Tolerance for other religions

A forum for discussion of Buddhist ethics.
lostitude
Posts: 216
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 3:48 pm

Re: Tolerance for other religions

Post by lostitude » Sat Aug 22, 2015 9:15 pm

Malcolm wrote:
lostitude wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
You see the skyline of New York City long before you arrive there. You don't need to have arrived at the Empire State Building to know it is there. You can see it from a distance.
But you have no idea what the view from the Empire State Building is like until you reach the top. Same goes with other religions you're trying to look at without even having reached the top of the mountain that is nirvana, the only clear vantage point. Inference and testimony will never equate direct knowledge. Especially when they are flawed, which is very often the case, as the disagreements within historic buddhist schools have shown, according to my modest readings on this topic so far.
We don't need to see the view of the Empire State Building for ourselves. Since we are certain it exists, we can trust the reports of others who have ridden the elevator to the top. Of course, seeing for oneself is always better, but it certainly does not mean we need to disbelieve the reports of others who have been to the top of a building we can plainly see for ourselves.
You're missing the point. Yes you can be certain that nirvana exists. But you can't know what the view is like from there, until you reach it. So wait until you reach it before judging other religions, because that's the only valid vantage point, as I was saying.
As long as you haven't reached nirvana, you are still deluded, and you see the world and other religions in a deluded way. Just because you can see nirvana looming in the distance doesn't help you know what perspective you will enjoy once you get there.
Now if you have got reports from people who have reached nirvana unequivocally saying that all other religions are bad, I'd be interested to read that. And even then you'd have to quote them word for word because any rephrasing could be a misinterpretation of what they saw. But maybe it was in the previous pages of this long thread... I'm trying to read back what I've missed.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28278
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Tolerance for other religions

Post by Malcolm » Sat Aug 22, 2015 9:19 pm

lostitude wrote:
I'm giving those details because now that I'm reading up on general buddhism (not just zen), I keep bumping into strikingly similar themes in both religions.
I thought satan/shaytan was purely abrahamic, we have mara in buddhism.
Mara /= Satan.
Same for heaven and hell.
Islam = heaven and hell are eternal

Buddhadharma = heaven and hells are just part of the six realms of existence, impermanent.

I was especially surprised by this story about one of the buddhist hells in which beings are constantly burned and when the skin is completely burnt, it is replaced by a new one for more burning. This is word-for-word a verse in the Quran. It would almost seem as if Muhammad went on a road trip to India in his hippie years.
Western hells are clearly based on Buddhist hells, doubtless via Mani.
Then there are other apparent similarities (I'm saying apparent because I'm already out of my depth there, it gets too conceptual for me), such as the sufi view of 'unity of existence/being' (wahdat al wujud) which basically says that everything that 'is', is one. Which includes Allah. But at the same time you have this verse in the Qur'an that says that Allah is not comparable to anything (which implies that for all ends and purposes, Allah/God does not exist in this universe, since nothing within this universe is like Him).
There is no concept of everything is one in Buddhadharma. That is Advaita, one without a second and so on.
Then of course you have karma in buddhism, and good deeds and bad deeds in islam and their consequences.
You also have 'baraka' in islam, which would be the equivalent of good karma, and baraka is especially available around tombs of saints and of course the tomb of the Prophet, and the Kaaba and some holy mosques. Just like buddhist stupas.
Karma comes from one's own intentions, not places.
You have many different planes of existence beyond the wordly plane in buddhism, in islam what is commonly referred to as 'Heaven' is actually subdivided into many planes too, the very last one being some kind of fusion with Allah and disappearance into Him. Something that sounds just as un-conceptualizable as nirvana.
All planes of existence in Buddhadharma are worldly, from Avici hell to Bhavagra.
What mainstream islam lacks for me is a clear path for spiritual progression. Sufi schools could have offered me that maybe, but I just haven't had a chance to join one. And I feel this very strong resonance about islam and buddhism as you put it, which is why I really feel like at least trying some buddhist practices and see where they get me. If it can't hurt me, why not just try.
[/quote][/quote]

Nope, it cannot hurt you to try. Though I would be cautious about sharing your apostasy with other Muslims. In some places it can get you instantly killed.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28278
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Tolerance for other religions

Post by Malcolm » Sat Aug 22, 2015 9:30 pm

lostitude wrote: You're missing the point. Yes you can be certain that nirvana exists. But you can't know what the view is like from there, until you reach it.
You can taste it before you get there. This is called "stream entry."
So wait until you reach it before judging other religions, because that's the only valid vantage point, as I was saying.
Theistic religions do not make any sense and they contradict direct perception. You are the one making the argument from direct perception. In this case, what can be more foolish than believing a creator god no one has ever seen?

