Paarsurrey's thoughts on Buddhism

paarsurrey · **#61** by **paarsurrey** » Feb 23, 2012 4:14 pm

Shrunk wrote:

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens

Yes, it is a good quotable quote from Hitchens.

paarsurrey · **#62** by **paarsurrey** » Feb 23, 2012 4:18 pm

trubble76 wrote:You do not believe in your god because it is real

How would you define "real"?

John P. M. · **#63** by **John P. M.** » Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm

Shrunk wrote:
We are simple, humble people here. Please do not use big, difficult to understand words like "attributive." Please rewrite this in a way that a simple, humble person would.

Did you hear the one about the Italian immigrant to the US who upon arrival said "It's-a bit alike-a... how yuu saaay...; 'staking out a position of inventive politics from within the interstices of the matrices of power', me am being correct, yes?"

Shrunk · **#64** by **Shrunk** » Feb 23, 2012 4:25 pm

paarsurrey wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
paarsurrey wrote:
Kuia wrote:
Where is your evidence that there is such a being as god?

The Creator God is attributive; He is everywhere with His attributes.

We are simple, humble people here. Please do not use big, difficult to understand words like "attributive." Please rewrite this in a way that a simple, humble person would.

Attribute is noun and its adjective is attributive.

You may change the word attribute with the word quality; its adjective is qualitative meaning having a quality. If I am wrong to describe; some other fellow poster may explain the lexicon; my pleasure, and no harm.

We are simple, humble people. Please do not use big, difficult to understand words like "adjective" or "qualitative". Please rewrite this in way that a simple humble person, like yourself, would.

trubble76 · **#65** by **trubble76** » Feb 23, 2012 4:26 pm

paarsurrey wrote:
trubble76 wrote:You do not believe in your god because it is real

How would you define "real"?

"real" means "actually existing" but let me expand; you do not believe in Allah because he visted you, showed you some wonders of the divine, spoke to you of godly things and vanished again leaving you with some magic thingy. You believe in Allah because your parents, and Imans, and so on, have told you that Allah is real for your entire life. They genuinely believe in Allah because they too were indoctrinated for their whole lives. This continues all the way back to the first guy that invented it for his own benefit.
Imagine if you had a child and for it's whole life you taught it that god is a two-headed dog called Clancy, if that view remains uncontested by teachers, priests and all, then that child will grow up to fervently believe in Clancy. Just like you fervently believe in Allah.
We call this brainwashing.

Shrunk · **#66** by **Shrunk** » Feb 23, 2012 4:26 pm

John P. M. wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
We are simple, humble people here. Please do not use big, difficult to understand words like "attributive." Please rewrite this in a way that a simple, humble person would.

Did you hear the one about the Italian immigrant to the US who upon arrival said "It's-a bit alike-a... how yuu saaay...; 'staking out a position of inventive politics from within the interstices of the matrices of power', me am being correct, yes?"

No. How does it go?

HughMcB · **#67** by **HughMcB** » Feb 23, 2012 4:32 pm

paarsurrey wrote:
trubble76 wrote:You do not believe in your god because it is real

How would you define "real"?

Not fake.

paarsurrey · **#68** by **paarsurrey** » Feb 23, 2012 4:36 pm

trubble76 wrote:

"real" means "actually existing" but let me expand; you do not believe in Allah because he visted you, showed you some wonders of the divine, spoke to you of godly things and vanished again leaving you with some magic thingy. You believe in Allah because your parents, and Imans, and so on, have told you that Allah is real for your entire life.

We call this brainwashing.

I think that is what you have been given to understand from the fellow atheists. Are you sure that you have been brainwashed? Please

trubble76 · **#69** by **trubble76** » Feb 23, 2012 4:39 pm

paarsurrey wrote:
trubble76 wrote:

"real" means "actually existing" but let me expand; you do not believe in Allah because he visted you, showed you some wonders of the divine, spoke to you of godly things and vanished again leaving you with some magic thingy. You believe in Allah because your parents, and Imans, and so on, have told you that Allah is real for your entire life.

We call this brainwashing.

I think that is what you have been given to understand from the fellow atheists. Are you sure that you have been brainwashed? Please

Nope, this is entirely derived from my adult experiences. I was not raised as an atheist, in fact I hadn't even heard the term used until I was an adult. I have not been made to memorise propoganda, nor have I had any of it reinforced through a system of ritual.
Do you see the difference?

Kuia · **#70** by **Kuia** » Feb 23, 2012 6:29 pm

paarsurrey wrote:
[112:4] ‘He begets not, nor is He begotten;

So you do not believe Jesus was the son of god.
Now, since many people do, how do you know you are right and they wrong?

james1v · **#71** by **james1v** » Feb 23, 2012 6:55 pm

paarsurrey wrote:
Kuia wrote:
Where is your evidence that there is such a being as god?

The Creator God is attributive; He is everywhere with His attributes.

He must have a big pair of "attributes" if they are "everywhere"! :think:

laklak · **#72** by **laklak** » Feb 23, 2012 7:00 pm

Other people's beliefs about invisible sky-fairies - absolutely FALSE.
My belief about invisible sky-fairies - absolutely TRUE.

That's about the extent of it, eh, paarsurrey?

Agrippina · **#73** by **Agrippina** » Feb 23, 2012 7:06 pm

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

You learn something new every day?...

Is there a point or argument you would like to make for people to consider or did you just want to get that info out there?

I am reading Gospel of Buddha thesedays; I like reading root books of the religions. I read something simliar to that and wanted to aks about it. Is it bad to ask something from the follow posters?

A bit off topic here, but why are you speaking in a different voice in this post paarsurrey, we all know you are perfectly fluent in English. For example:

paarsurrey wrote:
I think I should quote from him for your and others perusal, as mentioned in Gospel of Buddha:

If you're not fluent in English, why would you use a word like "perusal?"

What's wrong with men and women looking at each other?
Are you suggesting that there's something wrong with that? :think:

ramseyoptom · **#74** by **ramseyoptom** » Feb 23, 2012 7:18 pm

paarsurrey wrote:
ramseyoptom wrote:
I read root books of the revealed religions with great interest; on the basis of reasonable principles mentioned in Quran we can further sort out essence of right from the wrong easily.

And herein lies one of your problems regarding other religions you read everything through the mediation of the Quran. To understand other religions better you need to remove your Quranic goggles. With religions/philosophies from India/China then using Judaeo/Christian/Islamic modes of thought will cause problems, as the mode of thought that these give rise to and is obvious in some of your posts, a literal reading of what is stated.Whereas in Buddhist, and similar religions, there may be no correct interpretation as this may depend on circumstances and also experience. Buddhism does not require the existance of a god as the Buddha's teaching is a way of liberation and has no other object than the experience of nirvana.

Another point is that you assume that Gautama Buddha was similar to Mohamed, however he is a Bodhisattva, this is a person who has attained nirvana and has decided not to depart from the Round of samsara, the cycle of death and rebirth, and remain for sometime as a teacher.

paarsurrey · **#75** by **paarsurrey** » Feb 23, 2012 7:28 pm

Agrippina wrote:
What's wrong with men and women looking at each other?

Maybe you missed reading the reasnon/s Buddha had given in this connection, I quoted from Buddha; or should I quote it again for you? Please

HughMcB · **#76** by **HughMcB** » Feb 23, 2012 7:31 pm

paarsurrey wrote:
Agrippina wrote:
What's wrong with men and women looking at each other?

Maybe you missed reading the reasnon/s Buddha had given in this connection, I quoted from Buddha; or should I quote it again for you? Please

Why don't you quote from your own mind? Would you be able to do that for us?

What do you think about the OP?

paarsurrey · **#77** by **paarsurrey** » Feb 23, 2012 7:33 pm

james1v wrote:
paarsurrey wrote:
Kuia wrote:
Where is your evidence that there is such a being as god?

The Creator God is attributive; He is everywhere with His attributes.

He must have a big pair of "attributes" if they are "everywhere"!

