Rehash: This seems reasonable enough.....

[zenbabelfish]

I agree, its not a question of whether the environment changed Buddhism for better or worse - but the variation is interesting as it has split Buddhism into e.g. Tantric-style in the north and Japan; and the 'great vehicle' style elsewhere.
I should add that obviously I am no expert on the history of Buddhism...just interested.

 

[Michael]

There have never been theological arguments in Islam,

Well when I see a nut drive a car bomb into the other group - I'd say that qualities as a theological argument! Isn’t Islam political? If so it encompasses politics as well.

(a surefire way to invite bedlam)

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

No I devoted some time to the topic and have come to the conclusion it is logically impossible to prove a negative. There is no way to logically say PU or FSM or Allah do not exist.

Of course the opposite is possible – it just has never occurred. I am satisfied with my small understanding of our human mind to comprehend that people who talk to invisible things that talk back usually have a mental disorder. There are prophets all around us - I met one the other day at the corner. You should have seen his face when I started talking to the invisible person he was talking to! He looked at me like he had eaten a lime and then said: “You've got to be shitting me mate, what ... ya a crazy fella...?” And then kept talking to the invisible person!

Haaa!


I’ve met Christian theologians who have told me they were agnostic Christians. They accepted it was not possible to prove God logically but continued in their belief.

It's fare enough isn't it?
Michael

 

[Michael]

I should say religious extremist.

What is an extremist? Is it extreme to dedicate ones entire life to servituse to Allah? Is it extreme to waste 5 portions of ones' day talking to a God? is it extreme to worry one will burn in Hell or to think others will?

 

[Michael]

zenbabelfish,

My too. I'd like to reach zen someday. So far nothing

Michael

 

[S.A.M.]

Well when I see a nut drive a car bomb into the other group - I'd say that qualities as a theological argument! Isn’t Islam political? If so it encompasses politics as well.

(a surefire way to invite bedlam)

Do some research on those people, the ones who fly planes and cars and kill people and let me know the results.

No I devoted some time to the topic and have come to the conclusion it is logically impossible to prove a negative. There is no way to logically say PU or FSM or Allah do not exist.

Of course the opposite is possible – it just has never occurred. I am satisfied with my small understanding of our human mind to comprehend that people who talk to invisible things that talk back usually have a mental disorder. There are prophets all around us - I met one the other day at the corner. You should have seen his face when I started talking to the invisible person he was talking to! He looked at me like he had eaten a lime and then said: “You've got to be shitting me mate, what ... ya a crazy fella...?” And then kept talking to the invisible person!

Haaa!


I’ve met Christian theologians who have told me they were agnostic Christians. They accepted it was not possible to prove God logically but continued in their belief.

It's fare enough isn't it?
Michael

Quite fair.

 

[Michael]

Do some research on those people, the ones who fly planes and cars and kill people and let me know the results.

You see, it's hard for me to simply dismiss the people who kill in the name of God as not religious when the religion that they practice has a God who has either Itself or via Its instruction - killed humans.

We’ve all read the OT.

If ME monotheistic religion was one of pure tranquility and peace. Then sure, I'd say OK, these guys are way off base. But I know the recorded deeds of this God and Its resume’ includes blood, death, pain and punishment.

Michael

 

[S.A.M.]

You see, it's hard for me to simply dismiss the people who kill in the name of God as not religious when the religion that they practice has a God who has either Itself or via Its instruction - killed humans.

We’ve all read the OT.

If ME monotheistic religion was one of pure tranquility and peace. Then sure, I'd say OK, these guys are way off base. But I know the recorded deeds of this God and Its resume’ includes blood, death, pain and punishment.

Michael

Just do the research.

 

[Michael]

Just do the research.

That's what I'm saying Sam, regardless of what these guys are doing their God has eithre downright killed people or supported some people to kill some other people. The OT is full of it.

So why should I expect less from the humans that subserve it?

 

[lightgigantic]

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?

I would replace 'reasonable' with 'typical'

 

[Michael]

farecall, yet its still a valid viewpoint.

 

[LiveInFaith]

You see, it's hard for me to simply dismiss the people who kill in the name of God as not religious when the religion that they practice has a God who has either Itself or via Its instruction - killed humans.

We’ve all read the OT.

If ME monotheistic religion was one of pure tranquility and peace. Then sure, I'd say OK, these guys are way off base. But I know the recorded deeds of this God and Its resume’ includes blood, death, pain and punishment.

Michael

I think I get the situation you are into. I guess it is like this : A muslim kills, or blows a bomb, before doing those, he says 'bismillah' (in the name of Allah), or Allahu akbar (Allah the greatest), things like that. Then the killing is concluded to be done as religious practice. Is that so?

 

[zenbabelfish]

zenbabelfish,

My too. I'd like to reach zen someday. So far nothing

Michael

All one has to do is let go...

 

[zenbabelfish]

Bon Voyage

 

[Michael]

I think I get the situation you are into. I guess it is like this : A muslim kills, or blows a bomb, before doing those, he says 'bismillah' (in the name of Allah), or Allahu akbar (Allah the greatest), things like that. Then the killing is concluded to be done as religious practice. Is that so?

It may be a part of their religious belief.

