To justify attacking Buddhists it is only necessary to examine what the religion is based on and seek to preach alternative philosophy. This is largely unlike The Ancient Greeks who entertained a multitude of philosophies. This may be why some Christians and Muslims get so angry, because they are focussed on assuming their’s is a perfect view of life so criticism or alternatives cannot be tolerated.
The basis of Buddho-Darwinism is that all exists between these two equally valid views. It is therefore easy as a Buddho-Darwinist to take an alternative view to life from that which Buddha taught without getting angry, simply by acknowledging that Buddha is the ultimate enlightening viewpoint as Darwin is for science.
Those who do not accept Buddho-Darwinism and in my experience, though it may not always be this way, especially Muslims and Christians, have a number of reasons to prosecute Buddhists but the Buddho-Darwinists sees these as life style choices tending to the Darwinistic view.
Thus Buddha left his wife and child to seek enlightenment so lo and behold, as a Buddho-Darwinism would predict, namely that some part of a philosophy or religious teaching denying the basic tenets of Buddha will seek to attack Buddha, Jesus said according to , Matthew 5:32
“But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his WIFE, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery”. So immediately, to a Christian, Buddha is a sinner for leaving his wife. Other rules not appropriate for Buddha include one of the ten commandments “Six days shalt thou labour”, as Buddhists may see all excess work other than meditation, focussing the mind and growing or finding sufficient to eat and drink minimally for the day, as causing suffering, in the sense of participating in the competition for resources.
Muslims equally have the principle that God is “The compassionate one” not Buddha. The principle of allowing a Muslim many wives, (as long as they are treated equally), is of course way along over to the other Darwinistic side of Buddho-Darwinism, assuming many children or born or that pleasure is sought at night with these consorts. Nevertheless it offers an excuse to dismiss or prosecute Buddha as trying to tempt one’s offspring away from survival. God in this case has sponsored a Darwinistic view of life, the fertile but not impoverished family, without actually admitting that the reality of life on earth for every creature is exactly this alpha male or female survival instinct. The God is avoiding admitting that the teaching is simply nature but by going along with the God, genuflecting or bending before him or her, in a sense we entitle that God to be the alpha male/female of the spiritual world and so lose sight of the potential to become enlightened which is why I would advocate the Darwinistic end of Buddho-Darwinism as a life style rather than simply dismissing Buddhism as impractical.
For myself, when the blissful was experienced, I accept that I could have been touched by God or Buddha. If it was Buddha or considered Buddha because I have made choices which accept Buddha, then it is also as easy to prosecute me, as it would be for Buddha. This may be why my life became difficult to very difficult for many years. Clearly if a god or god and Satan, have arranged to inhibit the human consciousness with guilt and morality, as I propose elsewhere on this web-site, such that it cannot become enlightened, then it is easy to find the excuse to torment me. The excuse lies in the attitude of law makers, especially Fascists or ex-communists like Jack Straw and policemen, that they are determined to make sure the profits of crime are confiscated. Thus when I credit my relaxed state when I experienced bliss to perhaps smoking some mild hash, (compared to the strong stuff in the new century), the enlightenment can be “drained” , (which I explain elsewhere in this site in the page about The Terminator and After Bliss), from me on the pretext that it is the profit of an illegal act. This may be why Charlie, the autocratic hippie of Copenhagen and his friends, Sven the veggie shop owner and Leonard Jorgensen liked to imply, in their manner and what was done at the Rebecca Fest, (see the “After Bliss” page), that they had permission to pursue and interfere with my liberty. To clarify this please also read “The Omega Course”. I suspect there are many who consider themselves religious, mystics, Kabbalists or masonic magicians etc who also are advocates of this imprisoning of mankind, especially if they feel favoured by God or Satan or both.
An easy reference for denying Buddha is as follows:
1a. Never (officially) working - against Lutheran morality
2a. Abandoning wife - against Christian teaching - (but not terribly hard to do in Islamic faith)
3a. No warriors or policemen - against justice and defence - totally unnatrual and ungidly respectviely
4a. Compassion - unnatural opposition to the alpha male
5a. No interest in family - illogical to Darwinist thinking
The opposite views can be found in the world as Darwin reveals it if taken to the extreme and below are the opposites of the above fro completeness in terms of Buddho-Darwinism
1b. Insisting on working - drives others to compete in work place and forces others to at elast make the 40 hour effort or be disresopected leading to the nexus of over-population over demand on resources, inflating prices destruction of the natural environment
2b. Sticking with wife - never focussing on whether or not there is something else
3b. Obsession with imprisoning those who disagree or comit crimes as acts of natural order, (government not being the law of the jungle)
4b. Obsessive belief in self as the alpha being - ignores the evolutionary success of co-operative species
5b. Put family first (eg "Oh, my son/daughter can have anything she/he wants (common among nouveau rich I have met)) breeds generations who have no uinderstanding of obluigations to others in a co-operative environment and to future generations even if taking the survival of the fittest ethic in its narrtowest interpretation by assuming all is available fro a price which reinforces Oscar Wilde's opinion that a cynic is "One who know the price of everything but the value of nothing".