A problem with Budhhism

[Marwan]

The whole thing with Buddhism is that this life is a life of suffering and misery. This comes because of desire. By removing desire, you will remove suffering and misery. Your desire can be removed by following The
Eight Fold Path. I find 4 problems with this belief:

1) Why would God create you, then bring suffering and misery upon you, and then tell you how to remove this suffering and misery? Or let you figure it out by yourself? Its just illogical, and absurd.

2) If it was not God, as many Buddhist believe, because many buddhist are Atheists, then why do it? Why if I will not get anywhere after I die, should I spend my whole life trying to remove my suffering and misery? I at least would have lived my life. There is no reason for me to spend my life by removing my misery and suffering, and after all that, all I have left is me without any suffering and misery. Fine, its good to remove your suffering and misery. Everyone wants to be happy etc, but what happens after that? I have lived my whole life getting my suffering and misery to go away by following some rules, and I don't get nothing out of it. Yes, I don't have suffering and misery upon me anymore, but nothing big has really happened. I am still here in this evil world and will go nowhere (or become a animal as Buddhists or some Buddhists believe) after I die. So all this is just for this one and only life that I have. I would have done it, but just if I will get a reward for it, like eternal paradise. If not, I would rather live my only life instead of spending it on something meaningless. If no God and no after life, then spending you entire life on this Buddhist thing, is just ridiculous. You will maybe (not all buddhist doing this do in fact become without suffering or misery, and I doubt any do in fact) get your suffering and misery away, but you can do it in many ways. You don't have to be a Buddhist to remove your desire. You can be a Muslim too, because Muslims also believe in doing good deeds and not let your desire (Satan) trick you. Or you can just take a happy pill (joke). Not everybody will get their suffering and misery removed by following Buddhism. Many will find it not doing nothing with their suffering and misery, and on the other hand, many will. Buddhism isn't a cure for suffering and misery. It tells you how to remove it, but its "how" may not work for everybody. Its basically just a philosophy. Many people have different "how" to remove suffering, misery and getting happy etc, but none if these are facts. You have to see for yourself what is working for you. If Buddhism removes your desire, then that is what is working for you. If it is traveling then that is what is working for you. There is nothing which works for everybody. If 1 million people who have a lot of suffering and misery upon thems try out Buddhism as their cure, do you think everybody would be happy? Of course not. If it where, then you will not see so many Buddhists coming to Islam etc. I know many Buddhist who left their faith. If it really did remove their suffering and misery, then why did they leave it? Probably because Buddhism isn't the complet answer to suffering and misery, but just a "how" meaning, which can work for someone, but not all.

3) Many things can't be done away just by removing your desire. For example cancer and in fact every other sickness. So Buddhism can't remove every suffering and misery, because its "how" to remove it, can't remove all of it. If you can just remove some suffering and misery, but not all, then what's the point? Buddha told us that desire is what removes suffering and misery, but if he meant ALL suffering and misery then he must have been very unintelligent, because desire can't remove every suffering and misery. If it could, people wouldn't try to still find a cure for chancer. So Buddhism doesn't remove or give answers how to remove all of your suffering and misery, just some of them. And if not removing all of it, but just some of it, why live all your life following i
4) If you say that you in fact will get a reward for this after you die, that is by spending your life by getting your suffering and misery away, then another problem arise: Why would God create you, then bring suffering and misery upon you, then tell you how to remove it or let you figure it out, and then when you have done it and died, you will get a reward for it? Seems like God didn't have much to do. It's like he created us just for fun or something. It's like this: I make a Pizza, then put a bad thing inside of it, and before I give it to my friend, I tell him how to remove thid bad thing from the Pizza, and when you have successfully removed that bad thing, you can eat this good Pizza. Do you see the illogicality in this? Why would I put a bad thing inside that Pizza at the first place? And if you say that doing this will get you to become a animal, then God is just cruel! First he brings this suffering upon you and after you have removed it, he let you become a Animal?

I am not a expert on Buddhism, but my logic and understanding of this teaching says that it's absurd. I may be wrong. I would like a Buddhist here to answer me this. And I'm soory if this hurted any Buddhists, because my intention was not to hurt anyone, just to tell you my problem with this belief, which may be wrong, but which I would still believe is right until someone proves me wrong. This is basically a challenge to Buddhists, and I will accept that I was wrong, if you really can prove me wrong.

[ardianto]

Assalamualaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh to Muslims. Greeting and peace to non-Muslims.

I am not a Buddhist, I am a Muslim. But let me give a little explanation about suffering and misery in Buddhism, and how removing desire can remove suffering and misery, from what I know.

There is a misunderstanding about suffering and misery in Buddhism. Non-Buddhists always interpret this suffering and misery in a general sense. They assume, in concept of Buddhism, everyone will be unlucky, like born ugly in very poor family, will be failed in every attempt, or will get disaster. It raise a question among non-Buddhists, how can removing desire remove this bad luck?.

Actually Buddha did not say "suffering and misery" (in general sense), but "dukkha". And what is "dukkha"?. Simply, "dukkha" is dissatisfaction with what someone have. Everything in the world is not really meet with people expectation, and people always feel dissatisfied. In example, someone has a fairly prosperous life, but he is always dissatisfied with what he has. And a complain arising out of his heart "why is it that I just had? Why I do not have more?". This dissatisfaction will makes him unhappy, or in another word, makes him suffer.

Could removing desire remove this suffer?.

This is not so different than concept of thankful/grateful in other religions. If we feel grateful for what we have, then we will be happy. If we are always complaining and controlled by the desire, then we would not be happy.

This is what I know about "dukkha" in Buddhism. I hope if a Buddhist read this thread he/she will gives better explanation and also correcting me if I am wrong.

But bro, why Buddhism becomes a problem for you?. As a Muslim you are living in Islam, not living in Buddhism. And Buddhists people do not force us to follow their way.

Read again surah Al-Kafirun ayaah 6 "For you is your religion, and for me is my religion".

[Marwan]

Aleikum salam brother

It was not "dukkha" I talked about. I do not know if you are saying that there is really dukkha I'm talking about or what I said about Buddhism is completely wrong, or that this teaching isn't really a part of Buddhism. My problem is the teaching of Buddhism that says that this life is just suffering and misery, and that you can remove the suffering and misery by removing desire. Do not know if you tried to say that this lesson is not in Buddhism or if I exaggerated it, but this teaching, I heard from the master of comparative religion, Dr.Zakir Naik. In his website irf.net he describes this doctrine as follows:

"The Principal Teachings of Gautama Buddha can be summarised in what the Buddhist call the 'Four Noble Truths':

First - There is suffering and misery in life.

Second - The cause of this suffering and misery is desire.

Third - Suffering and misery can be removed by removing desire.

Fourth - Desire can be removed by Following the Eight Fold Path.

B. The Noble Eight Fold Path:

(i) Right Views

(ii) Right Thoughts

(iii) Right Speech

(iv) Right Actions

(v) Right Livelihood

(vi) Right Efforts

(vii) Right Mindfulness

(viii) Right Meditation"

This particular doctrine of Buddhism as exactly described by Dr. Zakir Naik, is what I talked about, and which I have problems with. I do not know what "dukkha" is, but it's not what I'm talking about. But I don't have any problem with this "dukkha" thing as you described it. You can find it in most religion, and must people (Jews, Christians and Muslims) will have no problem with it. It's a easy and pure teaching which I think is very true and which no Muslim can deny, because it is not against Islam in any way. But again, this is not the teaching I am talking about.
And I have no problem with Buddhism and respect their way of life, but it is allowed to criticize another religion and it's teachings. I just want a normal and polite discussion on this. Just wanted to say what my problem was with this doctrine, and why I think it's wrong. And I may be wrong, because I am just a human with limited logic and knowledge. Has nothing to do with not respecting Buddhism. Just criticism, that all in here make of other religions. Muslims and non-Muslims. I don't have any problem with any religion, including Buddhism, I just don't agree with them. With all respect brother, I think you make conclusions to fast. Try to understand me first.

[GodIsAll]

I have always looked at Buddhism as being more of a philosophy than a religion.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[ardianto]

I have always looked at Buddhism as being more of a philosophy than a religion.

Honestly, me too.

Is very difficult, and even impossible, to understand Buddhism if we look at it with Abrahamic faith point of view. But would be easier if we look at it with philosophical point of view.

[ardianto]

@brother Marwan

I am really sorry. Yes, I made conclusion too fast. It's because I often found Muslims who said "problem with ......" and they attack other religions. I hope you understand.

Okay, back to topic.

I know, it's not easy for you to understand Buddhism concept: Life is suffering and misery, and removing desire will remove suffering and misery. It's because you did not empty the cup before you fill it with tea. And you were focus to the finger that pointing to the moon, not the moon itself.

Confused?. Read my reply to brother GodIsAll. Is impossible to understand "Four Noble Truths" and "The Noble Eight Fold Path" if we use Islamic point of view.

[Marwan]

It's completely fine, brother. What you did is misunderstanding me, because what I meant with "problem with Buddhism" is that I had a problem with it, that I so it as a problem (i,c The suffering and misery teaching of Buddhism). It was nothing more than my opinion on this teaching. And again, this may be wrong, because I am not a expert on this. I was doing som comparative studies and came across Dr. Zakir Naik's website. When I was reading about Buddhism there, this suffering and misery teaching came up, as I showed you above. This teaching didn't make sense to me and I thougt maybe if I postet it at this forum, someone would explain it or understand it for me. I wanted only to give you my view about this doctrine. I want to know what Buddhists have to say of this, and God willing, we can have a good discussion on this. But as I see it, this doctrine of Buddhism as described by Dr. Zakir Naik, is absurd.


And I would say that I am not using the Islamic point of view. I don't even know what the Islamic view point of view, if it's one, is on this issue. I used my own view point, my own logic and undertanding of this teaching. I agree with you that it is impossible to undertand Buddhism from Islamic view points, like it is with all religions. But I used just my own view point on it. I would be very happy if someone could give me the Buddhist view/answer to this. But just because a Buddhist view or answer on this is being said, doesn't make it true. The Buddhist view or answer to this can be wrong and illogical. I may not agree on it, if it is illogical. Like the trinity. We Muslims don't think it is logical, and having a Christian giving a Christian answer to it, doesn't make it right. If the answer is illogical then you may still believe that it is wrong.

