Something I noticed about Buddhism

[Michael]

No matter if I meet Singaporean Buddhists or Japanese Buddhists or read about Tibetian Buddhists - they always give me an impression of openmindedness not found in most monotheism. I beleive it is because their philosophy is simply superior.

Here's an excellent example:

Always stressing that the Buddha's own words should be thrown out if they are shown by scientific inquiry to be flawed, the Dalai Lama is the rare religious figure who tells people not to get needlessly confused or distracted by religion ("Even without a religion, we can become a good human being"). No believer in absolute truth—he eagerly seeks out Catholics, neuroscientists, even regular travelers to Tibet who can instruct him—he is also the rare Tibetan who will suggest that old Tibet may have contributed in part to its current predicament, the rare Buddhist to tell foreigners not to take up Buddhism but to study within their own traditions, where their roots are deepest.

Notice he says that the Buddha's own words may be flawed and if so toss them out.
Notice his point about people holding to their own traditions and beleifs.

Compare this with Xian evangelism or ideas of "perfect" books.


Michael

[Asguard]

michael to be fair it has been thorised that the move to monotheisam was the catilist that lead to science because before you had ONE god and ONE plan you couldnt predict what was going to happen without getting a major headache from trying to work out the interaction BETWEEN gods

So we do owe monotheastic religions SOME credit

[cosmictraveler]

So we do owe monotheastic religions SOME credit

How's that? I as yet don't see anything good about them whatsoever. They seperate people more so than uniting them.

[S.A.M.]

Until the age of 25, the Dalai Lama ran a theocracy in which 90% of the people were bonded laborers and about 5-10% were outright slaves, the only reason he stopped is because he ran away into exile. I would pay more attention to what people do, rather than their PC comments. Take a trip to Dharmsala, you won't see a more close minded group, that in over 50 years has not assimilated with the "natives"

And yeah they pretty much ignore the Buddha when he provides nothing to cope with their realities

http://ashwinibhatia.com/images/113.jpg

[Myles]

How's that? I as yet don't see anything good about them whatsoever. They seperate people more so than uniting them.

Credit where it's due. You are overlooking the role of the Catholic church is supporting Galileos scientific endeavours. If it weren't for rhe church's efforts, the sun would still be going around the earth.Or is it the other way ?

[S.A.M.]

Credit where it's due. You are overlooking the role of the Catholic church is supporting Galileos scientific endeavours. If it weren't for rhe church's efforts, the sun would still be going around the earth.Or is it the other way ?

If I recall correctly, the "scientists" of the time also did not support Galileo.

Consider these facts:

1. Neither Galileo, nor any other scientist, was put to death by the medieval Church. Giordano Bruno, a 17th-century Dominican, was indeed condemned by the Inquisition, not for his scientific views, but for preaching a quirky, New Age-ish view called hermeticism, which was only incidentally connected to heliocentrism.

2. The Catholic authorities of Galileo’s day had little trouble with heliocentrism per se. Many of the leading Catholic scientists were actually Copernicans. Copernicus’s treatise on heliocentrism had been in print for seventy years prior to Galileo’s conflict with the Church.

3. Galileo remained a devout and loyal Catholic until the end of his life. He held no animosity toward the Church over his conflict with Church authorities.

4. Most important, the conflict between Galileo and the Church took place in the context of the Protestant Reformation, a context that is almost always omitted from popular accounts of Galileo’s trial. The key issue in this conflict was not heliocentrism per se, but the authority of the individual Believer to interpret Scripture. Galileo’s argument that scientists should interpret the Bible to conform to their scientific views was close to Luther’s view that the Believer should be his own interpreter of Scripture. It was Lutheranism, not heliocentrism, that alarmed the Church leaders.

Galileo, in other words, was caught up in a larger, theological and ecclesiastical controversy. He was not simply a truth-seeking scientists going up against a bigoted Establishment.

http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2007/01/18/the-galileo-legend/

[Myles]

If I recall correctly, the "scientists" of the time also did not support Galileo.

It is not unusual for someone who is ahead of the field to lack support. But the church threatened him, an old man, with torture. He was even shown the instruments of torture. So I suppose that's ok in your book. Go join Pastor Phelps; he would really have enjoyed himself in Galileos time.

[S.A.M.]

It is not unusual for someone who is ahead of the field to lack support. But the church threatened him, an old man, with torture. He was even shown the instruments of torture. So I suppose that's ok in your book. Go join Pastor Phelps; he would really have enjoyed himself in Galileos time.

So it was an intra-religious squabble. The fact remains that many of the Christians were Copernicans and as stated, his theory had been in publication for some time when Galileo got into it.

There is another view (same link comments) that Galileo was prosecuted for his attitude:

My understanding of the conflict, derived from reading original documents and correspondence, is that Galileo was punished by the Pope for his lack of charity toward his opponents. Galileo in fact had the better arguments theologically as well as scientifically, knew it, and didn’t hesitate to ram that superiority down his opponents’ throats. He mocked his opponents mercilessly, and called them stupid. The Pope directed him to treat them with courtesy and charity. Galileo followed up by publishing the Dialogue, in which he placed his opponents’ arguments in the mouth of Simplicio (i.e., “Simpleton”) and made them look as silly as possible. This led directly to the Pope’s rebuke. It was a rebuke that was, presumably, based on the Pope’s concern for Galileo’s soul and his desire for comity in the Church, and probably had nothing to do with the Pope’s opinion on heliocentrism, which there is reason to believe he supported.

The similarity between Galileo’s theological arguments, which were in fact taken almost word for word from St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, and Luther’s was a bad argument made by Galileo’s fundamentalist opponents. I don’t believe the Pope ever endorsed either the theology or science of Galileo’s opponents, rather he was pushing for a more civil theological debate and for obedience to his pastoral directives.

It is impossible to understand the Galileo issue except as an intra-Church squabble among the faithful. To represent Galileo as a “secularist” is quite unfaithful to history, and would certainly have shocked him, since he was one of the most devout and theologically sophisticated lay Catholics of his day, and a close friend to many senior churchmen.

[greenberg]

And yeah they pretty much ignore the Buddha when he provides nothing to cope with their realities

The Buddha does provide for coping with reality, however painful that reality might be.
The problem is that relatively few people actually have a proper training in Buddhism.
There is a trend in traditionally Buddhist countries to dismiss the teachings on the Four Noble Truths and karma as "stuff for the beginners", and instead to focus on a few more or less fancy rituals and practices. And those really cannot provide strategies for coping with a demanding reality.

[greenberg]

No matter if I meet Singaporean Buddhists or Japanese Buddhists or read about Tibetian Buddhists - they always give me an impression of openmindedness not found in most monotheism. I beleive it is because their philosophy is simply superior.