As long as you haven't reached nirvana, you are still deluded,
No, this is not the case. You need to understand something more about the path structure of Buddhadharma that you do. In Buddharma, one wakes up long before one achieves Nirvana. Once one has woken up, one is not longer deluded. That initial awakening is called "stream entry." In Mahāyāna is the first bhumi. But even before the first bhumi there is the second stage of the path of application, where one's samadhi so closely resembles the actual experience of awakening is it called "peak."

and you see the world and other religions in a deluded way. Just because you can see nirvana looming in the distance doesn't help you know what perspective you will enjoy once you get there.
You think this, because you have not properly studied the Dharma.
Now if you have got reports from people who have reached nirvana unequivocally saying that all other religions are bad, I'd be interested to read that.
It is not a question of bad — it is a question of not attaining liberation. And the Buddha most certainly commented on this point in several sutras, for example, the Mahāparibinnana sutta which was already cited in this thread:
"In any doctrine & discipline where the noble eightfold path is not found, no contemplative of the first... second... third... fourth order [stream-winner, once-returner, non-returner, or arahant] is found. But in any doctrine & discipline where the noble eightfold path is found, contemplatives of the first... second... third... fourth order are found. The noble eightfold path is found in this doctrine & discipline, and right here there are contemplatives of the first... second... third... fourth order. Other teachings are empty of knowledgeable contemplatives.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

lostitude
Posts: 216
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 3:48 pm

Re: Tolerance for other religions

Post by lostitude » Sat Aug 22, 2015 9:35 pm

Malcolm wrote:Islam = heaven and hell are eternal
Not exactly.
First, hell is presented as 'eternal' (in Western languages) only for those who do not believe in Allah as being the matrix of existence. For others, hell is just a transitory existence that goes upward as 'bad karma' ripens, through skin-burning among other niceties :)
Same as heaven, which has several stages and from what I remember there is a possibility to move up from one stage to another.
Second, the word translated as 'eternal' (usually khalid) has been very much debated among Muslim scholars as to what it really means. Is it really absolute eternity, or is it ond of those semitic exaggerations to signify 'a very long period of time'. Many have favored the second option, on the basis of some evidence which I don't remember, with this same word being used for obviously non-eternal events.
There is no concept of everything is one in Buddhadharma. That is Advaita, one without a second and so on.
Yet that's what Kaccani took about 3 pages to try to explain to me: I'm no different from the object I perceive, all is the same and at the end of the day, since everything is conditioned, nothing exists for real. But maybe I got that wrong. But if I got it right, then it is exactly what 'wahdat al wujud' says, and it squares well with the Qur'anic verse saying that Allah is like nothing that exists, ie. it is not conditioned. Just like nirvana.
Karma comes from one's own intentions, not places.
Well if it's a bone of contention within buddhism, it's not my problem :) All I know for certain is that stupas is a very buddhist thing, and that the belief that worshipping around them and circumambulating around them gets you huge amounts of good karma, is a very buddhist belief.
Nope, it cannot hurt you to try. Though I would be cautious about sharing your apostasy with other Muslims. In some places it can get you instantly killed.
Fortunately I don't live in a so-called 'islamic' country.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28278
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Tolerance for other religions

Post by Malcolm » Sat Aug 22, 2015 9:41 pm

lostitude wrote:
Malcolm wrote:Islam = heaven and hell are eternal
Not exactly.
First, hell is presented as 'eternal' (in Western languages) only for those who do not believe in Allah as being the matrix of existence.
Uh huh, and that makes it eternal, which is why Buddhists are in the lowest Islamic hell.



For others, hell is just a transitory existence that goes upward as 'bad karma' ripens, through skin-burning among other niceties :)
Same as heaven, which has several stages and from what I remember there is a possibility to move up from one stage to another.

Second, the word translated as 'eternal' (usually khalid) has been very much debated among Muslim scholars as to what it really means. Is it really absolute eternity, or is it ond of those semitic exaggerations to signify 'a very long period of time'. Many have favored the second option, on the basis of some evidence which I don't remember, with this same word being used for obviously non-eternal events.
There is no concept of everything is one in Buddhadharma. That is Advaita, one without a second and so on.
Yet that's what Kaccani took about 3 pages to try to explain to me: I'm no different from the object I perceive, all is the same and at the end of the day, since everything is conditioned, nothing exists for real. But maybe I got that wrong.
Umm no, you really have it wrong here.
Karma comes from one's own intentions, not places.
Well if it's a bone of contention within buddhism, it's not my problem :) All I know for certain is that stupas is a very buddhist thing, and that the belief that worshipping around them and circumambulating around them gets you huge amounts of good karma, is a very buddhist belief.
This is not a bone of contention within Buddhism. Everyone accepts this definition since the Buddha stated it, Nāgārjuna repeated it, and so on.

Stupas have no magic power of their own.

[/quote]Fortunately I don't live in a so-called 'islamic' country.[/quote]

Fortunately.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

lostitude
Posts: 216
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 3:48 pm

Re: Tolerance for other religions

Post by lostitude » Sat Aug 22, 2015 11:49 pm

Uh huh, and that makes it eternal, which is why Buddhists are in the lowest Islamic hell.
How could you possibly tell? You have no idea what Allah as the matrix of existence could mean, because you have neither attained nirvana, nor attained the state attained by the sufi saints who expounded this notion. So you're simply rejecting something you don't even understand.
Umm no, you really have it wrong here.
Thanks, very helpful...
This is not a bone of contention within Buddhism. Everyone accepts this definition since the Buddha stated it, Nāgārjuna repeated it, and so on.

Stupas have no magic power of their own.
Where did I say that? I said that they were places where you can get loads of good karma. Just like the tombs of some Muslim saints. What is the difference?
You can taste it before you get there. This is called "stream entry."
So basically it's like getting to the top of the Empire State Building on a rainy and cloudy day with 1/2mile visibility, and comparing it with the view on a clear day with unlimited visibility like in nirvana.
Can I safely assume that you have reached stream entry yourself, then?
Theistic religions do not make any sense
To you, which is fine. If you have trouble understanding them though, you can either look for explanations or say that you don't understand them. Any other attitude is just equivalent to mere rejection, which I don't think would be conducive to stream-entry... it really sounds like the kind of grasping that Nagarjuna warned against, the idea that you can understand the true nature of reality in a neat set of concepts and reject all other systems that seem to be contradictory.
they contradict direct perception
They don't contradict the perceptions of those who have reached an advanced stage in those traditions. Which is not your case... so obviously they will contradict your own direct perception.
You are the one making the argument from direct perception. In this case, what can be more foolish than believing a creator god no one has ever seen?
Because you have seen nirvana maybe? What if God was not something to see, but maybe something to experience? What is truly foolish is to judge something you haven't even begun to understand. Can you really attain stream-entry with such a mindset? I must say I'm quite surprised.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28278
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Tolerance for other religions

Post by Malcolm » Sun Aug 23, 2015 12:02 am

lostitude wrote:
Uh huh, and that makes it eternal, which is why Buddhists are in the lowest Islamic hell.
How could you possibly tell? You have no idea what Allah as the matrix of existence could mean, because you have neither attained nirvana, nor attained the state attained by the sufi saints who expounded this notion.
There is no matrix of existence, no ground of being.

So you're simply rejecting something you don't even understand.
Ok, if you say so.

Where did I say that? I said that they were places where you can get loads of good karma. Just like the tombs of some Muslim saints. What is the difference?
You can't get loads of good karma from anything external. You can only get "loads of good karma" by having positive intentions and then carrying them out.

You can taste it before you get there. This is called "stream entry."
So basically it's like getting to the top of the Empire State Building on a rainy and cloudy day with 1/2mile visibility, and comparing it with the view on a clear day with unlimited visibility like in nirvana.
No, it is more like getting on the elevator.

Theistic religions do not make any sense
To you, which is fine. If you have trouble understanding them though, you can either look for explanations or say that you don't understand them. Any other attitude is just equivalent to mere rejection, which I don't think would be conducive to stream-entry... it really sounds like the kind of grasping that Nagarjuna warned against, the idea that you can understand the true nature of reality in a neat set of concepts and reject all other systems that seem to be contradictory.
They are well refuted by Vasubandhu, Nāgārjuna and so on.

they contradict direct perception
They don't contradict the perceptions of those who have reached an advanced stage in those traditions. Which is not your case... so obviously they will contradict your own direct perception.
Creationism is contradicted in direct perception. There is no such thing as an unmoved mover, etc. Everything that arises, arises from a conditioned cause. An uncaused cause is impossible. This is demonstrable both through direct perception and inference.

