Explain... [Archive]

gnrm23

12-15-2004, 03:36 PM

siddharta gautama was prince of that part of northern india now called nepal...
he left the palace (and a wife and child) at about the same age that jesus began his ministry...
he was of the warrior/ruler caste, and was most certainly raised within india's hindu traditions, taught by brahmin philosopher/priests, and quite familiar with the many gods that are manifestations of the one god...
he started his quest for liberation (from this weary wheel of death and rebirth) by joining a band of hindu ascetics, and outstripped them all in his mortifications of the flesh...
but full awakening was not yet revealed to him...
with his fast broken and his strength restored, he sat down ander a fig tree with the intention of diving deep into samadhi until he achieved the great liberation...
and finally (perhaps after innumerable lifetimes of trying & preparing for this very lifetime, his last chained to the wheel of rebirth) he woke all the way up...
and realized that all of us spend our waking and sleeping moments pretty much asleep, tranced out in our shared illusion...
and he spent the next several decades of his life preaching his gospel of liberation up & down india:
life is filled with dis-satisfactions
these dis-satisfactions are caused by our attachments
there is a way to stop this never-ending string of unsatisfactory experiences
the way to stop them is by following the noble eight-fold path of the awakened one

and others can show us the way that worked for them, BUT - even the help of the god(s) is not enough in the end (because, in the end, even the god(s) are themselves trapped in the cycle of the great wheel) - we must make the final effort by ourselves...

okay?
i try to answer your query...
namaste
salaam
shanti om
blessed be
ameen...

cabdirazzaq

12-15-2004, 07:14 PM

I already knew that, my question is quite simple, excuse me if I may sound dumb but I´ve read he was enlightned and that he saw 3 things, this is taken from a buddhist site:

During his enlightenment experience, Siddhattha attained three types of knowledge. First he saw that he had died and been reborn many times: 'I recollected my manifold past lives, that is, one birth, two births, three births...a hundred thousand births.' Each birth was seen in some detail: 'There I was so named, of such a clan, with such an appearance...and passing away from there, I reappeared here'.

Then, having acquired the 'divine eye', he saw that all beings are reborn according to their deeds, the law of : 'I saw beings passing away and reappearing, inferior and superior, fair and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate....according to their actions'. He saw that good action led to happy states; bad actions to miserable ones. Lastly, he saw the nature of suffering, the origin of suffering, the cessation of suffering and the way leading to the cessation of suffering

what is this divine eye, what gave him these powers to see such things, how did he attain it, why doesn´t normal buddhist see such things?

TheSkaEffect

12-15-2004, 08:18 PM

darrellkitchen

12-16-2004, 02:46 PM

... what is this divine eye, what gave him these powers to see such things, how did he attain it, why doesn´t normal buddhist see such things?
What is a "normal" Buddhist?

Darrell

Sebbi

12-16-2004, 06:23 PM

OK cab - two things, the second post does not refer to anything the Buddha came up with, it refers to Hindu beliefs (that the Buddha did expand on a little).

Secondly, he did not recieve his revealation from any God or superbeing as the Prophets did.

If this was the case he would not have said "Do not look to anywhere outside yourself for your own enlightenment." He does not just refer to other people, he also refers to God. He was in a VERY theistic society at the time and he needed to make it clear to people that they should look to themselves, not to God.

He started his journey (as Siddhartha Gautama, [baring in mind reincarnation]) by wondering why people are unhappy, and he wanted to find the key to happiness. After much meditation and observation of, not just the behaviour of others but the processes his own mind went through, he came to 4 realisations.

These are his first ever teachings and are now refered to as "The Four Noble Truths".

1. Suffering (or more approriatly unsatisfaction [the sanskrit is "Duhka" and which means "ill fitting wheel" and refer to an analogy of the feeling that arises from travelling in a carriage with an "ill fitting wheel"])

2. Cause of Suffering

He said this was conditionality. By being bound to the world of conditionality we are bound to Duhka.

3. The cessation of suffering

He said this was freedom from the conditioned world.

4. Path to the cessation of suffering

This was later taught to be the "noble eightfold path". I interpret it as a teaching on tolerance, and that everyone is on their own path to the cessation of suffering. For example yours is Islam, a christian's would be Christianity and so on.

You see each of these teachings is completely independant of God. This is why many people consider the Buddha more of a psycologist than a philosopher. This is also why Buddhism is not called a religion by many scholars of religion.

I hope this helps.

Sebbi

cabdirazzaq

12-19-2004, 07:02 PM

If this was the case he would not have said "Do not look to anywhere outside yourself for your own enlightenment."
Did he then also find all these rules enlightened to him?

A monk is allowed to collect, receive and consume food between dawn and midday (taken to be 12 noon). He is not allowed to consume food outside of this time and he is not allowed to store food overnight. Plain water can be taken at any time without having to be offered. Although a monk lives on whatever is offered, vegetarianism is encouraged.
A monk must have all eatables and drinkables, except plain water, formally offered into his hands or placed on something in direct contact with his hands. In the Thai tradition, in order to prevent contact with a woman, he will generally set down a cloth to receive things offered by women. He is not allowed to cure or cook food except in particular circumstances.
In accordance with the discipline, a monk is prohibited from eating fruit or vegetables containing fertile seeds. etc...

Secondly, if they were to find all these things in them selves then why follow him and all his rules which he and his students have laid down to monks, why wont these monks sit beneath the nearest oak-tree and hope to find them selves some own rules and 'enlightment'. I can often understand why a jew does a thing or doesn't or why a christian does a thing or refrains from it, but I can never seem to understand why a buddhist[monk] would live a live of poverty begging people and living in celibacy, by Allah the upper hand is better than the lower as the prophet(peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) described. I hope not to offend anyone and even though I never really met a buddhist but I do hear through several indications and rumors that they are quite kind people but being kind can not compensate for credulousness, I would be interested to hear your replies...

14.18. The parable of those who disbelieved in their Lord is that their works are as ashes, on which the wind blows furiously on a stormy day; they shall not be able to get aught of what they have earned. That is the straying, far away (from the right path).[Quran chapter Ibrahim]

Sebbi

12-19-2004, 08:25 PM

Did he then also find all these rules enlightened to him?

A monk is allowed to collect, receive and consume food between dawn and midday (taken to be 12 noon). He is not allowed to consume food outside of this time and he is not allowed to store food overnight. Plain water can be taken at any time without having to be offered. Although a monk lives on whatever is offered, vegetarianism is encouraged.
A monk must have all eatables and drinkables, except plain water, formally offered into his hands or placed on something in direct contact with his hands. In the Thai tradition, in order to prevent contact with a woman, he will generally set down a cloth to receive things offered by women. He is not allowed to cure or cook food except in particular circumstances.
In accordance with the discipline, a monk is prohibited from eating fruit or vegetables containing fertile seeds. etc...

I'm fairly sure that was written later by one of the many who has expanded on Buddhist teachings.

Secondly, if they were to find all these things in them selves then why follow him and all his rules which he and his students have laid down to monks, why wont these monks sit beneath the nearest oak-tree and hope to find them selves some own rules and 'enlightment'.
Well that's the idea. Unfortunatly most feel the need for guidelines to follow.

but I can never seem to understand why a buddhist[monk] would live a live of poverty begging people and living in celibacy,
I have 2 points to make here.

1. Firstly most modern Buddhists (and Buddhism strives to change with the world so that the teachings can be best transmitted to (and practiced by) the current audience) do not live in poverty, though many don't live with any more than they need. My aunt is a Buddhist nun in the FWBO and is not living off alms, nor living in celebacy.

2. Secondly. The wheel of suffering is said to be powered by three forces: greed/attachment, hatred/aversion, ignorance. If you are living off alms then you cannot afford to live with any one of these forces.

(Just got off the phone to my aunt.) The idea about celebacy is to do with simplicity and self-contentment. Obviously, it also has to do with ethics and not pressuring (or worse, forcing) others to exercise your sexual profile with. More importantly it's to do with self-contentment. We often have a mindset that we are only happy if we are with someone - our happiness is conditioned by others. Since all conditions essenially lead to Dukha this is not good. This monastic rule is based on the 4th of the 5 precepts (abstainance from sexual misconduct).

Blessings

Sebbi

Spiritforces

12-20-2004, 05:14 PM

If I may... and to make it shorter?

The path Buddha has shown is not directed directly to God or Allah

Maybe people think he may have reach Him in a way.
(and that is certainly not in accordance with Islam beliefs, which I dunno about)

But the path shown is really interesting to better understand oneself thoughts about itself.
(but I am not sure I know about it anyway ;)

But could it have made sense?

Spiritforces

12-20-2004, 05:18 PM

I come up to think: there must be
a whole we all beings form in material way maybe even including material things
a whole within each being

The why for those wholes, are...
definetly

Peace

cabdirazzaq

12-21-2004, 05:44 PM

I am not suggesting that this Buddha guy recieved revelation but I was just interested to know where he got all these rules and ideas from, anybody who claims that Allah(may he be exalted) does not exist is not following guidance. Even more suprising and plainly disgusting is how there are millions of buddhists who worship this man, even though he didn't believe in God(s)!!!
I am aware of the fact that not all buddhists worship him, but still the paganisitc view in this religion is dreadful and repulsive.
http://www.harunyahya.com/images_books/images_buddhism/pictur38A.jpghttp://www.harunyahya.com/images_books/images_buddhism/pictur133a.jpg(As seen on these pictures, these men "are enjoying the pleasure of finding enlightment")

Have they feet to walk with? Or hands to lay hold with? Or eyes to see with? Or ears to hear with?...[Quran 7.195]

7.33. Say: "(But) the things that my Lord has indeed forbidden are the Fawahish (immoral deeds) whether committed openly or secretly, and Ithm, and transgression without right, and joining partners with Allah for which He has given no authority, and saying things about Allah of which you have no knowledge.''

http://www.harunyahya.com/images_books/images_buddhism/budizmeng109.jpg

Sebbi

12-21-2004, 11:16 PM

No Buddhist worships the Buddha, they respect him for his teaching but he is not worshiped.

There is a Buddhist analogy that wisemen are fingers pointing to the moon. If you look at the finger then you'll miss the moon.

As for where he got his teachings from, he based it partly on the current Hindu beliefs and he got most of it from his own mind.

Oh and Cab - before this post I appeared you were asking this out of genuine inquisitiveness, now you are calling aspects of Buddhism "dreadful and repulsive". You said that you do not wish to offend anyone. I suggest you don't start now. Please make sure you keep your mind open in the search for tolerance.

Blessings

Sebbi

the dauer

12-22-2004, 12:00 AM

I read in a book about someone turned off by the fact Zen Buddhists were bowing to a statue. So the head of the Zen place went in back and took one of the statues and through it against a wall. I thought that was an important statement.

Dauer

xdianax

12-22-2004, 04:13 AM

Hey Cab, I hope I can provide some insight into your questions. As far as I know, while Buddha was alive he neither denied nor confirmed the existence of Allah/God. However, there are many Buddhists who do actually believe in God.
Most bow to Buddha statues as a sign of respect, but I do agree that some emulate siddharta gautama to a God-like status. I recall on another Buddhist forum I visited, that there was a thread discussing the fact that a few ancient Buddhist statues had been destroyed. Most of the people shared a feeling of sadness that such wonders had been destroyed. However, personally I think that one should try not to become attached to such statues, because they were merely that...statues. Such external things are not fundamental in our quest for compassion and inner repose.
Honestly, I have no idea why some of the rules for monks were instituted. However, I am not sure if it was Buddha who institued these rules, or later members of the Sangha (I don't know much about the history behind Buddhist monastics). I believe you bring up a good point about how Buddha became enlightened after meditation under a bodhi tree, while others follow the strict monastic life to gain such results. Some may argue it is because of karma--Buddha had already been getting closer to enlightenment in his previous lifetimes--but for those of us who don't believe in karma I believe it is a valid question. I htink that there is not one lifestyle that will lead to enlightenment. For some this may mean a life in a monastary, for others 12 years alone in a cave, and for others it may simply mean living as a lay Buddhist.

:) In love,

Diana

cabdirazzaq

12-22-2004, 10:01 AM

Bhaskar

12-22-2004, 05:04 PM

If a vedantin may intervene in this discussion, I believe I have a slightly different light to throw on some of the things said in this thread.

"Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. I understand this statement to mean that the Lord is one, all pervading, everywhere, everything is One, that One is what we call by various names as God, Brahman, Allah. Hence, if I see that Lord in a statue, in a piece of stone, in a painting, in a wooden cross, it doesnt matter what I see it in, because what I am seeing is the Lord.

Don't christians bow before the cross or a pictures of Jesus? Are they worshipping Jesus or the piece of wood and canvas before them?

Don't muslims kneel and kiss the ground while saying namaz? Does that then mean that they are worshipping the dust, or the four walls of the room they are in? At Mecca, is not the most solemn moment of the pilgrim when they get to touch the Black Stone? Is it not worshipped from a distance? Do pilgrims not touch the walls of the ka'bah? Who is that different from worshipping at the temple where the Dalai Lamas are buried?

It is the divinity in these idols, paintings and symbols that is being worshipped, not the idols themselves.

Bhaskar

12-22-2004, 05:18 PM

As for the monastic rules, the reasons for them are quite obvious to me.

Not hoarding food, not keeping any possessions, etc is a way to develop detachment from physical comforts and "needs". To go and beg for food requires a lack of egoism. A beggar cannot have a great sense of pride, thus it is a lesson in humility. It is also a way of developing control over the body and the senses. Eat whatever is given to you, so you are not governed by the taste or quantity of food (in some sanyasa traditios in Hinduism, not only do monks have to beg, they must wash the food 3 times to remove all spices and make it as bland and tasteless as possible). This is the sam reason why monks are not allowed to cook food either.

Water is essential for the body, more than food, therefore water is allowed to the monks at any time. Also a monk, as a part of his practise, must do japa/chanting, so it is important that he have water so thathis throat does not go dry.

Out of respect for life you don't eat fertile seed bearing fruit and try to maintain vegetarianism.

Celibacy of course is very important as it is the easiest thing in the world to get attached to sexual pleasures, they are a great distracting, a great source of attachement. Hence monks are told to avoid even touching a woman when she offers food.

Also the life of beggary is good for others, it teaches those who feed the monks the joy of giving and charity. Is that not a central tenet of all religions?

These guidelines are all to be understood and interpreted knowing the reason and the spirit in which they were laid down, not in a blind "because they say so" attitude.

Bhaskar

12-22-2004, 05:21 PM

As for the pictures of the monks enjoying the pleasures of enlightenment, to an enlightened one, the body is nothing! It matters in the least wether the body is healthy and in good condition, or if it is burning in the pyre. They are far beyond in a deep seat of bliss, untouched by the vagaries of this world.

Also, pictures taken out of context have no meaning. Was it the monk who set fire to himself, or was he a tibetan teacher burnt at the stake by a group of intolerant "christians" or chinese invaders?

Do not be in such a hurry to judge, dear friend, for someone else may lay the same judgement upon you.

the dauer

12-22-2004, 05:25 PM

Cab, my story was meant to show that the statues mean nothing. There is nothing sacred about them. The man took it and flung it hard against a wall. And after that, people came in and continued to bow to the same empty spot where the statue was as if nothing had happened. I think you misunderstood the meaning of my post.

Dauer

Sebbi

12-22-2004, 06:33 PM

I appreciate the answer Diana, but one thing that gets me is that when I ask a question about this religion I recieve alot of different answers contradicting each other(which makes my small little mind confused), you and Dauer confirm the fact that [some] buddhists bow and worship Buddha and you say it´s for respect while Sebbi claims(in great denial) that NO buddhist worship buddha, watch your words young man.

Idols of buddha are extremly widespread these days and for instance in the Wat Saket Monastery in Laos there are 300 idols and statues of Buddha. You can even find people worshipping the temple where all the former Dali lamas are buried - a temple!
I and a couple of million muslims, christians and jews do find these kinds of worship to a statue disgusting because it goes against the most important part of the monotestic belief, the most important commandment.
"Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.
http://www.harunyahya.com/images_books/images_buddhism/pictur73a.jpg
http://www.harunyahya.com/images_books/images_buddhism/pictur23.jpg(this statue is called the protector of Tibet among alot of tibetan buddhists)

2.165. And of mankind are some who take (for worship) others besides Allah as rivals (to Allah). They love them as they love Allah. But those who believe, love Allah more (than anything else).

17.22. Set not up with Allah any other ilah (god), or you will sit down reproved, forsaken (in the Hellfire).
17.23. And your Lord has Qada [decreed] that you worship none but Him. And that you be dutiful to your parents...
Diana - the Sangha was set up as a way of practicing the Dharma. There are some people who practice more effectivively in a monastic way and there are some who practice more effectively as a lay-person. The Buddha was aware of this and created the Sangha.

Cab - First things first, don't tell me to watch my words. I mean what I say and don't play the parent talking to a naughty child.

If you REALLY want the cosmic significance of the Buddha, he represents the potential of that each and every one of us will become a perfect being. This universal force is probably what you would recognise as God.

In many traditions monks do what appears to be worship but the point of it is, not to exalt I force that they may never know, but to surrender and dedictate themselfs be embodying it.

Someone may call themselves Buddhist and worship the Buddha but this would not be in accordance with the Dharma because it disregards on of the most important teaching - that of self-satisfaction.

Blessings

Sebbi

Meagain

12-23-2004, 01:43 AM

Life has been compared to a river.
Always flowing on,
It changes with each passing moment.
Yet the river remains.

Living on one side,
We seek truth on the other.

Some are clever and strong,
And unaided, swim on.

Others need a raft to help them cross.

However, once the other side has been attained,
The raft must be discarded.

Buddhism, as all great religions, are rafts.
They are meant to aid each individual to the truth within.

There are no external Gods.
God is all.
Buddhists avoid the term God in their inner most teachings as it is a term filled with many conotations.

Buddhism is not in conflict with the inner mystical teachings of any major religon.

Bhaskar

12-23-2004, 02:48 AM

that is a beautiful post meagain :)

cabdirazzaq

12-24-2004, 08:59 AM

If a vedantin may intervene in this discussion, I believe I have a slightly different light to throw on some of the things said in this thread.

I understand this statement to mean that the Lord is one, all pervading, everywhere, everything is One, that One is what we call by various names as God, Brahman, Allah. Hence, if I see that Lord in a statue, in a piece of stone, in a painting, in a wooden cross, it doesnt matter what I see it in, because what I am seeing is the Lord.

No! what you are seeing is a piece of rock or a piece of a tree, Allah(may he be exalted) is far above having such an appearance, christians who bow to a cross or to Jesus(peace be upon him) are in a great error, worshipping something/one and making him equal to the lord. How dear you claim such a thing about Allah(may he be exalted) without knowledge?
Joseph(peace be upon him) said: (interpretation of the meaning)

"If not Him, ye worship nothing but names which ye have named,- ye and your fathers,- for which Allah hath sent down no authority: the command is for none but Allah: He hath commanded that ye worship none but Him: that is the right religion, but most men understand not...[Quran Yousuf]

"Don't muslims kneel and kiss the ground while saying namaz? Does that then mean that they are worshipping the dust, or the four walls of the room they are in? At Mecca, is not the most solemn moment of the pilgrim when they get to touch the Black Stone? Is it not worshipped from a distance? Do pilgrims not touch the walls of the ka'bah? Who is that different from worshipping at the temple where the Dalai Lamas are buried?"

I´ve never heard about muslims kissing the ground as a worship, we follow the way of the prophet(peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) and we do not come with innovations. The most important part of the pilgrammage is not the kissing of the stone sense it´s a sunnah but the day of Arafah is the most important day and there is no evidence of touching and rubbing the walls of kaba to be done, once again speak not without knowledge.