Here's an excellent example:

Always stressing that the Buddha's own words should be thrown out if they are shown by scientific inquiry to be flawed, the Dalai Lama is the rare religious figure who tells people not to get needlessly confused or distracted by religion ("Even without a religion, we can become a good human being"). No believer in absolute truth—he eagerly seeks out Catholics, neuroscientists, even regular travelers to Tibet who can instruct him—he is also the rare Tibetan who will suggest that old Tibet may have contributed in part to its current predicament, the rare Buddhist to tell foreigners not to take up Buddhism but to study within their own traditions, where their roots are deepest.

Notice he says that the Buddha's own words may be flawed and if so toss them out.
Notice his point about people holding to their own traditions and beleifs.


What is the source of this passage in blue?

[cosmictraveler]

Credit where it's due. You are overlooking the role of the Catholic church is supporting Galileos scientific endeavours. If it weren't for rhe church's efforts, the sun would still be going around the earth.Or is it the other way ?



Actually Copernicus solved that one years before Galileo did. And the Arabs solved that before he did!


Another thing is that the Catholic church put Galileo in prison for his views which conflicted with the God point of view that the Earth was the center of everything! So the religion held back advancements once again.

Nicolaus Copernicus (February 19, 1473 – May 24, 1543) was the first astronomer to formulate a scientifically based heliocentric cosmology that displaced the Earth from the center of the universe. His epochal book, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres), is often regarded as the starting point of modern astronomy and the defining epiphany that began the Scientific Revolution.

Although Greek, Indian and Muslim savants had published heliocentric hypotheses centuries before Copernicus, his publication of a scientific theory of heliocentrism, demonstrating that the motions of celestial objects can be explained without putting the Earth at rest in the center of the universe, stimulated further scientific investigations, and became a landmark in the history of modern science that is known as the Copernican Revolution

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

[Myles]

Actually Copernicus solved that one years before Galileo did. And the Arabs solved that before he did!


Another thing is that the Catholic church put Galileo in prison for his views which conflicted with the God point of view that the Earth was the center of everything! So the religion held back advancements once again.

Nicolaus Copernicus (February 19, 1473 – May 24, 1543) was the first astronomer to formulate a scientifically based heliocentric cosmology that displaced the Earth from the center of the universe. His epochal book, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres), is often regarded as the starting point of modern astronomy and the defining epiphany that began the Scientific Revolution.

Although Greek, Indian and Muslim savants had published heliocentric hypotheses centuries before Copernicus, his publication of a scientific theory of heliocentrism, demonstrating that the motions of celestial objects can be explained without putting the Earth at rest in the center of the universe, stimulated further scientific investigations, and became a landmark in the history of modern science that is known as the Copernican Revolution

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

Gotcha, ha, ha.

Now please explain to SAM that the Catholic church treated Galileo badly.She won't take it from me. She keeps wanrting to bring other irrelevant matters into the discussion.

[S.A.M.]

Yeah wiki beats research of personal correspondence hollow. Yay!!! :rolleyes:

So how does cosmic explain the fact that Galileo was a devout follower of the same church until he died?

Was he a sucker?

[Myles]

Yeah wiki beats research of personal correspondence hollow. Yay!!! :rolleyes:

So how does cosmic explain the fact that Galileo was a devout follower of the same church until he died?

Was he a sucker?

There is nothing to explain. The fact that he knew what he did didn't make him an atheist. Why shold it have done so ? You are clutching at straws,

For some reason, like many others, you insist on conflating science with atheism.

Don't forget that he lived under house arrest at a time when nobody dared oppose the church, which ruled by fear.

[S.A.M.]

There is nothing to explain. The fact that he knew what he did didn't make him an atheist. Why shold it have done so ? You are clutching at straws,

For some reason, like many others, you insist on conflating science with atheism.

Don't forget that he lived under house arrest at a time when nobody dared oppose the church, which ruled by fear.

Considering that he himself had no grievances with the church, its odd that so many people use him to defame the church.

I believe he would be quite shocked at the notion.

[draqon]

I must say that the picture SAM posted clearly shows that these people have stepped away from Buddhism, and not because Buddhism lacks understanding of their situation and how to cope with it.

[Myles]

Considering that he himself had no grievances with the church, its odd that so many people use him to defame the church.

I believe he would be quite shocked at the notion.

Nobody can say what went on in his mind, Conjecture is useless. But I blame the church, as did the chuirch itself ,when the last Pope issued a formal apology.

[tresbien]

on the news i saw some postrating to idols.why


INTRODUCTION

Many people become excited at the idea of becoming "different" or more "original." In almost every society since the dawn of history, some individuals have tried to stand out and draw attention to themselves by their life style, clothing, hairstyles, or distinctive way of speaking. They've managed to stir up public reaction and attract interest at the same time.

In recent years, Western societies have seen the emergence of an unusual current that draws attention to itself by its rather strange life style. It's made up of individuals who want to attract attention by adopting Eastern culture, beliefs, and philosophies-of which the most important is Buddhism.

Throughout the world, but especially in America and Europe, some individuals have been intrigued by Buddhism, spurred on mostly by the superstitious, secret, and awesome qualities they perceive in this religion. Generally, those who adopt Buddhism do so not because they believe in the logic of its philosophy, but because they're attracted by its "mystical" atmosphere, drawn to this superstition because it is presented to them as far more different and awesome than any other philosophy they encounter in their normal lives. For example, the story of how Buddhism came to be is related to them as a fantastic, mystic legend. Books and films about Buddhism depict Buddha as the source of a great mystery. Likewise, Buddhist priests are presented as possessors of secret, arcane knowledge. They fascinate Westerners with their exotic robes, shaved heads, style of worship, elaborate ceremonies, dwelling places, meditation, yoga and other such strange practices.

For these reasons, Buddhism is seized upon as an important tool by people who want to demonstrate that they are different from others in their society, and who want to project the image of having discovered of a valuable secret. If an ordinary person suddenly shaves his head one day, puts on a brightly-colored robe and begins to teach Buddhist doctrine using mystical words he never uttered before, he will certainly attract curious attention and be thought of as "original."


The eyes painted on foursides of this Buddhist temple in Katmandu in Nepal symbolize the idea that Buddha sees everything at every moment. At the foundation of Buddhist superstition lies the idea that Buddha is an idol with superhuman powers.
(Right) Shwedagon Pagoda, the famous Buddhist temple in Rangoon, Mayanmar.





A Buddhist statue from Nepal, supposedly representing wisdom and skill.

A number of celebrities have adopted Buddhism for similar purposes. They make speeches in Tibetan Buddhist robes to appear different from others, drawing attention to themselves perhaps to become even better known to their public. They visit Buddhist temples accompanied by Buddhist priests and also make propaganda for the Buddhist religion.

You may have already learned a considerable amount about Buddhism and gained a general knowledge of it through both written and visual media. In this book, we'll examine Buddhism's superstitious character in the light of the Qur'an and let you see clearly this superstitious religion's more perverse aspects.

