Sanghamitta wrote:The Dhamma is a complete path, which calls for a complete commitment.
Sanghamitta wrote:It was the Buddha who described his Dhamma as the one ("ek" ) Way to Nibbana. It is axiomatic to the Buddhadhamma that no other path has the same end result as does it. Religions can and do contribute in various ways to society, but they do not lead to Nibbana as described by the Buddha.
Sanghamitta wrote:I dont accept the existence of " masters in other religions " whose " enlightenment" equates to that described by, and attained by, The Buddha.
christopher::: wrote:when others say critical things I tend to defend other faiths. I've noticed that this gets me into debates at times, and makes me feel a bit uncomfortable, sometimes, in discussions with fellow Buddhists, where other faiths are mentioned and criticized.
Sanghamitta wrote:You are addressing you points to Peter , Christopher:::, but if I could address a couple of them. You compare a Theists belief in god with going for Refuge in the Buddhist sense. But there is no comparison. The Buddha, not Sanghamitta or anyone on this forum said that to take refuge in god or gods represents a major obstacle to understanding his teachings, that would in fact be impossible., literally impossible for anyone who takes such refuge in god or gods to understand the Buddhadharma. That it is mental barrier to his teachings. So the compassionate thing to do from a Buddhist perspective is to point this out .
Yes - Buddhists should be tolerant of other Religions.
clw_uk wrote:Interesting question id like to ask
If someone said there belief was materialism, would you practice the same tolerance as you would if they said they were muslim?
Chris wrote:Hello all,
Yes - Buddhists should be tolerant of other Religions.
Respect for other teachers
From Buddhist point of view, one should never ridicule a great teacher, merely because he was not a Buddhist. There were great teachers like Zoraster, Confutze, Lao-tze, noble Jesus and many others. A Buddhist should never insult them. To do so is against Buddha's teachings. This freedom of investigation and accepting is encouraged in Buddhist teachings.
This broad-minded approach is seen in the account of Upali's meeting with the Buddha. Upali was a follower of Jainism. He came to the Buddha with a view to argue on some points of Buddha's teachings. But at the close of discussion he was convinced and expressed he wanted to become a Buddha's follower and that he would stop his support to Jain monks who until now he had highly regarded. But the Buddha said: "Consider further! Don't be in a hurry to follow me. Never stop supporting those Jain monks whom you have respectfully treated for so long."
There is another account of certain wandering recluse who had a discussion with Buddha concerning the difference between the doctrines of the both, at which the Buddha said, "Well, my friend, though we discuss our views and practices, don't think that I am trying to convert you to my side. I don't want to do so. You may go on your way, but let us see whether you or we that practice as you and we teach."
Thus there is full freedom of thinking and full freedom of speaking in the teachings of the Buddha. You can even be critical of the Buddha or his teachings and this freedom is extended to all people. So you should not get angry when others say things that you do not agree with. Listen to them and judge impartially, whether they are right or not right. That is the Buddha's way
One of my good friends is a woman who is a practising Muslim - wears the hijab (since the invasion of Iraq by the U.S.). We have wonderful conversations about religion - I'll say "The Buddha taught ....." and she will say "Did he?! Well, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said a similar thing .....". Neither of us tries to convert the other - just enjoy our different and similar understandings.
Peter wrote:Someone believing in materialism is one thing.
Someone claiming the Buddha taught materialism is another.
christopher::: wrote: I find myself defending other paths when the path itself, or the core beliefs, are put down as being meaningless or inferior... such as some recent posts here at dhamma wheel where belief in God was described this way... In my view people who believe in God are going to refuge in that faith, so its something sacred for them, like the 3 jewels are for Buddhists, worthy of respectful speech- even though most Buddhists do not believe in God themselves…
Dharmakiirti's refutation of theism By Roger Jackson
Philosophy East and West 36:4 Oct. 1986 wrote:...it is equally clear that theism in the sense in which I am using it -- as the assertion of an omniscient, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos -- is rejected throughout the length and breadth of the Indian Buddhist tradition. Dharmakiirti's antitheistic arguments may have taken the Buddhist critique to a new level of sophistication, but he had behind him a millennium of refutations, with many of which he undoubtedly was familiar and which ought to be borne in mind when we consider his discussion.
The Paali Nikaayas contain a number of explicit rejections of theism, and some important implicit ones, as well.
For the later Buddhist philosophical tradition, however, the most important early arguments are perhaps the implicit ones: those many passages in the Nikaayas where the concept of a permanent attaa or aatman is rejected, principally on the grounds that no permanent entity is or can be encountered in experience or justified by reason. It really is Buddhism's emphasis on universal impermanence that is at the root of its aversion to the concept of God, as became evident in the sorts of refutations offered in the post-nikaaya period (when the attributes of the creator, identified by the Buddhists as ii`svara, perhaps had become more clearly defined).
http://www.buddhismtoday.com/english/ph ... kiirti.htm
Users browsing this forum: paradox and 25 guests