The Creator God has some 99 or more attributes mentioned in Quran. Please read them from Recitation/Exhortation/Quran using the search engine from the following link, if you maybe interested, no compulsion however:

http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/index.php

paarsurrey · **#78** by **paarsurrey** » Feb 23, 2012 7:40 pm

@ HughMcB

Buddha quoted again, as you asked for it:

"The Gospel of Buddha

The Bikkhu's Conduct toward Women

The bhikkhus came to the Blessed One and asked him: [1]
"O Tathagata, our Lord and Master,
what conduct toward women dost thou prescribe
to the samanas who have left the world?" [2]

And the Blessed One said: [3]

"Guard against looking on a woman. [4]

"If ye see a woman, let it be as though ye saw her not,
and have no conversation with her. [5]

"If, after all, ye must speak with her,
let it be with a pure heart,
and think to yourself,
'I as a samana will live in this sinful world
as the spotless leaf of the lotus,
unsoiled by the mud in which it grows.' [6]

"If the woman be old, regard her as your mother,
if young, as your sister,
if very young, as your child. [7]

"The samana who looks on a woman as a woman,
or touches her as a woman, has broken his vow
and is no longer a disciple of the Tathagata. [8]

"The power of lust is great with men,
and is to be feared withal;
take then the bow of earnest perseverance,
and the sharp arrow-points of wisdom. [9]

"Cover your heads with the helmet of right thought,
and fight wih fixed resolve against the five desires. [10]

"Lust beclouds a man's heart,
when it is confused with woman's beauty,
and the mind is dazed. [11]

"Better far with red-hot irons bore out both your eyes,
than encourage in yourself sensual thoughts,
or look upon a woman's form with lustful desires. [12]

"Better fall into the fierce tiger's mouth,
or under the sharp knife of the executioner,
than dwell with a woman and excite in yourself lustful thoughts. [13]

"A woman of the world is anxious to exhibit her form and shape,
whether walking, standing, sitting, or sleeping.
Even when represented as a picture,
she desires to captivate with the charms of her beauty,
and thus to rob men of their steadfast heart. [14]

"How then ought ye to guard yourselves? [15]

"By regarding her tears and her smiles as enemies,
her stooping form, her hanging arms, and her disentangled hair
as toils designed to entrap man's heart. [16]

"Therefore, I say, restrain the heart,
give it no unbridled license." [17]"

http://reluctant-messenger.com/gospel_b ... ter_33.htm

I think that helps

ramseyoptom · **#79** by **ramseyoptom** » Feb 23, 2012 7:41 pm

paarsurrey wrote:
Agrippina wrote:
What's wrong with men and women looking at each other?

Maybe you missed reading the reasnon/s Buddha had given in this connection, I quoted from Buddha; or should I quote it again for you? Please

And you have totally missed the point that they may not even be the words of the Buddha, but a later addition by a monk who felt that they were a result of his supra-personal state of awakening and should be attributated to the Buddha.

paarsurrey · **#80** by **paarsurrey** » Feb 23, 2012 7:46 pm

Kuia wrote:
paarsurrey wrote:
[112:4] ‘He begets not, nor is He begotten;

So you do not believe Jesus was the son of god.
Now, since many people do, how do you know you are right and they wrong?

The same way as you think that you are right and others are wrong. We have to co-exist in this beautiful world with different concepts; and respect one another.

Paarsurrey's thoughts on Buddhism

Re: Buddha believed in purdah?

Re: Buddha believed in purdah?

Re: Buddha believed in purdah?

Re: Buddha believed in purdah?

Re: Buddha believed in purdah?

Re: Buddha believed in purdah?

Re: Buddha believed in purdah?

Re: Buddha believed in purdah?

Re: Buddha believed in purdah?

Re: Buddha believed in purdah?

Re: Buddha believed in purdah?

Re: Buddha believed in purdah?

Re: Buddha believed in purdah

Re: Buddha believed in purdah?

Re: Buddha believed in purdah

Re: Buddha believed in purdah

Re: Buddha believed in purdah?

Re: Buddha believed in purdah?

Re: Buddha believed in purdah

Re: Buddha believed in purdah?

Who is online