When we consider Buddhism's appearance, its scriptures, general beliefs, style of worship in the light of the Qur'an, we begin to see that its basic philosophy is founded on very deviant doctrines. Indeed, its worship contains strange practices leading its devotees to worship idols of stone and clay. As a belief, Buddhism is contrary to logic and intelligence. Countries where it has been adopted have mixed it with their own idolatrous ideas, traditions and local customs, joining it with myths and deviant ideas until it has evolved into a totally godless philosophy.

When fused with Brahmanism, Hinduism, Shintoism and other idolatrous Eastern religions, Buddhism has assumed a much darker form. Those who adopt this religion not because they believe it, but because they're attracted by the "secrets" of the Far East or just to draw attention to themselves, should realize that Buddhism contains perverse doctrines that can lead them to deny God, associate handmade idols with Him and lead a life of superstition. To ignore Buddhism's mindless aspects and espouse it just to be trendy and go along with others will result in great loss.

Those who make propaganda on behalf of Buddhism often present it as a means of salvation. Those who long to escape from a materialist society's hard, disputatious culture- along with its worries, anxieties, quarrels, pitiless rivalry, selfishness and falsehoods-resort to Buddhism as the way to achieve peace of mind, security, tolerance and a fulfilling life. But Buddhism is not, as it is generally thought to be, a belief that brings contentment. On the contrary, those who are taken into Buddhism are often drawn into a deep pessimism. Even people with a considerable level of education and modern worldview will become individuals who see nothing wrong with begging with their bowls in hand, who believe that in their next lives, human beings may be reborn as mice or cattle, and who expect help from idols carved from stone or cast in bronze. For these people, Buddhism's deviant beliefs inflict serious psychological damage. In countries where Buddhism is widespread, or in regions inhabited by many Buddhist priests, pessimism and gloominess are clearly prominent.



"… By His Words God wipes out the false and confirms the truth."
(Qur'an 42:24)


One basic reason for this is the laziness and indolence that Buddhism inculcates in its adherents. Because it lacks any faith in an eternal afterlife, Buddhism does not urge its devotees to be better or develop themselves, to beautify their environment, or to advance culturally. Islam always urges its adherents to seek out and apply themselves to what is better and more beautiful. Islam's dynamic moral teaching requires people to research and learn, to develop themselves and be useful to their communities. In one verse of the Qur'an (35: 28), God says that "Only those of His servants with knowledge stand truly in awe of Him."

The only way to find true happiness and contentment in this world-to escape every kind of pessimism, unhappiness, and pitiless evil-is for people to submit themselves to God, our Creator, and lead lives that will win His approval. Our Lord, the only sovereign of Earth and Heaven has announced that for all people the way of salvation is to embrace the Qur'an, sent down as a guide to the true path. In the Qur'an (14: 1), God affirms, "… this is a Book We have sent down to you so that you can bring mankind from the darkness to the light, by the permission of their Lord, to the Path of the Almighty, the Praiseworthy." Those who believe in idolatrous religious like Buddhism should realize that they have been misguided:


That is God, your Lord, the Truth, and what is there after truth except misguidance? So how have you been distracted? (Qur'an, 10: 32)
http://www.harunyahya.com/buddhism01.php[/

[greenberg]

Myles, SAM,

The story of Galieo is definitely interesting and of some importance, but it is really off topic for this thread.

[Myles]

Myles, SAM,

The story of Galieo is definitely interesting and of some importance, but it is really off topic for this thread.

Not entirely. I have reason to believe that Galileo was a closet Buddhist.

[S.A.M.]

we're talking about openmindedness in monotheism. As Galileo and the Church were both monotheist and we are discussing the issue of the church's openmindedness, I think it is on topic but I am willing to concede it is not about Buddhism.

On Buddhism itself, my knowledge is two pronged.

One is the knowledge obtained in school from books, about Gautam Buddha and his arrival in India from Nepal, his enlightenment in Bodhgaya and his travels around the country.

The other is from news articles in India and elsewhere. The original Pali canon was written in Sri Lanka, where the Buddhists consider themselves the "original" Buddhists. This was where Emperor Asoka went for his retirement after he gave up war and became a Buddhist.

So far so good.

After this however, changes in Buddhist theocracy led to a split society, the monks and those who serve them (the Bikshuk). This system evolved differently in different cultures. In Japan, it led to the Shinto Buddhism which was warrior oriented, in Korea the monks practised taekwondo and preserved the temples, in Sri Lanka they became an ethnocracy and separated themselves from immigrants, in Tibet, the king adopted Buddhism and enforced it on the people. In both Nepal and Tibet, the locals, ie the Kamaiyas and Banpos became bonded laborers under the ruling aristocracy, which in Tibet included the Lamas, who were the supreme God-heads. The majority of the population in Sri Lanka, Tibet and Nepal thus degenerated into a serfdom, which mirrored the landowner system of European aristocracy.

Currently, the majority Sri Lankans, Buddhist Sinhalese have been fighting with the ethnic Tamils for land since the British left. The ethnic Tamils have formed a terrorist group called LTTE, which sent a suicide bomber to kill Rajiv Gandhi, the prime minister.

In Tibet, the communists abolished the serfdom, in Nepal, the kamaiya system was recently (2000) abolished.

IMO, there is not much openmindedness in traditional dogmatic Buddhism. However the brutal murders of Buddhists under communist regimes in Tibet, Vietnam, Cambodia, as well as the bombing of Japan followed by the US ban on Shinto religion has led to a turnabout in traditional roles. Priests are no longer given as much sacred status, which has relieved the roles of the Bhikshuks.

[greenberg]

IMO, there is not much openmindedness in traditional dogmatic Buddhism.

I agree, but I am seeing things from a very different perspective than you.
You seem to be focused on the national, social, political and economical affairs in traditionally Buddhist countries. I know very little about that.
My knowledge of Buddhism is mainly directly from the Suttas of the Pali Canon, and a few Western and Eastern teachers in the Theravada tradition.

From my perspective on Buddhism, "open-mindedness" is bad because it implies paying attention to more things than one can safely process without becoming enmeshed in sensual pleasures, ill will and confusion.
Being "open-minded", the way the so-called Western, liberal culture would have us be is tantamount to having no boundaries, giving your attention idly to anything that asks for it. From my understanding of Buddhism, such "open-mindedness" constitutes heedlessness, Wrong View.


Also, the Dalai Lama, as is his public image, marketed by his political engagement, public teachings and books, is not a representative or an authority of all Buddhists.
It is wrong to conclude that if the Dalai Lama claims something, then this is true for all Buddhism.

There is that unfortunate statement of his to the effect that Buddhism will amend its views if science discovers something contrary to those views. Many people use this statement as proof of Buddhism's "open-mindedness". But taking that statement seriously, believing it, degrades Buddhism into nothing but a hippie agnosticism. Buddhism is not agnostic.

