Paarsurrey's thoughts on Buddhism

Several merged threads

Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Paganism, Taoism etc.

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Buddha taught the middle or the moderate path

#181  Postby CdesignProponentsist » Feb 28, 2012 9:58 pm

paarsurrey wrote:
CdesignProponentsist wrote:
paarsurrey wrote:
CdesignProponentsist wrote:

So you are attempting, by proxy, to detach those who commit violent or evil acts in the name of religion from the religious doctrine used to justify it.

The problem with this strategy is that those who commit violent or evil acts in the name of religion are usually interpreting the doctrine correctly. There isn't much in Buddhism that justifies this sort of behavior and any Buddhist acting in such a way is usually acting contrary to the doctrine.


Yet it is the correct strategy; it is not a good strategy to blame innocent person like Buddha or Jesus for the wrongs the Buddhists or Christians have inflicted on the people against the teachings of Buddha and or Jesus.

Detachment or separation of the wrong-doers and the innocents is essentially to be made; otherwise it will be cruelty and injustice to those who are not present and have died and cannot come to defend themselves.


I don't think anyone who is dead can experience cruelty. Besides, as I said, Buddhist doctrine does not include genocide, slaves, child abuse and an almighty God who should be feared and obeyed. Judeo Christian and Islamic doctrine is founded on such inhumanities.

Buddhism also does not claim to speak for God. If you claim to speak for God, then anyone who disagrees with you is wrong and counter to God; a position that has been the justification of most of the genocidal wars of the past, many of them between Muslims and your friends the Christians and Jews.


I was speaking of Buddha and defending him; not the Buddhists or Buddhism.


Defending dead people is a lost cause.
"Things don't need to be true, as long as they are believed" - Alexander Nix, CEO Cambridge Analytica
User avatar
CdesignProponentsist
 
Posts: 12683
Age: 53
Male

Country: California
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Buddha taught the middle or the moderate path

#182  Postby paarsurrey » Feb 28, 2012 10:09 pm

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

Buddhism also does not claim to speak for God. If you claim to speak for God, then anyone who disagrees with you is wrong and counter to God; a position that has been the justification of most of the genocidal wars of the past, many of them between Muslims and your friends the Christians and Jews.


Cristopher Hitchens attacks Buddha, Buddhism and the Buddhists with his weird reason and unscientific approach; he does not separate Buddha as innocent.Please read Chapter Fourteen titled "There Is No “Eastern” Solution" Pages 195-204 of his book.
Last edited by paarsurrey on Feb 28, 2012 10:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
http://paarsurrey.wordpress.com/
We believe:
• Quran- authored by the Creator God; 100% accurate if correctly interpreted
• Sunnah-always existed with Quran; it derives its accuracy from Quran.
• Hadith- accurate only if it does not differ with Quran.
User avatar
paarsurrey
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 2594

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Buddha taught the middle or the moderate path

#183  Postby paarsurrey » Feb 28, 2012 10:11 pm

CdesignProponentsist wrote:
Defending dead people is a lost cause.


while the living could defend themselves
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
http://paarsurrey.wordpress.com/
We believe:
• Quran- authored by the Creator God; 100% accurate if correctly interpreted
• Sunnah-always existed with Quran; it derives its accuracy from Quran.
• Hadith- accurate only if it does not differ with Quran.
User avatar
paarsurrey
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 2594

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Buddha taught the middle or the moderate path

#184  Postby Kuia » Feb 28, 2012 10:27 pm

paarsurrey wrote:

Cristopher Hitchens .... with his weird reason and unscientific approach; please read Chapter Fourteen titled "There Is No “Eastern” Solution" Pages 195-204 of his book.

No I won't read the pages you prescribe. What would be more interesting is to see your explanation of how, exactly, Hitchiens used weird reason and an unscientific approach.
Kuia
 
Posts: 1281

Print view this post

Re: Buddha taught the middle or the moderate path

#185  Postby Shrunk » Feb 28, 2012 10:39 pm

paarsurrey wrote:Cristopher Hitchens attacks Buddha, Buddhism and the Buddhists with his weird reason and unscientific approach; please read Chapter Fourteen titled "There Is No “Eastern” Solution" Pages 195-204 of his book.


