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.
in context, my guess is he must have been referring to those wanting happiness in a greedy way, like wanting money, fixing their issues so to become superior to others... as oppose to those seeking liberation out of compassion and love.
don't you think so?
I think it is unclear when one talks about Buddhism as a collection of techniques. To be sure there are techniques, but I don't think that it is right to call it a technology particular when one means to contrast from other religions.
The whole thing reminds me of what has happened to the term "liberal" in American discourse. Left-wing people invented the term "progressive" in order to avoid the pejorative connotation that liberal had gathered after many years of attacks by the right-wing noise machine. In the same way, it seems that nowpeople want to say that Buddhism is not a religion because they view religion as a bad thing. I am not willing to say that. I have friends from many different religious traditions that want this same goal of happiness and also have techniques that they use to pursue it. I think it is mere sophistry to redefine it like that. The distinction if there is one between Eastern and Western is that in the East both philosophy and religion grew up alongside and intertwined. In the West, the religion comes from the Middle East and the philosophy from Greece and Germany.
I said: However, many of us feel that all religions are to be reverenced (not all followers, however!), and that sometimes makes us feel kinship with more than one religion.
Yeah I don't understand that reverence I guess. Respect should be reserved to people, not ideas, in my opinion. That is also why I don't like taboos when discussing ideas/religions/whatever...and why people sometimes take offense ....because they are associating themselves with the ideas/religions. Foolish, if you ask me.
Well, Epicurus, reverence is not just respect, but includes awe. Reverence is a faculty that we have, over which we simply do not have complete control. Therefore, it is not an ethical matter but an aesthetic one. As such, one cannot simply "choose to reserve it" for certain categories of extant things only.
Furthermore, religions are not composed of ideas only, but are a complex matrix of many things, including imagery, lore, feelings of unity with all of nature, etc.
To tell someone that his religion is foolish when he holds it very dear to his heart is to insult him. His religion "completes" him and affects his very will to live. Therefore, as Swami Vivekananda taught, merely to tolerate other religions is not enough; we must revere the ground on which those religions are planted. This is not only for world peace, but for ours as well. We must see our own religions with much more humility.
__________________________
Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep...
If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. —Paul of Tarsus, Romans 12
Yet the teachings again and again emphasize that to achieve the supreme siddhi what is necessary is not a technique but instead devotion to the guru. Trungpa Rinpoche would call the approach of using a technology to obtain happiness "spiritual materialism".
As opposed to yourself who worships only the True and Real Gods (TM), of course.
I have practiced Advaita Vedanta, Shakta Tantra, Qabalah, Hermeticism and Vajrayana each according to its tradition. I am not saying that this is common or necessary, but please demonstrate to me how I am confused as a result. It is no different than practicing many yidams each according to their root tantra, or practicing mahamudra and dzogchen.
Who said anything about eclecticism?? Picking and choosing what one wants is possible just staying within buddhism. Not sure what it means to believe something absolutely, in light of Madhyamaka. Might evidence and at least the bare bones of an argument be more effective in conveying your point of view than simply claiming something absolutely?
Wasn't this the same lady that was touring India in a leather motorcycle jacket? I think her cultural sensitivity might be more suited to Brooklyn than Bodhgaya or Bangalore. Those caves and sites are not owned by any tradition. For a housewife from Brooklyn to be telling the Indian people what they can do with their own cultural and religious sites because of who she thinks she was in a past life is silly. What's next, visiting Alexandria and complaining about how the Queen of Sheba's palace is not as she left it?
Yawn. I get so tired of this stuff. My teacher was recognized as an emanation of Princess Mandarava, the one who was thrown in that pit that now looks like a restroom. Wouldn't that upset you? And who are you to criticize her? I also said nothing about techniques. I said a technology meaning if you follow the teachings you will achieve the goal. Going all over the map to sample this and that spirituality might be entertaining, but there will be no good result. As for whether or not you're confused, I'll let your own words speak for themselves.
Tell that to Buddhism when it tries taking our ego which we hold very dear to our heart.
If a religion really does complete someone, he will not be offended by anything anyone says about it. People are offended only because they doubt.
I never met a Buddhism, so I wouldn't know. But I do know that Right Speech, Right Intent, and Right Livelihood would preclude insulting people. Furthermore, you cannot get people to listen to you if your approach to them makes them instinctively move away from you or even against you.
So people need not have any insecurities? Well go ahead, Superman, and remake their worlds if you can!
I never met a Buddhism, so I wouldn't know. But I do know that Right Speech, Right Intent, and Right Livelihood would preclude insulting people. Furthermore, you cannot get people to listen to you if your approach to them makes them instinctively move away from you or even against you.
Let's be clear, that I never admitted to insulting people based on their beliefs.
But if I'm not allowed to say that the idea of God is to me ridiculous, then I should just go live as hermit for fear of hurting anyone's feelings. Or I could suppress my opinions and let bad feelings fester insight. Everyone is responsible for their own beliefs. And freedom of speech is imperative.
Once again, I don't agree with insulting people. But ideas are no one's propriety.
Yawn. I get so tired of this stuff. My teacher was recognized as an emanation of Princess Mandarava, the one who was thrown in that pit that now looks like a restroom. Wouldn't that upset you? And who are you to criticize her? I also said nothing about techniques. I said a technology meaning if you follow the teachings you will achieve the goal. Going all over the map to sample this and that spirituality might be entertaining, but there will be no good result. As for whether or not you're confused, I'll let your own words speak for themselves.
Palzang
Sorry to keep you up, old boy.
She was recognized to be her, or she remembers being thrown in a pit? Regardless, is this not grasping at a self that doesn't exist? If I was thrown in a pit in this life I would not have any problem with it being used as a latrine, let alone if it happened over a thousand years ago. Self-grasp much?
Who am I? Nobody important, just a meditator with questions. Who do I need to be?
Who cares who she *was*? The question is not whether one is a tulku or not but rather what one does in this current life. Every one of the high tulkus of the Palyul tradition has spent countless years of their life in solitary retreat in spite of being Body, Speech, Mind, Quality or Activity emanations of long tulku lineages. Indeed, large numbers of serious western practitioners are tulkus that haven't been recognized as it is mostly pointless here. The tulku system was only a means to transmit teachings and/or the monastery properties through the generations, not to prop up every 'Queen for a Day' contestant that comes along.
I do not doubt what Penor Rinpoche saw. I also do not doubt that she has inspired many people to practice. Indeed, I am sure that many of her students have exceeded her-- holding gelong/gelongma vows and practicing one-pointedly for a long time, particularly with the great blessing of all the teaching that Penor Rinpoche gave. What I am saying is that without her doing extensive retreat and study, her words can not be viewed as authoritative in the same way as the other lineage masters are. Surely she does not even claim that?? And to be upset that her pit was not kept up and the sheets turned down each night? That's just plain silly.
Nobody mentioned going all over the map to do anything. Practice each according to its own logic and hermeneutic, because maybe (just maybe) one's practice and insight will revivify a tradition that others practice who don't have the tendrel to meet the Buddhist dharma. If you really know the bodhisattva dharma you will see that developing new religious approaches is part of the compassionate activity of the buddhas. Not everything is about one's own aims, is it?
Mighty white of you to let my own words speak. However, I think they cohere and coalesce a viewpoint. If you are going to contradict that viewpoint, you might want to try an argument with actual facts.
Or I could suppress my opinions and let bad feelings fester insight.
third option maybe to learn to deal skillfully with the bad feelings so they eventually dissipate, and be happy and peaceful without ever needing to express potentially hurtful opinions.
Let's be clear, that I never admitted to insulting people based on their beliefs.
But if I'm not allowed to say that the idea of God is to me ridiculous, then I should just go live as hermit for fear of hurting anyone's feelings...
If you tell people straight out that their religion is foolish, you are insulting them. Much better to say, "Well, that's not for me (right now)" We human beings are radically insecure because we are incomplete all by ourselves. Life is very fragile whether we want to believe it or not.
If you tell people straight out that their religion is foolish, you are insulting them. Much better to say, "Well, that's not for me (right now)" We human beings are radically insecure because we are incomplete all by ourselves. Life is very fragile whether we want to believe it or not.
I don't feel the need to stomp other people's ideas. But I do like honesty and open communication. I don't trust someone whose ideas aren't up for debate.
Besides, insecurity be damned. That's the whole problem. People use these religions as fake sources of security. Instead of aligning themselves with truth.
third option maybe to learn to deal skillfully with the bad feelings so they eventually dissipate, and be happy and peaceful without ever needing to express potentially hurtful opinions.
What bad feelings? Do you even know where my bad feelings stem from? It's from seeing people deluding themselves and knowing they are too proud to keep their minds open. And believing in stuff that only will make them suffer, and make other people suffer in return as well.
I guess my whole point, and I hope I wasn't misunderstood (I don't go around waging wars or stepping on people's toes over religion) is that this idea that the onus is on the disagreers to shut up about it, is ridiculous. Everyone has responsibilities for their own beliefs. We are men, not animals.
What bad feelings? Do you even know where my bad feelings stem from? It's from seeing people deluding themselves and knowing they are too proud to keep their minds open. And believing in stuff that only will make them suffer, and make other people suffer in return as well.
How is this different from those who go around trying to "save" people because they "just know they are going to burn in hell" if they don't accept Jesus into their hearts?
One needs to be radically honest with oneself, I agree. When dealing with others of varying levels of maturity, one should err on the side of kindness. As I get older, I value intellectual analysis less and less and openhearted contemplation more and more. Analysis is great at taking things apart piece by piece but it takes aesthetic appreciation to see how things are while they are still living and breathing. Being too certain of oneself or one's own approach sets off warning bells for me now. :-)
What bad feelings? Do you even know where my bad feelings stem from? It's from seeing people deluding themselves and knowing they are too proud to keep their minds open. And believing in stuff that only will make them suffer, and make other people suffer in return as well.
good, so you know where your bad feelings stem from. it should make it easier for you to deal with
Well, Epicurus, what about heroes and tastes in movies?
You can probably get by with most people in disputing about music and the movies, but putting their heroes down is almost as bad as telling parents that their babies are ugly.
There are just some things that nice people don't talk about with everybody, but only with a few like-minded friends. Criticizing people's beliefs accomplishes nothing but furthering feelings of alienation and maybe even isolation. It's all right for people to have dogmas, but not skillful for them to be dogmatically pushing their own agendas.
Next point: We're all deluded to one point or another. Our very well-being depends on our mind processing the things around us through filters that only let significant stimuli stand out while we're busy doing or relaxing. Otherwise we'd go mad. People have the right to their delusions just as much as they have the right to pursue their own happiness on their own terms. In fact, for many, there may be no difference.
I think that Buddha addresses the Delusions that would convince us of our not being deluded. In other words, we are to confront our Illusions and see to it that we can distinguish the real from the mere phenomenal.
How is this different from those who go around trying to "save" people because they "just know they are going to burn in hell" if they don't accept Jesus into their hearts?
Being too certain of oneself or one's own approach sets off warning bells for me now. :-)
Oh, I'm not certain of my approach. That's why I'm open to people debating my ideas as well.
And the difference, is that I don't put time and effort into saving other people. If the topic of conversation happens to come to religion or beliefs, I explain why I believe in what I believe. If debating is started for whatever reason, I'll explain how I feel about the other persons view, but I don't go around baiting people into explaining their believes.
Well, Epicurus, what about heroes and tastes in movies?
You can probably get by with most people in disputing about music and the movies, but putting their heroes down is almost as bad as telling parents that their babies are ugly.
There are just some things that nice people don't talk about with everybody, but only with a few like-minded friends. Criticizing people's beliefs accomplishes nothing but furthering feelings of alienation and maybe even isolation. It's all right for people to have dogmas, but not skillful for them to be dogmatically pushing their own agendas.
Next point: We're all deluded to one point or another. Our very well-being depends on our mind processing the things around us through filters that only let significant stimuli stand out while we're busy doing or relaxing. Otherwise we'd go mad. People have the right to their delusions just as much as they have the right to pursue their own happiness on their own terms. In fact, for many, there may be no difference.
I think that Buddha addresses the Delusions that would convince us of our not being deluded. In other words, we are to confront our Illusions and see to it that we can distinguish the real from the mere phenomenal.
People have right to what they believe they have a right too. Sure, they have a right to believe in anything they want. I don't disagree. It's only when it brings them or other people suffering that I have a problem.
I only really delve into debates about beliefs with friends. And I will never pretend I don't have an opinion on any one thing. I'm very opinionated by nature. And criticizing people's beliefs does accomplish quite a lot. It puts them to a test. That's how I grew.
What you are saying is that I can't come into this board and discuss buddhism because it's anathema to question buddhism in a buddhist forum......it really isn't is it? And I haven't really called anyone dumb for believing what they believe in since I came here. I discussed it. Don't confuse, discussing ideas with discussing people. That's really what this all is about.
That's fair enough. I think the only thing I would point out is that maybe truth is multiple. There might very well be many different models that work, given different viewpoints. The problem comes when we think the model is the reality.
Then we get stuck eating the menu rather than the meal.
Just read the last few posts, and I wanted to point out that Right Speech is not only being truthful, but saying what is beneficial and welcome. We can believe what we want, others can believe what they want, but we should not at any time come off in such an offensive fashion as some things that have been said or suggested in this thread. It's shameful and sad.
We should be free to speak our views if we are skillful in communicating them and not harmful or overtly offensive, tempered by Right Speech which is a very important moral factor of the Noble Eightfold Path. If we can't find ways of getting along with others, we will never benefit from these practices.
I am puzzled by your comment, Cloud. My understanding of Right Speech is: avoiding four types of harmful speech: lies (words spoken with the intent of misrepresenting the truth); divisive speech (spoken with the intent of creating rifts between people); harsh speech (spoken with the intent of hurting another person's feelings); and idle chatter (spoken with no purposeful intent at all).
While we are probably all guilty to a certain extend of idle chatter, I have not seen anything above that was spoken with any of the other harmful intents.
What you are saying is that I can't come into this board and discuss buddhism because it's anathema to question buddhism in a buddhist forum......it really isn't is it? And I haven't really called anyone dumb for believing what they believe in since I came here. I discussed it. Don't confuse, discussing ideas with discussing people. That's really what this all is about.
Sorry, Sir, for the misunderstanding! I think it is unfortunate that you have this thought, as the reverse is true. Sincere questioning is indeed most welcome here by most. I know some have reacted badly (Ch'an_noob in the Has there been anyone in modern times who has reached enlightenment thread), but that is the exception to the rule. Questioning or suspending belief is not slander.
It is the following that gave me pause and really got me to engage with you. But, hey, I mean to be on friendly terms with you and am just trying to get you to see things just a little bit more out of your usual "box" or frame of reference. That's basically what I am attempting here. In the end, we'll part ways somewhere, but perhaps a little more enlightened as to where "the other guy" may be coming from. I'm certainly as clueless about your position as you are about mine, apparently. Hence the back-and forth?
It never ceases to amaze me...this human obsession with subscribing to a religion. It's another form of tribalism really, which should not be the point.
I can see your tribalism paradigm to a certain point, but just cannot see it to be "the point." It's an aspect only, as I see it, but not a central essence or the sort of perspective an anthropologist would take.
I can also see your point about a human tendency (not "obsession") to subscribe to beliefs or a religion.
But more than anything, I just see some sloppy thinking going on here. Mind you, that is not meant personally, as we are all in the same boat here. Our chief problem as human beings is that we are immersed in muddled thinking. The Spanish Philosopher José Ortega Y Gasset said that Humankind has a Mission on this Earth and that Mission is the Mission of Clarity.
This thread is about the ability or disability to subscribe to more than one religion (in this particular thread it's "Hinduism" and Buddhism.). I believe that no question touching on this question should either be barred or stymied.
Buddhism is a religion, because it does require faith to believe in certain things that can't be proven physically with science.
But... the problem lies with the fact that why is religion wrong and why people can arrogantly look down on religious people? One thing that keeps people delusional is their arrogance. Of sometimes people with the most buddhist knowledge are the most deluded because they only know knowledge but do not practice.
As both arrive ultimately at a form of Monism, that separation is an illusion and that there is only one thing and that there is simultaneous mutual arising and mutual causality... It would seem that the differences for folks is in the details & depend upon what kind of Hindu you want to be and what kind of Buddhism you want to practice. I've followed the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta & find little difference between experience of Brahman or experience of tat tvam asi ("thou art that") with the ultimate wisdom of "emptiness".
"Each and every Hindu's belief is attached to their personal God/diety while Buddhist is the enlightenment of Absolute metta."
Are you saying that Buddhism is incompatible with believe in a deity? & there are plenty of folks who fall under the banner of Sanatana Dharma that revere impersonal deities and all agree that the Ultimate, Brahman, is impersonal, and is ironically referenced in many Buddhist scriptures as a very desirable level of attainment. & how many deity matra are there out there?
Comments
I think it is unclear when one talks about Buddhism as a collection of techniques. To be sure there are techniques, but I don't think that it is right to call it a technology particular when one means to contrast from other religions.
The whole thing reminds me of what has happened to the term "liberal" in American discourse. Left-wing people invented the term "progressive" in order to avoid the pejorative connotation that liberal had gathered after many years of attacks by the right-wing noise machine. In the same way, it seems that nowpeople want to say that Buddhism is not a religion because they view religion as a bad thing. I am not willing to say that. I have friends from many different religious traditions that want this same goal of happiness and also have techniques that they use to pursue it. I think it is mere sophistry to redefine it like that. The distinction if there is one between Eastern and Western is that in the East both philosophy and religion grew up alongside and intertwined. In the West, the religion comes from the Middle East and the philosophy from Greece and Germany.
Well, Epicurus, reverence is not just respect, but includes awe. Reverence is a faculty that we have, over which we simply do not have complete control. Therefore, it is not an ethical matter but an aesthetic one. As such, one cannot simply "choose to reserve it" for certain categories of extant things only.
Furthermore, religions are not composed of ideas only, but are a complex matrix of many things, including imagery, lore, feelings of unity with all of nature, etc.
To tell someone that his religion is foolish when he holds it very dear to his heart is to insult him. His religion "completes" him and affects his very will to live. Therefore, as Swami Vivekananda taught, merely to tolerate other religions is not enough; we must revere the ground on which those religions are planted. This is not only for world peace, but for ours as well. We must see our own religions with much more humility.
__________________________
Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep...
If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. —Paul of Tarsus, Romans 12
If a religion really does complete someone, he will not be offended by anything anyone says about it. People are offended only because they doubt.
Yawn. I get so tired of this stuff. My teacher was recognized as an emanation of Princess Mandarava, the one who was thrown in that pit that now looks like a restroom. Wouldn't that upset you? And who are you to criticize her? I also said nothing about techniques. I said a technology meaning if you follow the teachings you will achieve the goal. Going all over the map to sample this and that spirituality might be entertaining, but there will be no good result. As for whether or not you're confused, I'll let your own words speak for themselves.
Palzang
I never met a Buddhism, so I wouldn't know. But I do know that Right Speech, Right Intent, and Right Livelihood would preclude insulting people. Furthermore, you cannot get people to listen to you if your approach to them makes them instinctively move away from you or even against you.
So people need not have any insecurities? Well go ahead, Superman, and remake their worlds if you can!
Let's be clear, that I never admitted to insulting people based on their beliefs.
But if I'm not allowed to say that the idea of God is to me ridiculous, then I should just go live as hermit for fear of hurting anyone's feelings. Or I could suppress my opinions and let bad feelings fester insight. Everyone is responsible for their own beliefs. And freedom of speech is imperative.
Once again, I don't agree with insulting people. But ideas are no one's propriety.
That's not my goal. Change can only come from within. I agree with everyone who has ever said that.
Sorry to keep you up, old boy.
She was recognized to be her, or she remembers being thrown in a pit? Regardless, is this not grasping at a self that doesn't exist? If I was thrown in a pit in this life I would not have any problem with it being used as a latrine, let alone if it happened over a thousand years ago. Self-grasp much?
Who am I? Nobody important, just a meditator with questions. Who do I need to be?
Who cares who she *was*? The question is not whether one is a tulku or not but rather what one does in this current life. Every one of the high tulkus of the Palyul tradition has spent countless years of their life in solitary retreat in spite of being Body, Speech, Mind, Quality or Activity emanations of long tulku lineages. Indeed, large numbers of serious western practitioners are tulkus that haven't been recognized as it is mostly pointless here. The tulku system was only a means to transmit teachings and/or the monastery properties through the generations, not to prop up every 'Queen for a Day' contestant that comes along.
I do not doubt what Penor Rinpoche saw. I also do not doubt that she has inspired many people to practice. Indeed, I am sure that many of her students have exceeded her-- holding gelong/gelongma vows and practicing one-pointedly for a long time, particularly with the great blessing of all the teaching that Penor Rinpoche gave. What I am saying is that without her doing extensive retreat and study, her words can not be viewed as authoritative in the same way as the other lineage masters are. Surely she does not even claim that?? And to be upset that her pit was not kept up and the sheets turned down each night? That's just plain silly.
Nobody mentioned going all over the map to do anything. Practice each according to its own logic and hermeneutic, because maybe (just maybe) one's practice and insight will revivify a tradition that others practice who don't have the tendrel to meet the Buddhist dharma. If you really know the bodhisattva dharma you will see that developing new religious approaches is part of the compassionate activity of the buddhas. Not everything is about one's own aims, is it?
Mighty white of you to let my own words speak. However, I think they cohere and coalesce a viewpoint. If you are going to contradict that viewpoint, you might want to try an argument with actual facts.
If you tell people straight out that their religion is foolish, you are insulting them. Much better to say, "Well, that's not for me (right now)" We human beings are radically insecure because we are incomplete all by ourselves. Life is very fragile whether we want to believe it or not.
I don't feel the need to stomp other people's ideas. But I do like honesty and open communication. I don't trust someone whose ideas aren't up for debate.
Besides, insecurity be damned. That's the whole problem. People use these religions as fake sources of security. Instead of aligning themselves with truth.
What bad feelings? Do you even know where my bad feelings stem from? It's from seeing people deluding themselves and knowing they are too proud to keep their minds open. And believing in stuff that only will make them suffer, and make other people suffer in return as well.
I guess my whole point, and I hope I wasn't misunderstood (I don't go around waging wars or stepping on people's toes over religion) is that this idea that the onus is on the disagreers to shut up about it, is ridiculous. Everyone has responsibilities for their own beliefs. We are men, not animals.
How is this different from those who go around trying to "save" people because they "just know they are going to burn in hell" if they don't accept Jesus into their hearts?
One needs to be radically honest with oneself, I agree. When dealing with others of varying levels of maturity, one should err on the side of kindness. As I get older, I value intellectual analysis less and less and openhearted contemplation more and more. Analysis is great at taking things apart piece by piece but it takes aesthetic appreciation to see how things are while they are still living and breathing. Being too certain of oneself or one's own approach sets off warning bells for me now. :-)
You can probably get by with most people in disputing about music and the movies, but putting their heroes down is almost as bad as telling parents that their babies are ugly.
There are just some things that nice people don't talk about with everybody, but only with a few like-minded friends. Criticizing people's beliefs accomplishes nothing but furthering feelings of alienation and maybe even isolation. It's all right for people to have dogmas, but not skillful for them to be dogmatically pushing their own agendas.
Next point: We're all deluded to one point or another. Our very well-being depends on our mind processing the things around us through filters that only let significant stimuli stand out while we're busy doing or relaxing. Otherwise we'd go mad. People have the right to their delusions just as much as they have the right to pursue their own happiness on their own terms. In fact, for many, there may be no difference.
I think that Buddha addresses the Delusions that would convince us of our not being deluded. In other words, we are to confront our Illusions and see to it that we can distinguish the real from the mere phenomenal.
Oh I no longer suffer. I speak my mind nowadays.
Oh, I'm not certain of my approach. That's why I'm open to people debating my ideas as well.
And the difference, is that I don't put time and effort into saving other people. If the topic of conversation happens to come to religion or beliefs, I explain why I believe in what I believe. If debating is started for whatever reason, I'll explain how I feel about the other persons view, but I don't go around baiting people into explaining their believes.
People have right to what they believe they have a right too. Sure, they have a right to believe in anything they want. I don't disagree. It's only when it brings them or other people suffering that I have a problem.
I only really delve into debates about beliefs with friends. And I will never pretend I don't have an opinion on any one thing. I'm very opinionated by nature. And criticizing people's beliefs does accomplish quite a lot. It puts them to a test. That's how I grew.
What you are saying is that I can't come into this board and discuss buddhism because it's anathema to question buddhism in a buddhist forum......it really isn't is it? And I haven't really called anyone dumb for believing what they believe in since I came here. I discussed it. Don't confuse, discussing ideas with discussing people. That's really what this all is about.
Then we get stuck eating the menu rather than the meal.
We should be free to speak our views if we are skillful in communicating them and not harmful or overtly offensive, tempered by Right Speech which is a very important moral factor of the Noble Eightfold Path. If we can't find ways of getting along with others, we will never benefit from these practices.
While we are probably all guilty to a certain extend of idle chatter, I have not seen anything above that was spoken with any of the other harmful intents.
It is the following that gave me pause and really got me to engage with you. But, hey, I mean to be on friendly terms with you and am just trying to get you to see things just a little bit more out of your usual "box" or frame of reference. That's basically what I am attempting here. In the end, we'll part ways somewhere, but perhaps a little more enlightened as to where "the other guy" may be coming from. I'm certainly as clueless about your position as you are about mine, apparently. Hence the back-and forth?
I can see your tribalism paradigm to a certain point, but just cannot see it to be "the point." It's an aspect only, as I see it, but not a central essence or the sort of perspective an anthropologist would take.
I can also see your point about a human tendency (not "obsession") to subscribe to beliefs or a religion.
But more than anything, I just see some sloppy thinking going on here. Mind you, that is not meant personally, as we are all in the same boat here. Our chief problem as human beings is that we are immersed in muddled thinking. The Spanish Philosopher José Ortega Y Gasset said that Humankind has a Mission on this Earth and that Mission is the Mission of Clarity.
This thread is about the ability or disability to subscribe to more than one religion (in this particular thread it's "Hinduism" and Buddhism.). I believe that no question touching on this question should either be barred or stymied.
But... the problem lies with the fact that why is religion wrong and why people can arrogantly look down on religious people? One thing that keeps people delusional is their arrogance. Of sometimes people with the most buddhist knowledge are the most deluded because they only know knowledge but do not practice.
As both arrive ultimately at a form of Monism, that separation is an illusion and that there is only one thing and that there is simultaneous mutual arising and mutual causality... It would seem that the differences for folks is in the details & depend upon what kind of Hindu you want to be and what kind of Buddhism you want to practice.
I've followed the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta & find little difference between experience of Brahman or experience of tat tvam asi ("thou art that") with the ultimate wisdom of "emptiness".
& how many deity matra are there out there?