Rehash: This seems reasonable enough.....

[Michael]

Mainly I am curious if people think this seems like it makes some sense or seems reasonable in general.

My simple summary of how Tibetan Buddhism came to be the State Religion of Tibet


Many of the ideas in Buddhism evolved from the beliefs of the Hindus, whose religion is obviously very much the older of the two. At some point in time, some of Buddhists crossed the Himalayan mountains into Tibet and there practiced Buddhism. It should be noted that the Himalayas are a fairly decent barrier to travel. In the isolated context of Tibet, Buddhism combined with the local Tibetan polytheistic religions and over time a new Religion emerged – Tibetan Buddhism. This is evident because some of the beliefs, religious-symbols and religious-festivals of modern Tibetans have roots stretching back far before Buddhism. For example; the mandalas is a special symbol of polytheistic Hindu origin - which now has a special place in the Tibetan Buddhist society.

After sometime in Tibet, Buddhism inspired a religious leader, Dalai Lama, and he gathered some followers and was considered the reincarnation of Buddha. Over the centuries grand Temples were built and other enlightened religious figures (Lama) became powerful. Soon the entire society repositioned its culture to worship Buddha. Incidentally, it’s not always easy to change a native religion, of course some wars were fought along the way - the Tibetan Buddhist came out on top. Although now everyone is a Buddhist, there have been arguments as to what Buddha would want and, as usually happens, other schools of Buddhism have evolved and each has many followers today: for example the Nyingma and Kagyu.

Most Tibetan-Buddhists are not very educated and would be surprised to realize many of their beliefs are pre-Buddhist and are a combination of Buddhism and Tibetan nature worship.

Anyway, now Tibetan Buddhism is the State Religion in Tibet. Most Tibetans believe in Buddhism, raise their children to believe in Buddhism and would be god smacked to think it was anything other than the divine religion they always been taught to believe it is.


Does this seem fare enough? If so a simple yes or no would be great.

Michael

 

[S.A.M.]

Actually many Chinese people came to India on a regular basis. They might have taken Buddhism to China and from there to Tibet.

It was the dominant religion in India for a thousand years.

 

[Michael]

Actually many Chinese people came to India on a regular basis. They might have taken Buddhism to China and from there to Tibet.

It was the dominant religion in India for a thousand years.

Well that's fair enough - but, minus the route, does the rest seem OK?

 

[S.A.M.]

What do you think?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_Buddhism

Certain Buddhist scriptures arrived in southern Tibet from India as early as 173 CE during the reign of Thothori Nyantsen, the 28th king of Tibet. During the third century the scriptures were disseminated to northern Tibet (which was not part of the same kingdom at the time). The influence of Buddhism was not great, however, and the form was certainly not tantric, as the earliest tantric scripture texts (tantras) had only just then begun to be codified in India.

The most important event in Tibetan Buddhist history, however, was the arrival of the great tantric mystic Padmasambhava in Tibet in 774 at the invitation of King Trisong Detsen. It was Padmasambhava (more commonly known in the region as Guru Rinpoche) who merged tantric Buddhism with the local Bön religion to form what we now recognize as Tibetan Buddhism. In addition to writing a number of important scriptures (some of which he hid for future tertons to find), Padmasambhava established the Nyingma school from which all schools of Tibetan Buddhism are derived.

Tibetan Buddhism exerted a strong influence from the 11th century AD among the peoples of Central Asia, especially in Mongolia and Manchuria. It was adopted as an official state religion by the Mongol Yuan dynasty and the Manchu Qing dynasty of China.

 

[Michael]

Yes, it seems so.

What about you? Do you think so?

 

[zenbabelfish]

Isn't 'Bon' shamanism missing?

 

[Michael]

Isn't 'Bon' shamanism missing?

Yes, I should have said: from Hindu as well as 'Bon' shamanistic traditions.

Would you agree?
Michael

 

[lightgigantic]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka_the_great

(304 BC–232 BC) was an Indian emperor, who ruled the Maurya Empire in present-day eastern India from 273 BC to 232 BC. After a number of military conquests, Ashoka reigned over most of India, South Asia and beyond, from present-day Afghanistan and parts of Persia in the west, to Bengal and Assam in the east, and as far south as Mysore. A later convert to Buddhism, Ashoka established monuments marking several significant sites in the life of Shakyamuni Buddha, and according to Buddhist tradition was closely involved in the preservation and transmission of Buddhism.

