Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Let's not forget that the Kalachakra Tantra isn't an entirely peace-advocating tradition. It advocates victory over Islam (which crushed Buddhism in India, historically), and the dominance of Buddhism worldwide. Does this mean Buddhism is a violent religion? Of course not. The Bible also advocates violence against non-Christians (I saw a passage from Ezekiel quoted on a forum elsewhere). Interesting how easy it is for some Christians to overlook that, but to assume that all Muslims interpret all of the Koran verbatim and follow every bit of it.
It's so easy and seductive to take the easy way out, and resort to violence. The military-industrial complex and its hawkish advocates in government are always pushing that. Imagine what would have happened if President Kennedy had given in to those elements during the Cuban Missile Crisis. We are now reaping the results of Pres. Bush II's trigger-happy ways in the Middle East. Cooler, more rational heads need to be given a chance to address the complex nature of the problem, and come up with an alternative response.
Watched the Republican Presidential debate last night. All of them, save Rand Paul, were fear mongers. @Dakini, what George Bush, Sr. did got us into a lot more trouble than what his son did. I mean, he should have joined in with other countries and leveled sanctions against Saddam Hussein's Iraq and its invasion of Kuwait —rather than invading it and planting thousands of "infidels" on the Muslim Holy Lands. That's what got the US on the list of enemies more than any other thing since our support of the Shah of Iran. We perceive only what our sensitivities allow us to, and we really need to garner a little more cultural education about other people if we are to hope to live in a peaceful world.
Our real interests (Let's be frank!) are all about oil, the thing that our mobile economies are very dependent upon. Oil prices have roughly halved in the last year*, and yet last night a few candidates were advocating taking the oil for nothing.
WWJD & WWBD mean what would your inspired nature do, and in this spirit I think consuming less fuel and speaking out against the fear mongering and the stupidity is in order. Demonizing those we don't even strive to understand should not be tolerated by sane people anywhere.
*Last year at this time I was paying $3.00 or more per gallon for regular gasoline. Now it's under $1.60 per gallon (upper South Carolina).
@Dakini said:
Cooler, more rational heads need to be given a chance to address the complex nature of the problem, and come up with an alternative response.
Those heads, if they exist, are forced to mute their voices in the Republican Party USA: Whether out of fear or weakness —or both, I cannot say.
Politics boils down to "what's in the air." If it's a lot of dust thrown up by horses in a horse race, the best way to clear the air is for people to stop attending the horse races.
You can count on one thing, politicians in that horse race will blow issues way out of proportion and the world be be a much less stable place for it. They say, "Stability, stability, stability," but all they really want is their own way, their own view of things to win out. But the narrow way can never prevail...
@Nirvana said:
Watched the Republican Presidential debate last night. All of them, save Rand Paul, were fear mongers. @Dakini, what George Bush, Sr. did got us into a lot more trouble than what his son did. I mean, he should have joined in with other countries and leveled sanctions against Saddam Hussein's Iraq and its invasion of Kuwait —rather than invading it and planting thousands of "infidels" on the Muslim Holy Lands. That's what got the US on the list of enemies more than any other thing since our support of the Shah of Iran. We perceive only what our sensitivities allow us to, and we really need to garner a little more cultural education about other people if we are to hope to live in a peaceful world.
Thanks. Any discussion re: the roots of the present crisis is appreciated. The Middle East (and Near East) is one part of the world I've never followed in depth. I'm now playing "catch up", since its issues are coming closer to landing in our own backyards.
I have heard a lot of conflicting stuff about the "killing of infidels" parts of the Quran. While I have read through it, I don't have enough cultural reference to truly understand most of it. One of my Muslim friends told me that a lot of what is reported as harmful quotes, is actually from the part of the Quran that is set in the past and meant as a warning that "we did it this way before, and we shouldn't do it that way again." He said it is divided into learning from the past, living in the present and looking forward to the future. There seems to be as much disagreement among Muslims about the meaning of the Quran as there is among Christians with the Bible. So that makes it hard for people to try to understand. Christianity is kind of the same, with the old and new Testaments where there is condoning of beating children and stoning women. That doesn't mean that most Christians believe that is how it should be today, and they lean much more heavily on the words that don't condone killing. Islam seems to be similar. But, like I said, my understanding from the cultural point of view is limited. I can say I know not a single Muslim who believes that that is what Islam is about-killing those in disagreement with their faith.
