Dozens of heretics killed of in Pakistan... yet, again.

an inconsequential brain fart on the part of siddharta
of course i could do a charitable reading on said fart too but....this is sci

if life is suffering and shedding suffering is a requisite for enlightenment there would be nothing to experience said enlightenment cos one has shed life by shedding suffering

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Interesting quote. Of course, the only way I can really understand what this quote is saying, and what you mean by posting it, is by having you answer the two following questions. I mean, this quote looks all open-minded and tolerant and all, but, lets see. Can Islam really be interpreted in an open-minded and tolerant fashion?
How do you answer these questions SAM?

(1)
Is it possible your belief is not correct SAM?


(2)
Is it possible to teach the ideas: The good will be rewarded in the next life, the bad will be punished in the next life WITHOUT also teaching the following intolerant memes: is Only One God, there is Only One True BooK, there is Only One Last Prophet?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You could bomb a couple of major cities in the war against your <insert religious/political/whatever belief of the moment> instead. Thats been shown to work. Even Michael applauds how well it worked on the Japanese

Exactly. You understand what I am saying perfectly. Now these are in short, the four noble truths of Buddhism.

Its easier to get a lobotomy.

Sure. As possible as me getting a lobotomy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Likewise with the witchhunting victims in most countries of Europe, year by year. Likewise with the KKK terrorism in the US, over the few decades of its major influence.

That is no argument: the extent and severity of such oppression is not measured by the number of its overt victims - the opposite, sometimes: open conflict indicates a change in its grip, which can be either for the weaker or the stronger.

That is almost always the case, not "may be". That is the major intrinsic flaw in "common sense". It not only tells you the earth is flat, it tells you the people who think it's spherical, especially those who actually attempt to act on the notion, are untrustworthy and amoral lunatics out to undermine your community and corrupt your children.

Which then turns this:

into a justification of anything whatsoever.

You do not accept that level of comprehension regarding Islam - why not?

And you compare domestic terrorism to international assault as if they were interchangeable, comparable on the same scale.

 

You're saying that the likelihood that Buddhism or Shinto or Hinduism could teach something as simple as Sura-108 is about the same as you getting a lobotomy? Do you really think so little of these other faiths?


Look, I'm pretty sure you know all cultures since before civilization itself taught something along the lines of Sura-108. But, you seem loath to admit it? I mean, I really wonder if you truly feel you're in danger of be punished by Allah by admitting Allah isn't needed for moral behavior? Don't worry babe, Allah comes a knocken we here at Sciforums will go a stomppen

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

What would a comparative philosophical viewpoint in Islam be, according to you, that I might be disregarding? I generally assess all ideologies based on my sense of whats intuitively right for me. Very often, its only as I delve deeper into them, comparing one with the other that the reason why one is more attractive than the other [to me] becomes obvious. Buddhism fails me at all levels, from its inherent caste system, to its lacklustre and detached approach to life to its nihilistic view of human experience.

Buddham Saranam Gacchami Dhammam Saranam Gacchami Sangham Saranam Gacchami

Why take refuge from life? Why not enjoy it?

If you were to compare Islam philosophically, knowing my views on Buddhism, what part of the ideology do you think I am disregarding?

[I'm using Buddhism as the example given, but I can switch to whatever other ideology you think I should analyse more deeply]

[[we seem to be having the same discussion in two threads, perhaps we could continue it only in one]]

Not at all, like I said there are plenty of escapists and idealists who would be attracted to what Buddhism offers. Seems to me, most Buddhists are not looking for detachment from their attachments to the suffering which is their life. It seems more like they are dilettante who ignore the basic precepts of the religion itself and sublimate their real lives into other communal religious practices which fulfill them [Even the Dalai Lama shoots birds for a hobby while enjoying his Gucci shoes]

Besides people are people, where human nature meets ideology, both mutate each other.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Clearly not ALL life is suffering

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Or maybe, Nirvana, thy name is Gucci [or in the case of the Pope, Prada, although Catholicism does not lean towards self denial in clothing as Buddhism does for its bhikshus]

All that imposed celibacy and unnatural lifestyle, whats the point? Life should be simpler, easier than that. Discipline and social regulation is fine, is needed in fact for mental and physical health, but not when carried to extremes

 

Most Buddhists do not understand Buddhism. As soon as you do, there is no longer any reason to be Buddhist.

 

I guess that's a good a reason as any to relegate the ideology as inferior
:shrug:

 

Its my opinion that an ideal Buddhist would be a solipsist - he/she would detach from everything material and exist only in his own mind.

Would that be correct?