Missions to spread the Dharma/Dhamma''

Ashoka was the sponsor of the third buddhist council of Vibhajjavada (current Theravada) buddhism. After this council he sent buddhist monks to spread this religion to other countries, which were known to him at the time. The following table is a list of the countries he sent missionaries to, as described in the Mahavamsa, XII [4]:

Country name.......................................Name of leader of mission
(1) Kashmir-Gandhara.......................................Majjhantika
(2) Mahisamandala (Mysore)................................Mahadeva
(3) Vanavasi .......................................Rakkhita
(4) Aparantaka (Gujarat and Sindh) ..................the Yona Dhammarakkhita
(5) Maharattha .......................................Mahadhammarakkhita
(6) "Country of the Yona" (Bactria/ Seleucid Empire).............Maharakkhita
(7) Himavanta (Nepal).......................................Majjhima
(8) Suvannabhumi (Thailand/ Myanmar) .....................Sona and Uttara
(9) Lankadipa (Sri Lanka) ...............................Mahamahinda (Asoka's son)

 

[Michael]

Actually buried in this small peace are a few ideas.
Perhaps they didn’t bother anyone to notice because there aren’t so many Buddhists and if there were maybe they wouldn’t care?


Lets look at this from a Secular Anthropological and Historical lens.


1) Buddhism evolved from earlier belief.
2) The physical separation (ie; Himalayas) of Tibetan Buddhism from Buddhism in India results in a separate and a new belief system which combines both the Tibetian Shamanistic/Polytheistic beliefs as well as this new Buddhist belief.
3) The proof of it’s past is in the retention of ancient symbols or structures that take on new meaning in this new religion.
4) There is always a rise of a Religious Leader who is more than generously revered (almost as a God).
5) The change in the entire structure of an entire society and the formation of a new Theocracy.
6) The natural split in belief and the different schools of thought. So Human.
7) The oblivion that today’s practitioners have in regards to the natural evolution of their belief from its polytheistic and Shamanistic roots.


This seems reasonable – from a secular view point?

It’s simple to see Tibetan Buddhism as simply a natural process of human intellect. There is no requirement of any sort for divine intervention. It could be thought of as a mental evolution of this particular meme.


I think perhaps this single event is the epiphany all Atheists have. Only they have it about their own belief. And they have the courage to accept it and with it accept their ultimate death and end.

That’s the point I wanted to make.
Now I’ve done the same with Islam. Feel free to read over it.

It’s verbatim.

Michael II

 

[Michael]

This is a simple summary of how Islam came to be the State Religion of Arabia


Many of the ideas in Judaism evolved from the beliefs of the Assyrians, whose religion is obviously very much the older of the two. At some point in time, some of Jews crossed the Arabian Desert into Arabia and there practiced Judaism. It should be noted that the Arabian Desert is a fairly decent barrier to travel. In the isolated context of Arabia, Judaism combined with the local Arabic polytheistic religions and over time a new Religion emerged – Islam. This is evident because some of the beliefs, religious-symbols and religious-festivals of modern Muslims have roots stretching back far before Islam. For example; the Moon is a special symbol of polytheistic Arabic origin - which now has a special place in the Islamic society.

After sometime in Arabia, Judaism inspired a religious leader, Mohammed, and he gathered some followers and was considered a prophet of Allah. Over the centuries grand Mosques were built and other enlightened religious figures (Imams) became powerful. Soon the entire society repositioned its culture to worship Islam. Incidentally, it’s not always easy to change a native religion, of course some wars were fought along the way - the Muslims came out on top. Although now everyone is a Muslim, there have been arguments as to what Allah would want and, as usually happens, other schools of Islam have evolved and each has many followers today: for example the Sunni and Shia.

Most Muslims are not very educated and would be surprised to realize many of their beliefs are pre-Islam and are a combination of Judaism and Arab nature worship.

Anyway, now Islam is the State Religion in Arabia. Most Arabians believe in Islam, raise their children to believe in Islam and would be god smacked to think it was anything other than the divine religion they always been taught to believe it is.


Fare enough?

Michael

 

[S.A.M.]

Most Muslims are not very educated and would be surprised to realize many of their beliefs are pre-Islam and are a combination of Judaism and Arab nature worship.

Actually NO Muslim would be surprised by this at all.

Can you think why?

And Sunnis and Shias are not divided over what Allah wants, no Muslims are.

Again, can you think why?