[ardianto]

A farmer found a golden sculpture of an arahant, one of 18 arahant in Buddhism. It's enough to makes him rich if he sell it. However, he doesn't sell this golden sculpture, but start crying. It makes people around him so confused. they ask him "What happen with you? don't you happy?, this golden arahant could makes you rich if you sell it". The farmer silent for a moment, then he replies "This golden arahant is just one of 18 golden arahant. I don't know how to find the other 17. It's makes me sad"


The farmer in this story is an example of person who suffer. He has turn into rich after he found that golden arahant, but his desire to find the other 17 golden arahant makes him sad and cry, makes him suffer. If the farmer in this story could remove his desire to find the other 17 golden arahant, he would be happy. So, suffering in the Four Noble Truth actually is spiritual suffering, not physical like poverty.

I guess, you have a conception that those suffering and misery are physical suffering and misery. This is what I mean with "you did not empty the cup before you fill it with tea".

Look at Buddhist monks. Physically they are suffer because they have no anything. But spiritually they are happy because they can remove their desire to have more than their basic need of life. They have been free from "I want to have ...." that could makes them suffer.

[Marwan]

If it is just spiritually as you say, then I have
misunderstood the whole thing. As you described it, I don't have any problem with it, but as Dr. Zakir Nakir described it, I have. But maybe Dr. Zakir Naik only meant spiritually. In the way he writes it, it seems very literal. He doesn't say that it is just spritually, so you can understand why I tought different about this teaching. But if this teaching in fact is in Buddhism, not only spiritually, then I would still think it is illogical. If it is not, but just spritually, as I think you try to say, then I have misunderstood this teaching, and I am soory for that.

P.S: My English may not be so very good, because it is my third language, after Norwegian and Arabic. And I am still trying to get better at English :P

[ardianto]

Actually more than just spiritual, but it can not be separated from sprituality.

Like I have said, I am not a Buddhist, I am a Muslim, and my my knowledge of Buddhism is like a drop of water in the ocean. But I live in Eastern and familiar with Eastern wisdoms that synchronous with "Four Noble Truths" and "The Noble Eight Fold Path".

Eastern wisdoms and spirituality are absurd in Western people point of view that require everything should be logic. That's why, not easy for you to understand. But I hope a Buddhist can explain your question about Buddhism with words that easy to understand.

I am sorry too.

Wasalamualaikum.

:)

[GodIsAll]

The way I've interpreted some of the few readings I've done on Buddhism is as follows:

Suffering exists in the human experience. This suffering can be physical, emotional, etc. We suffer because we have desires.

Simple example: When we are very cold, we are miserable; however, Buddhism would argue that the cold doesn't cause our suffering, rather, it is the desire to be warm. If we can train our thoughts to be rid of any and all desires, suffering ceases to exist in the human experience.

There is much more, of course, but this was always how I have interpreted one of its many facets.

[Marwan]

On a spiritually level it may be true. You can stop suffering in many cases, spiritually, if you win over your desire. But I don't agree with it in a physical level. You cannot remove physical suffering just by desire, like for example cancer. After being bit by a snake or spider you will feel physical miserable and suffer. How can desire remove this? Try to think that the snake didn't in fact bite you? That you are just dreaming? It is also not the desire that caused this suffering, it was the snake. To say that it isn't the cold, snake, cancer etc, which makes you miserable and suffer, but your desire, is absurd. To say that all suffering is in fact a desire, and you can remove this suffering by just removing desire, is completely wrong. I can take many examples where physical suffering is not from desire and cannot be removed by desire.

To train our thoughts to be rid of all desire, would not get all suffering gone, because of the simple fact that not all suffering is from desire. That is, in a physical level. It may rid of some suffering, but to say ALL, is completely false. You can for example, if you really think that you are warm, be a little warmer when you in fact are cold. But this is just one case. Let me give a example where desire cannot remove physical suffering: A person which are blind is miserable. Desire cannot remove this blindness. If you start thinking very hard that you would be able to see again, would it make you see? Or are you blind because your desire to see? That's absurd. At a spritually level, you can remove this suffering due. You just stop thinking that you will see again. Stop your desire to be able to see again, and you will find peace. Accept that you are blind and live with it, simple as that.
This was not directed at you, GodIsAll, but Buddhism's teaching as you desribed it above. I know that you as a Muslim don't agree with Buddhism.

[GodIsAll]

Alas, Marwan, I am not Muslim. I don't know what you'd label me as...perhaps loving, peaceful, patient, and trying to do our one God's will with every breath?

I guess I didn't relay my understanding of Buddhism very well or my example was flawed. Let me try one of yours:
Of course you would remain to be cold, but if you could eliminate the desire or yen to be warm, suffering ceases to exist. In Tibet, Buddhist acolytes will soak themselves down with water and spend the night outdoors with little to no clothes on, meditating.

In regards to cancer....I don't think Buddhism would claim the ability to heal oneself. Instead, it would be written off as "karma". A Buddhist would rid himself of the desire to feel healthy or well.

Surely someone on here can do a better than I am doing. Then again, I doubt too many Buddhists lurk here.

Let me see what I can find out...

[ardianto]

I am back again.

Simple example: When we are very cold, we are miserable; however, Buddhism would argue that the cold doesn't cause our suffering, rather, it is the desire to be warm. If we can train our thoughts to be rid of any and all desires, suffering ceases to exist in the human experience.

With the right concentration and right breathing you can raise your "inner energy" and turn it into heat. So, you will be warm. Or you can focus that heat on your palms and transfer it to someone else. Shaolin monks can do it.

I am not kidding about inner energy. This is real, although not really same like in kungfu movies, and basically this is "body electricity". I have done few test about this, including test with avometer.

But actually meditation to raise inner energy is not originally from Buddhism, but founded and developed by Chinese, especially in Shaolin monastery.

Okay, back to Buddhism.

There's something unique, Buddhism was born in India. However, it did not survive in India itself, but popular in Far East. Might be because it did not synchronous with India's wisdom but synchronous with Eastern' wisdom.

Frankly, I often forgot a fact that Buddhism originally from India. Image of Buddhism in my eyes is Chinese belief. Might be because I am familiar with Chinese (Far East) stories like "the legend of Sun Wu Kong (Journey to the west)", that full of Buddhism.

In Tibet, Buddhist acolytes will soak themselves down with water and spend the night outdoors with little to no clothes on, meditating.

Have suffered to cleanse the soul maybe look weird in the Western people eyes. But for those who familiar with Eastern wisdom, this is logic.

[CosmicPathos]

many people of South Asia have always been mysticism oriented. There are more than 1 million hermits in India. Buddhism also arose in India. Gautam Buddha was an Indian Prince and was born into a Hindu Kshatrya case (warrior caste).

So if you study Buddhism in that context, it makes perfect sense that Buddhism, as well as Hinduism, are all about mysticism, and some times illogical. Jainism is another Indian religion.

Islamic Sufism in South Asia has been hugely influenced by the mysticism of Hinduism and Buddhism.

I dao agree with Four Noble Truths to some extent. But I am not sure Buddha really said them or not. As the first account of Buddha was written 400 or so years after his death.

Desire is suffering, even the desire to live a normal life is suffering. Ask a person born with genetic metabolic disorders.

[Marwan]

I'm soory for have believed that you where a Muslim, maybe I should look at the profile before saying that he is this or that. But anyway, you shouldn't have any problem with being called Muslim, because a Muslim is basically someone who submit his will to God. So I will label you as a Muslim, because you submit yourself to God. So in that sense... you are a Muslim.


To your example of that cold thing: There are some things which you can remove by desire. What I am saying is that you cannot remove ALL of it. You may be more warmer if you think that you are warm, when you in fact are cold. I so some people do it at National Geographic once, and I know this can be true. But just because desire can remove coldness by desire, doesn't mean that desire now can remove all suffering. And I can give many examples of that, but I have done it here above before, so I will not spend my time giving more examples. Every logical person knows that desire cannot remove all suffering. That is, physical suffering. And to say that you are cold because of your desire to be warm, as someone here said above, is impossibe. You first have to be cold before you can desire to be warm. The first come before the second. So your desire to be warm cannot be the reason behind your coldness, because your coldness come before your desire to be warm. Just like you have to be hungry before even thinking of eating, so your desire cannot be the reason behind your hunger in the first place.

[ardianto]

"The universe contains tamarind seed inside. A tamarind seed contains the universe inside".

@brother Marwan
I am sure you know why the universe contains tamarind seed inside. But do you understand why a tamarind seed contains the universe inside?.

I give you a clue.

One student of Zen who known as "the 1000 books" because he had read many books, asked his teacher
"I understand if the universe contains a tamarind seed inside. But how can a tamarind seed that very small contains the universe inside?"
His teacher answer with a question
"people call you The 1000 books. Now tell me, how can your brain that very small accommodate these 1000 books inside?"

Still do not understand?. It's means you are not familiar with Eastern Wisdom that familiar with listen to the unspoken words, read the unwritten text. If you are familiar with Eastern Wisdom, you would be easier to understand what Buddhism means with suffering, misery, and removing desire.

But bro, it's better if you focus to learn Islam. Questions about other religion probably will 'shake' your iman.

[GodIsAll]

But anyway, you shouldn't have any problem with being called Muslim, because a Muslim is basically someone who submit his will to God. So I will label you as a Muslim, because you submit yourself to God. So in that sense... you are a Muslim.

No problem or offense taken in any way!
I am glad and proud to be considered a brother in our worship of our kind and awe-inspiring Creator!

[Marwan]

That's very good to hear. :) You are the first person I have talked to who have said that being called a Muslim is something which you will be glad for. All others say things like "No, of course I am not a terrorist!" etc :p And I am soory for not being able to respond to you at privat message. Because I have not posted 50 posts yet, I cannot send private messages.

ardianto: Maybe it's just because I don't understand Buddhism that I have a problem with this, or maybe the problem is Buddhism itself. Anyway, as I understand it, this teaching doesn't make sense to me, but maybe I am just misunderstanding the whole thing. And brother, you don't need to think of my iman being shaked, I will be fine and so will my iman :) It's important to ask Questions about your own religion and understand it, but it's also important to learn about other religions etc. Doing so have just maked my iman bigger, and having seen must other religions and compared them to Islam, I have just been more convinced that Islam is the truth.

[lojong1]

Well, Marwan has not posted in quite a while, but this will be fun for me and insha'allah I can use his questions to learn about this community. The OP is far too big for a single thread, and my screen keeps resetting, deleting reply text which won't restore fully, so small chunks at a time...

The whole thing with Buddhism is that this life is a life of suffering and misery.

The 4NT (4 noble truths) as written in the OP are not so problematic, unless they lead to confusion, in which case they should definitely be clarified and cleaned up. Big up the poster who mentioned dukkha. Marwin was happy with this and recognized it as fully Islamic, so I won't say any more about it unless someone asks. Dr. Naik translated this adequately, and it is expected that he would not dedicate too much time explaining buddhist thought on his website.
Before going over the rest of the 4NT... Marwan's first problem...

I find 4 problems with this belief: 1) Why would God create you, then bring suffering and misery upon you, and then tell you how to remove this suffering and misery? Or let you figure it out by yourself? Its just illogical, and absurd.

I thought that this was answered in the Quran, since certainly in my brief exploration of the last few weeks, more than one Muslim has told me that we are here to be tested, and what Allah wills, Allah gets, and we will likely understand very little of Allah's plan for us.
Are others here puzzled by this?

[IAmZamzam]

That is Allah's plan for us. You've just proven that you can understand it yourself. There's nothing hard about it. The only thing people ever do tend to find hard to grasp is the little nagging details the human mind can't help but get hung up on sometimes when it insists on nitpicking instead of looking at the big picture.

What I don't understand, as long as we have to go there, is how any religion can possibly view morality as something which, to the extent that it even exists at all, is nothing more than a means to an end, a little detail in the methodology to help with one's own personal evolution, and not the higher priority.

[lojong1]

"What I don't understand,[...]and not the higher priority."
I don't understand this either. If you want to refine this question and relate it somehow to buddhism in a new thread, I'd be happy to join in.

Marwan "Problem 2: If it was not God, as many Buddhist believe, because many buddhist are Atheists, then why [remove suffering]?"
While it may be true that many buddhists cling to a view of atheism in the sense of holding a belief that there definitely is no god, atheism has no place in the teachings of a buddha. Similarly, many muslims (and buddhists) are greedy, angry, lustful, etc. and cling to wrong views, even though Mohammad (PBUH) taught to avoid these things.
Why remove suffering? Marwan! Please!
There is just sooo much both in the OP and in Dr. Naik's website that needs cleaning up. Skipping right to the conclusion:

"It is self contradicting as well as self-defeating to say that desire will only be removed by continuously having a desire."
Marwan said this comes from a master of comparative religion, but Marwan doesn't appear to have much experience of either buddhism or Islam. I think Dr. Naik might be considered a master of Dawa at best, even though I see his work as damaging to Islam, not buddhism.

Watch this in yourself starting right now at a very gross level: Each desire is formed by many conditions, remains for a while, and ends. By the simple fact that it arises dependent on impermanent conditions, you know that it will end. Do you experience self-contradiction or self-defeat? I don't.

[lojong1]

...that's just one really gross example that by itself doesn't have any lasting benefit. Here's another quick, but scriptural, response to this "absurdity":

Unnabha the brahman says: "If that's so, Master Ananda (buddha's attendant), then it's an endless path, and not one with an end, for it's impossible that one could abandon desire by means of desire."

Ananda: "In that case, brahman, let me question you on this matter. Answer as you see fit. What do you think: Didn't you first have desire, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular desire allayed?"

U: "Yes, sir."

A: "Didn't you first have persistence, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular persistence allayed?"

U: "Yes, sir."

A: "Didn't you first have the intent, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular intent allayed?"

U: "Yes, sir."

A: "Didn't you first have [an act of] discrimination, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular act of discrimination allayed?"

U: "Yes, sir."

A: "So it is with an arahant whose mental effluents are ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is released through right gnosis. Whatever desire he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular desire is allayed. Whatever persistence he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular persistence is allayed. Whatever intent he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular intent is allayed. Whatever discrimination he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular discrimination is allayed. So what do you think, brahman? Is this an endless path, or one with an end?"

U: "You're right, Master Ananda. This is a path with an end, and not an endless one."

[IAmZamzam]

I'm sorry, do you think of good and evil as the highest priority in your life? I was rather under the impression (and frankly still am) that Buddhism takes a rather firm stand on the matter that, to the very small degree it even acknowledges the issue at all, it's only in the form of the eightfold path, which doesn't look at things in moralistic terms at all but only pragmatic ones. You're not avoiding false or abusive speech for the sake of obeying God, conscience or even so much as a philosophical ethos but just because it happens to supposedly be the only effective means of getting you into nibbana. It seems to me that ethics and opportunism do not mix. If you're doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, it's not the right thing at all.

[Urban Turban]

All good is from Allah - the minor 'good' things you find in other religions/philosophies too are from Allah, come on, the first man on earth, Adam (peace be upon him) wasn't he a prophet of God? And everything has been revealed through Prophet's (peace be upon them) in whatever form you find them too are from Allah.