However, the festivals that I posted are not a one off individual’s interpretation of some ancient religious text - they are an annual holiday celebrated by a large community of one religious belief in this manner of either cutting themselves or cheering those that do so or cutting the upper-face/forehead of ones child.
Against all apparent observations – this bloody festival is considered secular by those involved.
That Christians impaling their hands with nails still appears religious.


I’m not a Buddhist. I do think their meditative technique is worth investigating. Probably most Buddhists do not reach Zen. That doesn’t mean that the minority that do are not a reflection on their religion.
Does it?
Many times it’s is the minority that are the best reflection on the deepest beliefs. After all, most people just do as their parents tell them and other than that couldn’t give two craps.

So while the actions of a few may not represent those of the majority it is usually these few individuals that are truly devote in their belief. And I think it is a reflection on their respective religions:

If you will, take for example a very minority act – that of committing suicide in political protest. You do not think that the act is in any way, shape or form a reflection on the individual’s religous beleif? Even if it is a minority of those that commit it?

Here are some innocent kids walking a out a bombed out restaurant in Bali - bombed by some guys that thought they’d go to heaven. The lived in Indonesia and simply don’t like the influence the West has in the country. That was their protest. The other is THICH QUANG DUC a monk protesting in Saigon.

Do you notice any differences? Could they be in any way a reflection on their respective religions?

Michael

 

[Michael]

Bon Voyage

Thanks! we'll see.....

 

[Michael]

zenbabelfish,

Have you ever been on a long retreat? Like say - 11 days?

Michael

 

[zenbabelfish]

I've lived in woodland with the bare essentials for a month...longer but with weekend breaks occasionally. I was never totally alone - maybe 48 hour stretches. Not particularly anything to do with Buddhism but very zen.
I tend not to get involved with retreat groups as sometimes it can be an unenjoyable experience and I think discovery should be fun.

Even short periods of time in nature (or peaceful man-made environments) are good for contemplation...I don't believe we have to give up our comforts to achieve enlightenment...we just have to understand out true relationship to them.

 

[LiveInFaith]

Michael,
to get more of my understanding upon your thinking, I see a bit clearer I guess, that it is unavoidable that an act of a person (or a group) in one or other ways, will implicate that their action shows or reflects their beliefs.

I kinda agree with that thoughts, under some condition. Being ignorance of what the beliefs really are, the only way to see the beliefs is thru the actions of the believers. What we see is what we get.

But sometimes what we see is not what it is.

There is mindset in everyone, which contributes to determine how one considers and treats what one sees. On the other hand, there is also mindset in a anyone which influence how one practices one's belief. In both situations, there are two factors : the human (perspective), and the belief itself; which in many cases, SEEMS likely inseparable.

The belief (system) forbids to kill until certain condition reached (eg. war). They maybe setting their minds that they are in war (and actually they have been chased to every point of the earth; by interpol and intelligence; and anytime could be killed, like Imam Samudera, the one already killed, was considered to be the actor behind the Bali Bomb), and thus justifying themselves to blow bomb in a cafe full of people like in Bali (it is a shame for muslims).

In this case, is this the belief (system) itself, or the perspective ?
I guess, the whole countries on the earth agree that killing in war is just a duty, unavoidable, which is acceptable.

PS: I emphasize the word "system', in the consideration that a system could not work when certain parts of it is taken off.

 

[Michael]

LiveInFaith,

A couple questions:

- Did the first example (about Tibetan Buddhism) seem reasonable? I’m not asking if it is historically exact. Just does it seem reasonable?

- What about the Islamic analogy?

- Most monotheisms purport there is only one God and hence most monotheists take an attitude that their one manner of religion must be correct as everyone else is inherently wrong – particularly if they should be polytheistic or atheistic. In Indonesia a recent survey showed that >90% of Indonesians believe it should be a criminal offence to freely choose ones religion if one is a Muslim. That is, they should be punished by the State for attempting to leave Islam.
* Do you agree with this thinking?
* If not, do you think that this highly corrosive attitude is related in any way to their monotheistic belief at all?


Michael

 

[LiveInFaith]

A couple questions:

- Did the first example (about Tibetan Buddhism) seem reasonable? I’m not asking if it is historically exact. Just does it seem reasonable?

- What about the Islamic analogy?

Yes, they did.

- Most monotheisms purport there is only one God and hence most monotheists take an attitude that their one manner of religion must be correct as everyone else is inherently wrong – particularly if they should be polytheistic or atheistic. In Indonesia a recent survey showed that >90% of Indonesians believe it should be a criminal offence to freely choose ones religion if one is a Muslim. That is, they should be punished by the State for attempting to leave Islam.
* Do you agree with this thinking?
* If not, do you think that this highly corrosive attitude is related in any way to their monotheistic belief at all?

Michael

- I don't agree.
- It's a practice of non comprehensive thought of muslims, thus to the people, not to the belief system. They just don't want to loose their society members.

The belief system (Islam) says, once one reaches adultness, it's all on his/hers, and no one has responsibility or obligation upon his/her life (under assumption there is no destruction involved).

It's their fanatism which drives them not willing to loose any members of society. I don't know on what base they accuse conversion to be crime. I never find any verse in qur'an to support that stance. What I know, if one is not muslim, then it's the business between one and God, nothing to do with other muslims. Only once one a muslim, one should follow qur'an.