Boaz, re your Monday morning post, you are in effect saying that to change the world, we must change ourselves. True, and easy to say, hard to do. What the Buddha taught was the way to do it, which is also the way to develop the qualities of wisdom, loving kindness, compassion and sympathetic joy. The way to develop the qualities exhibited by Jesus in fact.

A saintly person is a saintly person. It doesn’t matter what label they have or don’t have, it’s having those qualities and applying their energy to helping others to develop those qualities. These are universal qualities which each of us can develop, they can’t be sectarian or dependent on sectarian teaching. This is the crucial fact which you seem unable or unwilling to grasp, you are blinded by your attachment to your teacher.

I’ve been fortunate to meet several saintly people and to work with some of them, e.g. J N Krishnamurti, S N Goenka and Achaan Cha and others who were (to my ignorant eyes) perhaps not quite as advanced, such as John Coleman, Ruth Denison, Achaan Sumedho and Kalu Rinpoche. While I’m not sure if he was in the same class, I also worked with Mahasi Sayadaw. All of these people were devoted to helping others to develop spiritually. None of them pushed a sectarian barrow. Of U Ba Khin’s disciples in this list, Goenka was a leader of the Hindu community in Burma, Coleman and Denison had a Christian background. None of them denied that background, but nor did they draw their teaching from it.

In your previous post, you expressed concern or disbelief with some aspects of the Buddha’s teaching, with the fact that I could walk away from Christianity and that non-attachment “cannot rid us of guilt. There are things we all have done, which can never ever be undone, and such things can only be forgiven, not extinguished. But the Buddha cannot forgive. He cannot give us a clean slate, a new heart or a new mind. His body lies somewhere in a grave.” (to next post)

Too much to deal with there! But using the introspection technique taught by Buddha, you find that we are nothing but a bundle of mental and physical phenomena, a mass of bubbles, no substance, no ego, changing, impermanence. You’ll never grasp this unless you experience it. Understanding this through direct experience of our own being, we can dissolve all our conditionings, complexes, guilt, impurities. And after impurities are removed, what remains is purity, the Kingdom of Heaven within. No need to invoke any deity, any dogma, any sect, just take responsibility for your own suffering and your own salvation. Simple, really, although it takes great effort, and I haven’t always applied as much effort as some of my peers.

And, Pegasus and Ludwig, I’ve actually driven some of these saintly people around! The practice referred to above requires constant awareness of what’s happening within you; when I was driving Ruth Denison, she’d often appear to be asleep; but if my speed rose to a point where maintaining road awareness led to the loss of bodily awareness, she’d open her eyes and give me a telling look. Very interesting!

It is truly amazing the bigots that a discussion of tolerance attracts. They lecture us thus:

"Whom will you choose ?
The man who came down from Heaven or the false god's?"

"Yes, the Islamist response IS defended by LEFTISTS. LEFTISTS are the enemy of Australia, Australian women, and integration."

"6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You[c] must be born again.' "

"If you should die today ,are you prepared for what is waiting for those who don't believe?"

"I am just exposing the One and Only Truth."

"What you are lacking is the spiritual dimension needed to express your lack of. You cannot possess that lingo without being in touch with your supreme creator (God)."

"PK what would you have David do? Argue for the truth but don't mention Jesus."

"The one thing that I have found in this forum is that the terminology 'great unwashed' is truly alive and well, so many in our cultures seem unaware of their ignorance, and if aware, proud of it..."

"'There is but one God, and Allah is his prophet'; agreed, if you choose this you threaten all western traditions, most expecially democracy"

Interesting collection of recipes for a tolerant society.

Writing on the op-ed page of The New York Times on Sunday, Slavoj Zizek:

QUOTE
Defenders of the Faith

FOR centuries, we have been told that without religion we are no more than egotistic animals fighting for our share, our only morality that of a pack of wolves; only religion, it is said, can elevate us to a higher spiritual level. Today, when religion is emerging as the wellspring of murderous violence around the world, assurances that Christian or Muslim or Hindu fundamentalists are only abusing and perverting the noble spiritual messages of their creeds ring increasingly hollow. What about restoring the dignity of atheism, one of Europe's greatest legacies and perhaps our only chance for peace?

More than a century ago, in "The Brothers Karamazov" and other works, Dostoyevsky warned against the dangers of godless moral nihilism, arguing in essence that if God doesn't exist, then everything is permitted...

This argument couldn't have been more wrong: the lesson of today's terrorism is that if God exists, then everything, including blowing up thousands of innocent bystanders, is permitted — at least to those who claim to act directly on behalf of God, since, clearly, a direct link to God justifies the violation of any merely human constraints and considerations. In short, fundamentalists have become no different than the "godless" Stalinist Communists, to whom everything was permitted since they perceived themselves as direct instruments of their divinity, the Historical Necessity of Progress Toward Communism...

Fundamentalists do what they perceive as good deeds in order to fulfill God's will and to earn salvation; atheists do them simply because it is the right thing to do. I do it because if I did not, I could not look at myself in the mirror. A moral deed is by definition its own reward. David Hume, a believer, made this point in a very poignant way, when he wrote that the only way to show true respect for God is to act morally while ignoring God's existence...
END QUOTE

The Christians infesting this thread provide proof of Zizek's thesis.

MikeM

You may be interested in my post
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4211#35403

on the "Sharing the true values of Sharia" thread. I posted an abbreviated extract from an article I found on a Christian website which discusses addiction to religion and the affect on such rigid and misguided people.

It is interesting for many reasons especially that it had been written by a Christian and is an objective look at the behaviour of people who become religious addicts. When I read the article I was reminded of many posters to OLO who proceed to abuse and discriminate against any who hold different beliefs to them.

So much for tolerance from those who claim to believe in Jesus.

Regards

MIke
Dostoevsky was exactly right. (He also had encounters with evangelicals of the day which amazed him.. Lord Radstock being one.)

Without reference to a codification of 'right/wrong' outside our own cultures and social experience, we are absolutely and unquestionably left in 'Make_it_up_as_u_go' land. (Peter Singer "Cull the weak children")

I'm sure you are bright enough to not need the 'cultural relativism' lecture, or the talk about different cultures have not only different but often CONFLICTING ideas about right and wrong, good and evil.

So your attempt to salvage something of philosophical value and credibility for Atheism is rather lame. No insult intended.

You blame 'religious extremists' on all sides for the state of the world and you attach violence to the religious foundations, using the alleged practicioners of those faiths as evidence.

That is flawed reasoning. Its good 'emotion' but bad reasoning. The only way to assess a faith, is by its fundamental tenets and then assess its followers in terms of those basics.

Inevitably, just as Hitler use the 'cleansing of the temple' event from Jesus life to justify the holocaust, and the Lords Resistance Army of Uganda his 'if your hand sins, cut it off' to justify dismemberings, there will be those who use similarly incorrect interpretations for their own purposes.

Just as Constantine 'used' Christianity for political goals, so others do. The Faith does not change just because it is misused.

Can you point to any command or example of Jesus which suggests the violent oppression of others ? that encourages a 'worldly' political system ? Not that I know of.

Alternatively, can you find example and teaching which opposes such things ? of course u can if you look.

"There are none so blind as those who.....'will' not see" (Jesus)