 

[zenbabelfish]

Regarding Buddhism - I have always accepted it as 'a science of the mind' and heard it described as such by practising Buddhists. So it doesn't necessarily conflict with atheism.
It is an interesting history though...do you think the environment has shaped the ritual and theology during the 'caretaking' period rather than the mind of man?

 

[Michael]

Actually NO Muslim would be surprised by this at all.

Can you think why?

And Sunnis and Shias are not divided over what Allah wants, no Muslims are.

Again, can you think why?

I once mentioned to another close friend (who has a PhD in Biochemistry speaks 3 languages and was raised Muslim for most of his life - before becoming Atheist) about how polytheistic Arabs used to perform the pilgrimage to the square rock in Arabia use to circle it and used to worship a god represented by the moon called Allah.

He was dumbfounded, I said, hey I don't know much other than that. So he himself set about researching it and I remember the next time I saw him he said: “Haa! I always knew it was some sort of bullshit like that!” (his exact words)

By “educated” I mean educated in Religious history, beginning with the very ancient Hittites Egyptians Hindu and Assyrians. How many Muslims do you know that can name the line of linguistic names that link Arabic Islam to their respective polytheistic Gods? Any that study Syriac and its influence on Islam? Any that know those words in the Qur'an that are Greek in origin? Any that know the changes that have occurred in the Qur’an over time? Any that know how the Qur’an was formed and by whom? I know some Muslims here at UNI that think that Qur’an dropped from Heaven (literally) onto Mohammed’s lap and has never changed at all. They are probably more educated than most people in the entire world (not just Muslim). So seriously, I doubt hardly any Muslims know of this stuff. If they could even find anything on the topic at all – many would not be inclined to the task of studying the topic (as most similarly uneducated Xians can attest to here in the “free” West!)


So that’s what I meant by educated.


The reason I didn’t change the word “educated” was because it is the first thing people take offence to. I have posted this exact thread before. Muslims never mind it the first time through. The second time, with the exact words and exact story those words “not very educated” hits. This is something I think is interesting – think about why and I will think on your questions too

So to be clear, I did not say “ignorant” nor did I say “stupid”. I said “educated” as in 7000 year old ancient Hittite and Assyrian theology. I think we can agree – its doubtful many are. I left it only because I found the response peculiar before and thought perhaps it’s an idea to ponder over.

Anyway, I only posted this so that you Sam could perhaps better understand Atheism from another viewpoint.


Have a nice weekend!

Michael

 

[Michael]

Regarding Buddhism - I have always accepted it as 'a science of the mind' and heard it described as such by practising Buddhists. So it doesn't necessarily conflict with atheism.

Yes me too. A Philosophy I suppose?

RIt is an interesting history though...do you think the environment has shaped the ritual and theology during the 'caretaking' period rather than the mind of man?

I'm not sure of your question?

It seems Budhism builds on itself. Just as science and philosophy. Unlike many beleif it seems to accept that it can be improved upon and sets about doing so. Maybe it will so for ever?

Michael

 

[Ayodhya]

Yes me too. A Philosophy I suppose?

I'm not sure of your question?

It seems Budhism builds on itself. Just as science and philosophy. Unlike many beleif it seems to accept that it can be improved upon and sets about doing so. Maybe it will so for ever?

Michael

As with any religion, there are exoteric and esoteric parts to it. Those who leave behind the exoteric parts of it would consider it a "science of the mind", while those who worship Buddha as a deity (with prayer requests and the like) might place more importance on exoteric rituals than their esoteric partners.

The esoteric parts of most religions (at least in the East) will build upon themselves, the exoteric parts remain quite stagnant.

 

[S.A.M.]

The reason I didn’t change the word “educated” was because it is the first thing people take offence to. I have posted this exact thread before. Muslims never mind it the first time through. The second time, with the exact words and exact story those words “not very educated” hits. This is something I think is interesting – think about why and I will think on your questions too

Oh I am pretty aware that most Muslims know very little about religious history.

However, my questions still stand.

Though I must say, your atheist friends don't appear to have had much interest in religion anyway, if they did not know even that much about it. It is pretty common knowledge, especially for those who were "brought up Muslim".

And really I think atheists are just the other extreme of fundamentalists.

 

[zenbabelfish]

"I'm not sure of your question?"
Sorry Michael - I was a bit vague.
To put it another way: During the near-extinction of Buddhism, it was kept alive in the northern mountainous area; I am wondering if it had been a coastal area, for example, would this have affected the form and ideology of Buddhism in a different way?