The difference of worshipping the temple were Dali lamas are buried and what the muslims do at hajj is a big difference, we direct are prayers to the kaba so as to have a direction of prayer but we do not bow like some buddhists to a temple which can neither harm nor do good. About the kissing of the stone,

Narrated Zaid bin Aslam from his father who said: "Umar bin Al-Khattab addressed the Corner (Black Stone) saying, 'BY ALLAH! I KNOW THAT YOU ARE A STONE AND CAN NEITHER BENEFIT NOR HARM. Had I not seen the Prophet touching (and kissing) you, I would never have touched (and kissed) you.

"As for the monastic rules, the reasons for them are quite obvious to me.
Not hoarding food, not keeping any possessions, etc is a way to develop detachment from physical comforts and "needs".
To go and beg for food requires a lack of egoism. A beggar cannot have a great sense of pride, thus it is a lesson in humility. It is also a way of developing control over the body and the senses. Eat whatever is given to you, so you are not governed by the taste or quantity of food (in some sanyasa traditios in Hinduism, not only do monks have to beg, they must wash the food 3 times to remove all spices and make it as bland and tasteless as possible). This is the sam reason why monks are not allowed to cook food either.
Water is essential for the body, more than food, therefore water is allowed to the monks at any time. Also a monk, as a part of his practise, must do japa/chanting, so it is important that he have water so thathis throat does not go dry.
Out of respect for life you don't eat fertile seed bearing fruit and try to maintain vegetarianism.
Celibacy of course is very important as it is the easiest thing in the world to get attached to sexual pleasures, they are a great distracting, a great source of attachement. Hence monks are told to avoid even touching a woman when she offers food.
Also the life of beggary is good for others, it teaches those who feed the monks the joy of giving and charity. Is that not a central tenet of all religions?"

The prophet(peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) and his companions lived simple lives, despite the fact of the power he possesed as a messanger he lived a simple life, there could pass months without food being cooked in his house, they lived on dates and small food, his companions garments were torn and old even though they could after the conquests of the muslims build them selves palaces, but the difference is they did not beg!, the prophet(peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) never accepter charity in his whole life while he commanded people to give it, the upper hand is better than the lower and his example is the best of examples. Sexual pleasures are indeed a temptation, the prophet(peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) had not left behind a greater temptation than woman as he said in a narration. But celibacy is not like chasteness

And for such as had entertained the fear of standing before their Lord's (tribunal) and had restrained (their) soul from lower desires,

Their abode will be the Garden.[Quran Naziat]

If the prophet(peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) had lived in celibacy like John(peace be upon him) his followers would have done the same and this nation would have alot less members, I swear by Allah, if he wouldn´t have married I also wouldn´t want to marry! It is better for a man to be struck by a needle than to touch a woman who isn´t a close relative to him as tought by the prophet(peace and blessing of Allah be upon him)

Do not mix falsehood, polytheistic ideas with the pure worship of on Allah(may he be exalted). To worship a stone is not like worshipping The Lord!

Truly it is not their eyes that are blind, but their hearts which are in their breasts.[Quran]

Bhaskar

12-24-2004, 05:54 PM

I agree with your saying that God is far beyond appearance. What you failt o understand is that everything that has appearance is also a manifestation of the Lord alone. That includes you and it includes me. Why do you not understand that God is not separate from creation? Everything in the world is a manifestation of God alone! If you fail to understand the rpesence of God in everything then you limit God's power. To say that there is anything at all that has existence outside of God is to limit God and God's power. That indeed is an act of gross foolishness, for it defeats the entire concept God as omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

If God is present everywhere and in everyone, if one can see another, not as a mere bundle of bones and flesh, but as the God that resides within, if one can see a stone as more than a conglomeration of minerals, but as the God that imbues every atom of it, then One is not worshipping the stone, one is not worshipping the wood, one is not worshipping the other people, one is worshipping the lord alone, in thought and deed, in every moment of his life. This is not the worship of any other than the lord.

there is no evidence of touching and rubbing the walls of kaba to be done, once again speak not without knowledge.
http://www.themodernreligion.com/basic/history/wall.JPG

Your attitude of I will do what the prophet did, just because he said so, just because he did so, is rife with blind faith. I am certain he himself would have wished his followers would display more intelligence than that. Any actions of a person are according to the context and the time period in which they were enacted. To take them out of context and use them as rules for living, without understanding rhyme nor reason for it, is foolish to the core. If someone had seen the prophet kissing his wife, therefore had gone and kissed the prophet's wife himself, that would surely not have been an act that the prophet would have approved of.

The difference of worshipping the temple were Dali lamas are buried and what the muslims do at hajj is a big difference, we direct are prayers to the kaba so as to have a direction of prayer but we do not bow like some buddhists to a temple which can neither harm nor do good.

The kaba is just a mosque, a building of stone. How is it different from a temple? Whether you bow or not is immaterial, that is the frm of prayer. The fact is you pray to a temple, Buddhists were doing the same. You say that you only used the mosque as to have a direction for prayer. That is exactly what the buddhists were doing. That is exactly what why people bow to a cross or an idol of shiva, or a statue of the buddha, simply to have something towards which we can direct our prayers. It is not the stone or the wood we pray to, it is the Lord, the idols are but symbols of that Lord.

cabdirazzaq

12-25-2004, 09:05 AM

Why do you not understand that God is not separate from creation? Everything in the world is a manifestation of God alone! If you fail to understand the rpesence of God in everything then you limit God's power.

We muslim have a little thing which we usually rely on called evidence, you see you claim that the Lord is everywhere but where did you get this information, did you perhaps sit under an oak-tree and somehow realised that Allah(may he be exalted) is everywhere and that worshipping a stone is like worshipping the Lord?

This, then, is how you should pray: “ ‘Our Father in heaven,..[Matthew 6.9]
(interpretation of the meaning):
Those, who fear their Lord who is above them" (Quran Al-Nahl 16:50)

The verses that speak about Allah(may he be exalted) being above the heavens are many and It is indeed normal for person, be he muslim or non muslim to acknowledge the fact that the Lord is above the heavens.
To say that Allah(may he be exalted) is everywhere means that he is in every garbage bag every toilet and in every filthy and digusting location which is indeed a great lie against the Creator, may he be exalted for truly the Lord is free from any defects.

Don´t try to make us believe that hindus are worshipping one Lord, indeed every villiage may have their own gods, and they call some of them the god of water the god of anger etc... and this is nothing else but horrible lies against He who created them!
Wake up! People do not worship Allah(may he be exalted) rather they worship Krishna, Vishu and Brahma and all the other fake gods which can neither harm nor do good.
(interpretation of the meaning):
88. Then he(Abraham) cast a glance at the stars,
89. And he said: "Verily, I am sick.''
90. So they turned away from him and departed.
91. Then he turned to their gods and said: "Will you not eat''
92. "What is the matter with you that you speak not''
93. Then he turned upon them, striking (them) with (his) right hand.
94. Then they came hastily towards him.
95. He said: "Worship you that which you (yourselves) carve''
96. "While Allah has created you and what you make![Quran Saffat]

Secondly, watch you words concerning the prophet(peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) and do not come and assume things such as your saying:
"I am certain he himself would have wished his followers would display more intelligence than that."

Allah's Apostle (peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) said, "If somebody innovates something which is not in harmony with the principles of our religion, that thing is rejected."

The Prophet (peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) said, "Leave me as I leave you, for the people who were before you were ruined because of their questions and their differences over their prophets. So, if I forbid you to do something, then keep away from it. And if I order you to do something, then do of it as much as you can.

"The best speech is that embodied in the Book of Allah, and the best guidance is the guidance given by Muhammad. The most evil affairs are their innovations; and every innovation is an error."
(interpretation of the meaning):
Verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him who looketh unto Allah and the Last Day, and remembereth Allah much[quran]

May Allah(may he be exalted) forgive those ignorant muslims who touch the kaba and rub it on them selves, if it would have been worth something doing that, the prophet(peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) would have done it. (interpretation of the meaning):

And whatsoever the messenger giveth you, take it. And whatsoever he forbiddeth, abstain (from it)... [Quran Hashr]

Kissing his wives was not allowed and thus their is nothing that should be followed sene it is forbidden, do not act foolish and give such bad analogue. Why chose to direct ones prayer to this certain temple, we direct our prayers to the kaba simply because we were orderd to do that but tell my why the worshipping of Dali lamas? These are what takes people into polytheism, this is what we muslims call Taghut: (interpretation of the meaning)

256. There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the right path has become distinct from the wrong path. Whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And Allah is All-Hearer, All-Knower.

257. Allah is the Wali (Protector or Guardian) of those who believe. He brings them out from darknesses into light. But as for those who disbelieve, their Awliya' (supporters and helpers) are Taghut (false deities and false leaders), they bring them out from light into darknesses. Those are the dwellers of the Fire, and they will abide therein forever[Quran]

Soulless||Chaos

12-25-2004, 09:46 AM

We muslim have a little thing which we usually rely on called evidence, you see you claim that the Lord is everywhere but where did you get this information, did you perhaps sit under an oak-tree and somehow realised that Allah(may he be exalted) is everywhere and that worshipping a stone is like worshipping the Lord?
Evidence? What evidence? Your religion stem from mohammed or whoever the fuck, correct? Where did he get his info? God? How would you even know? Because you were told so? For all you know, mohammed could have sat under a tree and pulled his scriptures or whatever out of his ass.... Besides, who better to learn from than yourself?

Is your god not everywhere? Is he not that all encompassing? He must be quite the lesser god in that case.... Why must anything have to be said to have come from a god? Are people not able to think for themselves?

Whatever, anyway I forget to sign that rep, so that bad one, yeah, it's from me.

Bhaskar

12-25-2004, 06:32 PM

Why did you come to this forum and start a thread pretending to seek information, but then proceed to badmouth and insult all other religions? I have been nothing but understanding with you, attempting to find a common ground on which we can agree, trying to accept your scriptures, but it is you who twist the meaning of the quran.

You are a fool who does not understand symbolism, however obvious. If Allah resides above the clouds, why did the astronauts not see her when the went around earth in their rocketships? By above, it clearly means nobler, higher in spirit, more evolved. Higher is a word always used as a term of respect in languages. "Upper class" does not refer to people that dwell at high altitudes.

And yes, God is in every toilet and in every garbage can also. After all he created shit, God created garbage. Did the prophet never use the restroom?

And if you dont like me talking about your religion, then you shouldnt talk about mine in your bottomless ignorance. I could explain to you that eveyr single diety in Hinduism is a manifestation of the same one God, brahman who is the only truth, all pervading and all powerful. I could explain that this formless infinite God is hard for people to visualise and understand, therefore there are various manifestations in which brahman is worshipped, that these manifestations each embody certain values for us to learn from and live our lives better, and as a focus point for our prayer (just like the walls of your beloved kaba). Unfortunately, you are so blind with your prejudice, so unwilling to accept anybody else's words but your own, that there is no use explaining to you. I might as well try and tell a deaf mute what it feels like to sing bhajans.

I entered this conversation thinking it would be a civil exchange of ideas. Now that you have exposed yourself as being just another fight mongering fool out to bash everyone who disagrees with them, I wish to have nothing further to do with you. And yes, I do believe you are God and I am God too. However, in vyavaharikasatta I reserve the right to have no wish to talk to you or the likes of you.

Hari Om tat sat.

Sri Krishna Sharanam Mama

Sri Rama Jaya Rama Jaya Jaya Ram

Sri Gurubhyo namah
Sri Ganeshaya Namaha

Buddham sharanam gachami

Namah parvati pataye hara hara mahadev
Illahu Akbar

Aham brahmasmi

Chidananda roopa shivoham shivoham

Om mani padmehum

Om hym, Om hreem

aakashat patitam toyam, yada gachati sagaram,
sarva deva namaskaraha, keshavam prati gachati.

Just as the waters that fall from the sky all reach the ocean eventually,
so too worship of all forms of the Lord reaches the One supreme brahman only.

Cloudminerva

12-26-2004, 03:02 AM

Bhaskar, please do not let this anger or upset you. This has been a tuff thread to read. You are awesome! You have helped me through a lot of shit, and I see so much greatness and beauty in your words and wisdom. Just keep going. I know how you feel.

Later,
Ben. :sunglasse

Om Namo Narayanaya
Om Tare Tutare Ture Svaha

darrellkitchen

12-26-2004, 06:46 AM

... And yes, God is in every toilet and in every garbage can also. After all he created shit, God created garbage. Did the prophet never use the restroom? ...I was in the coffee shop during the summer, on a Saturday morning while on my way to work. While I was waiting on them to make the coffee, I saw a Christian Catholic Priest sitting at a table, alone, drinking a cup of coffee, so I went over to him and ask if I could ask him a question.

"Sure," he said. "Where is God," I asked.

Priest: "It is not so much as placing God in a particular location, because he is everywhere."
Me: "Then is God 'in' everything, and everywhere, in all people, animals and atoms?"
Priest: "Yes and even in Hell."
Me: "You don't want to tell protestants that, they're lible to lynch you." <smiling>. "Then why do Christians always look outside themselves, for if God is in everything, then isn't he also within all beings? and if he is within all beings, then why do Christians look in the one place so far removed from themselves?" <pointing skyward> "Why do they always look up there? Why not inside themselves?"

Then he went on to explain the Holy Eucarist (sp?)

Point is, if God is in everything, which Christians always seem to say he is, then why not within ourselves? I for one do not believe in God, but that does not mean that if believing in God is the right path for others, then I have no right to belittle them nor discourage them from believeing in what they want so long as it leads them to the correct path.

And if God is in everything, they that means he is in the three realms of the Christian faith {heaven, earth, and hell}.

And since I do not believe in God, then that also means I do not believe in Shiva or allah, but then again this does not mean that I should disparage those who want to believe in them.

With loving-kindness and compassion,

Darrell

cabdirazzaq

12-26-2004, 08:40 AM

When I say evidence I refer to source, if his source would be that he claims he recevies revelation every monday between 9 and 10 am or that this was the view of siddharta it would atleast qualify as a source even though one without grounds.

I have been to these forums more then a year now and I have no memories of having offended any jews, christians or hindus without any reasons, even though the hindu faith is more hatefull to me than death. But what you have done is different. It would be more dear to me if you would call me names or harras me but that is not the case what you do is you somehow connect polythestic ideas with a belief in 1 god and then justify it by writing how you understand the statement of Jesus(peace be upon him) and you even dare to assume a couple of things which were wrong about my faith, this to me is outraging.

And do not accuse me of having pretended something, I was wondering how siddharta could have known such things and where this enlightment came from and perhaps the most fully answer I got was dianas even though I still haven´t understod it, for instance she says:

"Some may argue it is because of karma--Buddha had already been getting closer to enlightenment in his previous lifetimes--but for those of us who don't believe in karma..."

How did he find out about karma, who informed him and other people about this? By the way, when I say a normal buddhist I refer to any buddhist so my previous question should be; Why don´t all buddhist receive enlightment or do you think you have already.

Well, do you Diana?

Soulless||Chaos

12-26-2004, 08:50 AM

you even dare to assume a couple of things which were wrong about my faith, this to me is outraging.Did not you make assumptions upon the paths of others?

cabdirazzaq

12-26-2004, 02:38 PM

Like...

Meagain

12-27-2004, 04:41 AM

Cab,

Your question, to me seems to be…”If Buddhists do not believe in a god or ‘God’, from whom or what does the Buddha derive his authority?”

Please correct me if I am wrong. I will attempt to answer.
We must look at who or what the Buddha is, or claimed to be.

The Buddha is said to have nine characteristics.

bhagava – he is a fortunate one. This is a person who when provided with proper surroundings, uses right application to reach moral perfection.
arhat – he is worthy of esteem and respect because of his achievements. He was born as all human beings and has overcome the suffering and trials that we all face to become morally perfect. The esteem and respect he is accorded is completely different then that elicited by an omnipotent being.
sammasambuddha – he is perfectly enlightened. This is not omniscience. His perfection is the absence of defiling influxes such as the search for a permanent and absolute essence. His omniscience is limited to empirical knowledge.
vijjacaranasampanna – His conduct is a result of his knowledge. He has no absolute knowledge or absolute moral principle. A claim of absolute knowledge or morality prevents one from admitting different possibilities and binds one to a limited idea of both. Conflict and strife are the result.
sugata – he is well gone. He has reached the highest level of happiness a human being can attain. He is free from greed, hatred, and confusion and is devoted to the service of others.
lokavidu – He has knowledge of the world. He views the world as ‘dependently arisen’. He does not attempt to unravel all the mysteries of the world, but understands the human theories about it.
anuttara – He is unexcelled. He may have equals but no superiors. This avoids the assumption of a supreme being and an absolute moral law. He does not comment on the reality of a God. His only distinction from his disciples is that he is a teacher.
purisa-damma-sarathi – He can tame humans like an expert charioteer. He could perform miracles, but it was his psychological knowledge and compassion for humans that made him the ‘best communicator’.
sattha devamanussanam – He was a teacher of gods and humans. He was not a messiah bringing a message from another. He simply claimed to teach others what he learned from mental and moral discipline. He denied he was a savior. He is no more than the ideal person. (Gods in this context are humans who have attained enormous powers as a result of leading virtuous lives even though they have never attained enlightenment and freedom.)
He is worshipped as a way of respecting an ideal moral perfection and a person who has attained that perfection. Any religious person, from any religion, can appreciate such an ideal and respect such a person. No offering is made to a Buddha and nothing is surrendered.

I hope this helps.

Bhaskar

12-28-2004, 06:26 PM

cabdirrazz, In this very thread, before I even posted here, you referred to Buddhism certain buddhist practices as disgusting, etc. I am not a buddhist, but I have great respect and love for the buddhist faith and i was offended by it, I am sure other buddhists also were offended by it.

Also, you are making the same assumptions and interpretations of Hinduism without having read or understood a SINGLE WORD of our philosophy. For no religion, except maybe Buddhism, is as blatantly non-dualistic as hinduism. Every single upanishad (there are more than 108) has a mahavakya, a statement identifying the himan spirit as being none other than god, the absolute brahman. Some examples:

aham brahmasmi ( I am brahman)
tat tvam asi (that brahman is you)
sarvam khalvidam brahma (the entire world is brahman alone)
ayam atma brahma (this soul is brahman)
prajnanam brahma (conciousness is brahman)
soham (He is me)

etc etc

In which other religion did the teachers stand up and proclaim that the entire universe is one God and that God is our true identity, that I am that god, so are you, so is everybody and everything created?

If you don't like others making false statements and judgements about your religion kindly don't do so about other religions either.

I could make a list of all that I find disgusting in Islam. I could talk about women's rights, brutal and most cruel and heartless animal slaughter, and much more. I choose not to, because I accept it as a great religion misunderstood by followers who accept it as blind faith rather than trying to understand the whys and wherefores. Anytime anybody accepts religious teachings in a "because God said so" or "because our scriptures said so" without having examined the logic of it, without wondering why it was said, there arises grave misunderstanding and misinterpretation of those words.

Although I was born Hindu and I lived in a Hindu monastery for many years as a child I declared myself agnostic, then atheist for several years. Then when I started seeing the beauty in life and thinking in a more mature way, I came to believe in a oneness of the universe and of all other universes in existence and a creative force that included all of that and was much much more. I refuse to accept the perfect way in which molecules interact to form flowers and stars as mere chance. I refuse to accept that the perfect smooth synchronisation of the universe, the cosmic dance of planets and galaxies and protons as a fluke. Having arrived at these conclusions I talked to my mother and she told me thatwhat I had stumbled upon is the very same things that upanishads and vedas said. So I studied hindusim deeper and I kept finding statements that seemed contradictory and wrong, but I always found that the contradictions and errors were in my understanding, for when explained to me, it made perfect sense and fit in with my values of non violence and equality. The day I find a statement in Hinduism that contradicts those values, I will renounce the religion. That is my promise, that is my confidence in those teachings.

Sebbi

12-29-2004, 12:47 AM

Let me remind you that you, a muslim, have come to the Buddhism forum to discuss Buddhism. It is not that we, Buddhist (or similar), have come to the Islam forum to discuss Buddhism.

If you wish to discuss Buddhist teachings in context of Islamic teachings, then by all means, starts a thread there. If you wish to learn about Buddhism in terms of Buddhism, not Islam, then you are in the right place.

I believe we answered your question adequately in context of Buddhism, even if we haven't answered adequately in the context of Islam.

I will answer this again, repeating myself, I believe, for the 3rd time.

The Buddha got his teachings from his own observations.

I hope this answers your question.

Blessings

Sebbi

xdianax

12-29-2004, 04:26 AM

I apologize, my brother recently came home from college, and I have not been on my computer in nearly a week. There have been so many new replies on this thread, and so much to discuss!

:) Thanks Meagain for that post; I was not aware of the specific characteristics before now. However, I thought that some Buddhists did make offerings to statues on certain days/holidays.
http://www.bswa.org/gallery/photos/albums/userpics/Vesak2003/normal_V2003_20.JPG
"Mahayana nuns making offerings to the shrine"

How did he find out about karma, who informed him and other people about this? By the way, when I say a normal buddhist I refer to any buddhist so my previous question should be; Why don´t all buddhist receive enlightment or do you think you have already.

Well, do you Diana?
As far as I know, the idea of karma was around long before Siddartha Gautama was born. It was a belief of Hinduism, and since Buddha was born in India there are many similarities between certain Buddhist and Hinduist ideas, karma being one of them.

That last question you posed is a difficult one to answer, for there are many other Buddhists much more knowledgeable, who know much more about Buddhism than I. I believe I have much more studying to do before I can confidently make significant statements about Buddhism...but here goes...

Haha, I have not recieved enlightenment yet, no, however I know that everyone is capable of reaching enlightenment. Therefore it is my belief that everyone can, and that whether in months or in lifetimes, each Buddhist has this ability. (I apologize if my answer seems vague, but for now I don't feel there is much else I can say)

To say that Allah(may he be exalted) is everywhere means that he is in every garbage bag every toilet and in every filthy and digusting location which is indeed a great lie against the Creator, may he be exalted for truly the Lord is free from any defects.

I thought that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all believed that God/Allah was omnipotent and omnipresent. Since omnipresent implies being present everywhere at once, I would think that Bhaskar's argument would make sense. However, my knowledge in the monotheistic religions is limited, and I was wondering if I was incorrect in thinking that Allah is believed to be omnipresent.

For no religion, except maybe Buddhism, is as blatantly non-dualistic as hinduism.
Bhaskar(:) you're explanation of the many gods as a manifestation of the one was extremely interesting), could you provide insight into the ideas behind Shiva and Vishnu and their seemingly dualistic relationship between creation and destruction.

:D Sebbi's last post speaks of one point I was going to write in mine, so thanks, because I don't think I could have said it better!

:) In love,

Diana

One more thing, Cab, I was wondering if you could explain why you have such feelings of contempt toward Hinduism in particular.

Bhaskar

12-29-2004, 05:39 PM

Bhaskar(:) you're explanation of the many gods as a manifestation of the one was extremely interesting), could you provide insight into the ideas behind Shiva and Vishnu and their seemingly dualistic relationship between creation and destruction.The system of Hinduism is many layered. It is very complex in its symbolism and that is something that appeals very strongly to the poet in me. There is a richness and depth to it that seems almost infinite to me.

The three aspects of existence are birth, life and death or creation, existence and destruction. Brahman, the one infinite self, is above this play of the world and is the only true real entity. Everything else is within that brahman.

All the universes are created in brahman, exist in brahman and meet their destruction also within brahman only.

The creative aspect is called Brahma. He is depicted as a sage with four heads. The 4 heads could be seen as corresponding to the 4 vedas, which are said to have sprung from his head. Also they can be seen as a symbol of omniscience, he has a head pointing in each direction. He sits in a lotus, which is a symbol of beauty, knowledge and divinity. His consort is Saraswathy, goddess of learning, knowledge and language. His steed is the swan, a symbol of great knowledge and discriminative capacity (knowing the real from the unreal, in the way that a swan can separate milk from water, hence the title paramahamsa or the Greatest Swan is given to saints).

The existence, life aspect is Vishnu, the protector. To Him are attributed the qualities of kindness and mercy in infinite measure, and he is the very embodiment of dharma. Thus it is implied that dharma and kindness/mercy and love are the qualities that protect and hold the world together. His abode is vaikunta, where he reclines upon the serpent adisesha, floating upon an ocean of milk, while his wife, Lakshmi (goddess of wealth and prosperity) massages his feet. The symbolism is beautiful. The ocean of milk represents brahman, the substratum of the universe, infinite and sweet, blissful. The serpent represents the world of plurality, desire, and illusion. Vishnu himself represents the man of enlightenment, to who has conquered this deadly serpent of plurality and ignorance. He rests, ever peacefully. He never sleeps, but is always calm and peaceful. His feet are massaged by the goddess of wealth and material prosperity, for to an enlightened one, all material delights are available, yet he is not attached or bound to them, they serve him in awe, he does not need to go chasing after them.

Also Vishnu has four arms. One holds a conch (which can be seen as a symbol of the sound Om), one holds a discus, a deadly weapon, by which he destroys evil and protects good (this is akin to the razor's edge of discrimination, which is described in kaivalyopanishad, all our negative qualities are destroyed and our positive qualities protected by discriminative living) which also symbolises the destruction of false ego sense. The third hand holds a mace, which is a heavy club-like weapon, it symbolises the power of knowledge. The fourht holds a lotus, a symbol of purity, beauty, harmony, creativity and enlightenment.

The name Vishnu means that which is all pervading.

The aspect of destruction is represented by Siva. The name Shiva means "auspiciousness" and "beauty". Shiva, the very symbol of beauty, is smeared in ashes, wears snakes around his neck and his heair is in dreadlocks. From his hair flow the holy Ganges. He has a third eye on his forehead, when opened the third eye destroys all creation. He lives like an ascetic, in the mountains, wearing just a deer skin, in deep meditation.

This part is pertinent to our discussion of God and toilets. You see, the very symbol of auspiciousness, is clad in all that is inauspicious, ashes from the funeral ground, blood, animal skins, etc. This explains that even in the most ugly, disgusting things, we must see only sivam, auspiciousness and the divinity underlying it. The Ganges are representative of knowledge. Shiva is also the first Guru. In this sense he is the Lord of destruction of ego and false values. Whole books have been written about the symbolism of the Ganges and Shiva.

The third eye represents the eye of knowledge in us all. When it is opened, this dualistic world of plurality is destroyed by the fire of knowledge and right vision.

Collectively this trinity have various levels of symbolism. They can be seen as the stages of a human's life. Brahma is symbolic of birth and young age, when time is spent in study and intellectual development. Vishnu is symbolic of the householder's life, where he is the provider and nourisher for the family, he protects them and takes care of them. Shiva is symbolic of the final stage of renunciation, once all family obligations are met, when man leaves the home and goes to live in sanyasa, meditate and strive to achieve realisation. For this reason, Shiva is also called Maheswara (the great Ishwara or God, brahman).

Many greater than me have written books and treatises on the symbolism couched in Hinduism. Each small aspect of a deity, Vishnu's hands, Shivas throat, etc contain so many hidden secrets. It is indeed interesting and wonderful. The important thing, though, is to remember to live what you learn from them. I hope I answered your question satisfactorily.

Om tat sat.

cabdirazzaq

12-30-2004, 07:10 PM

I apologize, my brother recently came home from college, and I have not been on my computer in nearly a week. There have been so many new replies on this thread, and so much to discuss!

Thanks Meagain for that post; I was not aware of the specific characteristics before now. However, I thought that some Buddhists did make offerings to statues on certain days/holidays.

"Mahayana nuns making offerings to the shrine"

As far as I know, the idea of karma was around long before Siddartha Gautama was born. It was a belief of Hinduism, and since Buddha was born in India there are many similarities between certain Buddhist and Hinduist ideas, karma being one of them.

That last question you posed is a difficult one to answer, for there are many other Buddhists much more knowledgeable, who know much more about Buddhism than I. I believe I have much more studying to do before I can confidently make significant statements about Buddhism...but here goes...

Haha, I have not recieved enlightenment yet, no, however I know that everyone is capable of reaching enlightenment. Therefore it is my belief that everyone can, and that whether in months or in lifetimes, each Buddhist has this ability. (I apologize if my answer seems vague, but for now I don't feel there is much else I can say)

I thought that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all believed that God/Allah was omnipotent and omnipresent. Since omnipresent implies being present everywhere at once, I would think that Bhaskar's argument would make sense. However, my knowledge in the monotheistic religions is limited, and I was wondering if I was incorrect in thinking that Allah is believed to be omnipresent.

Bhaskar( you're explanation of the many gods as a manifestation of the one was extremely interesting), could you provide insight into the ideas behind Shiva and Vishnu and their seemingly dualistic relationship between creation and destruction.

Sebbi's last post speaks of one point I was going to write in mine, so thanks, because I don't think I could have said it better!

In love,

Diana

One more thing, Cab, I was wondering if you could explain why you have such feelings of contempt toward Hinduism in particular.
Firstly:
Sebbi, you do make a point and I could ofcourse stop doing that here.

Secondly: Indeed it is confirmed by history that man has sence the beginning thought of Allah(may he be exalted) as being above his creation, the egyptians and the building of the pyramids, the maya, aztek and inka indians, people through the ages has sence born inclined to existance of a Creator and that he exist in/above the sky.

Claiming that the Lord is everywhere means that he is in every toilet and in the behind of every filthy dog, may he be exalted from such claims.
By logic, the Creator can not be within his creation, did he create the universe from inside himself or from the outside?
Those christians and jews (I am of the view that any person who calls him self a muslim and claims the his Lord is everywhere has disbelieved and cannot be called muslim) that say this are thus making it legal for the hindu or any other pagan to worship an idol by him claiming that Allah(may he be exalted) is everywhere.

Thirdly: It was very stupid of me Bhaskar to call parts of buddhism disgusting and I regret that even though I think it is repulsive I see no benefit in writing that down.

Fourthly: I could write an essay on why I hate hindu worship but it would only provoke people and like I haven't managed to do that already.

Finally: I did not come here to make people angrybut I was wondering one thing which I have no understod even though it wasn't satisfying then Sebbi claimed that no buddhist worshipped buddha then this whole thing started, when you love a book and read it all the time, while your home or outside and youve memorised more than 300 pages of it, it´s quite hard not to quote it all the time, some of my class mates find it annoying that I keep reciting it when ever we have an argument of some sort.

Bhaskar

12-30-2004, 07:22 PM

Hatred only consumes the hater.

xdianax

12-30-2004, 08:35 PM

Thirdly: It was very stupid of me Bhaskar to call parts of buddhism disgusting and I regret that even though I think it is repulsive I see no benefit in writing that down.

Fourthly: I could write an essay on why I hate hindu worship but it would only provoke people and like I haven't managed to do that already.

Finally: I did not come here to make people angrybut I was wondering one thing which I have no understod even though it wasn't satisfying then Sebbi claimed that no buddhist worshipped buddha then this whole thing started, when you love a book and read it all the time, while your home or outside and youve memorised more than 300 pages of it, it´s quite hard not to quote it all the time, some of my class mates find it annoying that I keep reciting it when ever we have an argument of some sort.

Cab :) I don't think you should apologize for quoting the Qur'an, or expressing your feelings toward a religion. However, I agree with Bhaksar that Hatred only consumes the hater, and therefore its good that you ask any question/provoke a discussion regarding something you don't understand or don't agree with, rather than bottling up your feelings.

"Know thus, O good man: `not easy to control are evil things'. Let not greed and hate drag you to suffering for a long period."
-Dhammapada (v. 248)

:) In love,

Diana

Meagain

12-31-2004, 12:00 AM

Cab,

Your understanding of God as being seperate from his creation(s) is the same as the understanding of most Christians and Jews.

We could get into a logical discussion here as to the merits of that belief, but these arguements would have to be based on logic not religious beliefs.

There are levels of Buddhism that develop this logic and areas of western philosophy that do the same.

This is the major difference of the Eastern and Western traditions, the nature of god. In the west he is seperate, in general, (except for the ancient Mystery Schools)...in the East all is one.

However, Christian mystics have also held this view, if you read between the lines as in the old days they could not state this as they would be in deep trouble. Judaism has the mystic Kabbla, and I believe the Sufis are Islamic? To my knowledge they also believe in oneness.

I encouage you to keep an open mind as to others' beliefs as we all must live on the same Earth. I find the more I study different religions, the more I see they are the same truth presented in strange and foreign ways.

Bhaskar

12-31-2004, 05:09 AM

Cab :) I don't think you should apologize for quoting the Qur'an, or expressing your feelings toward a religion. However, I agree with Bhaksar that Hatred only consumes the hater, and therefore its good that you ask any question/provoke a discussion regarding something you don't understand or don't agree with, rather than bottling up your feelings.

"Know thus, O good man: `not easy to control are evil things'. Let not greed and hate drag you to suffering for a long period."
-Dhammapada (v. 248)

:) In love,

Diana
What Diana says is true. I quote scripture all the time, bhavad geeta, vedas, ramayana, etc. I love it, it helps me stay centred in my spiritual side. And yes, it is good to question and try to understand, but it must be with an open mind, not preconcieved and possibly incorrect notions and dislikes. If you have already decided some ways of praying in Buddhism are abhorrent and hateful, then your questioning is going to have no value, for you will not learn anything from it. I pray to Shiva, Vishnu, Brahma and my toilet seat that you may find peace of mind and deliverance from the anger and hatred that burn you from within.

cabdirazzaq

12-31-2004, 09:41 AM

You both truly make a point concerning angerness and hatred, the angry person may do and say things he wouldn't had otherwise and the outcome could be terrible, enough for me to quote is 2 verses and hadiths.

".who repress anger, and who pardon men; verily, Allaah loves Al-Muhsinoon (the good-doers)." [Quran Aal 'Imraan 3:134]

"And those who avoid the greater sins, and Al-Fawaahish (illegal sexual intercourse), and when they are angry, they forgive." [Quran al-Shooraa 42:37]

man said to the Prophet ((peace and blessing of Allah be upon him)), "Advise me." He said: "Do not get angry." The man repeated his request several times, and he said, "Do not get angry." (Al-Bukhaari)

The prophet(peace and blessing of Allah be upon him)said: "The strong man is not the one who can wrestle (fight); the strong man is the one who controls himself at the time of anger." (Al-Bukhaari)

But without doubt, something can not be left out without being hated. I can openly confess that I hate rape, murder and oppression and such crimes. Let us remember Bhaskar that what is normal here may be totally different somewhere else, what classifies as a crime is what the society recognize as one. In my eyes adultery and fornication are both horrible crimes, indeed I feel quite disgusted of seeing young students when waiting outside the classrooms kissing and hugging, It makes me feel sick because in my eyes this is a crime, on the other hand I see no diffuclty in marrying ones cousin while people here view this as quite dispiseful

My point being, if you were to visit a small town were all the inhabitants were strict jews or muslims and then worship Shiva or your "toilet seat", then in the minds of people, even though no legal action would be taken it would be classed as the worst a human being could ever do.

By Him who holds my soul in his hand I would rather be put on a cross than to bow to one, this may answer something about why I hate polytheistic worship, if not than perhaps the ritual of Lingam and Yona is enough, rubbing a giant erected penis with butter, milk and water is well...
I have no comments

the dauer

12-31-2004, 08:24 PM

Cab, I think you're putting words into the mouths of Orthodox Jews everywhere. The majority I have met think for themselves, and there are always different ways to understand a situation, even halakhically.

Dauer

cabdirazzaq

01-01-2005, 09:07 AM

Bhaskar

01-01-2005, 08:33 PM

If you see the shivalingam as a symbol of the penis your mind is far too absorbed in your genitalia. The shivalingam is a bridge between nirguna and saguna worship, it is an idol, yet one without human form or shape, one step closer to the formless and infinite. It is also a symbol of the cosmic column of fire from which Shiva came, the source of which even brahma and vishnu were unable to find. The word lingam itself means symbol and Shivalingam means symbol of shiva.

Also if you see 2 people hugging each other outside a classroom and you immediately assume it is sexual, again your mind seems obsessed with it. Even if it is, there is nothing wrong with sex. If your parents had not made love you would not be here today. If you go back far enough there was a time when marriage concept did not exist. We are descendants of that age, so our ancestry itself is "tainted".
All intolerance is a result of misunderstanding. You don't understand a word of Hinduism, you dont even want to, all you want to do is go on bad mouthing that religion and giving your own spin to everything that is taught therein, with the intention of making it seem barbaric and stupid. As a result you only flaunt a banner of your own ignorance and intolerance.

Bhaskar

01-02-2005, 01:07 AM

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=5&chapter=6&version=31#fen-NIV-5091a)] 5 Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength[Deu 6]
As for christians;

he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
29 "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: `Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. [Mark 12]

And when Jesus said that the Lord is One, still do you fail to understand the obvious nonduality of those words? By saying the Lord is one, Christ says that there is none other than the lord, sarvam khalvidam brahma (everything is verily the lord alone). In that sense the lors is truly one and we are all parts of that oneness, drops in the ocean.

Fear the LORD your God, serve him only and take your oaths in his name. 14 Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you; 15 for the LORD your God, who is among you, is a jealous God and his anger will burn against you, and he will destroy you from the face of the land[Deu 6]

By saying the Lord is jealous you attribute to him weaknesses of man. Envy is one of the 7 deadly sins. So is wrath. Do you then say that your Lord is a sinner?

Remember what happend to the children of Israeel when they worshipped the golden calf? Jews that stricly follow the scripture can by no means overlook such verses.
This is a classica case of symbolism in the scriptures. In this case it is quite obvious too. The golden calf represents material riches, worldly pursuits of wealth and plenty. By worshipping these worldly riches, the children of Israel stopped worshipping God and turned their attention to all other worldly pursuits and so they recieved the results of their errors.

It does not imply in any way that the worship of God in any form is wrong. What it means is that it is wrong to worship some form losing sight of the divinity within it.

the dauer

01-02-2005, 02:18 AM

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=5&chapter=6&version=31#fen-NIV-5091a)] 5 Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength[Deu 6]

Fear the LORD your God, serve him only and take your oaths in his name. 14 Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you; 15 for the LORD your God, who is among you, is a jealous God and his anger will burn against you, and he will destroy you from the face of the land[Deu 6]

As for christians;

he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
29 "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: `Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. [Mark 12]

Remember what happend to the children of Israeel when they worshipped the golden calf? Jews that stricly follow the scripture can by no means overlook such verses.

Yes, exactly. The Jews were told not to worship any object and to direct their prayers directly to God. This is for the Jews to follow. Then there is the issue of what qualifies as idolatry and what does not, if there are varying degrees of idolatry. For instance, Maimonides rules that while it would be idolatry for a Jew to worship Jesus, it is not idolatry for a Christian. I think the reason is that they believe it is monotheism and don't know any better. So, while as a Jew I consider Hinduism idolatry for a Jew, these are questions that run through my mind:

Is the nature of this idolatry the same as that the Torah specifically forbids or is it different? Is there any reason whatsoever that Hinduism should offend me because of the worship of trees and people and toilets? My answer, and I do not have access to a rabbinic response to this issue, is that Hindus do not actually worship trees. Hindus worship Brahman, and Brahman is everything. The biblical prohibition is against saying a statue or some other physical object is actually God, in whole and not in part.

This is illustrated in the midrash about Abraham in which we are told that his father built idols, and while his father was out he smashed the idols, and placed the hammer into the hand of the largest. When his father came home he told him that the idol did it. The issue is with attributing power to something physical.

There is actually a somewhat liberal response to the issue of idolatry that states that the real issue is the covenant between God and Israel. Other people can certainly worship God through other things, but because of their special relationship, Jews must worship God directly.

Dauer

the dauer

01-02-2005, 02:29 AM

Bhaskar,

I must disagree with you about the calf. This is why:

Not to make a graven image; neither to make it oneself nor to have it made by others (Ex. 20:4) (CCN9).
Not to make any figures for ornament, even if they are not worshipped (Ex. 20:20) (CCN144).
Not to make idols even for others (Ex. 34:17; Lev. 19:4) (CCN10).
Not to use the ornament of any object of idolatrous worship (Deut. 7:25) (CCN17).
Not to make use of an idol or its accessory objects, offerings, or libations (Deut. 7:26) (CCN18). See Grape Products.
Not to drink wine of idolaters (Deut. 32:38) (CCN15). See Grape Products.
Not to worship an idol in the way in which it is usually worshipped (Ex. 20:5) (CCN12).
Not to bow down to an idol, even if that is not its mode of worship (Ex. 20:5) (CCN11).
Not to prophesy in the name of an idol (Ex. 23:13; Deut. 18:20) (CCN27).
Not to hearken to one who prophesies in the name of an idol (Deut. 13:4) (CCN22).
Not to lead the children of Israel astray to idolatry (Ex. 23:13) (CCN14).
Not to entice an Israelite to idolatry (Deut. 13:12) (CCN23).
To destroy idolatry and its appurtenances (Deut. 12:2-3) (affirmative).
Not to love the enticer to idolatry (Deut. 13:9) (CCN24).
Not to give up hating the enticer to idolatry (Deut. 13:9) (CCN25).
Not to save the enticer from capital punishment, but to stand by at his execution (Deut. 13:9) (negative).
A person whom he attempted to entice to idolatry shall not urge pleas for the acquittal of the enticer (Deut. 13:9) (CCN26).
A person whom he attempted to entice shall not refrain from giving evidence of the enticer's guilt, if he has such evidence (Deut. 13:9) (negative).
Not to swear by an idol to its worshipers, nor cause them to swear by it (Ex. 23:13) (CCN13).
Not to turn one's attention to idolatry (Lev. 19:4) (CCN16).
Not to adopt the institutions of idolaters nor their customs (Lev. 18:3; Lev. 20:23) (CCN21).
Not to pass a child through the fire to Molech (Lev. 18:21) (negative).
Not to suffer any one practicing witchcraft to live (Ex. 22:17) (negative).
Not to practice onein (observing times or seasons as favorable or unfavorable, using astrology) (Lev. 19:26) (CCN166).
Not to practice nachesh (doing things based on signs and portents; using charms and incantations) (Lev. 19:26) (CCN165).
Not to consult ovoth (ghosts) (Lev. 19:31) (CCN170).
Not to consult yid'onim (wizards) (Lev. 19:31) (CCN171).
Not to practice kisuf (magic using herbs, stones and objects that people use) (Deut. 18:10) (CCN168).
Not to practice kessem (a general term for magical practices) (Deut. 18:10) (CCN167).
Not to practice the art of a chover chaver (casting spells over snakes and scorpions) (Deut. 18:11) (CCN169).
Not to enquire of an ob (a ghost) (Deut. 18:11) (CCN172).
Not to seek the maytim (dead) (Deut. 18:11) (CCN174).
Not to enquire of a yid'oni (wizard) (Deut. 18:11) (CCN173).
Not to remove the entire beard, like the idolaters (Lev. 19:27) (CCN177).
Not to round the corners of the head, as the idolatrous priests do (Lev. 19:27) (CCN176).
Not to cut oneself or make incisions in one's flesh in grief, like the idolaters (Lev. 19:28; Deut. 14:1) (CCN28).
Not to tattoo the body like the idolaters (Lev. 19:28) (CCN163).
Not to make a bald spot for the dead (Deut. 14:1) (CCN164).
Not to plant a tree for worship (Deut. 16:21) (negative).
Not to set up a pillar (for worship) (Deut. 16:22) (CCN162).
Not to show favor to idolaters (Deut. 7:2) (CCN20).
Not to make a covenant with the seven (Canaanite, idolatrous) nations (Ex. 23:32; Deut. 7:2) (negative).
Not to settle idolaters in our land (Ex. 23:33) (negative) (CCI26).
To slay the inhabitants of a city that has become idolatrous and burn that city (Deut. 13:16-17) (affirmative).
Not to rebuild a city that has been led astray to idolatry (Deut. 13:17) (negative).
Not to make use of the property of city that has been so led astray (Deut. 13:18) (negative).

http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

Taken into the context of the rest of the Torah, it is clear that it is at the very least about making a physical representation of God. It was possibly an attempt at turning back to Egyptian practice by creating a pseudo-Apis statue.

Dauer

TrippinBTM

01-02-2005, 03:09 AM

Claiming that the Lord is everywhere means that he is in every toilet and in the behind of every filthy dog, may he be exalted from such claims.
By logic, the Creator can not be within his creation, did he create the universe from inside himself or from the outside?
Is a dancer seperate from her dance?

the dauer

01-02-2005, 03:41 AM

I'm responding to what I just noticed trippin responding to.

According to Jewish mysticism, God did create from inside Himself, in a process of emanation. A further example of Godness in the world, God blows the soul into man's nostrils. When we blow into something it is from within ourselves. That is all entirely valid for an Orthodox Jew, if they are inclined to believe that.

Dauer

Bhaskar

01-02-2005, 03:03 PM

the dauer

01-02-2005, 10:34 PM

Dauer, I am glad you have joined this thread. Thank you for the excellent necklace of quotes. My point is this: idol worship is only idol worship as long as you are worshipping the idol. To use the idol as a focus point, but direct the prayers to God is not idol worship.

Yes, I entirely agree with you. That's what I was saying about biblical idolatry. It would mean saying that a statue is exclusively God, while everything else is not. In Judaism it can actually be taken so far as to include putting anything before God, be it money or whatever else. But to clarify the meaning of this, God's will is understood through the mitzvot.

The reason I say from a Jewish position that Hinduism is still a form of idolatry, is because idols are used, as well as other physical objects. While prayers are directed to God, they are directed through or with the aide of other forms. But as I said as well, I don't see why it's wrong for a Hindu to do that, only for a Jew to do that. I was responding to cad's statement that a fully observant Jew would be disgusted by Hinduism. Unfortunately for him, as a people we tend to be very big on examining and understanding things before coming to a conclusion. It comes from the legal tradition. I truly doubt many Jews would be "disgusted" by Hinduism.

Also, I do not deny any of what you say, I accept it completely. I fail to see why the symbolism I spoke of and the literal meaning of not resorting to idol worship cannot coexist. Such is the way in many scriptures. For example, there is great symbolism hidden in the Ramayana, although the Rama avatar did actually occur in history.

I agree with you here. We have four different levels of understanding a sacred text in Judaism. Pshat is the plain meaning(Not literal.) Remez is the alluded meaning. Drash is the exegetical, drawn out meaning. Sod is the hidden meaning. However, to me it seemed like you were suggesting it was the exclusive meaning while the plain meaning (which as Jews we try to keep in mind when looking at other levels) is clearly about either worshipping God through an idol or praying to other gods.

Actually, modern biblical criticism offers a very different answer. It suggests that this was written by the Shilonite priesthood, who represented the Mosaic tradition, after repreatedly being brushed aside, as a polemic. It implicates the Aaronite priesthood in Jerusalem because Aaron makes the calf and implicates the Northern Kingdom because the calf is like the bulls that they set up, one in each of two ancestral places of worship.

But that has nothing to do with Torah as a sacred text.

Dauer

Bhaskar

01-02-2005, 11:06 PM

The thing is, there are so many ways of worship in Hinduism and using pictures/idols is just one way. There are many who meditate upon and worship nirguni brahman, formless, infinite.

Actually, modern biblical criticism offers a very different answer. It suggests that this was written by the Shilonite priesthood, who represented the Mosaic tradition, after repreatedly being brushed aside, as a polemic. It implicates the Aaronite priesthood in Jerusalem because Aaron makes the calf and implicates the Northern Kingdom because the calf is like the bulls that they set up, one in each of two ancestral places of worship.

But that has nothing to do with Torah as a sacred text.

Dauer
You just said a lot of words I didnt understand...

the dauer

01-02-2005, 11:21 PM

The thing is, there are so many ways of worship in Hinduism and using pictures/idols is just one way. There are many who meditate upon and worship nirguni brahman, formless, infinite.

I really don't know enough about that path to say anything, but if it is as clear as you say it is, then it is clearly not idolatry. I really don't want you to feel offended by the term. As I have said, there is a difference between the classical biblical idolatry and that which I would also identify in Christianity. There is a difference between someone who is not Jewish doing this, and someone who is Jewish doing this. I know sometimes the word can be used as an epithet but it's really not meant that way in this case. Based on what I know, I have a lot of respect for Hinduism.

You just said a lot of words I didnt understand...

It's really not that important. According to modern biblical criticism up is down and left is right. I consider it possibly useful for understanding biblical history better, but not very useful for understanding Torah as a sacred text. Make note once more that I am quite liberal. I consider a text sacred only because we recognize it as sacred. However, if there is a divine plan, then all sacred texts are sacred for someone at some time because God has willed it to be so. Therefore, God made all of these texts sacred for particular individuals. These are my personal beliefs.

Dauer

edit: Just one other thing. It is not the idol that makes it idolatry. Anything material taken to be god. At some point this just becomes semantics and at some point I would be in no place to say whether or not it is idolatry. But identifying something physical as God would be. I'm tripping up now because of monism. I don't know enough to begin to say. Seems like some of it is semantics, but not all.

TrippinBTM

01-03-2005, 01:06 AM

edit: Just one other thing. It is not the idol that makes it idolatry. Anything material taken to be god. At some point this just becomes semantics and at some point I would be in no place to say whether or not it is idolatry. But identifying something physical as God would be. I'm tripping up now because of monism. I don't know enough to begin to say. Seems like some of it is semantics, but not all.
It's like you said: it's only idolatry when one considers the idol to be god, while everything else is not. If one considers the idol to contain god and uses it as a focus for prayer or meditation, while ALSO recognizing that god is not in the idol alone, but is everywhere, in everything, always, then it's not idolatry; it's just a focal point.

the dauer

01-03-2005, 03:14 AM

Trippin,

by the Jewish definition, it still qualifies as idolatry because it is not worshipping God directly. That is why Christianity is considered idolatry, because there it is worship via a manifestation.

I see it as semantics because in Jewish Mysticism it is possible to recognize the Divine spark within an object. However, the Hindu view of an object still falls on the other side of the Jewish laws of idolatry, which means absolutely nothing to anyone but a Jew or a Noahide. Basically, this is a legal issue that has no implications outside of the acceptable practices for a Jew. There are probably a number of legal discourses on Hinduism, probably showing that while the practices are as idolatrous as Christianity and therefore unacceptable for a Jew, they are also no more idolatrous than Christianity, and therefore have no particular implications on the types of contact a traditional Jew can have with someone who is Hindu.

The Hebrew term for idolatry is actually much less specific than the English one and does not even suggest an idol. Avodah Zara means strange worship/service and as you can see, this term is much more ambiguous.

Dauer

Bhaskar

01-03-2005, 03:30 AM

Trippin,

by the Jewish definition, it still qualifies as idolatry because it is not worshipping God directly. That is why Christianity is considered idolatry, because there it is worship via a manifestation.

I just have one question... The God we speak of here is all pervading. How is a manifestation of God different from God? To distinguish manifestations of God form God is like trying to distinguish the drops of water that make up the ocean. In whatever form you worship, you are worshipping God alone, because there is nothing else you can worship. The verse that is a part of the daily rites for a HIndu explains it beautifully:

aakashat pattam toyam
yatha gachati saagaram
sarva deva namaskaraha
keshavam pratigachati

Just as all the waters that fall from the sky eventually reach the ocean, so too all prayers eventually reach the one God only.

the dauer

01-03-2005, 04:37 AM

Well, this will be easier to explain if I can give you some of the basis for the panentheist thread of Judaism. The understanding in Judaism is that God is one, infinite, with no multiplicity. The question at that point is, how can we be here if that is the case?

In tzimtzum, God contracts to create a space that is not Him so that there can be a world. Then (I'm not sure exactly how it works so I'll mention two different stages that are both important) God creates vessels to hold Divine light. But they cannot contain it and break, and so the empty space is filled with the Divine light and the bits of shell.

It's a process of emanation. There are four worlds. The fourth is ours. But ours is also a part of the shell, which is the absence of God. So basically, we are filled with Godness but we are not God. It is the job of the kabbalistic Jew to raise up the Divine sparks, reuniting Hashem with the Shekhina, which is at its most basic a technical word for God's presence in the world. The ultimate goal is to raise up all of the sparks, which would then reverse dual existence.

Jewish panentheism therefore, is different. My cup is not God. There is Godness within the cup. The word is not really shell, but husk. It is something that is meant to be peeled away to reveal the Divine.

Nor do I disagree that all prayers reach God. The Jewish belief is that any prayer will reach God, but that does not mean it's not avodah zara.

So we are really understanding God in two different ways. According to Judaism any worship of a manifestation qualifies as idolatry because the manifestation is not God, even if they are almost entirely filled with the Divine. Now, if I haven't made this clear, I really think all of religious thought is semantics and that is why there are so many approaches. But according to Judaism, praying to a manifestation is a form of idolatry. I'm not trying to change your mind and convince you you're an idolater or anything like that. This is simply the Jewish definition, by which Christianity and much of Hinduism qualifies. It doesn't make you a bad person according to Judaism. It means Jews cannot do it, and Bnai Noah cannot do it. Like I said, not an epithet, but rather a legal issue. There is even a quote from Pirkei Avot:

"[Rabbi Chaninah ben Dosa] would say: Whoever is pleasing to his fellow creatures is pleasing to G-d; but whoever is not pleasing to his fellow creatures, G-d is not pleased with him." Avot 4:3

Pretty simple.

I'm not sure this really helped to clarify anything. It really seems like this discussion is more me saying, "This is the Jewish definition of idolatry." And then someone else saying, "But that is not idolatry because x." I don't mean to simplify the arguements, but it doesn't change the Jewish definition of avodah zara. No matter how much we discuss, I cannot change the Jewish definition. I completely understand your point of view and I don't think there's anything wrong with it at all. In response to what cad said I was clarifying the Jewish position.

Dauer

TrippinBTM

01-03-2005, 04:45 AM

So the law against idolatry only applies to Jews? For a Jew to worship the Lord through a manifestation is idolatry, but for a Hindu or a Christian, it isn't?

Further, does the Jew consider it wrong, stupid, or evil for a Hindu to, as per their religion, pray through such a manifestation?

the dauer

01-03-2005, 05:12 AM

So the law against idolatry only applies to Jews? For a Jew to worship the Lord through a manifestation is idolatry, but for a Hindu or a Christian, it isn't?

I'm not exactly sure what has been written on Hinduism -- as far as traditional Judaism is concerned -- but it's probably similar to that written on Christianity, which is idolatry for a Jew, who is bound clearly by the mitzvot, but not for a Christian. I'm pretty sure there's a standing ruling that there is no idolatry today such as there was in biblical times, so that anything today is a lesser idolatry. In order to become a bnai Noah, someone would have to stop worshipping via a manifestation, as part of showing their full commitment to Hashem and the 7 laws. I'm not too sure beyond that. I'm not a traditional Jew.

Further, does the Jew consider it wrong, stupid, or evil for a Hindu to, as per their religion, pray through such a manifestation?

Wrong as in incorrect? A traditional Jew might very well think that. Stupid or evil? Unlikely. That's why I posted about this in the first place. Cad said a fully observant Jew would find Hinduism disgusting, and I said that a Jew would be more likely to try to understand the nature of Hinduism, to what degree it is idolatry, and how that relates to him.

Judaism is a religion for Jews. It's concerned with the lives of Jews. It's not a universal religion, although it does say the righteous of all nations have a place in the world-to-come, regardless of their beliefs.

It's difficult to sum up what "the Jew" thinks because we are by no means monolithic, even among the Orthodox. And we're also really more defined by action than belief. Belief on God vary a bit, as well as beliefs about miracles, the world-to-come, etc. I'd say there are some guidelines that help understand Jewish belief though, even as some people might exist outside of some of those guidelines.

Dauer

the dauer

01-03-2005, 05:18 AM

Oh, and to be more specific, the 613 mitzvot only apply to Jews. For the same reason a non-Jew is not expected to observe the Shabbat and keep it holy, a non-Jew is not held to other mitzvot. According to some, there was a covenant with Noah that had 7 mitzvot, and this was the religion of Noah. I think it's more likely these had more to do with the laws for non-Jews in Israel.

Dauer

Meagain

01-03-2005, 11:44 PM

Bringing this back to Buddhism, yet incorporateing everyone....

Here is a portion of an interview with the Dalai Lama I found somewhere on the net,

"Thurman: You speak about how the Buddha always emphasized the rational pursuit of truth. "He instructed his disciples to critically judge his words before accepting them. He always advocated reason over blind faith." Coming from a late 20th-century belief that there is no Truth, only contingent truths, how are we to imagine what the Buddha meant by "truth" in contemporary terms?

Dalai Lama: Buddha was speaking about reality. Reality may be one, in its deepest essence, but Buddha also stated that all propositions about reality are only contingent. Reality is devoid of any intrinsic identity that can be captured by any one single proposition -- that is what Buddha meant by "voidness." Therefore, Buddhism strongly discourages blind faith and fanaticism.

Of course, there are different truths on different levels. Things are true relative to other things; "long" and "short" relate to each other, "high" and "low," and so on. But is there any absolute truth? Something self-sufficient, independently true in itself? I don't think so.

In Buddhism we have the concept of "interpretable truths," teachings that are reasonable and logical for certain people in certain situations. Buddha himself taught different teachings to different people under different circumstances. For some people, there are beliefs based on a Creator. For others, no Creator. The only "definitive truth" for Buddhism is the absolute negation of any one truth as the Definitive Truth.

Thurman: Isn't that because it is dangerous for one religion to consider it has the only truth?

Dalai Lama: Yes. I always say there should be pluralism -- the concept of many religions, many truths. But we must also be careful not to become nihilistic."

Thurman is Robert Thurman. Umma the movie star's father and I belive the first westerner to become a Buddhist Lama.
The Dalai Lama doesn't speak for all of Buddhism, but, I thuoght these words expressed a basic Buddhist philosophy. Read them over again.

the dauer

01-04-2005, 06:25 AM

I'm sorry to bring the subject back one more time but I just want to make something very clear before abandoning this whole line of conversation. My apology to Meagain. I'm not trying to thwart your attempt to redirect this thread. Avodah zara means "strange service/worship" and although biblically it is usually translated as idolatry, it does not carry quite the same meaning.

There is actually a very good explanation of it at the bottom of the following page from which I will first include a very concise quote:

"Avodah zerah means service or worship that is strange or foreign to the Jew from a Torah perspective. It is commonly translated as ÒidolatryÓ, because from the Jewish point of view, those who pray to a physical or metaphysical entity that has, or once had, or could have a form, is limiting the concept of a singular limitless formless infinite singular Creator, and that is not very different than worshipping a little carving, statue, or even a photograph.

Such worship is foreign to the Jew."

http://www.kosherjudaism.com/elohimacharim.html

I hope that clarifies any confusion my posts may have caused and if anyone wishes to respond to this, please start a thread on the Jewish board.

Dauer