Yet I certainly don't believe that there is anything good in other false / dead religions or philosophies that one can't find already in Islam....and put in an effort to study and or find them....until of-course if its for comparative religion / dawah purposes.

Anything good, great and the greatest in the universe but doesn't agree with 'There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger' (peace be upon him) is..

Bullcrap.

And wait, regarding Sufism - it originated in Arabia.

[sister herb]

The whole thing with Buddhism is that this life is a life of suffering and misery.

Salam alaykum

Don´t we muslims say that life in the earth is as prison to muslims too?

What is different of your mind then?

[lojong1]

I'm sorry, do you think of good and evil as the highest priority in your life?

Yes.

If you're doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, it's not the right thing at all.

Right.

You're not avoiding false or abusive speech for the sake of obeying God

I'm doing my best to listen for god, to allow direct communication if that is what god wills. There are so many "one and only true" ways around me all with ancient proofs of their authenticity and miraculous deeds of their prophets or deities or gods or fairies, and each of these "one and only" true ways has a bunch of sects started by descendents of a particular brother of a god or prophet or fairy, with different versions of holy books and commentaries and spiritual or political concensuses and revisions and interpretations and majorities of minorities telling how it really is and should be--each sect claiming to be the "one and only true way."
After much searching, I finally find a muslim teacher who I'm sure at least wants to teach the truth, and I can't mention him here because he's not a mainstream muslim! Fair enough, there is division in Islam, as there is in buddhism. Since there is no living prophet and many muslims I meet do not seem exceptionally god-followery save on a very superficial and literary level, the best I can do is read and try to understand the "one true final" revelations (it would take more than a lifetime), observe the nature of these divisions and how they are dealt with in their respective communities, and use my...

conscience

...
To Be Continued

[lojong1]

many muslims I meet do not seem exceptionally god-followery save on a very superficial and literary level

Actually, the muslims I meet in person seem to be a different breed than the mainstream teachers I'm referring to above.:happy:
I wonder why that is!?! Must be money involved somewhere.

[IAmZamzam]

Well I'm surprised. I wonder how you define the words "God" and "good"? Because every other Buddhist I've ever talked to or heard from denies these concepts, saying that "good" and "evil" is a human fabrication, and that their religion is an agnostic one at best, if not a downright atheistic one.

Frankly I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make. And as far as I know Islam was the first religion to make a point of its scripture being the final revelation and its prophet being the seal of the prophets, where you have the culmination of all previous true religion. Other faiths like Bahaiism have sort of redundantly copied the idea since then, that is true, but it's hardly fair to lump us in with them. It's like blaming one novel for all of the books since then which have ripped it off. We got there first.

[lojong1]

You're not avoiding false or abusive speech for the sake of obeying[...]conscience[...]but just because it happens to supposedly be the only effective means of getting you into nibbana.

Would this be like obeying Allah just because it happens to supposedly be the only effective means of getting rewards in Jannah?
Nibbana is said to be the highest good and greatest peace attainable in this world, itself an experience (not a place) of clearest conscience. May I ask if f--a’ wa b--a’is a close comparison without being deleted again for being non-mainstream? (It really is bothersome to ask questions about Islam to the general community here and wind up in a secretly moderated hidden thread. You are aware that despite excellent efforts to retain the original Quran, from my perspective, Islam is already split into many religions who don't get along so well right now? One would find entry to Islam difficult if muslims were to shut him out).
One can not acheive/relinquish-all-but nibbana or come near it and suddenly run amok in all sorts of evil ways. It can not be attained with ulterior motives or clinging or unwholesomeness or unskillfulness of any kind. But this is all prattle and hissing right now, because we don't reach nibbana or Jannah by starting with nibbana or Jannah.
I, for one, am starting my path as a bit of a whackjob.Here is an excerpt from a little piece that relates conscience with my position here among the many false books and prophets with "one true way" hidden among them:

"[...]The Kalamas of Kesaputta ask for guidance from the Buddha
3. The Kalamas who were inhabitants of Kesaputta sitting on one side said to the Blessed One: "There are some monks and brahmins, venerable sir, who visit Kesaputta. They expound and explain only their own doctrines; the doctrines of others they despise, revile, and pull to pieces. Some other monks and brahmins too, venerable sir, come to Kesaputta. They also expound and explain only their own doctrines; the doctrines of others they despise, revile, and pull to pieces. Venerable sir, there is doubt, there is uncertainty in us concerning them. Which of these reverend monks and brahmins spoke the truth and which falsehood?"

The criterion for rejection
4. "It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain;uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. 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.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,' abandon them.