I have already asked you to provide the passage in that chapter where he attacks the Buddha. There is no such passage. What you are saying is false.

And you yourself are attacking Buddhism and Buddhists repeatedly in this thread. So I guess you, too, are guilty of "weird reason" and an "unscientific approach."
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Buddha taught the middle or the moderate path

#186  Postby paarsurrey » Feb 28, 2012 10:45 pm

Kuia wrote:
paarsurrey wrote:

Cristopher Hitchens .... with his weird reason and unscientific approach; please read Chapter Fourteen titled "There Is No “Eastern” Solution" Pages 195-204 of his book.

No I won't read the pages you prescribe. What would be more interesting is to see your explanation of how, exactly, Hitchiens used weird reason and an unscientific approach.


Then you shall have to wait till I reach to this chapter while doing my second reading of his book and I comment on it.

Right now I am on the second chapter titled "Religion Kills"; while religion kills nobody.
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
http://paarsurrey.wordpress.com/
We believe:
• Quran- authored by the Creator God; 100% accurate if correctly interpreted
• Sunnah-always existed with Quran; it derives its accuracy from Quran.
• Hadith- accurate only if it does not differ with Quran.
User avatar
paarsurrey
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 2594

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Paarsurrey's thoughts on Buddhism

#187  Postby AlohaChris » Feb 28, 2012 10:56 pm

In the game FAITH-FIGHTER, The Buddha defeats Muhammed quite easily with his enlightenment attack and dharma wheel kick. Therefore Buddhism > Islam. Game Over.

Screen shot 2012-02-28 at 3.47.58 PM.png
Screen shot 2012-02-28 at 3.47.58 PM.png (77.45 KiB) Viewed 2140 times
"Supernatural divinities are the primitive's answer for why the sun goes down at night."
- Cavil of Cylon
User avatar
AlohaChris
RS Donator
 
Name: Chris
Posts: 4453
Age: 50
Male

Country: Uhmerikah
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Buddha taught the middle or the moderate path

#188  Postby Kuia » Feb 28, 2012 11:09 pm

paarsurrey wrote:

Then you shall have to wait till I reach to this chapter while doing my second reading of his book and I comment on it.

Right now I am on the second chapter titled "Religion Kills"; while religion kills nobody.

Why would we have to wait for you to read it again when you have already decided it involves weird reason and an unscientific approach?
You suggested we read it. surely you wouldn't do that if you had no idea of its content? Surely?
Kuia
 
Posts: 1281

Print view this post

Paarsurrey's thoughts on Buddhism

#189  Postby daveWW » May 02, 2012 10:03 pm

People looking to read the primary texts of Buddhism can access the Pali canon- well lots of translated bits- via a great resource at http://accesstoinsight.org -

Really helps me assess what the early, and s-east Asian Buddhist traditions are rooted in.. :-)




---
Dave W
http://dispirited.org
---
daveWW
 
Name: Dave
Posts: 70
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Paarsurrey's thoughts on Buddhism

#190  Postby rcscwc » May 14, 2012 6:46 am

paarsurrey wrote:Buddha believed in purdah; looking at the opposite sex; men looking at the women or women looking at the men.

Is it correct?

a pile of stinking BS.
rcscwc
 
Name: RC Sharma
Posts: 22

Country: India
Print view this post

Re: Paarsurrey's thoughts on Buddhism

#191  Postby Agrippina » May 14, 2012 2:50 pm

What's wrong with looking at the opposite sex? :dunno:
Illegitimi non carborundum
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 36690
Age: 109
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Paarsurrey's thoughts on Buddhism

#192  Postby Shrunk » May 14, 2012 2:53 pm

Has anyone been able to figure out what point this [bpaarsurrey][/b] was trying to make? Did he think that the Buddha prohibited men from looking at women, or not? Did the paarsurrey think this prohibition was a good thing, or not? I never could tell. What a pity he cannot now clarify for himself.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Paarsurrey's thoughts on Buddhism

#193  Postby Macdoc » May 14, 2012 3:05 pm

Go to his website and ask him :coffee:
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 17156
Age: 73
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Paarsurrey's thoughts on Buddhism

#194  Postby Steve » May 14, 2012 8:32 pm

rcscwc wrote:
paarsurrey wrote:Buddha believed in purdah; looking at the opposite sex; men looking at the women or women looking at the men.