 

No. The self is an illusion that only exists in the mind. Our true state of affairs is unity with the material. Our minds are tools, not the real self. It creates the self as a tool, a mechanism to interact with the material world. Once we know the world as our true self, how can it suffer? Suffering requires a locus, a frame by which to judge positive and negative. We may still maintain the same tools, but in knowing them for what they are, there is freedom.

 

Well that explains, but hardly defends or justifies.

When did you begin doing that? That is your frame date. Everything from then on is fitted to the frame. From the sound of it, about 17 years old.

The atheistic American military command, bomber pilots, etc; the dangerous and especially unhealthy pig meat; the theistic Navajo and the atheistic Zionist; the voluntary choice of burkhas and genital mutilation obviating considerations of female oppression; the dismissal of those followers of other religions who do not meet your comprehension of their religion's precepts as insincere or false; these denials and contortions are fits to frame.

The progress is steadily away from physical reality, and into a fantasy world of believers in a religion essentially different from the others, the holders of good faith in the face of inhuman and atheistic evil - the superior virtue of the oppressed.

 

If you "know" your "mind" is a "tool" how would that imply unity with the material? Buddhists aim for the sangha, the achievement of ultimate nirvana, where all attachment has been detached, in a manner of speaking. But through all of that and to the very end, they are still firmly attached to the mind. What of that? Shouldn't they all aim for samadhi instead? i.e. a state of mind which is "no mind"?

Always done it, I think. Doesn't mean that I have never changed my mind. I'm pretty frustrated, right now for example, with the pussilanimity that seems to personify what passes for liberalism. Inspite of my firmly held views on liberal politics, I have come to see that it has become the domain of those who lack both faith and fidelity to the principles that define it or pretty much anything else. Conscience doth make cowards of us all? . I find myself depending more and more on the predictability of the conservative and their greater devotion to their principles to understand how the world works. In a way, they are indeed my more faithful friends. I can depend on them more surely than on "my side" of the equation.

At 17, which was a very long time ago, I was more of a faithless anarchist, with an astonishing lack of faith in social convention. I don't really recognise myself as the same person now except that I still arrive at conclusions long before I recognise why, only now, I understand that those conclusions need not be final and there is much more grey between black and white. Before it was focused on what I approved of now, its more a process of elimination of all that I consider superfluous.

 

It's an issue of identification. We presently think that thoughts, the self, is more primal than matter. But if the self is understood as an illusion, what is left but the material?

The sangha means something else, like a church, a group of practitioners.

We are minds. The goal of Buddhism is the dissolution of identification with the mind, which as I explained, is merely a mechanism, like a computer. The self then becomes the entire world. Or absent. They are similar ways of looking at the same thing. But the mechanism ticks on, serving the practical needs of thinking. When it doesn't think, there is no self.

“I like to deal with rightists. They say what they really think—not like the leftists, who say one thing and mean another.”

Mao​

 

A delusion, by and large.

Arrogant certainty and decisiveness in judgment is not devotion to principle. Justification by post facto reference to misdescribed principle is not devotion to principle. Predictability in error or crime or denial or incomprehension is not devotion to principle.

Of course, if you define conservatism as adherence to self-described tradition and self-identified socially established principle, as claimed after the fact;

and if on top of that you accept circumstances enforced by contingent power as the inevitable and natural workings of "the world",

the fit is nearly finished - remains only the denial of the occasional dissonant event, the disparagement of the occasional outsider's observation, and the cognitive frame has become all but impossible to even challenge.

Because it does not answer to reason.

 

You have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Islam doesn't have "one prophet," it has a lot of prophets (as). We accept all of the prophets from Musa (as) to Isa (as) to Muhammad (as). If you don't even know the theological context of this and the differences between Sunni beliefs and the beliefs of Ahmadis, then how am I to expect you know anything else about this at all? Not to mention the other considerations such as political, social and so forth.

 

indeed
perhaps we should just watch sam's orthodoxy battle it out with our orthodoxy and do nothing. let this clash of "civilizations" unfold as it is held to be inevitable. let us say good riddance to both of them

 

How does it compare to infidelity to principles and vacillation in action?

The modern liberal.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Excellent. A much more articulate representation of my views.

 

mmm
sam is still exploiting our achilles heel aka buddhism
of course when the criticism consists of gucci clad lamas and imbecilic whatnots, it is rather easy to dismiss them with contempt

 

i have nuances and ambiguities
you have inscriptions in rock
an easy choice for the thinking man

what we have done is easily documented
every check and balance imposed on the savage is due to our efforts

/sneer

 

Too bad your god had no voice in Islam as you Muslims continue to speak for him, yet you just can't agree on anything.

Maybe it's time to let your god do the talking instead.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!