 

[Michael]

However, my questions still stand.

Actually NO Muslim would be surprised by this at all.

Well the Muslim friend of mine Sedek, who is still a strong Muslim and just simply knows that the Qur'an dropped from heaven in it's exact present form and landed in the Prophets lap - Ahhh he was so unsurprised because he said it was a Xian plot and nothing is different than as his Imam said it is. So maybe the answer to your question is:

Reverent Denial = Nothing at all to be surprise by.

And Sunnis and Shias are not divided over what Allah wants, no Muslims are.

I didn’t even know Allah had wants and needs? I always thought it was this hard-drive like thing: all knowing, never changing, perfect in all ways, etc…???

really I think atheists are just the other extreme of fundamentalists.

Strong Atheisms may be perhaps (what is a fundamentalist?) - I'm agnostic atheist.
Speaking of which: Are you agnostic theist?

Michael

 

[Michael]

During the near-extinction of Buddhism, it was kept alive in the northern mountainous area; I am wondering if it had been a coastal area, for example, would this have affected the form and ideology of Buddhism in a different way?

Hmmmm.... maybe? I have no idea.

Buddhism was translated through many languages, carried 2000km around the mountains, through time and space through Chinese and Korean interpretation and right over to Japan?

Is it similar or a lot different? Are there core beliefs and ideologies that seem to carry on? Did it evolve for the better or the worse or is that a nonsensical question to ask of Buddhism?

I have no idea!
Michael

 

[S.A.M.]

Well the Muslim friend of mine Sedek, who is still a strong Muslim and just simply knows that the Qur'an dropped from heaven in it's exact present form and landed in the Prophets lap - Ahhh he was so unsurprised because he said it was a Xian plot and nothing is different than as his Imam said it is. So maybe the answer to your question is:

Reverent Denial = Nothing at all to be surprise by.

I didn’t even know Allah had wants and needs? I always thought it was this hard-drive like thing: all knowing, never changing, perfect in all ways, etc…???



Michael

Ask Sadek how many prophets have preceded Mohammed.

And the reason why no Muslim should be surprised is because Islam is not a new religion. It is a reiteration of the same message over and over, of which only the presently existing ones are familiar to us, whether as Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity or Judaism.

As for this:

Although now everyone is a Muslim, there have been arguments as to what Allah would want and, as usually happens, other schools of Islam have evolved and each has many followers today: for example the Sunni and Shia.

There have never been theological arguments in Islam, only individual opinions. All Madhabs are taught to all Islamic scholars as differing points of view. Though there was a divide between Shias and Sunnis for a long time, it was political in nature and not religious:

The renowned al-Azhar university of theology in Egypt, originally founded by the Shia during the reign of the Fatimid caliphate in 988[10], considers Shia philosophy to be an indivisible part of the body of Islamic jurisprudence. [11] Today, both Sunni and Shia students graduate from the Al-Azhar university which also teaches regarding both doctrines and uses certain Shia material in its courses. (See List of Shia books). On July 6, 1959, Shaikh Mahmood Shaltoot -the head of the al-Azhar Theological school- announced the al-Azhar Shia Fatwa

1) Islam does not require a Muslim to follow a particular Madh'hab (school of thought). Rather, we say: every Muslim has the right to follow one of the schools of thought which has been correctly narrated and its verdicts have been compiled in its books. And, everyone who is following such Madhahib [schools of thought] can transfer to another school, and there shall be no crime on him for doing so. 2) The Ja'fari school of thought, which is also known as "al-Shia al-Imamiyyah al-Ithna Ashariyyah" (i.e., The Twelver Imami Shi'ites) is a school of thought that is religiously correct to follow in worship as are other Sunni schools of thought. Muslims must know this, and ought to refrain from unjust prejudice to any particular school of thought, since the religion of Allah and His Divine Law (Shari'ah) was never restricted to a particular school of thought. Their jurists (Mujtahidoon) are accepted by Almighty Allah, and it is permissible to the "non-Mujtahid" to follow them and to accord with their teaching whether in worship (Ibadaat) or transactions (Mu'amilaat)[12][13].
2006)[14]

Speaking of which: Are you agnostic theist?

That smacks of indecision. I like to think I lean more towards theism than that.

Strong Atheisms may be perhaps (what is a fundamentalist?) - I'm agnostic atheist.

Perhaps fundamentalist is the wrong word. I should say religious extremist.