it is difficult to know which are the original forms of the texts (sutras) as there are two sets of Buddist Scriptures. The Pali Canon of the Thedevera School and the canon of the Mahayana School, roughly the Southern and Northern schools respectively. The general scholarly concensus is that the Pali Canon is the oldest, with the Mahayana being compiled after 100BCE. However the literary style indicates that the Pali canon does not represent the actual words of Guatama the Buddha, and the greater parts of both canons show them to be the works of Sangha, a Buddhist Monastic order, and have every sign of being a reverential elaboration of an original doctrine.

Therefore be very careful in a too literal reading of Buddhist, or for that matter any 'Eastern' philosophical, thought. The works are often not to be taken literally but as illustrations. A reading of the Tao Te Ching will soon illustate the point.

Thirdly, Buddist tradition does not recognise historical narrative as such. The sutras were originally an oral tradition and before eventually being written down it is quite possible that historical references were changed to suit the times as the oral form was handed down. Further a Buddist Monk writing in say 200CE would have no compunction is attributating his own words to the Buddha if he sincerely thought they were due to the supra-personal state of awakening he had attained.

ramseyoptom wrote:Paarsurrey,
In attempting to follow Buddist thought you have to be aware of certain problems.

Firstly is in trying to interpret the texts, often written in Sanskrit, the sacred language of India, and especially Sanskrit of the Vedic period, scholars, even Indian, are uncertain as to the exact interpretation. A lot of the 19century lexocographies which are used and the website you have linked to uses a translation from that era, are now known to be based on a great deal of guesswork. One of the hinderances of the 19century lexicographies is that their interpretation of Buddist philosophical terms to find Western equivalents was to aid Christian missionaries.

Secondly it is difficult to know which are the original forms of the texts (sutras) as there are two sets of Buddist Scriptures. The Pali Canon of the Thedevera School and the canon of the Mahayana School, roughly the Southern and Northern schools respectively. The general scholarly concensus is that the Pali Canon is the oldest, with the Mahayana being compiled after 100BCE. However the literary style indicates that the Pali canon does not represent the actual words of Guatama the Buddha, and the greater parts of both canons show them to be the works of Sangha, a Buddhist Monastic order, and have every sign of being a reverential elaboration of an original doctrine.

Therefore be very careful in a too literal reading of Buddhist, or for that matter any 'Eastern' philosophical, thought. The works are often not to be taken literally but as illustrations. A reading of the Tao Te Ching will soon illustate the point.

Thirdly, Buddist tradition does not recognise historical narrative as such. The sutras were originally an oral tradition and before eventually being written down it is quite possible that historical references were changed to suit the times as the oral form was handed down. Further a Buddist Monk writing in say 200CE would have no compunction is attributating his own words to the Buddha if he sincerely thought they were due to the supra-personal state of awakening he had attained.

I read root books of the revealed religions with great interest; on the basis of reasonable principles mentioned in Quran we can further sort out essence of right from the wrong easily.

Shrunk wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:

Beatsong wrote:
It's a constant throughout Buddhist scripture that there are separate rules for monks and for laypeople.

There is no separate classification like that in the truthful religion. Neither Buddha nor Jesus founded any such class.It is the clergy who later established it on their own without any express authority from them.

The problem, of course, is that all the evidence we have of these individuals, and Muhammed as well, is the written accounts that allegedly describe their words or deeds. So if you're skeptical about the accuracy of these, as you should be, you're left with no way of knowing what they actually said or did. It could even be that they never existed at all.

You know I am sceptic of the Skepticals so my approach is open and positive for truth; Jesus, Moses, Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, Socrates, Muhammad and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad- the Promised Messiah of our era are all real persons and they did exist.

Kuia wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:

Beatsong wrote:
It's a constant throughout Buddhist scripture that there are separate rules for monks and for laypeople.

There is no separate classification like that in the truthful religion. Neither Buddha nor Jesus founded any such class.It is the clergy who later established it on their own without any express authority from them.

"the truthful religion"?
What "truthful religion"?
You appear to be conflating Buddhism and Christianity. They have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
What Jesus supposedly said has no connection to what Buddha supposedly said.

The source of Buddha, Moses, Krishna,Zoroaster, Socrates, Jesus, Muhammad and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad- the Promised Messiah of our era is the same ONE-Creator God; hence Jesus , Muhammad and Buddha had a good connection with one another.