Posts Tagged ‘Buddhists’

Buddhists don’t believe in G-d: why should they have a scripture then?

May 29, 2015

One may view and comment on my posts at <www.religiousforums.com> <Thread : Buddhists don’t believe in G-d: why should they have a scripture then?>. Please click post # below to join the discussion.

Paarsurrey wrote:

Like one could be a Jew and Atheist.

Yet one cannot be a Muslim and an Atheist.
Regards

tiki likes this.

Bringing atheists (without ridicule and derision)and believers together for a peaceful dialogue

February 28, 2014

“the Way?”
“Faitheist – bringing atheists and believers together (book review)”

http://theway21stcentury.wordpress.com/
http://theway21stcentury.wordpress.com/2013/09/29/faitheist-bringing-atheists-and-believers-together-book-review/#comment-2399

paarsurrey
1 MARCH, 2014 AT 1:00 AM

@ unkleE and all others who wrote comments on this blog
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim; I also support the idea of a peaceful (without deriding and ridicule) dialogue between the revealed religions and non-religions (Atheists, Agnostics, Skeptics; Humanists) all included.

I live in Toronto; can we meet here (or your like-minded friends)?

Atheists, believers, dialogue, without ridicule, without derision, Faitheist, Ahmadis, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Jews, peaceful Muslim, religions, non-religions, Atheists, Agnostics, Skeptics; Humanists

Science and Naturalism

July 21, 2013

Paarsurrey says:
I like following points mentioned by you.

1. science is not bound to a particular philosophy

2. I will have to define some terms. When I say “science” I mean the scientific method. Science is (as I’ve said in previous blog posts) organized and methodical learning. Science is about asking questions, performing experiments, and then asking more and better questions based on the results. Science is tool, and it is a tool that is open to anyone who can think. Whether you are Hindu, Christian, or an atheist you can perform science. A scientist only needs to believe two things on faith; that nature is reasonable and that nature is understandable.

3. If everything has a reason then science as a concept will work; if everything just happens for no particular reason, if there are no “laws” defining how things work, then science is only an illusion.

4. To be a scientist you do not have follow any particular creed. That is why there are excellent scientists both past and present who are Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics, Muslims, Christians, etc. However this fact is not immediately apparent to all people.

5. Now it is understandable why so many people, if only unconsciously, believe that you must be a naturalist to be a scientist. That is because of the limits of science itself. Science can only tell us about things inside of nature; things we can observe and test. If there is a God outside of nature then science cannot prove his existence.

You have used simple words but have explained a lot; this bridges gaps between the Theists and the Atheists.

The Page Nebula

I recently had the pleasure of having an intellectual conversation with a friend who I had a disagreement with. It’s a rare pleasure to be sure, and the fact that it is rare probably says more about me than anything else. Most of my friends agree with me on the matters I care most about, and if there is disagreement we would rather not bring up the subject. This is, I think, typical of most Americans (or perhaps I should say most white Americans; African-American culture is more accepting in general of honest conflict between friends and family which is to their credit). The only reason I came into open argument with this friend was the fact that he repeatedly aired his contrary views on Facebook and it is infinitely easier to get into an argument over the internet than it is in person. On the internet I have all…

View original post 1,409 more words

Buddha’s teachings were truthful but the Buddhists/Buddhism could not preserve them

June 22, 2013

I wrote following posts on <http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/> under the topic <Buddha believed in the Creator God>; the posts are given below for the viewers of this blog.

To see the context of a post, please, click the post #; that will take you to the full single view of the post in the forum, and then click the thread topic on the right upper corner, that will take you to the discussion that ensued in the forum.

Paarsurrey wrote:

#20  The Creator God is the only ONE reality in existence and attributes; all others have been bestowed existence and life by Him. He only is Immortal; all except Him will die; He makes them die and nobody else could escape death.

#22 I am a Muslim by religion; but I have no claim of any piety or scholarship as I am just an ordinary man in the street. I am on the right/middle path yet finding the path ahead which is endless till I reach the destination of ONE-the INFINITE by His grace and kindness.

Thanks

#23 I think Buddha does not bind one to the Buddhist scriptures in Kalama Sutta.

Does he?

#29 Yes, I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim.

Thanks for your good wishes.

Regards

#30  I never said that.

Buddha’s teachings were truthful but the Buddhists/Buddhism could not preserve them.

#31 I am just doing that, please.

#32  Buddha did not come after Muhammad so taking it in literal terms the question is not valid.

In spiritual terms; yes he could be termed as a spiritual father of Muhammad like Abraham and Adam were.

It is better to state that all the founders of revealed religions were from one source; hence they were truthful persons, perfect human beings, unique as they had conversed with ONE- the Creator God and became an image of uniqueness in their own merits.

They could also be called brothers in faith, joining and shaking hands with one another smilingly and happily saving the humanity and serving it selflessly.

#34 Monks are also human beings; they could make mistakes and they do make mistakes of omission and commission. They cannot be allowed to have any hegemony on Buddha or his teachings.
They should be respected, like any other human beings, but not followed blindly whatever the write or interpret; only Buddha is to be followed while treading on the right/middle path.

Buddha and Jesus spoke against the clergy/priesthood very strongly.

I think you know what Jesus spoke in the temple

#36 Sure.

Then we follow our conscience, reason and brilliant arguments; we don’t have to look to the monks.

#38 I think I did not claim that I have patent on Buddha. Did I?

#43 I don’t necessarily need to quote any Sutta for following reasons:

1. Suttas were not written by Buddha. So why insist on quoting them?

2. They are said to consist on 40/43 volumes; not possible to go through them all for an ordinary man.

3. Buddha himself spoke that scriptures and the monks should not be relied upon with blind faith; I quote from Kalama Sutta in this connection:

“Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing,
nor upon tradition,
nor upon rumor,
nor upon what is in a scripture,
nor upon surmise,
nor upon an axiom,
nor upon specious reasoning,
nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over,
nor upon another’s seeming ability,
nor upon the consideration, “The monk is our teacher.””

4. I understand that some scholars say that little or nothing goes back to the Buddha. Some have has little confidence that much, if any, of surviving Buddhist scripture is actually the word of the historical Buddha.

5. I don’t say they are false and should be rejected; they might contain diluted teachings of Buddha; and affected by the influence of Nāstika schools of philosophies during the times between Buddha and when the scriptures were compiled/written down.

A parallel in this regard could be had from what happened to the teachings of Jesus after when he migrated from Judea after the event of crucifixion in which he survived and came to India.

King Ashoka’s title amply proves that up to his times the Buddhists believed in God/s

June 22, 2013

I wrote following posts on <http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/> under the topic <Buddha believed in the Creator God>.

To see the context of a post, please, click the post #; that will take you to the full single view of the post in the forum, and then click the thread topic on the right upper corner, that will take you to the discussion that ensued in the forum.

Paarsurrey wrote:

#49 Buddhist Emperor Ashoka’s title “Beloved one of Gods”.
Emperor Ashoka’s given name was Asoka but he assumed the title Devanampiya Piyadasi which means “Beloved-of-the-Gods, He Who Looks on with Affection.”
Ashoka (ca. 304–232 BC) – also known as Ashoka the Great was an Indian Emperor of the Maurya Dynasty.

His period was prior to the canonization of Buddhist scriptures; and he was a fervent follower of Buddha; under his rule Buddha’s teachings spread far and wide.

His title shows us that he was a Theist; and this clearly hints that the earlier followers of Buddha were believers of Theists; they were not Atheists or Agnostics.

#61 Gospel of Buddha

Buddha says:

“Starting from the simplest forms, the mind rises and falls according to deeds, but the aspirations of a Bodhisatta pursue the straight path of wisdom and righteousness, until they reach perfect enlightenment in the Buddha. Verse-3: Chapter 41-“The Goal”

Paarsurrey comments: I think here “In the Buddha” means in the All-Wise and the All-Light- the one true God, not Buddha himself, if I have correctly understood.

#63 The scribes writing down the scriptures have undermined the true teachings of Buddha in the translations while Buddha’s exact words he spoke, it seems, have not been preserved and have been toned down.

#70 I think it is the Theravada Buddhists who deny most fervently that Buddha was not a Theist and that he did not believe in God.

Theravada Buddhists mostly are from Sri Lanka where Buddhism was brought by son and daughter of Kind Ashoka whom he had sent to Sri Lanka to spread Buddhism.

King Ashoka’s title “Devanampiya Piyadasi” “Beloved-of-the-Gods, He Who Looks On With Affection” amply proves that up to his times the Buddhists believed in God/s.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Our concern is; what Buddha believed, not what the Buddhists believe

May 8, 2013

It should not be a matter of surprise for one; if Christians could start believing in Trinity out of the thin air despite Jesus believing in one true God; the same could have and has happened in case Buddha; his followers tilting to the other side pronounce that Buddha did not believe in one God.

Buddha’s ways and conduct is starkly different from the Atheists or Agnostics; his conduct is that of a believer, and not of a disbeliever.

Buddha left nothing in writing and he spoke Magadhi, not Pali, I think.

My concern is Buddha; not his followers.

Buddha did not command to make statues of his person

March 30, 2013

80px-Dharma_Wheel_svg

2005-01-19-lotus-pond

Neither did Buddha worship any idol nor did he command to make any statues or worship them. All images or statues of Buddha have been without any authorization from him.

The Buddhist did almost the same thing as did Christians. Christians invented Trinity while Jesus believed in one true God.

The Buddhists made statues and some denomination of them as I understand perhaps worship them. Buddha won’t like them doing this, in my opinion.

One should note here the teachings of Moses:

[1] I am the Lord your God: you shall not make to yourselves any idol or graven thing, neither shall you erect pillars, nor set up a remarkable stone in your land, to adore it: for I am the Lord your God

http://www.drbo.org/chapter/03026.htm

This proves the principle that all revealed religions were against making any idols or idolatry; it is their followers who adopted this practice some centuries later.

‎“The making of a Muslim”

July 19, 2009


http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/07/13/the-making-of-a-muslim/



Paarsurrey
says:‎

Hi friend Moooo

I am sorry that my argument made you angry; while this was not my intention. I wanted ‎that you should humanly realize the fact.‎

You are a rational person as you say and I am happy to learn that. Perhaps you left ‎Christianity as you don’t think it has rational creeds.‎

I would like to quote here some small passages from wikipedia on the topic “The atomic ‎bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were”; you may access the whole article, if you ‎like:‎
‎ ‎
The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuclear attacks near the end of ‎World War II against the Empire of Japan by the United States at the executive order of ‎U.S. President Harry S. Truman on August 6 and August 9, 1945, respectively. The ‎bombs killed as many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki by the end ‎of 1945,[4 During the journey, Navy Captain William Parsons had armed the bomb, ‎which had been left unarmed to minimize the risks during takeoff. His assistant, 2nd Lt. ‎Morris Jeppson, removed the safety devices 30 minutes before reaching the target area.[21] ‎Responsibility for the timing of the second bombing was delegated to Colonel Tibbets as ‎commander of the 509th Composite Group on Tinian. Scheduled for August 11 against ‎Kokura, the raid was moved forward to avoid a five-day period of bad weather forecast to ‎begin on August 10.[42] Three bomb pre-assemblies had been transported to Tinian, ‎labeled F-31, F-32, and F-33 on their exteriors. On August 8, a dress rehearsal was ‎conducted off Tinian by Maj. Charles Sweeney using Bockscar as the drop airplane. ‎Assembly F-33 was expended testing the components and F-31 was designated for the ‎August 9 mission.[43]‎

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

‎1.‎ Navy Captain William Parsons
‎2.‎ ‎2nd Lt. Morris Jeppson
‎3.‎ Colonel Tibbets
‎4.‎ Maj. Charles Sweeney
Please tell me were the above persons Muslims? I don’t think they were Muslims. Were ‎they peaceful Agnostics, or peaceful Atheists or peaceful Hindus or peaceful Buddhists?‎
Were the inhabitants of Hirishima and Nagasaki heathens? Any friends here please reply; ‎I don’t want that our friend Moooo becomes angry again.‎

All human beings are just like a family; every human being is to be respected and loved; ‎not to be hated anymore.‎

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

How could a living Jonah be compared with the dead Jesus, as the Christians incorrectly believe?

June 18, 2009

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908, the Promised Messiah, the Second Coming says:

Let it be noted that though Christians believe that Jesus (peace be on him) after his arrest through the betrayal by Judas Iscariot, and crucifixion — and resurrection — went to heaven, yet, from the Holy Bible, it appears that this belief of theirs is altogether wrong. Matthew (chapter 12, verse 40) says that just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the fish, so the Son of Man shall be three days and three nights in the bowels of the earth.

Now it is clear that Jonah did not die in the belly of the fish; the utmost that happened was that he was in a swoon or a fit of fainting. The holy books of God bear witness that Jonah, by the grace of God, remained alive in the belly of the fish, and came out alive; and his people ultimately accepted him. If then Jesus (on whom be peace) had died in the belly of the ‘fish’, what resemblance could there be between a dead man and the one who was alive, and how could a living one be compared with one dead?

The truth rather is, that as Jesus was a true prophet and as he knew that God, whose beloved he was, would save him from an accursed death, he made a prophecy in the form of a parable, revealed to him by God, in which he hinted that he would not die on the Cross, nor would he give up the ghost on the accursed wood; on the contrary, like the prophet Jonah, he would only pass through a state of swoon.

In the parable he had also hinted that he would come out of the bowels of the earth and would then join the people and, like Jonah, would be honoured by them. So this prophecy too was fulfilled; for Jesus, coming out of the bowels of the earth, went to his tribes who lived in the eastern countries, Kashmir and Tibet, etc. viz. the ten tribes of the Israelites who 721 years1 before Jesus, had been taken prisoner from Samaria by Shalmaneser, King of Assur, and had been taken away by him.

Ultimately, these tribes came to India and settled in various parts of that country. Jesus at all events must have made this journey; for the divine object underlying his advent was that he should meet the lost Jews who had settled in different parts of India; the reason being that these in fact were the lost sheep of Israel who had given up even their ancestral faith in these countries, and most of whom had adopted Buddhism, relapsing, gradually into idolatry.

Dr. Bernier, on the authority of a number of learned people, states in his Travels that the Kashmiris in reality are Jews who in the time of the dispersal in the days of the King of Assur had migrated to this country.2
In any case it was necessary for Jesus (peace be on him) to find out the whereabouts of these lost sheep, who had, on coming to this country, India, become merged into the other people. I shall presently adduce evidence that Jesus (peace be on him) did in fact come to India and then, by stages, travelled to Kashmir, and discovered the lost sheep of Israel among the people who professed the Buddhist faith and that these people ultimately accepted him, just as the people of the prophet Jonah accepted Jonah.

And this was inevitable; for Jesus had said in so many words that he had been sent to the lost sheep of Israel.

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/jesus-in-india/ch1.html

There is no pride for Bible just in being an old and outmoded book

May 4, 2009

peacewithinreach says:

Thanks for your thoughtfulness on religion and spirituality. From looking at the oldest book in the world — the Bible,

Paarsurrey says:

Hi friend peacewithinreach

I don’t agree with you that the Bible is the oldest book in the world; it is I think a controversial subject. You may refer to wikipedia : “Hinduism is often regarded as the oldest religion in the world,[12] with roots tracing back to prehistoric times,[13] or 5000 years.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_India

This may require you a confirmation from the secular sources, which please do and confirm it with your research.

You may find that there are many claimants to it. The Hindus, the Buddhists, the Zoroastrians; may be many more.

You would please agree that there is no pride in being an old thing; if it loses it usefulness. Would you like to drink a cup of milk if you find it in an ancient monument? Perhaps you won’t; it must have become stale or poisonous.

The revealed books are for guidance; if the guidance has become diluted for any good reason; the book might have an academic utility but might have lost its utility as a code of life for many a reason. The book must be updated to reinstall life in it. A dead book that cannot solve the human corporeal, moral and spiritual problems is no good.

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran and not as presented by Paul or the sinful scribes.

I think you would like to ride a new car instead of an old rusty and unreliable one.

I respect your religion; but this is my sincere view.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim