Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

Is Wikipedia full of it?

MountainsMountains Veteran
edited October 2010 in Buddhism Basics
This is from the Wiki entry on "Theravada":

"It is relatively right-wing conservative, and generally closest to early Buddhism..."

Right-wing conservative? Buddhists? I know everything is relative, but "right-wing"? C'mon... I'm strongly considering taking that phrase out of the description, since it really doesn't mean anything unless you know what you're comparing it to, and the article doesn't say that.

Comments

  • Invincible_summerInvincible_summer Heavy Metal Dhamma We(s)t coast, Canada Veteran
    edited October 2010
    Yeah I don't know why it says "right wing conservative," as that makes it sound like Theravadins are Tea Partiers...

    It is more "traditional" (which I suppose is synonymous with "conservative" to some). But definitely not "right wing conservative." Ugh...
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited October 2010
    Must have been written by a Mahayanist.

    I kid, I kid. :D
  • ShiftPlusOneShiftPlusOne Veteran
    edited October 2010
    Did you change it back?
  • questionfulquestionful
    edited October 2010
    idk if the term "right-wing" should be applied to it, but I do think "conservative" is fitting. Although the average person that hasn't heard much of the teachings of the buddha might misinterpret it. Idk.

    I like wikipedia though, I use it a lot.
  • zpwestonzpweston Explorer
    edited October 2010
    It's funny how everything has to have quick reference points like that. Things can't just be describe or informed, instead we put generalized statements on everything so it seems like there aren't any exceptions or that those statements have anything to do with the idea.
  • cazcaz Veteran United Kingdom Veteran
    edited October 2010
    I LOL'ed :)
  • TheJourneyTheJourney
    edited October 2010
    The idea of a buddhist monk yelling and screaming at a tea party is funny to me
  • AlfonsoAlfonso
    edited October 2010
    ight view, right intention, right speech, right actions, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration... right wing?


    :D?
  • PietroPumokinPietroPumokin
    edited October 2010
    it usued to not have "right - wing" in the definition... it probably WAS some crazy mahayanaist .. maybe.. i remember reading "generally the more conservative and orthodox".. "way of the elders. ."..
  • karmadorjekarmadorje
    edited October 2010
    I have found that the most notable proponents of Theravada are what we would generally call progressive politically, though most east and south Asian cultures have pretty awful records on the equality of women and acceptance of homosexuality. I don't think these particular viewpoints devolve neatly into Mahayana vs. Theravada. Both camps seem equally likely to hold archaic points of view. It will take the Dharma coming to the west for this to change.
  • shadowleavershadowleaver Veteran
    edited October 2010
    Wikipedia is fundamentally empty :)
  • MountainsMountains Veteran
    edited October 2010
    Not only that, but the entry in Theravada has been changed (not by me) :)
  • mantra0mantra0
    edited October 2010
    Mountains wrote: »
    Not only that, but the entry in Theravada has been changed (not by me) :)


    impermanence

    (the nature of wikipedia)
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited October 2010
    zpweston wrote: »
    It's funny how everything has to have quick reference points like that. Things can't just be describe or informed, instead we put generalized statements on everything so it seems like there aren't any exceptions or that those statements have anything to do with the idea.
    And this is what we do with everything; this is how we build our conceptual world that is based on ignorance and leads to all mental defilements and suffering.
  • MountainsMountains Veteran
    edited October 2010
    Prezactly!
  • John83John83
    edited October 2010
    i always thought religion and politics shouldnt mix. im a hardcore libertarian and i find buddhism to be very compatible with my political philosophy. granted i cant really state the difference between Theravada and Mahayanism but i dont really feel like i have to know the difference. so long as i get the core i should be able to draw my own conclusions.
  • thickpaperthickpaper Veteran
    edited October 2010
    I've spent lots of time in Sri Lanka and would say that the community is pretty conservative, for sure.

    As for right wing, I know Tamils, who would agree with this.

    The atrocities committed by the Singalese government were hardly condemned by the temples and some high monks were supposedly pretty militant.
  • Invincible_summerInvincible_summer Heavy Metal Dhamma We(s)t coast, Canada Veteran
    edited October 2010
    John83 wrote: »
    i always thought religion and politics shouldnt mix. im a hardcore libertarian and i find buddhism to be very compatible with my political philosophy. granted i cant really state the difference between Theravada and Mahayanism but i dont really feel like i have to know the difference. so long as i get the core i should be able to draw my own conclusions.

    I'd like to hear your explanation of how free markets are compassionate.
  • John83John83
    edited October 2010
    a free market is the only place where compassion can exist. you cant be compassionate if someone forces you to be nice and do good, then you arent really being compassionate. you cant force people to be compassionate. its only compassion if its done of your own free will. a free market or free society does not force compassion, it allows for it. its all about free will.
  • AlfonsoAlfonso
    edited October 2010
    John83 wrote: »
    a free market is the only place where compassion can exist. you cant be compassionate if someone forces you to be nice and do good, then you arent really being compassionate. you cant force people to be compassionate. its only compassion if its done of your own free will. a free market or free society does not force compassion, it allows for it. its all about free will.
    The "free" part of "free market" is just a lie; it is based on exploitation. "Free market" is what has the 1% of the world with the 40% of the riches, the 2% with the 65%, and the 50% with the 1%.

    As the Dalai Lama said:
    A: Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilization of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes--that is, the majority--as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair.

    Also, Free Will is a Christian lie in my opinion. How it is possible to have a will that is independent of the contingent conditions that can choose whatever it wants? We are chained by our mental formations, on how we perceive reality. Because of Trsna we have desire for existence and non existence, because of our will it is that our cognition is highly conditioned.

    P.S.: Hume & Schopenhauer > Kant
  • TheJourneyTheJourney
    edited October 2010
    Dear lord are we really gonna turn a thread on buddhism into a political debate?
  • AlfonsoAlfonso
    edited October 2010
    TheJourney wrote: »
    Dear lord are we really gonna turn a thread on buddhism into a political debate?
    Good point. Sorry, but being a philosophy student in my university has its consequences :lol:
  • John83John83
    edited October 2010
    youre right that a free market isnt "free", but thats because the govnernments have put various regulations on it. its the idea that you are free to choose to better yourself. i noticed your location is chile, and you mentioned the rest of the world, i can only speak for america. america was founded upon the idea that anyone, regardless of where they came from would have an equal oppurtunity to better themselves. key word being oppurtunity.

    the Dalia lama has a point about marxism. it is an ideal economy in which people would work together. the problem is that marxism forces people to accept less. marxism might work if everyone were buddhist but even the Dalia lama said that is impossible. if thats impossible then so is marxism.

    i took a vow not long ago to stop "not talking about politics because it isnt polite." i think politics are the most important thing one can talk about, shy of religion maybe.

    sorry if this is the wrong forum, but i was asked.
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited October 2010
    It's fine to discuss politics here, but it might be better to start a new thread instead of hijacking this one. :)
  • John83John83
    edited October 2010
    buddhism and objectivism here i come :]
  • zidanguszidangus Veteran
    edited October 2010
    I double check anything I read from Wiki, it can be quite inaccurate at times. For instance if you type FREE MARKET in Wiki you will get a long page full of rhetoric, when in truth it could be summed up in a nice equation,
    FREE MARKET = RICH GET RICHER + POOR GET POORER

    Tough it has to be said it is useful if you want a brief overview of a subject you have no idea about then Wiki is alright.


    Metta to all sentient beings
Sign In or Register to comment.