Is it correct?

a pile of stinking BS.

I figure it is just flirting in another way - keeping something special as a private thing. What is a relationship without some of this? The problem is when the relationship is not shared - when one partner stops listening to the other. In the end it is not the talking and acts that matter. What matters is the listening and caring.
As your desire is, so is your will.
As your will is, so is your deed.
As your deed is, so is your destiny
Blue Mountain Center of Meditation
User avatar
Steve
RS Donator
 
Posts: 6908
Age: 66
Male

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Buddha believed in purdah?

#195  Postby Saim » May 15, 2012 9:14 am

paarsurrey wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
paarsurrey wrote:Board index ‹ Belief & Nonbelief ‹ Theism ‹ Other Religions & Belief Systems

I think it is proper forum to discuss about Buddha; so the relevance is obvious.

Obvious is self-evident, does not need any evidence; that is why it is called as such; we observe thousand of things in daily life that are self-evident or obvious.


The Byzantine Greeks were Buddhists?


I don't know much of history; I never claim to be a scholar; I am an ordinary man in the street.

But you may like to read the following entry on Byzantine Greeks and Buddhists from Wikipedia:

"Greco-Buddhism, sometimes spelled Graeco-Buddhism, refers to the cultural syncretism between Hellenistic culture and Buddhism, which developed between the 4th century BCE and the 5th century CE in the area covered by the Indian sub-continent, and modern Afghanistan, Pakistan and north-western border regions of modern India. It was a cultural consequence of a long chain of interactions begun by Greek forays into India from the time of Alexander the Great, carried further by the establishment of Indo-Greek rule in the area for some centuries, and extended during flourishing of the Hellenized empire of the Kushans.[citation needed] Greco-Buddhism influenced the artistic, and perhaps the spiritual development of Buddhism, particularly Mahayana Buddhism, which represents one of the two main branches of Buddhism.[1] The Buddhist religious system was then adopted in Central and Northeastern Asia, from the 1st century CE, ultimately spreading to China, Korea and Japan."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhism

There was some interaction between the two.

You may like to read the whole entry; no compuslion however

Are you serious? The Byzantines and the Greco-Buddhists are not the same people just because they were both Greek cultures. Byzantines were around later and in the Mediterranean area, while the Indo-Greeks lived in a different part of the Eurasian continent and date back to Alexander's time. That article is not about "Byzantine Greeks and Buddhism", the Byzantines are not mentioned at all in it, it's about (ancient) Greeks in general and Buddhism.

I'm surprised no-one pointed this out.
User avatar
Saim
 
Posts: 1138
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Buddha believed in purdah?

#196  Postby BlackBart » May 15, 2012 9:39 am

Saim wrote:
paarsurrey wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
paarsurrey wrote:Board index ‹ Belief & Nonbelief ‹ Theism ‹ Other Religions & Belief Systems

I think it is proper forum to discuss about Buddha; so the relevance is obvious.

Obvious is self-evident, does not need any evidence; that is why it is called as such; we observe thousand of things in daily life that are self-evident or obvious.


The Byzantine Greeks were Buddhists?


I don't know much of history; I never claim to be a scholar; I am an ordinary man in the street.

But you may like to read the following entry on Byzantine Greeks and Buddhists from Wikipedia:

"Greco-Buddhism, sometimes spelled Graeco-Buddhism, refers to the cultural syncretism between Hellenistic culture and Buddhism, which developed between the 4th century BCE and the 5th century CE in the area covered by the Indian sub-continent, and modern Afghanistan, Pakistan and north-western border regions of modern India. It was a cultural consequence of a long chain of interactions begun by Greek forays into India from the time of Alexander the Great, carried further by the establishment of Indo-Greek rule in the area for some centuries, and extended during flourishing of the Hellenized empire of the Kushans.[citation needed] Greco-Buddhism influenced the artistic, and perhaps the spiritual development of Buddhism, particularly Mahayana Buddhism, which represents one of the two main branches of Buddhism.[1] The Buddhist religious system was then adopted in Central and Northeastern Asia, from the 1st century CE, ultimately spreading to China, Korea and Japan."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhism

There was some interaction between the two.

