3 ms·

I'm sorry it's not. It's a valid question. Like when you see a Catholic priest molesting kids you have to be absolutely insane to not question the core foundat

I'm sorry it's not. It's a valid question. Like when you see a Catholic priest molesting kids you have to be absolutely insane to not question the core foundations of the Catholic church if it happens regularly. This desire to be polite and politically correct. This desire to not step on anyone's toes out of respect. If it prevents you from asking critical questions then I'm sorry, it's a stupid philosophy and a stupid way of thinking. You need to constantly question everything. It's like the drug war in the US. If drug use increased you have to be next level insane not to question the drug war itself. So I bring up the question again. Why are a bunch Buddhists doing meth? What is it about that temple or city or location that makes them do meth? Buddhism is suppose to prevent suffering. What drove these people to do meth? These are absolutely valid questions to ask and it is completely valid to insinuate that Buddhism is ineffective at preventing the the conditions it claims to prevent (suffering). Why are there less people doing meth in say a rich upper class suburb in say the US then this Buddhist temple? For what purpose do these people choose to live at the temple and become monks? It's a contradictory choice to become a monk and do meth. The obvious thing to do here is to ADDRESS the CONTRADICTION. The contradiction itself is the reason why this article is on the front page. Why don't I see a headline "all residents in a crack house found to be doing meth"? None of these questions have been fully answered, and they never will be if people like you get there way.

ethanbond 4y ago
Do we have reason to believe that meth-addled monks is 1) anywhere near as common, 2) as institutionally protected, and 3) as externally harmful a phenomenon as pedophilia in the Catholic Church? Each of those dimensions seem relevant as to how “tough” we ought to be on this, and the two cases presented seem very different.
- kilgnad 4y ago
  You're just being prideful. Comparing the legitimacy of Buddhism to the Catholic church. Who cares. I'm not comparing such a thing. I am purely asking a fundamental question in the same way Siddhartha asked the question of why does suffering occur. Why did those monks do meth and become Buddhist at the same time?
  - ethanbond 4y ago
    That’s explicitly not what you’re asking. You quite literally asked what this implies about Buddhism. Frankly you’ve already “snuck in” the caveat in your comment above: “you have to question the foundations of the church if it happens regularly.” Sure! Do we have evidence this happens regularly among Buddhist monks? As of now this just seems like an internet tirade based on nothing but a curious event.
    - kilgnad 4y ago
      >That’s explicitly not what you’re asking. You quite literally asked what this implies about Buddhism It's one and the same question. >Frankly you’ve already “snuck in” the caveat in your comment above: “you have to question the foundations of the church if it happens regularly.” An entire temple is equivalent to "regularly" in this case. It is not a curious event. I will say that another user did say that it was only 4 monks. That makes it a curious event. But the click bait headline by itself does not indicate that.
      - ethanbond 4y ago
        Yeah it’s literally the second sentence of the article. That explains a lot. Not understanding the topic you’re making inflammatory arguments about (at least to the depth of Sentence 2 of the discussed article) is fully on you. But yeah, you know, “asking questions the way Siddhartha did.”
        kilgnad 4y ago
        I missed that sentence. Skimmed to quick. I readily admit my mistakes because I treat this thread as a discussion not a holy war. Next time I recommend you do the same instead of assuming something is "inflammatory" because you've been outright rude. It's a poor display of whatever you represent. Anyway this conversation is over. My question is answered and I have no wish to discuss anything further with you specifically. Good day.
        4y ago

ethanbond 4y ago

Do we have reason to believe that meth-addled monks is 1) anywhere near as common, 2) as institutionally protected, and 3) as externally harmful a phenomenon as pedophilia in the Catholic Church? Each of those dimensions seem relevant as to how “tough” we ought to be on this, and the two cases presented seem very different.

kilgnad 4y ago
You're just being prideful. Comparing the legitimacy of Buddhism to the Catholic church. Who cares. I'm not comparing such a thing. I am purely asking a fundamental question in the same way Siddhartha asked the question of why does suffering occur. Why did those monks do meth and become Buddhist at the same time?
- ethanbond 4y ago
  That’s explicitly not what you’re asking. You quite literally asked what this implies about Buddhism. Frankly you’ve already “snuck in” the caveat in your comment above: “you have to question the foundations of the church if it happens regularly.” Sure! Do we have evidence this happens regularly among Buddhist monks? As of now this just seems like an internet tirade based on nothing but a curious event.
  - kilgnad 4y ago
    >That’s explicitly not what you’re asking. You quite literally asked what this implies about Buddhism It's one and the same question. >Frankly you’ve already “snuck in” the caveat in your comment above: “you have to question the foundations of the church if it happens regularly.” An entire temple is equivalent to "regularly" in this case. It is not a curious event. I will say that another user did say that it was only 4 monks. That makes it a curious event. But the click bait headline by itself does not indicate that.
    - ethanbond 4y ago
      Yeah it’s literally the second sentence of the article. That explains a lot. Not understanding the topic you’re making inflammatory arguments about (at least to the depth of Sentence 2 of the discussed article) is fully on you. But yeah, you know, “asking questions the way Siddhartha did.”
      - kilgnad 4y ago
        I missed that sentence. Skimmed to quick. I readily admit my mistakes because I treat this thread as a discussion not a holy war. Next time I recommend you do the same instead of assuming something is "inflammatory" because you've been outright rude. It's a poor display of whatever you represent. Anyway this conversation is over. My question is answered and I have no wish to discuss anything further with you specifically. Good day.
        4y ago