You can quote with a > symbol on a new line followed by a space.
You said that they focused on sex for liberation
No, I said that sex was a part of Tibetan Buddhism. I never said it was focused on sex – explicitly so – or that it was a bad thing, just that the possibility of sexual abuse in the temples existed.
and alluded that they may have undertaken human sacrifice
Because it’s not a clear answer either way. I made sure not to authoritatively state that these body parts were taken from sacrifices, but that the question was open. Their Bon ancestry does reflect the worship of human body parts (that’s about as neutrally as I can put it as I am not intimately familiar with Bon practices), and this is seen in Tibetan Buddhist temples. We’re talking about a nobility that gouged eyes out and amputated limbs as legal (not clerical) punishment. Is it that far-fetched to think they also saved some of those for their temples?
You are free to criticize the sources I cite. However, can you be more specific, rather than criticizing the hosting entity?
I’m sure you’ll understand that I don’t feel like going through 3-4 lengthy Wikipedia articles and look through their whole list of sources.
Most surely you will be able to find horrid crimes in a society that is thousands of years old. No one will disagree with you
We are talking about a liberation that took place in 1952. My grandparents, who are still alive, were born way before 1950. This is not something that happened in the distant past; all those practices that were abolished under the PRC (and the serfs freed from their bonds) happened merely three generations ago.
You can quote with a > symbol on a new line followed by a space.
Thanks!
No, I said that sex was a part of Tibetan Buddhism. I never said it was focused on sex – explicitly so – or that it was a bad thing, just that the possibility of sexual abuse in the temples existed.
Sorry, but this still follows the same logic. The possibility of abuse exists in real life. So you alluding to it as a practice of a minority is sort of racist.
Because it’s not a clear answer either way. I made sure not to authoritatively state that these body parts were taken from sacrifices, but that the question was open.
It’s not really “open” from a Buddhist point of view. Sacrifices aren’t ok from a Buddhist POV.
We’re talking about a nobility that gouged eyes out and amputated limbs as legal (not clerical) punishment.
Or are we talking about a society that commits about 50% of “legal” murder through corporal punishment?
I’m sure you’ll understand that I don’t feel like going through 3-4 lengthy Wikipedia articles and look through their whole list of sources.
Not today. Take your time. Don’t bash groups in the meantime.
all those practices that were abolished under the PRC
I do still point to the exceptionally large amount of people killed by the PRC as part of the legal process. How are those justified?
Again I take issue to the fact that you claim I am bashing groups as a whole. I am exposing the Tibetan (ex-)nobility, the oppressors. Nobles and bourgeois are oppressors, serfs and proletarians are oppressed. I am not conflating the two classes.
Amounting both to a single group, as if they shared the same interests and goals, is liberalism. And trying to bring it back to China’s capital punishment numbers – by linking to a Wikipedia page even – is really strange.
You can quote with a > symbol on a new line followed by a space.
No, I said that sex was a part of Tibetan Buddhism. I never said it was focused on sex – explicitly so – or that it was a bad thing, just that the possibility of sexual abuse in the temples existed.
Because it’s not a clear answer either way. I made sure not to authoritatively state that these body parts were taken from sacrifices, but that the question was open. Their Bon ancestry does reflect the worship of human body parts (that’s about as neutrally as I can put it as I am not intimately familiar with Bon practices), and this is seen in Tibetan Buddhist temples. We’re talking about a nobility that gouged eyes out and amputated limbs as legal (not clerical) punishment. Is it that far-fetched to think they also saved some of those for their temples?
I’m sure you’ll understand that I don’t feel like going through 3-4 lengthy Wikipedia articles and look through their whole list of sources.
We are talking about a liberation that took place in 1952. My grandparents, who are still alive, were born way before 1950. This is not something that happened in the distant past; all those practices that were abolished under the PRC (and the serfs freed from their bonds) happened merely three generations ago.
Thanks!
Sorry, but this still follows the same logic. The possibility of abuse exists in real life. So you alluding to it as a practice of a minority is sort of racist.
It’s not really “open” from a Buddhist point of view. Sacrifices aren’t ok from a Buddhist POV.
Or are we talking about a society that commits about 50% of “legal” murder through corporal punishment?
Not today. Take your time. Don’t bash groups in the meantime.
I do still point to the exceptionally large amount of people killed by the PRC as part of the legal process. How are those justified?
Again I take issue to the fact that you claim I am bashing groups as a whole. I am exposing the Tibetan (ex-)nobility, the oppressors. Nobles and bourgeois are oppressors, serfs and proletarians are oppressed. I am not conflating the two classes.
Amounting both to a single group, as if they shared the same interests and goals, is liberalism. And trying to bring it back to China’s capital punishment numbers – by linking to a Wikipedia page even – is really strange.
Cheers.