A problem with Budhhism

[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.