You are the one making the argument from direct perception. In this case, what can be more foolish than believing a creator god no one has ever seen?
Because you have seen nirvana maybe?
Nirvana and God are not commensurable concepts on any level.

What if God was not something to see, but maybe something to experience? What is truly foolish is to judge something you haven't even begun to understand. Can you really attain stream-entry with such a mindset? I must say I'm quite surprised.
If it can be experienced, it is relative. A relative mind cannot experience anything unconditioned. It is simply impossible. Also, in Buddhadharma there are only three unconditioned things, generally, space and the two kinds of cessation. [In Mahāyāna we add emptiness, but that is beyond discussion here].

Nirvana has two meanings but it is not an experience. It is a kind of knowledge that you will no longer take rebirth in samsara because you have exhausted afflictions, and second, when you die, your continuum ceases with regard to afflictive rebirth in the three realms. Beyond this, we move in the Mahāyāna Buddhology, which is a little more complex.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

lostitude
Posts: 216
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 3:48 pm

Re: Tolerance for other religions

Post by lostitude » Sun Aug 23, 2015 12:20 am

So have you attained stream entry, Malcolm, or not yet?

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28278
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Tolerance for other religions

Post by Malcolm » Sun Aug 23, 2015 12:44 am

lostitude wrote:So have you attained stream entry, Malcolm, or not yet?
The issues is not what I have attained or not attained.

In any case, I do not practice according to that Hinayāna system, so the question also does not apply.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

lostitude
Posts: 216
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 3:48 pm

Re: Tolerance for other religions

Post by lostitude » Sun Aug 23, 2015 1:02 am

amanitamus wrote:Since Judaism, Islam,and Christianity stem from the same soarce,Abraham.
Really? I think it's a bit simplistic to take Abraham as the source of so-called Abrahamic religions... Surely he didn't 'invent' them from nothing.
They worship the same being dominated by anger and jealousy.
That's a huge generalisation... even within the Bible itself, God 'appears' under very different lights depending on the authors, which are many and span a number of centuries, let us not forget that. Anger and jealousy can only be found in some OT passages, they are nowhere to be found in a literal sense in the NT or in the Qur'an. And even in the OT I assume those passages could very well be interpreted in a metaphorical way.
Karma Dorje wrote:Islam on the other hand worships Ba'al. It's not really all the same being as one can sense from the very different energies of their places of worship.
That statement really can't stand up to the facts. Here's what the Qur'an says:
And Elias was most surely of the messengers. He asked his people: 'Do you not fear Allah? Will ye call upon Baal and forsake the best of creators? Allah is your Lord and the Lord of your fathers, the ancients'.
Reading the works of Kabbalists and Sufis often bears more resemblance to any form of mysticism than they do to their parent religions.
And yet sufism is entirely reliant on the Qur'an and words from Muhammad himself.
Malcolm wrote: The philosophical revolution in Islam happened after Muslims converted Central Asia and came into contact with the [Hellenized] Central Asian Civilizations.
That's very inaccurate. Among the best known sufis is Hassan al-Basri for example, who died long before the conquests of Central Asia. Sufi mysticism has never led to a 'revolution' within islam, there has never been a date 'before' and 'after'. As for the philosophical developments within the islamic empire, they were led by Muslims as well as members of other religions... and they are unrelated to sufism. Acutally, some prominent sufis like al-Ghazali have strongly criticized speculative philosphy as an impediment to direct experience.
No, it is just a fact that Muslim ritual sacrifices every year in the billions of dollars is gyalpo worship,
What you seem to forget is that islam first appeared in a country where the main staple is meat. Arabia is mainly desert, with no possibility of cultivating crops (except in the far South). Back then, slaughtering your own camel for a guest was a huge thing, a tremendous mark of esteem and generosity. Now slaughtering it for the sake of Allah and distributing the meat to the poor who barely have anything to eat was probably one of the most praiseworthy acts that could be performed in such a situation.
Also Kosher slaughter is by definition a religious act. Sorry, but that is also a fact.
In Abrahamic religions just like in buddhism, any act is religious insofar as it is motivated by a specific intention with 'karmic' results.
You can point out all the exceptions and nuances you want. They don't matter. What matters is that in these places that I mentioned, millions of animals a year are ritually sacrificed or killed according to religious rules, and the karmic results are exponentially worse than Tysons and Hormel.
That's a pretty wild association to make. Over half of the African continent does not practice religious slaughters as seen in Abrahamic religions, yet subsaharan Africa is in a much more dire situation than many Muslim countries... As for Israel, aside from being *officially* at war, I hardly see how Israelis have a miserable life in Tel Aviv.
Not to mention the misery that characterizes the lives of so many Americans, Canadians, Asians, Europeans and so on. You don't have 'happy countries' and 'miserable countries'. That can only be individual...
Animal sacrifice is the rule in Islam, not the exception. It is a duty, actually, one many Muslims may find distasteful, but a duty nevertheless.
Again, it is a duty because it is rich people's duty to feed the poor, on those special occasions. If islam had appeared in Asia, maybe it would have consisted in soybeans. The whole idea is that of a sacrifice = renouncing something dear to you. The fact that it's an animal is secondary. Do not forget that in islam, Allah does NOT command Abraham to kill his son... so the animal does not replace a human life. It is simply used as a sacrifice because that's what's available there.