Greed, hate, and delusion
5. "What do you think, Kalamas? Does greed appear in a man for his benefit or harm?" - "For his harm, venerable sir." - "Kalamas, being given to greed, and being overwhelmed and vanquished mentally by greed, this man takes life, steals, commits adultery, and tells lies; he prompts another too, to do likewise. Will that be long for his harm and ill?" - "Yes, venerable sir."
6. "What do you think, Kalamas? Does hate appear in a man for his benefit or harm?" - "For his harm, venerable sir." - "Kalamas, being given to hate, and being overwhelmed and vanquished mentally by hate, this man takes life, steals, commits adultery, and tells lies; he prompts another too, to do likewise. Will that be long for his harm and ill?" - "Yes, venerable sir."
7. "What do you think, Kalamas? Does delusion appear in a man for his benefit or harm?" - "For his harm, venerable sir." - "Kalamas, being given to delusion, and being overwhelmed and vanquished mentally by delusion, this man takes life, steals, commits adultery, and tells lies; he prompts another too, to do likewise. Will that be long for his harm and ill?" - "Yes, venerable sir."
8. "What do you think, Kalamas? Are these things good or bad?" - "Bad, venerable sir" - "Blamable or not blamable?" - "Blamable, venerable sir." - "Censured or praised by the wise?" - "Censured, venerable sir." - "Undertaken and observed, do these things lead to harm and ill, or not? Or how does it strike you?" - "Undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill. Thus it strikes us here."
9. "Therefore, did we say, Kalamas, what was said thus, 'Come Kalamas. Do not go upon [...as above at 4...] abandon them.' "

[lojong1]

...I thought that excerpt related to conscience and my position here among the many false books and prophets with "one true way" hidden among them.
Another sutta/(surah), since it's on the table:
the conscience sutta
Who in the world is a man constrained by conscience,
who awakens to censure like a fine stallion to the whip?
Those restrained by conscience are rare — those
who go through life always mindful.
Having reached the end of suffering & stress,
they go through what is uneven evenly;
go through what is out-of-tune in tune.

[IAmZamzam]

If there is one single Muslim here, just one, anywhere, who believes that we are to obey Allah for no other reason than that it happens to be the most effective means to Jannah, and not because our purpose is to serve Him, then by all means let them speak up now.

Your own words are that we are taught in Islam that “we are here to be tested”. You have acknowledged this and now you’re going back on it. Does the purpose of a test ever have to do with anything frivolous and hedonistic or do tests necessarily involve some kind of work ethic?

"Nibbana is the highest good attainable in this world...itself an experience of clearest conscience". What does that mean exactly?

[lojong1]

IAmZamzam: "You're avoiding [doing evil] because it happens to supposedly be the only effective means of getting you into nibbana."
lojong1: "Would this be like obeying Allah just because it happens to supposedly be the only effective means of getting rewards in Jannah?"
Your answer is an emphatic no, wonderful! Similarly, in buddhism the present is not sacrificed for the future, or there can be no reward/good result.
We strive for skillful and wholesome deeds of body, speech, and mind here and now...when we remember :embarrass.

[IAmZamzam]

It's not about the present and the future. Do you believe in good and evil? And that this dichotomy consists of more than just what's conducive to ridding oneself of dukkha, and in the end of much higher importance? That's the key. The Eightfold Path treats ethics like it's some kind of trifle--like it's a methodology, some "eight steps to success" program they're handing out to everyone at a business meeting. In the end I like to avoid wrongful action because it's wrongful. If that avoidance does happen to be part of a path which takes me somewhere like nibbana then that is ultimately incidental. Even if I didn't believe in Islam I would still disbelieve in Buddhism, because I would always believe in this.

I'm sorry if I'm being a little too blunt. I don't mean anything personal. Here, let me find you some reputation points as a peace offering...

[lojong1]

:thankyou:
Yes, because it is wrongful. So simple. Where do you get the idea that buddhas teach otherwise. From a muslim master of comparative religion who perhaps doesn't want to understand or teach another religion accurately? Or somewhere specifically in the N8FP?

It's not about the present and the future.

So it's just about the present where we are actually doing the good and evil that matters, regardless of whether there is nibbana or Jannah, I'm fine with that. As I said there is good and evil/skillfulwholesome and unskillfulunwholesome/kusala and akusala. Good is what does not lead to suffering in the present or future for self-other-or-both.

And that this dichotomy consists of more than just what's conducive to ridding oneself of dukkha?

Yes, ridding self-other-or-both of dukkha, as opposed to causing it for self-other-or-both.

and in the end of much higher importance?

Did we agree that the far distant and unforseeable future end result, that neither of us has any personal experience of yet, should be evicted from the thread, or are we just saying that future alone is insufficient? Either way is good.
Is your 'higher importance than eliminating dukkha-for-oneself' aslo higher than my 'higher importance that is ridding oneself-others-or-both of dukkha'?
Dang, that's pretty freaking highly important, so you'd best say more about that sweet de-dukkhafizing nectar--how we know what it is, and who drinks it.

[Trumble]

Do you believe in good and evil? And that this dichotomy consists of more than just what's conducive to ridding oneself of dukkha, and in the end of much higher importance? That's the key. The Eightfold Path treats ethics like it's some kind of trifle--like it's a methodology, some "eight steps to success" program they're handing out to everyone at a business meeting. In the end I like to avoid wrongful action because it's wrongful.

Interesting debate.

I think you are mistaken in two respects. The first is in considering the Eightfold Path solely in terms of the individual. It certainly doesn't treat ethics like 'some kind of trifle' - you would need to provide rather more justification for that claim for me to take it seriously - but it is a methodology, as you say, and the Buddha made that quite clear. It is though, not (just) a self-improvement programme for the individual but the route to end suffering for all sentient beings. Something of such absolutely fundamental importance cannot seriously be compared to a better business program! Indeed, it's importance is infinitely more in my opinion than abstract notions and opinions as to what is good and what is evil, be they provided by gods, lawmakers, prophets or philosophers. We know what is good and what is evil without having to read a book or have someone tell us. Can there be anything more important, accepting for the sake of argument that Buddhists have no Will of God or such to worry about? Can there be a better way of defining 'good' than "something that contributes to reducing suffering for one or more sentient beings" or 'evil' than "something that increases the suffering of one or more sentient beings"'? If there is, I've certainly never come across it - and it certainly isn't 'God says it is' or some variation on same.

In short, Buddhists "like to avoid wrongful action" not as part of some self-improvement programme or spiritual quest, not because something is 'wrongful' as some sort of abstract moral principal, and not because somebody or something says it is, but because by (Buddhist) definition an action is wrongful if it increases the suffering of sentient beings.

The second point is that rather than defining Buddhist morality the Eightfold Path can be found within and intuited from what Buddhists call 'loving-kindness' (metta). The Buddha himself put the cultivation and application of loving-kindness ahead of everything else as the first requirement of a 'Buddhist' life, not 'right this', 'right that', 'right, the other' or the combination of all eight. If Buddhist ethics have a centre loving-kindness is it... both the Eightfold Path and Buddhist ethics as a whole can be derived from there.

[IAmZamzam]

You see, once again everything centers around suffering. Why is that so all-important? Isn't that the kind of priority an insect would have, and not a rational human being?

[Naeema]

While the core of Islam is our worship of Allah and the core of Buddhism is the alleviation of suffering, I do not think we are so far apart. I believe that Buddhists and Muslims both want the world to be a peaceful place where no child goes to bed starving or bleeding if we can do something to prevent it.

There is a book that was published in 2010 that addresses Islam and Buddhism directly titled Common Ground between Islam and Buddhism by Reza Shah-Kazemi. I plan on locating a copy, insha'Allah, as I think it may be particularly helpful in understanding Buddhism as it relates to Islam. Below is something from one of the introductions that I found on their website.
"The specific intention and goal of this endeavor is to identify a spiritual 'Common Ground' (authentically based on the religious sacred texts of Islam and Buddhism) between Muslims and Buddhists that will enable both communities to love and respect each other not merely as human beings in general, but also as Muslims and Buddhists in particu*lar. In other words, we hope to find out and understand what in our two great religions — despite all of the many irreconcilable and unbridge*able doctrinal, theological, juridical and other differences that we do have between us and that we cannot and must not deny — we have in common that will enable us to practise more loving mercy and respect towards each other more because we are Muslims and Buddhists, and not simply because we are all human beings."

[from the introduction by HRH Ghazi bin Muhammad]

[Abu Loren]

In other words, we hope to find out and understand what in our two great religions — despite all of the many irreconcilable and unbridge*able doctrinal, theological, juridical and other differences that we do have between us and that we cannot and must not deny — we have in common that will enable us to practise more loving mercy and respect towards each other more because we are Muslims and Buddhists, and not simply because we are all human beings

Budhism derives from Hinduism and Budhists do not believe in a deity per se. The two cannot be married, no matter what the do gooders in this world will try to do.

[Trumble]

You see, once again everything centers around suffering. Why is that so all-important? Isn't that the kind of priority an insect would have, and not a rational human being?

It's all important because it totally defines who we are, what we do and the nature of the world we live in. Think about it with an example. Most people accept they have a duty to help provide for their family. Why.. because some book somewhere says 'you have a duty to provide for your family'? Or because duties are good in general? No, it's because you love your family and providing for them means preventing them suffering as best you can. The two are synonymous. You provide water, so they are not thirsty. Food so they are not hungry. Heating if they are cold. Money for education, so they can get a good job. You pay medical bills if they get sick. You pay vet's bils if your cat gets sick! And so on and so on.

As for the priorities of insects I have no idea, but I do know they don't build hospitals!

Budhism derives from Hinduism and Budhists do not believe in a deity per se. The two cannot be married, no matter what the do gooders in this world will try to do.

Only in that it is largely a rejection of it, although much of the metaphysical background is the same for obvious reasons. I agree that the religions cannot be reconciled as religions for that reason, but in no way should that effect common interests such as those Naeema suggests. A 'religious' life is a good life whichever path is followed, certainly as far as the recognised 'great religions' are concerned.

[IAmZamzam]

You provide food and water and money and heat, first and foremost, so that they can live, and to the degree that you do it for the sake of how they feel it is more often to achieve the positive position of their happiness, not the avoidance of the negative position of their pain. Isn't that how people in love tend to think? "I want them to be happy"? That's what comes naturally, whereas "I don't want them to feel so bad" pops up only when some crisis happens by chance to make the situation specially come up. But more than anything your love for them is an end in it itself, and seems to exist kind of independently of anyone's feelings. Even if your actions never affected the qualia of the object of your love, wouldn't you still feel an obligation towards that person? Love is just a part of you. And matters of principle in general go beyond suffering likewise, and operate on the same...uh...principle. Curse the limitations of the English language.

In short what we should do is always more about what should be, and not about what anyone feels.