As far as the traditional view from the Suttas goes, Buddhism is not open-minded at all; in fact, putting strict constraints on what one thinks, says and does is essential to the practice towards Liberation.

[S.A.M.]

I never confuse the Dalai Lama with Buddhism. :p

As far as the traditional view from the Suttas goes, Buddhism is not open-minded at all; in fact, putting strict constraints on what one thinks, says and does is essential to the practice towards Liberation.

I agree. Its a monastic but not ascetic religion.

Self discipline is paramount.
http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/USPics2/71756.jpg

[greenberg]

The OP was making a strong connection between the Dalai Lama and Buddhism, as if the Dalai Lama would be representative of all Buddhism.

[S.A.M.]

The OP was making a strong connection between the Dalai Lama and Buddhism, as if the Dalai Lama would be representative of all Buddhism.

The OP is more familiar with laissez faire Buddhism. :p

btw, offtopic but kudos to you for noticing both my strategies (the anti objectivism as well as the use of fallacies ;))

I'm surprised you caught it, no one ever has.

[Michael]

Until the age of 25, the Dalai Lama ran a theocracy in which 90% of the people were bonded laborers and about 5-10% were outright slaves, the only reason he stopped is because he ran away into exile. Perhaps he was an arse hole that way? Maybe he didn't know any better and thought it was perfectly normal. Now-a-days (as I read) he calls for a dismantling of a ruling religious class and the formation of an autonomous democratic secular government in Tibet.

Anyway, my post isn't specifically about the Dali Lama it's about the fact that many Buddhists I have personally met from various different cultures (Thai, Chinese, Japanese, Korean) and have read of (ex: here from a Tibetan Buddhist) take what I consider an open minded religious attitude simply not found in most monotheisms.

I'm not saying all and I'm not suggesting people don't have their own ideas. I grew up in a monotheistic culture and most people who are reasonably religious don't take such an attitude. Although, to be fair, I met an agnostic Catholic priest once (he would have taken such an attitude) and there used to be a person who defined themselves as an atheist Muslim on these boards (he was quite open minded) BUT in general monotheists are not so open minded.


michael to be fair it has been thorised that the move to monotheisam was the catilist that lead to science because before you had ONE god and ONE plan you couldnt predict what was going to happen without getting a major headache from trying to work out the interaction BETWEEN gods I think you’ll find Greek, Chinese, Egyptian, etc… philosophers, calculating the circumference of the earth, the concept of mathematical proofs, etc… they did pretty good back in the day.

Credit where it's due. You are overlooking the role of the Catholic church is supporting Galileos scientific endeavours. If it weren't for rhe church's efforts, the sun would still be going around the earth.Or is it the other way ?Yeah, from what I read Galileo was imprisoned for suggesting people could interpret the scripture themselves. During the protestant movement this was a HUGE no no for a Catholic to insinuate.

What is the source of this passage in blue?this weeks Time.com

[Michael]

tresbien,

you my friend are like a God-send. Truly you are. I am always trying to make these points with SAM and she, being slippery, usually squirms around even the most direct questions (lexical semantic secretions being the more slippery of phraseologys :p

Yet, here you are, telling it straight:
Zero, invented by Mohammad.
Gravity, invented by Mohammad.
etc....

anyway I think you make my point very well in here:

One basic reason for this is the laziness and indolence that Buddhism inculcates in its adherents. Because it lacks any faith in an eternal afterlife, Buddhism does not urge its devotees to be better or develop themselves, to beautify their environment, or to advance culturally.

Islam [on the other hand] always urges its adherents to seek out and apply themselves to what is better and more beautiful. Islam's dynamic moral teaching requires people to research and learn, to develop themselves and be useful to their communities. In one verse of the Qur'an (35: 28), God says that "Only those of His servants with knowledge stand truly in awe of Him."

Our Lord, the only sovereign of Earth and Heaven has announced that for all people the way of salvation is to embrace the Qur'an, sent down as a guide to the true path. In the Qur'an (14: 1), God affirms


So I have a question open to any monotheists.

Does the possibility exist that there is no God and that you Prophets were just normal men who heard voices in their heads due to schizophrenia?

Does the possibility exist that your religious books are in no way inspired words from God but the ramblings of madmen mixed with the musings of philosophers?

Michael

[greenberg]

I'm surprised you caught it, no one ever has.

I have some faith in you. :)
And some basic formal knowledge in philosophy and psychology. :p

[S.A.M.]

Does the possibility exist that there is no God and that you Prophets were just normal men who heard voices in their heads due to schizophrenia?


I once asked this question to a Saudi alim and he said to me the discussion has always veered between madness and lies. If he lied, he could not be mad, if he was mad, he could not effectively lie. That said, he said, this resource, the Quran is available to us. As a resource, it is replete with knowledge. Why not enjoy it?

I think that is the best approach to Islam. Lets enjoy what the Quran contains without getting too hung up on details.

I have some faith in you. :)
And some basic formal knowledge in philosophy and psychology. :p

Thank you, I don't know what I've done to deserve your faith, I'm too busy revising my own ideas and using others as soundboards to excite any sympathy and I can be quite aggressive too.

My own knowledge in philosophy is self studied and is fragmentary and instinctive rather than learned.

[Michael]

From my perspective on Buddhism, "open-mindedness" is bad because it implies paying attention to more things than one can safely process without becoming enmeshed in sensual pleasures, ill will and confusion.

Being "open-minded", the way the so-called Western, liberal culture would have us be is tantamount to having no boundaries, giving your attention idly to anything that asks for it. From my understanding of Buddhism, such "open-mindedness" constitutes heedlessness, Wrong View.Firstly my OP was not just about the Dali Lama. It was reading an interview from the Dali Lama in Time that prompted the post.

As for openmindedness, it's something I have found in many Buddhists. Maybe not all, but all the ones I have spoken with.

I think tresbien's post makes the point elegantly.

Michael

[Michael]

I once asked this question to a Saudi alim and he said to me the discussion has always veered between madness and lies. If he lied, he could not be mad, if he was mad, he could not effectively lie. That said, he said, this resource, the Quran is available to us. As a resource, it is replete with knowledge. Why not enjoy it?You can enjoy it. But, also, you should be free to criticize it. Many people LOVE The Marriage of Figaro, but not everyone, the aristocracy didn't "get it". Does the fact that someone finds The Marriage of Figaro long and boring mean that someone else can't find it quick and entertaining?

If the Saudi alim was being honest he'd simply add to this, yes, the possibility does exist he was mad and/or lied and still you may enjoy the book.

Michael

[S.A.M.]

If the Saudi alim was being honest he'd simply add to this, yes, the possibility does exist he was mad and/or lied and still you may enjoy the book.

Michael

Not if he did not know. One does not demonise someone just to make oneself feel better, its not samskara.

[Michael]

He does not know if he thinks the possibility exists? I'm sure he does know what he thinks.

[S.A.M.]