You may like to read the whole entry; no compuslion however

Are you serious? The Byzantines and the Greco-Buddhists are not the same people just because they were both Greek cultures. Byzantines were around later and in the Mediterranean area, while the Indo-Greeks lived in a different part of the Eurasian continent and date back to Alexander's time. That article is not about "Byzantine Greeks and Buddhism", the Byzantines are not mentioned at all in it, it's about (ancient) Greeks in general and Buddhism.

I'm surprised no-one pointed this out.


paarsurrey never let facts get in the way of his rambling/preaching/trolling. :coffee:
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Name: rotten bart
Posts: 12235
Age: 58
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Paarsurrey's thoughts on Buddhism

#197  Postby Agrippina » May 15, 2012 5:13 pm

:lol:
Illegitimi non carborundum
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 36690
Age: 109
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Paarsurrey's thoughts on Buddhism

#198  Postby daveWW » May 18, 2012 7:26 am

paarsurrey wrote:
ramseyoptom wrote:The paarsurrey problem with the Guatama Buddha and Buddhism is, I suspect, that he expects the sutras to say what things are rather than as they do which is what things are not. It is also obvious that he has not realised that the Buddha did not believe in a "Creator God", gods are a minor part in the Buddhist canon and because of their nature are unable to reach nirvana unlike man.

The more he posts, on any subject, the more obvious how little he understands.


I think I have clarified many a times that I am speaking about truthful Buddha and defending him; not the corrupted Buddhists or the Buddhism.


And how do you/we know what the Buddha said- other than through Buddhists?

This approach of distinguishing Buddha from the tradition is not practical or possible. The Buddha we know of (unless you mean a previous Buddha, Dīpankara, etc) is a product of early Buddhism: there is no other access to him...

Now- we can compare versions of Buddhism, and see some as more and some as less ethical, or in accordance with our views. We can see some as having philosophical insights we might value, an other strands as intellectually dangerous. That is fine. But trying to separate Buddha from Buddhism is neither an honest nor coherent approach...
daveWW
 
Name: Dave
Posts: 70
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Buddha believed in purdah?

#199  Postby Alan B » May 18, 2012 6:29 pm

Saim wrote:Are you serious? The Byzantines and the Greco-Buddhists are not the same people just because they were both Greek cultures. Byzantines were around later and in the Mediterranean area, while the Indo-Greeks lived in a different part of the Eurasian continent and date back to Alexander's time. That article is not about "Byzantine Greeks and Buddhism", the Byzantines are not mentioned at all in it, it's about (ancient) Greeks in general and Buddhism.

And this is why all the statues we have of Buddha are clothed in the ancient Greek style. The Greek influence was quite the fashion in those days.
Image
I have NO BELIEF in the existence of a God or gods. I do not have to offer evidence nor do I have to determine absence of evidence because I do not ASSERT that a God does or does not or gods do or do not exist.
User avatar
Alan B
 
Posts: 9999
Age: 84
Male

Country: UK (Birmingham)
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Paarsurrey's thoughts on Buddhism

#200  Postby Frank Merton » Mar 16, 2014 3:38 pm

"And how do you/we know what the Buddha said- other than through Buddhists?"

There are a lot of things attributed to the Buddha, just as there are a lot of things attributed to Jesus or whomever. Whether he actually said them is sometimes important, although generally such things fit into what we would have expected him to say. I have yet to find something along these lines from the earlier traditions that I found at all hard to accept or appreciate. What difference does it make if some clever monk somewhere in the jungles of Cambodia thought it up and it fit and worked so well it came to be attributed to the Buddha? Such things deserve such an honor.
Frank Merton
 
Name: Frank Merton
Posts: 364

Country: Vietnam
Vietnam (vn)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Other Religions & Belief Systems

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest