Something I noticed about Buddhism

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

What exactly does it say about the one God?

Hey Kadark, amazing to see the shaqqa shaqqa from you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

Then he is not a Buddhist.

 

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".

 

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?

 

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.

 

Scratch....


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

 

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

 

my $.02

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.

 

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

 

Hello limbert65,

Welcome to Sciforums.
Nice post.

Michael

 

Michael:

have you read the Quran?