Buddhism: the untold story

Banbh

This is a thread I started on the Atheism forum, having seen the reports from Burma regarding the activities of the buddhists there. I was challenged to post it here as well, so here it is:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-p...339684455.html

Buddhism is sometimes regarded, in Europe anyway, as a more tolerant religion, a religion of peaceful meditation and begging baldy monks.
But like all organisations seeking control of society it has its darker side. The above link is to the recent ethnic-cleansing movement in Burma, orchestrated by the Buddhist church.
Buddhism can also take credit for the attempted extermination of the Tamils of Sri Lanka and, let us not forget, the first suicide bombers of modern warfare, the kamikazi pilots, many of whom went to their deaths with the blessing of Buddha.

joseph brand

I just did a search for 'Rohingya' in Google images. There are some graphic photos of corpses. NSFW.

You mentioned suicide bombers. I'm sure I've seen some buddhist monks set themselves alight. Human torches. It differs from christianity in that the burning is not self inflicted. (Burnt at the stake)

Undergod

Banbh wrote: »

This is a thread I started on the Atheism forum, having seen the reports from Burma regarding the activities of the buddhists there. I was challenged to post it here as well, so here it is:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-p...339684455.html

Buddhism is sometimes regarded, in Europe anyway, as a more tolerant religion, a religion of peaceful meditation and begging baldy monks.
But like all organisations seeking control of society it has its darker side. The above link is to the recent ethnic-cleansing movement in Burma, orchestrated by the Buddhist church.
Buddhism can also take credit for the attempted extermination of the Tamils of Sri Lanka and, let us not forget, the first suicide bombers of modern warfare, the kamikazi pilots, many of whom went to their deaths with the blessing of Buddha.

I may well be wrong, but it doesn't seem accurate to refer to Buddhism as an organisation as such - there are many different branches, but I don't think it tends towards centralized control. The term "Buddhist church" also doesn't seem to fit.

But yeah, there are ****ty Buddhists. Not surprising.

Blowfish

Banbh wrote: »

Buddhism can also take credit for the attempted extermination of the Tamils of Sri Lanka and, let us not forget, the first suicide bombers of modern warfare, the kamikazi pilots, many of whom went to their deaths with the blessing of Buddha.

I'm no expert, but from everything I've read, the roots of the Kamikaze movement came from a mixture of Shinto Emperor worship and the Bushido concept of noble sacrifice/Seppuku. I'm not quite sure what either of those would have to do with Buddhism.

Asiaprod

Welcome to the Dark Side:)
You raise some interesting points. I look forward to this dialogue.

Banbh I think you need to edit that link its changed and I found a number of different Burma links so I am not sure which issue you are referring to.

Banbh

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2012/09/201292175339684455.html

I hope this is the correct link. It has the headline 'Monks stage anti-Rohingya march' but this one below may be even more informative:

http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/plight-rohingya-0022301

recedite

The monks held a banner saying, "Save your motherland Myanmar by supporting the president"

Are these the same monks we saw being beaten and clubbed by the Myanmar authorities in the Saffron Revolution a few years ago?
Just goes to show what happens when someone gets a few too many bangs to the head.

roosh

I think this discussion could be quite similar to a point that often gets raised by those arguing against atheists, namely that Stalin and Mao were atheists and [arguably] guilty of greater atrocities than the Nazis.

The counter point that is usually made is that it wasn't their atheistic beliefs (or lack of beliefs) that caused them to commit these atrocities; I think a similar point could be made in this instance.

Banbh

But in this instance it is 'buddhism' that is organising the pogroms with monks leading the charge and targeting non-buddhists.

roosh

Banbh wrote: »

But in this instance it is 'buddhism' that is organising the pogroms with monks leading the charge and targeting non-buddhists.

Unfortunately I'm not overly familiar with the story, so anything I can say will be general at best; I did have a scan through the video you posted above in post #6. It didn't seem to mention too much about Buddhist persecution of the Rohingya, and actually spoke of a military coup that overthrew the government some years back, whose law is being implemented. It also mentioned how many of the pictures that get circulated of the purported violence are fake. That's not to deny that there is violence being perpetrated against the Rohingya, rather to say that the information may not be the most reliable. I would be interested to see a few things from the report mentioned, from the organisation that the guy who was on video call is part of.