That's how far I've read the thread so far...

lostitude
Posts: 216
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 3:48 pm

Re: Tolerance for other religions

Post by lostitude » Sun Aug 23, 2015 1:17 am

Malcolm wrote:
lostitude wrote:So have you attained stream entry, Malcolm, or not yet?
The issues is not what I have attained or not attained.
Of course it is. How could you be passing such judgements without a certain level of attainment allowing you clear and direct insight into those religions you denounce? That would be quite unreasonable.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28278
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Tolerance for other religions

Post by Malcolm » Sun Aug 23, 2015 1:21 am

lostitude wrote:
Malcolm wrote: The philosophical revolution in Islam happened after Muslims converted Central Asia and came into contact with the [Hellenized] Central Asian Civilizations.
That's very inaccurate. Among the best known sufis is Hassan al-Basri for example, who died long before the conquests of Central Asia.
I was not talking about Sufism.

What you seem to forget is that islam first appeared in a country where the main staple is meat. Arabia is mainly desert, with no possibility of cultivating crops (except in the far South). Back then, slaughtering your own camel for a guest was a huge thing, a tremendous mark of esteem and generosity. Now slaughtering it for the sake of Allah and distributing the meat to the poor who barely have anything to eat was probably one of the most praiseworthy acts that could be performed in such a situation.
If you are a Muslim, perhaps. I don't think the Buddha would agree.

In Abrahamic religions just like in buddhism, any act is religious insofar as it is motivated by a specific intention with 'karmic' results.
No, you don't really get my point.
You can point out all the exceptions and nuances you want. They don't matter. What matters is that in these places that I mentioned, millions of animals a year are ritually sacrificed or killed according to religious rules, and the karmic results are exponentially worse than Tysons and Hormel.
That's a pretty wild association to make. Over half of the African continent does not practice religious slaughters as seen in Abrahamic religions, yet subsaharan Africa is in a much more dire situation than many Muslim countries...
Animism is very prevalent in sub-Saharan Africa. I addressed this.
As for Israel, aside from being *officially* at war, I hardly see how Israelis have a miserable life in Tel Aviv.
They live in constant fear and paranoia.
Animal sacrifice is the rule in Islam, not the exception. It is a duty, actually, one many Muslims may find distasteful, but a duty nevertheless.
Again, it is a duty because it is rich people's duty to feed the poor, on those special occasions. If islam had appeared in Asia, maybe it would have consisted in soybeans. The whole idea is that of a sacrifice = renouncing something dear to you. The fact that it's an animal is secondary.
No, it is primary, from a Buddhist POV.
Last edited by Malcolm on Sun Aug 23, 2015 1:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28278
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Tolerance for other religions

Post by Malcolm » Sun Aug 23, 2015 1:23 am

lostitude wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
lostitude wrote:So have you attained stream entry, Malcolm, or not yet?
The issues is not what I have attained or not attained.
Of course it is. How could you be passing such judgements without a certain level of attainment allowing you clear and direct insight into those religions you denounce? That would be quite unreasonable.
The reason it is not an issue is that I can claim anything and how could you judge my claims? So the issue is moot and irrelevant.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

lostitude
Posts: 216
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 3:48 pm

