Why exactly didn't the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas protect Tibet when an anti-religious regime invaded it and dismantled the local theocracy?
Why exactly didn't the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas protect Tibet when an anti-religious regime invaded it and dismantled the local theocracy?
Because Buddhism is false.
All religions are fake
What is the truth then?
because the buddha never cared for tibetan ''buddhist's'
something something spiritual reason
Bad karma from blaspheming the sravakas and arhats. Communism ravaged the Mahayana nations of Tibet, China, Mongolia, Vietnam, and northern Korea for precisely this reason.
But the Mahayana nation of Japan was left alone?
And how do you know there was blaspheming?
Fair point, that and South Korea. Also Cambodia and Laos have been victims of communism despite being Theravada. The web of dependent origination is complex indeed.
But as far as blasphemy, the Mahayana sutras are full of caricatures and insults to the "lesser vehicle", and this negative attitude extends also to the developed Mahayana schools of those countries. Reciting the sutras alone would create that bad karma, to say nothing of what the monks said on their own part.
Nope. Its dying because 1) Meiji restoration had dismantled many of the Buddhist institutions. 2) WW2 had continued dismantling it for the war propaganda 3) Post war westernization further eroded it.
When was this? The CCP is a lavish patron of the clergy in Tibet.
Is that why it's a crime to play Gyallo in Tibet?
I didn't say that the CCP is a lavish patron of Tibetan sectarianism or ethnic nationalism (by which I mean "getting a sovereign nationstate"), I said that it's a lavish patron of Buddhism. Ethnic separatists use it as a symbol of separatism, and so like all other symbols of ethnic separatism in China (like the Uyghur separatist anthem) it gets banned. If they didn't want that to happen, they shouldn't have done it.
Modern "Buddhism" is the distorted false teaching of the buddha. It's like every idol worshipping religion ever and thus is a demonic subversion. You give offerings to your idol and engage in ritualism. These rituals are specific and arbitrary. They believe in Gods that are anthropomorphize into having human desires and wants. You believe created objects are holy. You focus on duties and respecting social structures. You have to venerate/worship holy men. You have a priest class who is believe to be closer to god. It's nothing like the aniconic alatric philosophy of the buddha in were you learn how to do self mastery.
The Buddha never had a problem with idolatry or iconography, nor with the existence of devas/brahmas, nor with the caste system. He always clarified that these things would only lead to worldly goods like social harmony or divine rebirth, and that only insight and detachment would lead to liberation. It's important that you recognize the difference but also the continuity between lay practice and hardcore monastic practice; the Buddha taught to the capacity of whoever listened to him.
Not in the pre sectarian corpus. In the Nikayas those concepts are not there.
Also see: The Doctrine of the Buddha: The Religion of Reason by George Grimm.
kys ken
Schismatics are seething.
You really should lose some weight, Ken.
>>The Buddha never had a problem with idolatry or iconography,
well then the buddha shouldnt have said not to picture him