He does not know if he thinks the possibility exists? I'm sure he does know what he thinks.

He's an alim, he cannot make rash statements without some support.

What he was describing was the effort to defame the Prophet in other places, which of course never expanded beyond rhetoric due to lack of any evidence.

It would be like any scholar making declarations he could not support.

[Michael]

He's an alim, he cannot make rash statements without some support.

What he was describing was the effort to defame the Prophet in other places, which of course never expanded beyond rhetoric due to lack of any evidence.

It would be like any scholar making declarations he could not support.What do you mean support? (I mean what do you mean by the word support?)

I'm asking about possibilities.

The Buddhist is open to possibilities and the monotheists is not.

Is it possible that Buddha was wrong? The Buddhist replys yes.

SAM, is it possible that the Qur'an is wrong? Well is it?


Michael

by the by, what did you think of tresbien's response? Reminds me of that Muslim who told me Arabic is Gods perfect language or the Muslim who couldn't touch my hand (for some superstitious reason or another). Funny, I've never heard a Buddhist say: Buddha's language is the "perfect" language or not shake my hand because I'm a non-Buddhist. Seeing the differences?

[S.A.M.]

]What do you mean support? (I mean what do you mean by the word support?)

I'm asking about possibilities.

The Buddhist is open to possibilities and the monotheists is not.

Is it possible that Buddha was wrong? The Buddhist replys yes.

SAM, is it possible that the Qur'an is wrong? Well is it?

Possibilities are for idle discussion, if you question an alim he will not go beyind what he can support. For him every statement must be supported by some evidence.

What would the Quran be wrong about? Which part? Is Kant wrong? Is Hume? The term wrong is inappropriate when referring to a philosophy. Is Ayn Rand wrong? I disagree with her POV so I am not an Objectivist. But shes neither wrong nor right.



by the by, what did you think of tresbien's response? Reminds me of that Muslim who told me Arabic is Gods perfect language or the Muslim who couldn't touch my hand (for some superstitious reason or another). Funny, I've never heard a Buddhist say: Buddha's language is the "perfect" language or not shake my hand because I'm a non-Buddhist. Seeing the differences?

Lots of people in the east would not shake your hand. Same as you may be uncomfortable bending down to touch their feet and wiping the dust from their feet on your forehead. There are many occasions when I don't shake hands either. Its not a personal statement merely a preference.

I remember once bringing food to share with my friends and my American friend found it yucky to eat from food I had dipped my spoon into. My Korean friend snatches half eaten sandwiches from my hand and eats them. People have different attitudes based on culture.

And I don't agree with yahya so I skipped tresbien's post. Its just a POV.

[Michael]

Not if he did not know. One does not demonise someone just to make oneself feel better, its not samskara.Funny enough - it's always been this way hasn't it. I mean, from the point of view of the polytheistic Arabs MOHAMMAD demonised their beleif! But, oooo hooo hoooo that's different. He was just asking people to stop and think that maybe these were idols and not Gods at ALL!!! How utterly demonic of Mohammad - wouldn't you say SAM? Well?

In pre-Socratic Greek philosophy ..the 5th-century BCE Greek philosopher Diagoras is known as the "first atheist",[64] and strongly criticized religion and mysticism. Critias viewed religion as a human invention used to frighten people into following moral order.

Cicero,[5] writing in the 1st century BC, tells of how a friend of Diagoras tried to convince him of the existence of the gods, by pointing out how many votive pictures tell about people being saved from storms at sea by "dint of vows to the gods", to which Diagoras replied that "there are nowhere any pictures of those who have been shipwrecked and drowned at sea." And Cicero goes on to give another example, where Diagoras was on a ship in hard weather, and the crew thought that they had brought it on themselves by taking this ungodly man onboard. He then wondered if the other boats out in the same storm also had a Diagoras onboard.

With reason did the Athenians adjudge Diagoras guilty of atheism!*

He was therefore condemned, and the psephisma was engraved on a column, promising a prize for his head, and one talent to the person who should bring his dead body to Athens, and two talents to him who should deliver him up alive to the Athenians.

I wonder what happens to Muslims in Iran or KSA who openly convert to atheism, openly ridicule Islam, openly question Allah and use their Qur'an for tinder to light their stoves?

Some thing change some things stay the same.

Michael

exclamation mark added for dramatic effect :)

[Michael]

For him every statement must be supported by some evidence.Oh really SAM. Ask him if there is One God or Two. Ask him if Mohammad was the Last Prophet or not the Last. Ask him if the Qur'an has been altered or never been altered.

I await his response.

[S.A.M.]

I wonder what Iran would have been like if Mossadgeh had not been replaced by an autocratic Shah.

Oh really SAM. Ask him if there is One God or Two. Ask him if Mohammad was the Last Prophet or not the Last. Ask him if the Qur'an has been altered or never been altered.

I await his response.

Why don't you find an alim and ask him. I'm no longer in Saudi Arabia,

[Michael]

What would the Quran be wrong about? Which part? Is Kant wrong? Is Hume? The term wrong is inappropriate when referring to a philosophy. Is Ayn Rand wrong? I disagree with her POV so I am not an Objectivist. But shes neither wrong nor right.ahhhh hello - there being a God ... magical winged fairy creatures .. the moon splitting in two.

OK SAM, there is evidence that the moon has never split into two peaces in the last 2000 years.

[Michael]

Look, I think it's obvious to even you that you're proving the whole point of this thread.

I'm atheist. Is there a possibility I could be wrong? Yes. That there are Gods? Yes. etc.. etc... see the difference? It seems to me that the Buddhist just has the sense enough to admit as much about his/her beleif as well.

Michael

[S.A.M.]

ahhhh hello - there being a God ... magical winged fairy creatures .. the moon splitting in two.

OK SAM, there is evidence that the moon has never split into two peaces in the last 2000 years.

You really need to read the Quran rather than make such obviously ridiculous statements.

[Michael]

moon splitting/side splittingly funny things aside, the Qur'an does mention a thing or two about there being One God.

[Kadark]

ahhhh hello - there being a God ... magical winged fairy creatures .. the moon splitting in two.

OK SAM, there is evidence that the moon has never split into two peaces in the last 2000 years.

The word in the Qur'an used to describe the event was "shaqqa", which can be interpreted as "splitting". However, it can also mean "ploughing" or "digging".

The same word was used in another verse, helping us establish the context.

Sura Abasa: 25-29

We pour down plentiful water, then split the earth into furrows. Then We make grain grow in it, and grapes and herbs and olives and dates.

As you can see, "split" doesn't make as much sense here as "ploughing" does, as we are talking about digging into the earth to grow different plants. Also, the moon verse refers to a Signs of the Last Day to show Allah's power - not miracles by humans.

[S.A.M.]

moon splitting/side splittingly funny things aside, the Qur'an does mention a thing or two about there being One God.

What exactly does it say about the one God?

Hey Kadark, amazing to see the shaqqa shaqqa from you ;)

[Kadark]

Hey Kadark, amazing to see the shaqqa shaqqa from you ;)

I like to take my head out the sand every now and then, even if it is for a short amount of time. ;)

[Michael]

What exactly does it say about the one God?At the very least it says there is one in existence. I am sure maybe even two Muslims could read the Qur'an and walk away with at least that much in agreement.

[Michael]

Two points to make.

This thread is about Buddhism. Frankly, I'm surprised you guys don't agree with me. I mean, Buddhist are generally known to take such an open mind they are often called philosophers and not theists. It's odd you guys haven't had similar experiences with Buddhists you may know. Go ahead and ask them what they think. If it's possible for Buddha to have been wrong about this or that. See what they say for your selves.

Michael

[Vkothii]

I live, currently, with Buddhists from Thailand.

Thai culture is based on a society, actually a kingdom, going back thousands of years.
Their political system is based on a monotheistic monarchical "democracy", but the Western paradigm starts and ends with the idea of sovereignty; the king and his ancestry are considered divine; the king is the ultimate arbiter and his advice or guidance is considered to be divinely inspired, and so the king "rules" the country largely by fiat. He rules with a more or less velvet glove, with ritualistic acts of generosity and social benefit, but must, it seems, effectively be so, or at least appear munificent and good-hearted, while maintaining a suitable stature, and yet adhering to essential Buddhist doctrine. A good king is a Buddhist king.

It seems to have worked for Thailand, a small country with a lot of people. The cohesion is remarkable, given where it is, and the rival nations (Burma for example, an ancient enemy) surrounding it.

Even with a western facade of democracy, MPs, democratic elections, and so on, everyone defers to royalty because of the religious nature of that cohesion, which is far older and has meant a stable theocracy (the current sovereign is a descendant of a line that stretches back to the middle ages, like Elizabeth II).

Thai people are "open" to ideas external to their Buddhist upbringing, like Easter and Christmas (they celebrate Christmas and the Western New Year), but it's very difficult to give them advice, or overturn pretty much anything they believe (expecially if their Thai friends told them), about some detail of Western living, or social import.

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Thai people are "open" to ideas external to their Buddhist upbringing, like Easter and Christmas (they celebrate Christmas and the Western New Year), but it's very difficult to give them advice, or overturn pretty much anything they believe (expecially if their Thai friends told them), about some detail of Western living, or social import.

I found that they had very little in their culture to prevent mass destruction of nature and the kind of outlook that creates zoning laws - hence some of the most ugly urbanizations of rural areas imaginable. It seems to me that hiding in Buddhism is a kind of denial of 'this world''s importance, despite the West's association of Buddhism with nature loving. Of course there were exceptions to all this, but in a very short period of time I watched an island ripped into a very ugly version of the 21st century and there was very little native concern about the price of transforming land into property into money.

[greenberg]

Is it possible that Buddha was wrong? The Buddhist replys yes.

Then he is not a Buddhist.

[greenberg]

As for openmindedness, it's something I have found in many Buddhists. Maybe not all, but all the ones I have spoken with.

Something that can appear to look as open-mindedness can simply be the person minding their own business.

It is a common teaching in Buddhism to empasize that one should first and foremost pay attention to one's own thoughts, words, and actions; and not to what other people think, say, and do.

One of the effects of this is that such a person will not criticize others much, and will thus appear to be "open-minded".

[greenberg]

I found that they had very little in their culture to prevent mass destruction of nature and the kind of outlook that creates zoning laws - hence some of the most ugly urbanizations of rural areas imaginable. It seems to me that hiding in Buddhism is a kind of denial of 'this world''s importance, despite the West's association of Buddhism with nature loving. Of course there were exceptions to all this, but in a very short period of time I watched an island ripped into a very ugly version of the 21st century and there was very little native concern about the price of transforming land into property into money.

This is something that has always troubled me about traditionally Buddhist or partly Budhist countries - how easily capitalism and Western culture took over there. Japan and Thailand being painful examples, but others as well.
Similar has happened with many other nations and tribes worldwide. It hurts me to see a member of an African warrior tribe, dressed in a T-shirt and baseball cap.

What is it about these people and nations that makes them so vulnerable to Western influence?

[everneo]

This is something that has always troubled me about traditionally Buddhist or partly Budhist countries - how easily capitalism and Western culture took over there. Japan and Thailand being painful examples, but others as well.

Buddhism spreaded and patronized with the support of ruling class of these countries. Capitalism is not seen as adversary to the buddhist establishments as long as the patronizing continues.

Buddhist population is not averse to day-to-day violation of buddhist philosophy. May be monks are strict vegitarians and avoid 'pleasures' of life. Not the public. No in-built oppostion is present for the public in adapting tempting cultures.

[Jozen-Bo]

No matter if I meet Singaporean Buddhists or Japanese Buddhists or read about Tibetian Buddhists - they always give me an impression of openmindedness not found in most monotheism. I beleive it is because their philosophy is simply superior.

Here's an excellent example:

Always stressing that the Buddha's own words should be thrown out if they are shown by scientific inquiry to be flawed, the Dalai Lama is the rare religious figure who tells people not to get needlessly confused or distracted by religion ("Even without a religion, we can become a good human being"). No believer in absolute truth—he eagerly seeks out Catholics, neuroscientists, even regular travelers to Tibet who can instruct him—he is also the rare Tibetan who will suggest that old Tibet may have contributed in part to its current predicament, the rare Buddhist to tell foreigners not to take up Buddhism but to study within their own traditions, where their roots are deepest.

Notice he says that the Buddha's own words may be flawed and if so toss them out.
Notice his point about people holding to their own traditions and beleifs.

Compare this with Xian evangelism or ideas of "perfect" books.


Michael

Scratch....


Everything you encounter is True, you just need to know where it fits!!!

[S.A.M.]

Something that can appear to look as open-mindedness can simply be the person minding their own business.

Or being polite. Conservative traditionalists in India are like that. Even if they think you're an arse, they won't say it. Its not polite to misbehave with a guest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqzvcVb2GgE

[limbert65]

New here. First post. Interesting discussion. A couple thoughts of mine that might be relevant:

1) The original point was that Buddhists may be more "open minded" than followers of other religions. My experience with Buddhist philosophy is that at its most fundamental level, it's about personal inquiry. Meditation is all about the individual trying to see reality directly, without the filters of teachings, scriptures, etc. There's even a particular sutra where the Buddha advises that followers NOT believe things just because they are said by authorities or written in scripture. In that sense, a certain sense of open-mindedness is built into Buddhism at its core. This may not always be reflected in the actions of people who call themselves Buddhist, but it's definitely strongly represented in traditional teachings.

2) One post said something to the effect that if a Buddhist were to say that the Buddha could be wrong, then that person couldn't be a Buddhist. This is totally wrong, and it illustrates a fundamental difference between Buddhism and Western religions: the Buddha is not a God. He is not infallible. He is not divine. In fact, many Buddhists would concede that he may not even have actually existed; the Buddha of the scriptures may be a charicature (which, in fact, I believe about both Buddha and Jesus). Don't forget the old "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him." Different people have different interpretations of this phrase, but many Buddhists believe that it's to illustrate that the Buddha is not a divine being to be revered.

[Michael]

Something that can appear to look as open-mindedness can simply be the person minding their own business.I agree that this can be the case sometimes.

But that was not the case this time. I spent four years of my doctoral studies in a lab with another student who happened to be a Singaporean Buddhist and we had plenty of time to have in depth conversations about religion. I can guarantee we didn't agree all the time (we had many disagreements just as two people will) and I can guarantee he was of the same type of open-minded opinion as displayed in the OP.

I lived in a Buddhist temple with my friends family for a few months in Japan. The father was a priest. Although we had some difficulty communicating, needless to say, it was made clear to me, on many occasions, that guy took the same open-minded attitude as displayed in the OP.

This has happened over and over. Maybe not all and maybe not every but I do believe that for many educated Buddhists these sorts of ideas are fundamental to their religious indoctrination/up-bringing.

As for Xianity and Islam, I have known many educated Xians and Muslims - they are in general both closed-minded in like regards. SAM here can't even admit that the possibility could even exist that Mohammad was not a Prophet. The possibility that the Qur'an is wrong can not exist. (notice I'm not asking if SAM thinks it is flawed, I'm asking if the possibility of it being flawed exists) SAM spent half of the thread trying figure out a way to post-hoc prove this point (ex: "What exactly does it [the Qur'an] say about the one God?") is a shallow attempt to prove to herself that the Qur'an is indeed perfect and hence her attitude is open-minded simply because it is a universal truth that the possibility of the Qur'an being wrong does not exist.

Get it?

IMO this is confirmation of the OP in regards to monotheism.

I simply do not find that the educated Buddhists I have spoken with take such an attitude. And so, it was of no surprise when I read as much from the interviewed Tibetan Buddhist.

Michael

[Michael]

Hello limbert65,

Welcome to Sciforums.
Nice post.

Michael

[S.A.M.]

Michael:

have you read the Quran?

[Fraggle Rocker]

This is something that has always troubled me about traditionally Buddhist or partly Budhist countries - how easily capitalism and Western culture took over there. Japan and Thailand being painful examples, but others as well. Similar has happened with many other nations and tribes worldwide. It hurts me to see a member of an African warrior tribe, dressed in a T-shirt and baseball cap. What is it about these people and nations that makes them so vulnerable to Western influence?It isn't something about them that makes them vulnerable. There's something about Western culture that makes it attractive, and it's our prosperity.

Keep in mind Maslow's hierarchy. When people are struggling for stability and security, or simply for survival, the niceties of their tribe's or nation's culture aren't as important to them. That's hard for us with our full bellies, safe homes, steady jobs and pampered children to understand, because we have spare emotional capacity to sit around and think about the niceties of the world's various cultures and find our own lacking. They don't.

We know that to a greater or lesser extent it's an accident of history that the West sprang ahead in the last 500 years. (Although the Enlightenment that has eluded many of the world's other societies--perhaps most glaringly Islamic--played an undeniable role in it.) America was the engine of the West's prosperity until recently, and America was an entire hemisphere that had never supported an Iron Age civilization, so its resources were largely untapped. Europe helped itself to the resources of the rest of the world, or as it was recently put, "The reason there was no Industrial Revolution in India, even though unlike China India was ready for it, is that India was forced to build England's Industrial Revolution."

But people in other countries don't understand that. They look around and see nothing but Neolithic housing, transportation, education, medical care, diplomacy, etc. and all they can do is look at Europe, America, Japan and Australia and say, "Whatever they did to get that, I want some too."

As for Japan, come on dude. Remember who lost WWII? We got to rebuild that country, from the ashes up, in our image. And we did a damn fine job of it. We even wrote their constitution. Our management consultants and efficiency experts, who couldn't get a meeting over here, went over there and were revered as sensei by a humiliated people who were determined to put as much of their past behind them as possible.

[Michael]

have you read the Quran?I was given an Qur'an years ago. To be honest - after 5 chapters I found myself skimming large sections as I was board to tears.

Why?

[greenberg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqzvcVb2GgE

Does this really happen?

I don't think anyone would dare do such a thing in Europe, for fear of lawsuits.

[greenberg]

It isn't something about them that makes them vulnerable. There's something about Western culture that makes it attractive, and it's our prosperity.

Keep in mind Maslow's hierarchy. When people are struggling for stability and security, or simply for survival, the niceties of their tribe's or nation's culture aren't as important to them. That's hard for us with our full bellies, safe homes, steady jobs and pampered children to understand, because we have spare emotional capacity to sit around and think about the niceties of the world's various cultures and find our own lacking. They don't.

But people in other countries don't understand that. They look around and see nothing but Neolithic housing, transportation, education, medical care, diplomacy, etc. and all they can do is look at Europe, America, Japan and Australia and say, "Whatever they did to get that, I want some too."

This goes to show that culture and national identity can be very superficial.


As for Japan, come on dude. Remember who lost WWII?

The westernization of Japan started much earlier than WWII.


We got to rebuild that country, from the ashes up, in our image. And we did a damn fine job of it. We even wrote their constitution.

I hope you are saying this with sarcasm!

[greenberg]

I lived in a Buddhist temple with my friends family for a few months in Japan. The father was a priest. Although we had some difficulty communicating, needless to say, it was made clear to me, on many occasions, that guy took the same open-minded attitude as displayed in the OP.

You mean - this priest was saying he is willing to admit that the Buddha was wrong?


This has happened over and over. Maybe not all and maybe not every but I do believe that for many educated Buddhists these sorts of ideas are fundamental to their religious indoctrination/up-bringing.

I know such people too.
I think they are awfully arrogant.

By virtue of the content of the Buddhist teachings, those who could rightfully be in the position to dimiss or amend the Buddhist teachings would have to be superior to the Buddha.
A person who could rightfully dismiss or amend the Buddhist teachings would have to have attained everything the Buddha did, and more.

Otherwise, they are making baseless claims to superiority.


As for Xianity and Islam, I have known many educated Xians and Muslims - they are in general both closed-minded in like regards.

Why should they be open-minded?
So that they will be more in line with some liberal meainstream policy?
To get approval from people like you?


SAM here can't even admit that the possibility could even exist that Mohammad was not a Prophet. The possibility that the Qur'an is wrong can not exist. (notice I'm not asking if SAM thinks it is flawed, I'm asking if the possibility of it being flawed exists) SAM spent half of the thread trying figure out a way to post-hoc prove this point (ex: "What exactly does it [the Qur'an] say about the one God?") is a shallow attempt to prove to herself that the Qur'an is indeed perfect and hence her attitude is open-minded simply because it is a universal truth that the possibility of the Qur'an being wrong does not exist.

Perhaps one day you will get serious and realize that your life is on the line.

[S.A.M.]

As for Japan, come on dude. Remember who lost WWII? We got to rebuild that country, from the ashes up, in our image. And we did a damn fine job of it. We even wrote their constitution. Our management consultants and efficiency experts, who couldn't get a meeting over here, went over there and were revered as sensei by a humiliated people who were determined to put as much of their past behind them as possible.

You're kidding, right?

Does this really happen?

I don't think anyone would dare do such a thing in Europe, for fear of lawsuits.


Its a satire about tourists who come to India and behave badly. The rest of course, is what they cannot do in real life. :)

[Michael]

You mean - this priest was saying he is willing to admit that the Buddha was wrong?The Priest told me he needed to do more studying as there is a lot he simply didn't know or questions he hadn't thought about. One day some Westerner pops up in your Temple and asking you questions that you hadn't thought over - it's not like the guy is going to just start popping out answers left and right. Most of my questions aren't even my questions but philosophical arguments I have read ages and ages ago. Nestled in most anything I think is an interesting question is probably really just a rehash of something I read from someone else long ago.

So, can I remember everything I specifically asked that particular Buddhist priest? No. It was over 2 years ago. But, I can email him if you have a question you'd like me to ask.

Anyway, the point is, IMO, not all Buddhists take the attitude that Buddha was the end all and be all. That is the exact same trap the Byzantine fell into with their almost honorary worship of Greek philosophers.

I understand Aristotle was a brilliant person but to suggest he was the pinnical of human thought leaves no room for people like Kent. Right? People are a product of their time and their surroundings. I think this is the point that the Tibetan Buddhist was trying to make. Buddha was, as is everyone, a product of his time and culture. That said he seems to have had remarkable foresight. Was he absolutely crystal clear on every little thing? Maybe not. The possibility he may be wrong on this or that certainly exists. Admitting that this possibility exists is the open mindedness I am referring to.

[at one time people thought that the possibility could not exist Aristotle could be wrong]

Does SAM need my approval? No.
These debates are supposed to be just that - debates.
She is simply being illogical and thus losing the debate.
Nothing wrong in that.

I do not understand you reference to my "life being on the line". IMO life not lived on the line isn't one worth living.

Michael

[S.A.M.]

I've been saying all along that Buddhists don't follow Buddha. I don't understand why you are now impressed by this

[Michael]

I have no idea if they follow Buddha. I'm sure there are a lot of people (a few on these boards) that would say "I've been saying all along SAM doesn't follow "The" Prophet."

That's not my point.
My point is that it's been my experience that "Buddhists" are open minded and monotheists are close minded.

I personally think it's good to be open-minded but that's just my prerogative.

[Vkothii]

My experience is that it doesn't seem to matter what the underlying philosophy might be, everyone who is religious is also into ritual (offerings to the almighty who can then grant some benefit), and a serious belief in the attainment of some kind of special status (divinity), by adhering to doctrine, i.e. becoming one of the "chosen", or lucky few, or whatever.

The Buddhists I live with are happy to offer up all kinds of things to the shrine they keep (religiously) in any house they occupy.
Money, as in cold hard cash, is a common offering (the hope is that it will become "lucky" money), I've seen makeup ("lucky" makeup, or cosmetics), various other trinkets of unfathomable purpose, but there's a sample.

Despite what Buddha actually said, people want something and someone to worship, and to entreat with prayers and offerings. That's the connection they want, rather than any understanding of themselves. They want to dump it all on a bigger set of shoulders.

[Michael]

people want something and someone to worship, and to entreat with prayers and offerings. That's the connection they want, rather than any understanding of themselves. They want to dump it all on a bigger set of shoulders.I totally agree.
I just think that if human superstitious need is tempered with positive religious dogma such as an insistence to try and remain open minded that this is much better for both the person and the society than when people are indoctrinated to be close-minded.

If the underlying values are humanistic then it really doesn't matter if one wraps it in a Buddhists robes, a Sikh turbin or a Xeno DC-8 UFO.

Michael

[BeHereNow]

"A special transmission outside the scriptures;
Depending not on words and letters;
Pointing directly to the human mind;
Seeing into one's nature, one becomes a Buddha."


If I meet the Buddha on the way to market, I will whack him with my spade, and plant him in my garden, to help the flowers grow.

[greenberg]

If the underlying values are humanistic then it really doesn't matter if one wraps it in a Buddhists robes, a Sikh turbin or a Xeno DC-8 UFO.

You seem to think that humanistic values are superior to all others.
Am I understanding you correctly?

[greenberg]

My point is that it's been my experience that "Buddhists" are open minded and monotheists are close minded.

I'm not denying or questioning your experience.

But to make statements about Buddhism or monotheism as such, we need to look into their doctrine, not in the behavior of people who call themselves "Buddhists" or "monotheists".
The doctrine of Buddhism, the instructions therein, could be said to be extremely closed-minded.

The thread title is "Something I noticed about Buddhism".
But the correct way to title that which you are discussing here is "Something I noticed about people who call themselves 'Buddhists'".

[Michael]

You seem to think that humanistic values are superior to all others.
Am I understanding you correctly?Humanistic "values" are as subjective as are any morality sets so no I wouldn't use the words superior. An ancient Roman's ideas on value would be very different than my own. I wouldn't argue mine were superior to his.

[Michael]

The thread title is "Something I noticed about Buddhism".
But the correct way to title that which you are discussing here is "Something I noticed about people who call themselves 'Buddhists'".Well, I'm not sure that the two can be differentiated? Buddism is what is practiced? People who practice Buddhism are called Buddhists?

[greenberg]

Well, I'm not sure that the two can be differentiated? Buddism is what is practiced? People who practice Buddhism are called Buddhists?

When you look at a person's speech and behavior, do you assume that everything they say and do reflects the religion or philosophy they declare to adhere to or be members of?

[Michael]

When you look at a person's speech and behavior, do you assume that everything they say and do reflects the religion or philosophy they declare to adhere to or be members of?
No, but when I hear something over and over I tend to think that this must be part of the basic foundation of that beleif. For example, I often hear Muslims say Mohammad was the Last Prophet. Doesn't mean they all think that but most do. I often her Xians say Jesus died for my sins, probably most Xians think this. I often hear Buddists state that Buddha was a man like any other and is not infalible. As a matter of fact I asked a Buddhist that question today and got that exact answer.

[greenberg]

I often hear Buddists state that Buddha was a man like any other and is not infalible. As a matter of fact I asked a Buddhist that question today and got that exact answer.

Whom did the other person mean:
Siddhartha Gotama, or the Buddha?

[Michael]

Good question. I will ask. I'm pretty sure they meant Buddha.