Re: Tolerance for other religions

Post by lostitude » Sun Aug 23, 2015 1:41 am

Malcolm wrote:
lostitude wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
The issues is not what I have attained or not attained.
Of course it is. How could you be passing such judgements without a certain level of attainment allowing you clear and direct insight into those religions you denounce? That would be quite unreasonable.
The reason it is not an issue is that I can claim anything and how could you judge my claims? So the issue is moot and irrelevant.
You can also admit that you have not attained any significant level of insight granting you sufficient direct knowledge of what a Buddha would perceive if he was talking to a sufi 'qutb' (one of the highest spiritual levels in sufism). And that you're disparaging other religions based on your readings and deluded perceptions of what you think they are.

lostitude
Posts: 216
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 3:48 pm

Re: Tolerance for other religions

Post by lostitude » Sun Aug 23, 2015 1:49 am

If you are a Muslim, perhaps. I don't think the Buddha would agree.
What would the Buddha have eaten and commanded people to eat, in the absence of any crops in the middle of a desert? Let's be realistic.
Animism is very prevalent in sub-Saharan Africa. I addressed this.
And it is just as prevalent in South-East Asia and Central Asia as well as many other parts of the world. So no, you didn't address this association you're making...
They live in constant fear and paranoia.
Just like the US and right now, Europe. Or South Korea. You clearly *want* this belief of yours to be true...

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28278
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Tolerance for other religions

Post by Malcolm » Sun Aug 23, 2015 2:02 am

lostitude wrote: You can also admit that you have not attained any significant level of insight granting you sufficient direct knowledge of what a Buddha would perceive if he was talking to a sufi 'qutb' (one of the highest spiritual levels in sufism). And that you're disparaging other religions based on your readings and deluded perceptions of what you think they are.
I know what a Buddha would perceive. He would perceive someone with a mistaken view.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28278
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Tolerance for other religions

Post by Malcolm » Sun Aug 23, 2015 2:05 am

lostitude wrote: What would the Buddha have eaten and commanded people to eat, in the absence of any crops in the middle of a desert? Let's be realistic.
Buddha, so far as we know, ate what was offered to him, and did not command anyone to do anything, apart from to avoid killing. I think you deeply do not understand the world view of Buddhadharma, leaving aside my own views about other religions.

And it is just as prevalent in South-East Asia and Central Asia as well as many other parts of the world. So no, you didn't address this association you're making...
Yes, and had you read more carefully, you would have noticed that I included India, Mexico and S. America. etc. All these places have deep problems.
They live in constant fear and paranoia.
Just like the US and right now, Europe. Or South Korea. You clearly *want* this belief of yours to be true...
I don't think Americans live in constant fear, not Europeans. We are pretty comfortable.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28278
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Tolerance for other religions

Post by Malcolm » Sun Aug 23, 2015 2:18 am

Incidentally, I will leave you with a summary of a Buddhist refutation of theism:
The critique of puru.sa centers on the dilemma posed by puru.sa's (a) motives (if he is motivated by another, he is not self-sufficient; if he is motivated by
compassion, he must create a perfect world, while if he cannot create a perfect world, he is not powerful; and if he is motivated by "amusement," then he is both cruel and dependent on the instrument of amusement, namely, the cosmos)(120) and (b) potency (if he is able to create all things, he must do so
immediately, for potency entails immediate generation).(121)
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/jackson.htm
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

Urgyen Dorje
Posts: 774
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:44 pm

Re: Tolerance for other religions

Post by Urgyen Dorje » Sun Aug 23, 2015 2:23 am

You and I might be. A bunch of people in Ferguson aren't... or parts of Camden... Detroit... LA... Chicago... or on some of the Indian Reservations... just saying.
Malcolm wrote: I don't think Americans live in constant fear.... We are pretty comfortable.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28278
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Tolerance for other religions

Post by Malcolm » Sun Aug 23, 2015 2:28 am

Urgyen Dorje wrote:You and I might be. A bunch of people in Ferguson aren't... or parts of Camden... Detroit... LA... Chicago... or on some of the Indian Reservations... just saying.
Malcolm wrote: I don't think Americans live in constant fear.... We are pretty comfortable.
Compared to people in India or even in most of Mexico, people in Camden, Fergusson, Detroit, Chicago and so on are miles higher in their standard of living and opportunities, just saying...even with racist cops...
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

Post Reply

Return to “Ethical Conduct”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests