THE ONLY TRUE RELIGION DEBATE
-
Originally posted by I No Stupid:
hmmm ... I say your question " ... you believe its confluent with Buddha's teaching?" is pathetic. Many other teachings are in congruent with Buddha's but are those teachings uttered by Buddha?
How is it pathetic when its referred to the sayings and teachings of Buddha? Are you even relating to the same context? I'm beginning to have pity on you... but no sympathy from me. You deserve to be ignorant.
-
Of course 4nt sounds logical, but the truth certainly isn't derived from logic. Enlightenment means to realize truth in direct experience. Knowing this by logic alone is pointless!
I.E. Why does craving and clinging cause suffering? It is simply realized to be so! This is the nature of experience! There is no deep logic to it, you simply realize that this is how experience unfolds via dependent origination.
What is the truth of the end of suffering? Obviously this can only be discovered in direct experience! Only a person who has ended suffering such as Buddha is able to describe the truth about nirvana!
What is the truth of the path that ends suffering? Again, obviously only someone who has walked this path will be able to describe it. Just like doctors don't just produce medicine out of their imagination, they had to test it on someone first.
As for supernatural powers and rebirth, I think it is hardly unbelievable. There are countless research studies on children's past lives by scientists like dr ian stevensons whose studies were published in well known scientific and medical journals. These childrens' past lives could be traced and proven to be true.
There are also a lot of people even today who has experiences with powers, recalling of past lives etc, even in this forum. But I digress. But I have to say powers are a very common thing in Buddhism but fortunately/unfortunately, there is a rule by Buddha that monks cannot openly display powers to lay persons. Why? I guess its because he didn't want buddhists to sidetrack and turn buddhism into a circus.
-
But I have to say powers are a very common thing in Buddhism but fortunately/unfortunately, there is a rule by Buddha that monks cannot openly display powers to lay persons. Why? I guess its because he didn't want buddhists to sidetrack and turn buddhism into a circus. lols.....that is so well expressed. Unfortunately Lu Sheng Yen has turned Buddhism into a cult using supernatural stories to lure ignorant into his True Buddha School.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
How is it pathetic when its referred to the sayings and teachings of Buddha? Are you even relating to the same context? I'm beginning to have pity on you... but no sympathy from me. You deserve to be ignorant.
You don't know what you are saying? Read again your own post and my reply. No need to pity or have sympathy for me. There are many nursing homes you can spend your time there to break your ignorance.
-
AEN: There are also a lot of people even today who has experiences with powers, recalling of past lives etc, even in this forum. But I digress. But I have to say powers are a very common thing in Buddhism but fortunately/unfortunately, there is a rule by Buddha that monks cannot openly display powers to lay persons. Why? I guess its because he didn't want buddhists to sidetrack and turn buddhism into a circus.
Indeed, there are a lot of people with power - Col Gaddafi of Libya is one. I am sure his past lives were terrible ones. If monks have power, why need to eat?
Buddha in his life time already had problems and troubles with the monks. Imagine what kind of havoc and circus if monks had the powers. You think Buddha can restraint them?
-
Originally posted by I No Stupid:
You don't know what you are saying? Read again your own post and my reply. No need to pity or have sympathy for me. There are many nursing homes you can spend your time there to break your ignorance.
Thus, I'm convinced you don't have what it takes to answer. Thanks for sharing that ignorance is breakable over those places. I figure you are the only one capable to do so when you are there, since you have such beliefs. Until then, enjoy your solipsism. Or are you saying you have attained this broken ignorance from those places?
"If monks have power, why need to eat?"
Which power does not need the owner to eat in order to sustain it?
"You think Buddha can restraint them?"
Yes, but he didn't. Why? Negative example and their consequences.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
Thus, I'm convinced you don't have what it takes to answer. Thanks for sharing that ignorance is breakable over those places. I figure you are the only one capable to do so when you are there, since you have such beliefs. Until then, enjoy your solipsism. Or are you saying you have attained this broken ignorance from those places?
"If monks have power, why need to eat?"
Which power does not need the owner to eat in order to sustain it?
"You think Buddha can restraint them?"
Yes, but he didn't. Why? Negative example and their consequences.
hahaha, by now you should know why Buddha's toes are laughing. Superman has power only when he wears his underwear outside his costume otherwise he still needs to eat and fall in love. So, monks have powers when they wear the robe otherwise they need to eat, hah?
Buddha didn't try to restraint rogue or ill-disciplined monks? Wake up, what is the Vinaya for?
Thus, have I answered your questions. Keep them coming so that I can show you my ignorance.
-
"hahaha, by now you should know why Buddha's toes are laughing. Superman has power only when he wears his underwear outside his costume otherwise he still needs to eat and fall in love. So, monks have powers when they wear the robe otherwise they need to eat, hah?"
Is it only me or the sentence above does not make contextual or logical sense? Really, comparing some comic character with everyday monks is hyperbola. I repeat the question just for your sake since I take pity on your state of mind, what powers does monks have that does not need the owner to eat in order to sustain it?
"Buddha didn't try to restraint rogue or ill-disciplined monks? Wake up, what is the Vinaya for?"
The fact that there are rogue monks proves the Vinaya is for something else than the rogue monks. The fact that there are rogue monks proves that either Buddha is powerless about it or the existence of rogue monks have other value/s.
"Thus, have I answered your questions. Keep them coming so that I can show you my ignorance."
You mean you believe your posted questions are answering my questions? I'm wondering where you get your qualifications from... Please... either answer forthcomingly or cut the pretence of knowing the answers, if you like to maintain a serious discussion. I'm begining to slight your posts as totally inserious without any objectives in contributing further to this thread. 真金�怕红炉�,pardon me if it seems that I'm antagonizing you. I'm seeking absolutes, not mere opinions in this thread. Yet you persist in focusing on ignorance, the only correct thing I can do is to dismiss any points you could have to save my time and... emphathy. Bless....
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"hahaha, by now you should know why Buddha's toes are laughing. Superman has power only when he wears his underwear outside his costume otherwise he still needs to eat and fall in love. So, monks have powers when they wear the robe otherwise they need to eat, hah?"
Is it only me or the sentence above does not make contextual or logical sense? Really, comparing some comic character with everyday monks is hyperbola. I repeat the question just for your sake since I take pity on your state of mind, what powers does monks have that does not need the owner to eat in order to sustain it?
"Buddha didn't try to restraint rogue or ill-disciplined monks? Wake up, what is the Vinaya for?"
The fact that there are rogue monks proves the Vinaya is for something else than the rogue monks. The fact that there are rogue monks proves that either Buddha is powerless about it or the existence of rogue monks have other value/s.
"Thus, have I answered your questions. Keep them coming so that I can show you my ignorance."
You mean you believe your posted questions are answering my questions? I'm wondering where you get your qualifications from... Please... either answer forthcomingly or cut the pretence of knowing the answers, if you like to maintain a serious discussion. I'm begining to slight your posts as totally inserious without any objectives in contributing further to this thread. 真金�怕红炉�,pardon me if it seems that I'm antagonizing you. I'm seeking absolutes, not mere opinions in this thread. Yet you persist in focusing on ignorance, the only correct thing I can do is to dismiss any points you could have to save my time and... emphathy. Bless....
hahaha, now it is my toes laughing..... you are the one who said monks have powers and they need to eat. I guess their powers come from food, hah?
Buddha certainly tried to restraint rogue monks but there was a limit to what he could do. You thought otherwise. Go, read your own post carefully.
Yes, I believed wholeheartedly I answered your questions if not your pretention. Where did you get your qualification to answer my questions? If my posts are not serious, you won't be here. I don't think you are antagonsing me, more like entertaining me, short of a circus act, just for laugh.
-
The only true religion is the one that one believes regardless of what others may think of it. What's true is, there is no religion. Only what one believes.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
The only true religion is the one that one believes regardless of what others may think of it. What's true is, there is no religion. Only what one believes.
Because most of us have the need to conceptualize, and when we communicate and need to give things names/labels, we call something a religion, a philosophy, psychology, a method, etc. Beyond conceptualization, what's a religion anyway, eh? -
Just believe whatever you want and mind your own business.
END OF STORY.
-
Originally posted by realization: Because most of us have the need to conceptualize, and when we communicate and need to give things names/labels, we call something a religion, a philosophy, psychology, a method, etc. Beyond conceptualization, what's a religion anyway, eh?
//Beyond conceptualization, what's a religion anyway, eh?//
Good question, and your definition or understanding or view is?
-
Originally posted by Alloy13:
Just believe whatever you want and mind your own business.
END OF STORY.
There is no business like minding your own business. 'Business' comes from the word 'busy'. It should be spelt 'busyness' but that is incorrect.
Indeed, people have always believed what they wanted to believe. On a civilised basis, we can debate and argue on what is 'true religion'. So long as we do it without resorting to violence and physical harm, it is OK. At most our EGO get bruised.
How many religions really adhere to non violence? Take the Spanish Inquisition. Take the Muslim jihad. Take the Christian crusade. Take the Buddhist monks in Sri Lanka participating in political activities that often turned violent.
End of Story? Sorry, my friend, plenty of stories.
-
Originally posted by I No Stupid:
There is no business like minding your own business. 'Business' comes from the word 'busy'. It should be spelt 'busyness' but that is incorrect.
Indeed, people have always believed what they wanted to believe. On a civilised basis, we can debate and argue on what is 'true religion'. So long as we do it without resorting to violence and physical harm, it is OK. At most our EGO get bruised.
How many religions really adhere to non violence? Take the Spanish Inquisition. Take the Muslim jihad. Take the Christian crusade. Take the Buddhist monks in Sri Lanka participating in political activities that often turned violent.
End of Story? Sorry, my friend, plenty of stories.
Talk so much but do not understand what Buddha was trying to preach. Words, names etc.etc. are emptiness. They are names given by humans. Enlightened ones will not be bothered by names and words. Buddha taught us how to liberate ourselves from sufferings. Playing with words will not liberate you from sufferings. è¯è¨€æ–‡å—是空相的。
-
Originally posted by Dawnfirstlight:
Talk so much but do not understand what Buddha was trying to preach. Words, names etc.etc. are emptiness. They are names given by humans. Enlightened ones will not be bothered by names and words. Buddha taught us how to liberate ourselves from sufferings. Playing with words will not liberate you from sufferings. è¯è¨€æ–‡å—是空相的。
hahaha, you don't talk? And you are here? Be a dumb and that is emptiness. So what are enlightened ones bothered with? To come back again to save sentient beings - human, dogs and cockroaches?
-
Originally posted by I No Stupid:
hahaha, you don't talk? And you are here? Be a dumb and that is emptiness. So what are enlightened ones bothered with? To come back again to save sentient beings - human, dogs and cockroaches?
hahaha, I talk but obviously not as much as you. Oh, is that your understanding of emptiness ? Dumb = Emptiness ? I see your understanding of Buddhism now.
-
what is the intention behind a discussion of this topic?
-
Indeed, there are a lot of people with power - Col Gaddafi of Libya is one. I am sure his past lives were terrible ones. If monks have power, why need to eat?
Buddha in his life time already had problems and troubles with the monks. Imagine what kind of havoc and circus if monks had the powers. You think Buddha can restraint them?
Buddha ate to act 'normal' in the eyes of other humans - also he wouldn't want to be seen as promoting ascetism or 'not eating' since starving yourself isn't going to help in enlightenment.
That said, many yogis actually don't eat:
http://www.youtubetranslations.gr/Buddha_boy_pop_up_en.htm
And yes, Buddha can't restrain them if they chooses to refuse to listen to the Buddha. However, they are bound by a set of rules that if broken could mean they are no longer qualified as part of the monastic community.
-
Originally posted by I No Stupid:
There is no business like minding your own business. 'Business' comes from the word 'busy'. It should be spelt 'busyness' but that is incorrect.
Indeed, people have always believed what they wanted to believe. On a civilised basis, we can debate and argue on what is 'true religion'. So long as we do it without resorting to violence and physical harm, it is OK. At most our EGO get bruised.
How many religions really adhere to non violence? Take the Spanish Inquisition. Take the Muslim jihad. Take the Christian crusade. Take the Buddhist monks in Sri Lanka participating in political activities that often turned violent.
End of Story? Sorry, my friend, plenty of stories.
Why debate it when no resolution can ever be reached? Every religion that comes into the picture is simply one more conflicting story to the already widely-debated issues of the beginning of the universe, meaning of life and so on. Furthermore, there is no easy way to prove or disprove a religion.
Let me tell you what you will find if you delve into the details of each religion. You will find that every religion promises you a better life, and there will be some indication, strong or weak, that you should spread word of this promise of a better future. No prizes for guessing what that will lead to should followers strictly adhere to that.
At the end of the day, what we need to be is goal-oriented. The only reason why we are having this 'discourse' is to prove our beliefs are right, over all others. It is a matter of pride. What I say is, put pride aside and live your life as morally-upright individual without stepping on others' toes. As for the goal of this debate, can you give me one genuine benefit should we arrive at a conclusion stating that "THIS" is the one true religion? Do you honestly believe that the ones who are proven 'wrong' will lay down their beliefs and flock to the newly 'proven' religion? Further animosity and bloodshed will be what you are looking at.
So tell me, friendo, what do you hope to achieve from this? If you cannot adequately answer this, please do not attempt to shatter what little peace we have left in a world full of people stubbornly standing behind their beliefs.
PS: There is a reason why Singapore Government emphasizes tolerance among religions as well as races, instead of trying to thoroughly 'investigate' conflicts of this nature.
-
Actually this discussion has long strayed from the original topic of 'THE ONLY TRUE RELIGION DEBATE'
-
Originally posted by Alloy13:
Why debate it when no resolution can ever be reached? Every religion that comes into the picture is simply one more conflicting story to the already widely-debated issues of the beginning of the universe, meaning of life and so on. Furthermore, there is no easy way to prove or disprove a religion.
Let me tell you what you will find if you delve into the details of each religion. You will find that every religion promises you a better life, and there will be some indication, strong or weak, that you should spread word of this promise of a better future. No prizes for guessing what that will lead to should followers strictly adhere to that.
At the end of the day, what we need to be is goal-oriented. The only reason why we are having this 'discourse' is to prove our beliefs are right, over all others. It is a matter of pride. What I say is, put pride aside and live your life as morally-upright individual without stepping on others' toes. As for the goal of this debate, can you give me one genuine benefit should we arrive at a conclusion stating that "THIS" is the one true religion? Do you honestly believe that the ones who are proven 'wrong' will lay down their beliefs and flock to the newly 'proven' religion? Further animosity and bloodshed will be what you are looking at.
So tell me, friendo, what do you hope to achieve from this? If you cannot adequately answer this, please do not attempt to shatter what little peace we have left in a world full of people stubbornly standing behind their beliefs.
PS: There is a reason why Singapore Government emphasizes tolerance among religions as well as races, instead of trying to thoroughly 'investigate' conflicts of this nature.
hmmm ... you have to ask the one who start this thread the purpose of the 'discourses' here, not mine only! I am not the only participant and you have given your discourse too. You come in like an angel trying to be a peacemaker. By the way, the SG government like many other secular governments steer clear of religious issues for the common-sense reason that no one religious adherent will give way to another whether violently or non-violently.
If you read European history, there was a struggle to separate Church from State. Thank 'God' the struggle succeeded and both Church and State stays at arms' length, not embracing each other!
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Buddha ate to act 'normal' in the eyes of other humans - also he wouldn't want to be seen as promoting ascetism or 'not eating' since starving yourself isn't going to help in enlightenment.
That said, many yogis actually don't eat:
http://www.youtubetranslations.gr/Buddha_boy_pop_up_en.htm
And yes, Buddha can't restrain them if they chooses to refuse to listen to the Buddha. However, they are bound by a set of rules that if broken could mean they are no longer qualified as part of the monastic community.
//Buddha ate to act 'normal' in the eyes of other humans - also he wouldn't want to be seen as promoting ascetism or 'not eating' since starving yourself isn't going to help in enlightenment.//
hmmm ... interesting, so monks eat to act 'normal' too? I think you are delusional.
//That said, many yogis actually don't eat://
The yogis should go to Africa and help the countless hungry children not to eat!
-
Originally posted by I No Stupid:
//Buddha ate to act 'normal' in the eyes of other humans - also he wouldn't want to be seen as promoting ascetism or 'not eating' since starving yourself isn't going to help in enlightenment.//
hmmm ... interesting, so monks eat to act 'normal' too? I think you are delusional.
//That said, many yogis actually don't eat://
The yogis should go to Africa and help the countless hungry children not to eat!
I don't mean that all monks can don't eat. Some can, some cannot.
I doubt hungry children would want to spend years meditating. They rather want an immediate solution such as real food.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
I don't mean that all monks can don't eat. Some can, some cannot.
I doubt hungry children would want to spend years meditating. They rather want an immediate solution such as real food.
//I don't mean that all monks can don't eat. Some can, some cannot.//
You mean there are 'eating' monks and 'non-eating' monks? How do you distinguish them when you offer dana?
//I doubt hungry children would want to spend years meditating. They rather want an immediate solution such as real food.//
So meditation is dummy food? How do you know hungry children won't meditate? If they can be full and not hungry by meditation ... that is better - no need to ask for food aid.