28 Mar 06
Originally posted by sonhouseOne thought: the first three postulate ultimate standards of right/wrong, whereas the last two are based on an assumption of no right/wrong, a quagmire of meaninglessness.
Why is Apostasy practiced in those three but not in Hindu or Buddhism?
I am thinking now that Apostasy must be the most vile concept ever invented by ANY religion.
28 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo you dislike the concept of relativism? You have to have absolutes, no grays, only right and wrong? No inbetween allowed?
One thought: the first three postulate ultimate standards of right/wrong, whereas the last two are based on an assumption of no right/wrong, a quagmire of meaninglessness.
28 Mar 06
Originally posted by sonhouseRelativism as a concrete? No, I am not a big fan of self-contradiction. Obviously, there are shades throughout life; only God is pure perfection. But that doesn't erase our obligation to mimic Him.
So you dislike the concept of relativism? You have to have absolutes, no grays, only right and wrong? No inbetween allowed?
28 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo anything not pure right or pure wrong or pure good v pure evil is self-contradictory? How do you come by this astounding revelation?
Relativism as a concrete? No, I am not a big fan of self-contradiction. Obviously, there are shades throughout life; only God is pure perfection. But that doesn't erase our obligation to mimic Him.
28 Mar 06
Originally posted by sonhouseYou'll have to forgive my ignorance of both sources relative to that stance. Book, chapter, verse, if you don't mind?
Ok, so I assume you think its ok to kill someone who leaves one of the big three religions? Seems to be in the the Quran, and the bible,
old testement, you are required to kill someone who leaves those faiths.
29 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHonce again, you are hopelessly uninformed. i cannot speak with any authority on hinduism, but buddhism clearly has standards of right and wrong. in fact, there are even 10 precepts - just like christianity, except that buddhism predates christianity by 500 years so maybe christianity is like buddhism. it is hardly a quagmire of meaninglessness. buddhism is nothing more than a system that guides one to living a more altruistic, selfless existence while respecting all life. no buddhists crusade to kill or convert, no buddhists hold heresy or witch trials, no buddhists start a war in the name of their religion. christianity, islam and judeaism seem to be the most violent religions on the planet, so how is it that they are the ones that have got ahold of right and wrong? what you don't understand, and may be incapable of understanding, is that in buddhism it is not demanded that one blindly accept the tenants of the religion on pure faith. one is invited to follow the guidance of the buddha and see if it works.
One thought: the first three postulate ultimate standards of right/wrong, whereas the last two are based on an assumption of no right/wrong, a quagmire of meaninglessness.
29 Mar 06
Originally posted by nomindI believe you are mistaking the eight 'rights' as though they were of the same realm as right and wrong. When all is seen as the same existence, can any distinction exist? Thus, the self-contradiction. What Buddhism teaches with words is betrayed by the intended meanings.
once again, you are hopelessly uninformed. i cannot speak with any authority on hinduism, but buddhism clearly has standards of right and wrong. in fact, there are even 10 precepts - just like christianity, except that buddhism predates christianity by 500 years so maybe christianity is like buddhism. it is hardly a quagmire of meaninglessness. buddhism i ...[text shortened]... ligion on pure faith. one is invited to follow the guidance of the buddha and see if it works.
29 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThis is the confusion of being and existence, ground and figure, emptiness and form. All existents exist in/from/out of the same ground-of-being/being-itself, the all-of-all-of-all-of-it, which as such, as the whole, is One. There is no need to postulate a being beyond being—that is the claim of monists such as myself, aside from our differing speculations that we may from time to time indulge in about the nature of the one whole qua whole.
I believe you are mistaking the eight 'rights' as though they were of the same realm as right and wrong. When all is seen as the same existence, can any distinction exist? Thus, the self-contradiction. What Buddhism teaches with words is betrayed by the intended meanings.
Maya, illusion, is to recognize only the distinguishable forms—e.g., only the waves but not the ocean (being), assuming that the waves are separable from the ocean. Illusion is also to recognize, or assert, only the ocean and not the waves, when the ocean is “waving.” Ultimately, all existence is interwoven from the one ground; it is all “entangled.”
Once this model/metaphor is sufficiently complicated to include consciousness, willful interaction among the “waves,” and the like, then all sorts of valid questions come into play (including those of morality)—at the level of existence.
This is at least the Zen view; I can’t speak to other schools of Buddhism, except to say that at least some have a concept of reincarnation based on karma—the consequences of your behavior in one existence carry over into the next. Some Zennists may speak of reincarnation, too; but it’s not a doctrinal requirement.
The five precepts of Buddhism are found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancasila. (Yep, I had to look it up. 🙂 )