@karasti said:
I have heard a lot of conflicting stuff about the "killing of infidels" parts of the Quran. While I have read through it, I don't have enough cultural reference to truly understand most of it. One of my Muslim friends told me that a lot of what is reported as harmful quotes, is actually from the part of the Quran that is set in the past and meant as a warning that "we did it this way before, and we shouldn't do it that way again." He said it is divided into learning from the past, living in the present and looking forward to the future. There seems to be as much disagreement among Muslims about the meaning of the Quran as there is among Christians with the Bible. So that makes it hard for people to try to understand. Christianity is kind of the same, with the old and new Testaments where there is condoning of beating children and stoning women. That doesn't mean that most Christians believe that is how it should be today, and they lean much more heavily on the words that don't condone killing. Islam seems to be similar. But, like I said, my understanding from the cultural point of view is limited. I can say I know not a single Muslim who believes that that is what Islam is about-killing those in disagreement with their faith.
Muslim scholars believe that the word infidel was used to refer to people who were actively trying to hurt the Muslims at that time (because during Mohamed's time Islam was just growing, so Muslims being very few and scattered were often persecuted). But in the 21st century context, it looks completely different. Unfortunately, people who want to attack Muslims use these texts out of context.
Unfortunately, people who want to attack Muslims use these texts out of context.
I think that the question of whether non-Muslims are interpreting the texts correctly or incorrectly is a much less important issue. Muslims are committing mass murders in widely distributed areas of the planet. Does it matter if their interpretaction of their religious literature matches what was intended by the authors thousands of years ago?
Unfortunately, people who want to attack Muslims use these texts out of context.
I think that the question of whether non-Muslims are interpreting the texts correctly or incorrectly is a much less important issue. Muslims are committing mass murders in widely distributed areas of the planet. Does it matter if their interpretaction of their religious literature matches what was intended by the authors thousands of years ago?
Non Muslims r also committing mass murders. There is dukkha everywhere. It is samsara.
@Steve_B said: I think that the question of whether non-Muslims are interpreting the texts correctly or incorrectly is a much less important issue. Muslims are committing mass murders in widely distributed areas of the planet.
Indeed. The jihadists claim their interpretation of the Quran is authentic, and I think it's very difficult for non-Muslims to assess the validity of such a claim. Even Islamic scholars don't agree.
We have some very lively debates about how to interpret the Buddhist suttas, and some of those get very technical. I think a non-Buddhist would find it very difficult to make an informed judgement on the different opinions which are expressed.
Comments
Let's not forget that the Kalachakra Tantra isn't an entirely peace-advocating tradition. It advocates victory over Islam (which crushed Buddhism in India, historically), and the dominance of Buddhism worldwide. Does this mean Buddhism is a violent religion? Of course not. The Bible also advocates violence against non-Christians (I saw a passage from Ezekiel quoted on a forum elsewhere). Interesting how easy it is for some Christians to overlook that, but to assume that all Muslims interpret all of the Koran verbatim and follow every bit of it.
It's so easy and seductive to take the easy way out, and resort to violence. The military-industrial complex and its hawkish advocates in government are always pushing that. Imagine what would have happened if President Kennedy had given in to those elements during the Cuban Missile Crisis. We are now reaping the results of Pres. Bush II's trigger-happy ways in the Middle East. Cooler, more rational heads need to be given a chance to address the complex nature of the problem, and come up with an alternative response.
Buddha would not hurt anyone by calling them terrorists. He'd probably call them freedom fighters.
^^^ @techie
I iz terrorist?
Freedom without fighting is worth fighting for ... wait I think I gone wrong again ...
Where is Manjushri when you need Her?
Watched the Republican Presidential debate last night. All of them, save Rand Paul, were fear mongers.
@Dakini, what George Bush, Sr. did got us into a lot more trouble than what his son did. I mean, he should have joined in with other countries and leveled sanctions against Saddam Hussein's Iraq and its invasion of Kuwait —rather than invading it and planting thousands of "infidels" on the Muslim Holy Lands. That's what got the US on the list of enemies more than any other thing since our support of the Shah of Iran. We perceive only what our sensitivities allow us to, and we really need to garner a little more cultural education about other people if we are to hope to live in a peaceful world.
Our real interests (Let's be frank!) are all about oil, the thing that our mobile economies are very dependent upon. Oil prices have roughly halved in the last year*, and yet last night a few candidates were advocating taking the oil for nothing.
WWJD & WWBD mean what would your inspired nature do, and in this spirit I think consuming less fuel and speaking out against the fear mongering and the stupidity is in order. Demonizing those we don't even strive to understand should not be tolerated by sane people anywhere.
*Last year at this time I was paying $3.00 or more per gallon for regular gasoline. Now it's under $1.60 per gallon (upper South Carolina).
http://www.gasbuddy.com/Charts
http://www.statista.com/statistics/221368/gas-prices-around-the-world/
http://www.globalpetrolprices.com/gasoline_prices/
Those heads, if they exist, are forced to mute their voices in the Republican Party USA: Whether out of fear or weakness —or both, I cannot say.
Politics boils down to "what's in the air." If it's a lot of dust thrown up by horses in a horse race, the best way to clear the air is for people to stop attending the horse races.
You can count on one thing, politicians in that horse race will blow issues way out of proportion and the world be be a much less stable place for it. They say, "Stability, stability, stability," but all they really want is their own way, their own view of things to win out. But the narrow way can never prevail...
Thanks. Any discussion re: the roots of the present crisis is appreciated. The Middle East (and Near East) is one part of the world I've never followed in depth. I'm now playing "catch up", since its issues are coming closer to landing in our own backyards.
I have heard a lot of conflicting stuff about the "killing of infidels" parts of the Quran. While I have read through it, I don't have enough cultural reference to truly understand most of it. One of my Muslim friends told me that a lot of what is reported as harmful quotes, is actually from the part of the Quran that is set in the past and meant as a warning that "we did it this way before, and we shouldn't do it that way again." He said it is divided into learning from the past, living in the present and looking forward to the future. There seems to be as much disagreement among Muslims about the meaning of the Quran as there is among Christians with the Bible. So that makes it hard for people to try to understand. Christianity is kind of the same, with the old and new Testaments where there is condoning of beating children and stoning women. That doesn't mean that most Christians believe that is how it should be today, and they lean much more heavily on the words that don't condone killing. Islam seems to be similar. But, like I said, my understanding from the cultural point of view is limited. I can say I know not a single Muslim who believes that that is what Islam is about-killing those in disagreement with their faith.
Muslim scholars believe that the word infidel was used to refer to people who were actively trying to hurt the Muslims at that time (because during Mohamed's time Islam was just growing, so Muslims being very few and scattered were often persecuted). But in the 21st century context, it looks completely different. Unfortunately, people who want to attack Muslims use these texts out of context.
Unfortunately, people who want to attack Muslims use these texts out of context.
I think that the question of whether non-Muslims are interpreting the texts correctly or incorrectly is a much less important issue. Muslims are committing mass murders in widely distributed areas of the planet. Does it matter if their interpretaction of their religious literature matches what was intended by the authors thousands of years ago?
Non Muslims r also committing mass murders. There is dukkha everywhere. It is samsara.
@Steve_B said: I think that the question of whether non-Muslims are interpreting the texts correctly or incorrectly is a much less important issue. Muslims are committing mass murders in widely distributed areas of the planet.
Indeed. The jihadists claim their interpretation of the Quran is authentic, and I think it's very difficult for non-Muslims to assess the validity of such a claim. Even Islamic scholars don't agree.
We have some very lively debates about how to interpret the Buddhist suttas, and some of those get very technical. I think a non-Buddhist would find it very difficult to make an informed judgement on the different opinions which are expressed.
Buddha would guide 'the person who ask the question' to walk through the path to end the terrorism in that person