All that being said though, what I meant above was that I don't think there is anything in Buddhist teachings that would encourage such behaviour; from my own exposure to Buddhist teachings, a central tenet of them seems to be kindness and compassion towards others, especially ones enemies; it is said to be one of the necessary steps towards true happiness.

But people who practice buddhism are capable of eschewing the teachings when it suits them; they are capable of violence too. Buddhist teachings and practice are a vehicle of self-investigation, that claim to, if followed correctly, lead to enlightenment and true happiness. They are open to everyone to try; they are open to people to try and then give up; they are open to people to misinterpret; they are open to people to selectively apply; they are open to people to try to exploit.

Just because someone puts on a saffron robe and shaves their head, it doesn't necessarily mean that everything they do is "buddhist", or that it originates from buddhist teachings. Buddhist teachings are, it can be said, about overcoming our conditioned behaviours and habits, or deep seated and unskillful behaviours; it would seem that those "buddhists" involved in violence against the minorities in Myanmar have yet to overcome some of those conditioned behaviours.


Again, however, I think the discussion is similar to that of the argument re:Stalin and Mao and atheism.

recedite

roosh wrote: »

Just because someone puts on a saffron robe and shaves their head, it doesn't necessarily mean that everything they do is "buddhist"

So what you are saying is; when the monks act in an unchristian way they are not true buddhists.
Smacks of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy to me.

roosh

recedite wrote: »

roosh wrote: »

Just because someone puts on a saffron robe and shaves their head, it doesn't necessarily mean that everything they do is "buddhist"

So what you are saying is; when the monks act in an unchristian way they are not true buddhists.
Smacks of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy to me.

Not at all. It might be more beneficial to ask the question what is a "true buddhist"?

Buddhist teachings would point to the fact that there is no such thing as a "true buddhist" bcos buddhist teachings eschew such conceptualisations. When you have monks acting in the manner alluded to,what you have is monks bringing suffering upon others, and the teachings would suggest, upon themselves too. This is the behaviour of human beings who, arguably have not overcome of the ills of the Ego.

When you have people practising buddhism, learning the teachings and doing the practices, you have himan beings who are [or at least appear to be] trying to overcome attachment to the Ego, which can be the cause of such undesirable behavior in the first place.

Those monks aren't "true buddhists", but not bcos their actions are "un-buddhist", it's bcos there is no such thing as a "true buddhist" or "un-buddhist behaviour".

recedite

Is nobody going to try to defend those darned monks?
If this argument doesn't kick off soon, I'm leaving :mad:

roosh

recedite wrote: »

Is nobody going to try to defend those darned monks?
If this argument doesn't kick off soon, I'm leaving :mad:

Don't blame the monks, instead have compassion for the fact that they are likely still afflicted with a subconscious attachment to the Ego. The chances are, that if you had been born in their stead, you'd be doing the exact same thing.

Also, given that "you" and "the monks" are one and the same entity, it might be worth looking a little closer to home and seeing what responsibility "you" bear in all of this.

Banbh

And 'you' and the paedophile priests are one so what responsibility do 'you' bear for their crimes?

The original post was in the Atheism thread where I was challenged to have the courage to debate in this thread. Even the person who made that challenge failed to defend the crimes of Buddhism here. So, I'm off back to Atheism where people are prepared to discuss things rationally.

18AD

The thing is, I'd be coming from the opposite angle to roosh. But I see what you mean!

The monks are capable of speaking for themselves. They behave as they do.

I, and I would suspect no one else, can say anything about why they are doing what they do except themselves. It is not my responsibility to defend them. It is not even my responsibility to defend buddhism.

Granted also that foreign political and regional conflict (anywhere) is something so vast and complex that I have not the appropriate knowledge to comment constructively on that particular situation.

Regardless, what claim are you making with the thread? Are you saying that buddhism causes war? Because that is patently false. (Although I was pointing towards that in the thread I start called Zen at War. Have a look see.) Is it that sometimes buddhists cause war? Well, that's probably true but doesn't say very much. I gather that your point lies somewhere in between these two claims and that that is where the interesting discussion lies.

Don't run away!

Banbh

My point was that there is a deafening silence to the crimes committed by/in the name of Buddhism and yet Islam, Judaism and the various shades of Christianity are rightly exposed for their crimes.

When it comes to abuse of humanity, I suppose all religions are guilty as they are all peddling the same fraud - eternal life if you do what we tell you in this one.

18AD

Banbh wrote: »

My point was that there is a deafening silence to the crimes committed by/in the name of Buddhism and yet Islam, Judaism and the various shades of Christianity are rightly exposed for their crimes.

I'd agree. It should be known.

There's still the stronger claim though, whether Buddhism causes or does not cause violence. That's next:

When it comes to abuse of humanity, I suppose all religions are guilty as they are all peddling the same fraud - eternal life if you do what we tell you in this one.

Is buddhism saying that? I thought buddhism was the exact opposite of this. Maybe someone can correct me. But the goal is to escape samsara, the wheel of birth and rebirth and thereby end suffering through enlightenment. Also buddhism is pretty against telling people what to do.

Chuang Tzu is taoist, but I think there is enough overlap to warrent the comment.

Oscar Wilde describing Chuang Tzu: "There is nothing of the sentimentalist in him. He pities the rich more than the poor, if he ever pities at all, and prosperity seems to him as tragic a thing as suffering. He has nothing of the modern sympathy with failures, nor does he propose that the prizes should always be given on moral grounds to those who come in last in the race. It is the race itself that he objects to; and so for active sympathy, which has become the profession of so many worthy people in our own day, he thinks that trying to make others good is as silly an occupation as 'beating a drum in a forest in order to find a fugitive.' It is a mere waste of energy. That is all. While, as for a thoroughly sympathetic man, he is, in the eyes of Chuang Tzu, simply a man who is always succeed or failing to be somebody else, and so misses the only possible excuse for his own existence."

Banbh

Banbh wrote: »

eternal life if you do what we tell you in this one.

Pretty much the opposite of what buddhism teaches tbh

Banbh

Buddhism promises eternal life as do all religions. In fact it is one of the defining features of a religion. But it is its interference in the lives of others that make it objectionable.
The lama taking the boy children into the monastery for special education are monsters; the safron-robed monks with the flaming torches driving out people from their homes are monsters.
In the scale of evil it may be lesser than Islam or than Christianity was in its day but it is still a focus of ignorance, superstition and sometimes violence.

christmas2012

In fairness you dont see them jumping up and down demanding death for every little thing..

Banbh

Banbh wrote: »

Buddhism promises eternal life as do all religions.

There cannot be an immortal life, because there is no soul. Our lives are already eternal in a sense, because of the cycle of rebirth. To end that is the aim.

Everything is impermanent. To suddenly suggest there might be something permanent which is a goal would be nonsense.
I don't care if you don't want to follow the religion, nobody does, it's your own choice - but if you are going to post about it, at least learn something about what it teaches first

Banbh

There cannot be an immortal life...

Absolutely spot on. So why all the chanting of the name of a pretend immortal being and the waving of flags at him and the prayer wheels to speed up the pleading...

conor.hogan.2

Banbh wrote: »

My point was that there is a deafening silence to the crimes committed by/in the name of Buddhism and yet Islam, Judaism and the various shades of Christianity are rightly exposed for their crimes.

When it comes to abuse of humanity, I suppose all religions are guilty as they are all peddling the same fraud - eternal life if you do what we tell you in this one.

They all have a central control system as they are religions, buddhism is not. You can't compare them.

Buddhism is not a religion. You seem to struggle with this, hence you have a massive mis-understanding.

Banbh

A misunderstanding I share with all the dictionaries I can find, Wikipaedia, the United Nations, the governments of Burma, Japan and just about any other website you care to check.
I suppose when one deludes oneself into believing in supernatural forces, magic powers and eternal life, it is easy to make any word be what you want it to be.

18AD

Would you care to share any of these definitions?

I'd say it is a religion, but it doesn't necessarily involve any of those things you mention. You seem to have a very reductionist view of all religion. "It's all the same."

I believe there was a branch of Taoism that did seek immortality, but it was generally viewed as a weird cult-ish off shoot of taoism in general. I think it runs contrary to the idea of attachemnt in buddhism, in that one is trying to overcome death, and therefore one is clinging to life and perpetuating suffering.

In fact, in buddhism, to become a god or immortal is actually a hindrance to enlightenment as you become trapped in your own self-importance for thousands of years instead of escaping the cycles of suffering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortality#Buddhism

If you care to think of deathlessness as "immortality" you have to consider that it has nothing to do with continuing existence as an ego and involves attaining a state of nothingness or emptiness, which as far as I can tell would be closer to what I consider eternal death than eternal life.

Still, I fail to see what point you're actually making. If it's that buddhism sometimes causes violence, then we're in agreement, but not really saying much at all. Oil, geography, family, religion and alcohol also sometimes cause violence but they don't do it necessarily, so we don't outlaw them. You have to show that buddhism necessarily causes violence if you want it to be considered a threat to humanity.

*whoooosh* !

Ambersky

This thread seems to me to be a kind of call to look at the shadow side of Buddhism. It is a fair point that Buddhism is usually presented in the West as a peaceful, eco friendly, indeed idealistic and harmless religion.
It must however have its shadow side and in Buddhist tradition it would be thought of as beneficial to examine it. It will be interesting to see if this examination is actually willing to look for errors or if it will follow the same path as other revalations i.e. denial, blaming the messenger, citing the good nature of the accused, silencing etc.

Having grown up in the Patriarchal Hierarchical Roman Catholic tradition I am reluctant to subscribe to any other religion without making sure I am not jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.

I like the fact that Buddhism is reflective and I have at least read that discussion and examination of what is really happening is encouraged before taking anything on as a belief.

One of my main measuring sticks to evaluate the difference between the theory and the practice of the compassion espoused by any religion is the issue of child protection and the treatment of vulnerable adults particularly by teachers or those who hold positions of power or respect.
If a religion or culture has a history of abuse I want to know how was the revelation of that abuse treated and I want to know what beliefs or practices within this religion can foster and or protect abusers.
Given the recent history in Ireland and how this issue has for many people brought into question everything about Christianity it is only fair I think to look into any beliefs within Buddhism that might lead to the endangerment of the vulnerable among us.

There is quite a bit written about teachers in America during the 70s and 80s taking advantage of their positions in Buddhist Communities saying that sex with them was spiritually beneficial and any partners of chosen bedfellows who objected were having problems with jealousy and their egos. I have also heard things about the sexual abuse of young monks.
http://thebuddhistblog.blogspot.ie/2010/04/sexual-abuse-isnt-just-catholic-issue.html

There are a few issues common to the practices of Patriarchal Buddhism and Patriarchal Christianity, well patriarchy for a start , oh and a denial it is a patriarchy in the first place. A look around at the guys in skirts giving all the orders/teachings or allowed to be priests monks etc should be a clue we are in a patriarchy.
Both systems have a Hierarchy while thinking of themselves as a non dualistic tradition despite only allowing men to have positions of power. Both deny the the existence of power, describing men in the highest positions as servants. Both have a tradition of encouraging followers to distance themselves from the body and women and even the earth itself. Some proponents of both traditions put spirituality over ordinary earthly things and finally there is an unhealthy over emphasis on debate and the superiority of the mind.

I dont believe either Buddhism or Christianity has to remain Patriarchal dualistic or anti body. I think Christianity is getting its shake up now. I have more hope for Buddhism particularly in the West where we are more familiar with being critical of these ideas and of seeing where they can lead to. Unfortunately in my opinion this familiarity can also lead us to adopting these trends too easily or even of misinterpreting some eastern thinking on ego and healthy identity, individuation and individualism. Intellectual ping pong games on who's ego is the smallest, finding the I and concluding that as there is no I to commit a crime in the first place, there is no crime, can lead to a kind of comfort and justification being given to abusers.

Some of you may find the link below makes for very uncomfortable reading and viewing . I have not fully examined it myself but came across it while searching for more information on this issue from a Buddhist perspective. I am going to do a bit more research on it but if this article and video is accurate it could represent a shattering of illusions for the Buddhist tradition that could be upsetting but illuminating.

Revelations of Sexual Abuse and Dehumanization in Tibetan Buddhism.
http://www.elephantjournal.com/2011/12/the-sex-lives-of-monks-confessions-of-kalu-rinpoche/

Shyam Dodge writes about the story of Kalu Rinpoche, a 21-year-old young man, is considered to be the reincarnation of Kyabje Kalu Rinpoche.

I speak from experience. I am a former monk and former guru from the Hindu tradition. And while my personal story is not one of sexual abuse, I can attest to the damages done by orthodoxy and mind-body dualism, which have the overwhelming tendency (and track record) to perpetuate dissociation, denial, and rationalizations that enable unethical and often dehumanizing—even criminal—behavior within the religious hierarchy. What to speak of how debilitating such body-negative philosophies can be to one’s personal spiritual journey. That being said, it is pretty clear by now that anytime you get a bunch of monks bonded together by an intense body-negative religious code some little kid is bound to get molested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5Ka3bEN1rs

Edit Ok I said I would look into this some more and this the story gets even weirder but interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalu_Rinpoche

roosh

Banbh wrote: »

And 'you' and the paedophile priests are one so what responsibility do 'you' bear for their crimes?

touché

Banbh wrote: »

The original post was in the Atheism thread where I was challenged to have the courage to debate in this thread. Even the person who made that challenge failed to defend the crimes of Buddhism here. So, I'm off back to Atheism where people are prepared to discuss things rationally.

I'm not entirely sure what your expectation were when you started this thread, but you questioned whether anyone was going to defend the monks, so I offered a very much tongue in cheek defense. The points raised, however, are indeed rational, and if you wish to discuss them rationally then by all means do.


It would appear to me that your understanding of Buddhism, Buddhist philosophy and practice, is even more limited than my own; this partly explains the misguidance in your questioning.

You use the term "crimes of Buddhism" as though it were a coherent idea; indeed, you assume that it is, but even a basic knoweldge of buddhist philosophy would lead you to question the very notion of such a concept.

Cutting through concepts
Buddhist philosophy and practice is, almost paradoxically, both incredibly complex and incredibly simple; complex because it pertains to the complexities of the human mind, but simple because it's aim is to cultivate awareness of those complexities and break attachment to them; what is left is the uncomplicated state of being.

Even according to Buddhist philosophy, the idea of a "buddhist" is a delusion; the philosophy points to the fact that "buddhist" is just a label that we apply to things, no such thing exists in reality. It can of course be a helpful term for the purpose of communication, but attachment to the concept, or preconceived ideas about the concept, which you appear to have, only lead to erroneous beliefs and ideas. To that end, the concept of "crimes of Buddhism" is an incoherent concept.


Buddhist philosphy would not so much say that "no true scotsman" would ever commit murder, rather it would suggest that there is no such thing as a scotsman, true or otherwise.


The Rohingya
Again, I'm not sure what sort of defense of the monks you were expecting, but I think you maybe had certain preconceived ideas stemming from your opposition to religion in general.

To my knowledge, there is nothing in Buddhist philosophy or practice that encourages or condones such behaviour; my exposure to it, limited as it may be, would suggest the complete opposite; Buddhist philosophy actually discourages such behaviour; as empathy, compassion and kindness towards others, including (but not necessarily especially) ones own enemies is seen as necessary practices to achieving full enlightenment.


But just because someone wears a robe and shaves their head, it doesn't mean that they have attained enlightenment; it actually suggests the opposite, that they haven't yet achieved it, and that they are, to varying degrees, afflicted with the "ills of the Ego"; the subconscious attachment to beliefs and concepts that lead us, and the monks, to unskillful behaviour; or behaviour that leads to our own suffering, and the suffering of others.


Just as there are scientists who believe in such theories as the plasma universe, and atheists such as Mao and Stalin who murdered people for their religious beliefs, there are buddhist practitioners who bring suffering to others and themselves.

Banbh wrote: »

My point was that there is a deafening silence to the crimes committed by/in the name of Buddhism and yet Islam, Judaism and the various shades of Christianity are rightly exposed for their crimes.

If your sole point is that there is a "deafening silence" about what is happening to the Rohingya, then you would probably find some level of agreement here; although there might be some clarification over the point of "deafening silence".

Where you will find debate, however, is over the idea of crimes being committed "by buddhism", and the idea of crimes being committed "in the name of buddhism"; the former being an inchoherent concept in and of itself, and the latter requiring a basic understanding of buddhist philosophy; as buddhist philosophy says much that relates either directly or indirectly to the that very idea.

Banbh wrote: »

When it comes to abuse of humanity, I suppose all religions are guilty as they are all peddling the same fraud - eternal life if you do what we tell you in this one.

Banbh wrote: »

Buddhism promises eternal life as do all religions. In fact it is one of the defining features of a religion.

Again, an understanding of buddhist philosophy is required here.

What your understanding of "eternal life" is and what buddhist philosophy says, if indeed it says anything, about "eternal life" are two entirely independent, and likely conflicting, propositions.

If buddhist philosophy says anything about "eternal life" it's that there is no such thing as death, because there is no such thing as birth; that is "you" were never born, so "you" can never die. This can indeed be discussed rationally, but ultimately might require engagement with spiritual practice to develop a deeper understanding, or realisation.

Banbh wrote: »

But it is its interference in the lives of others that make it objectionable. The lama taking the boy children into the monastery for special education are monsters; the safron-robed monks with the flaming torches driving out people from their homes are monsters.
In the scale of evil it may be lesser than Islam or than Christianity was in its day but it is still a focus of ignorance, superstition and sometimes violence.

I'm not sure which cases you are specifically referring to, but the cases that I am aware of, where monks take children into monasteries at early ages, is because the children's families bring them to be educated in the monasteries.

As for those driving people from their homes, that is indeed reprehensible behaviour, but it would appear to be more anathema to buddhist philosophy than representative of it.

People who practice buddhism are human first and foremost, and are subject to human condition, same as everyone else; buddhist practice and philosophy is mostly concerned with overcoming the negative aspects of the human condition; but, simply sitting on a cushion doesn't guarantee that someone will overcome those negative aspects. In buddhist philosophy, there is much said about the "traps" of the ego, and the pitfalls of practice.

Banbh wrote: »

A misunderstanding I share with all the dictionaries I can find, Wikipaedia, the United Nations, the governments of Burma, Japan and just about any other website you care to check.
I suppose when one deludes oneself into believing in supernatural forces, magic powers and eternal life, it is easy to make any word be what you want it to be.

I've heard of a teaching buddha gave, where he simply held up a flower; I didn't come across any mention of teachings where he quotes the oxford english dictionary, wikipedia or the united nations.

Again, it is probably worth highlighting that what you think "a buddhist" believes and what "a buddhist" actually believes would appear to be somewhat different.

jill_valentine

Banbh wrote: »

My point was that there is a deafening silence to the crimes committed by/in the name of Buddhism and yet Islam, Judaism and the various shades of Christianity are rightly exposed for their crimes.

When it comes to abuse of humanity, I suppose all religions are guilty as they are all peddling the same fraud - eternal life if you do what we tell you in this one.

I'm an atheist, but to be honest, there's such a vast difference between Abrahamic religions and Buddhism that trying to directly compare them doesn't really make sense.

From the tone of your other posts, I don't think you really grasp just how different the "format" is, it's like comparing glitter and blue. Buddhism is far, far more introspective and subjective than other religions, it lacks the same kind of "church" structures, and doesn't really have the same unambiguous, universal statements on particular issues set down in stone. I'll leave it to somebody better informed to illustrate the detail there, but the point is, it's not just the "character" of it that's different. You're trying to map it onto the same footprint as the religions you're familiar with, and it just doesn't fit.

roosh

18AD wrote: »

Is buddhism saying that? I thought buddhism was the exact opposite of this. Maybe someone can correct me. But the goal is to escape samsara, the wheel of birth and rebirth and thereby end suffering through enlightenment. Also buddhism is pretty against telling people what to do.

We could probably get into a nitpicking argument over whether buddhism is necessarily for or against anything, but it's probably neither necessary or in the spirit of the philosophy/religion/practice/etc.


With regard to the claim about "eternal life", the concept is so open to interpretation that it is essentially meaningless; what banbh means by "eternal life" could be wildly different to what someone else means.

The confusion probably arises from the idea of re-incarnation and the idea that there is no death; but these cannot be understood in isolation, they have to be understood in the context of "no self"; the idea that "you" or "I" were never born, so we cannot die.

That would just be my understanding anyway.

roosh

Banbh wrote: »

Absolutely spot on. So why all the chanting of the name of a pretend immortal being and the waving of flags at him and the prayer wheels to speed up the pleading...

I'm not sure what you mean by "pretend immortal being", but the chanting, which isn't solely the name of buddha, is a practice which helps to break the cycle of subconscious thoughts which affect our behaviour; it can also help to cultivate awareness of our subconscious thought patterns, while helping commit certain teachings to memory.

I'm not familiar with the practice of waving flags, but I have seen prayer flags; these can serve as visual reminders to practitioners, a means of bringing awareness back to the present moment. Just as seeing any object can have an effect on the mind, seeing a prayer flag can have a certain effect.

The spinning of prayer wheels can simply represent the possibility of performing a conscious act when engaging in prayer*.


Some people might have superstitious beliefs about the effects of both these paraphernali, but, to paraphrase the buddha, if it doesn't stand up to reason then don't believe it.


Again, this would just represent my own limited understanding.


*prayer not necessarily meaning what you think it means.