Boston Bombers Muslim??
- Thread starter wil
- Start date
Amica protested....if you read and look online there are protests against the violence everywhere...if you go into a mosque you will hear it from the Imam and complaints as to how these people are shaming the religion and destroying what has been built for centuries....
But none of that will ever make the news....
But none of that will ever make the news....
NiceCupOfTea
Pathetic earthlings
- Messages
- 1,242
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
Boston bombing suspect wrote message in boat: CBS News report
Seems the bombers did this out of their sense of Islamic identity, whether its represents true Islam is another thing.
Seems the bombers did this out of their sense of Islamic identity, whether its represents true Islam is another thing.
A
AdvaitaZen
Guest
I cannot stand this justification.
These acts show a basic flaw in belief systems as such, this is what is being shown by it happening within EVERY belief system. It is because our faiths become too much an identification, and you are presenting this here right now - you are defending Islam as if you are defending yourself.
For me, there is a hole in any belief system which permits the kind of distinctions which create the environment for violence of any kind. Look at the true nature of what the Quran is saying to you: Tawhid is oneness, throughout our lives we struggle as something separate until finally it clicks and we surrender to the one... we cease upholding distinctions. It is truly wrong - even for a man such as Jesus - to say "ana al-haqq", for it is in surrendering the individual, the sense of separation, that oneness is seen.
A true Muslim does not identify with the Quran, for a true Muslim is one who has surrendered all identifications - yet still such a one will talk, and so they use the language those around can hear.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Even if we cannot agree on what is real and what is not real, there are still a few things we can agree on!From the Koran:
6.82 Those who believe and obscure not their belief by wrongdoing, theirs is safety; and they are rightly guided.
Compare this to what is said in both the Kalama Sutta and the Salha Sutta:
absence of greed, hatred, or delusion is the criteria for acceptance. Authoritarian dogma that propagates greed, hatred or delusion is to be rejected.
"Come, Salha, do not be satisfied with hearsay or with tradition or with legendary lore or with what has come down in scriptures or with conjecture or with logical inference or with weighing evidence or with a liking for a view after pondering it or with someone else's ability or with the thought 'The monk is our teacher.' When you know in yourself 'These things are unprofitable, liable to censure, condemned by the wise, being adopted and put into effect, they lead to harm and suffering,' then you should abandon them. What do you think? Is there greed?" — "Yes, venerable sir." — "Covetousness is the meaning of that, I say. Through greed a covetous man kills breathing things, takes what is not given, commits adultery, and utters falsehood, and he gets another to do likewise. Will that be long for his harm and suffering?" — "Yes, venerable sir." — "What do you think, is there hate?" — "Yes, venerable sir." — "Ill-will is the meaning of that, I say. Through hate a malevolent man kills breathing things... Will that be long for his harm and suffering?" — "Yes, venerable sir." — "What do you think? Is there delusion?" — "Yes, venerable sir." — "Ignorance is the meaning of that, I say. Through ignorance a deluded man kills breathing things... Will that be long for his harm and suffering?" — "Yes, venerable sir."
"What do you think? Are these things profitable or unprofitable?" — "Unprofitable, venerable sir." — "Reprehensible or blameless?" — "Reprehensible, venerable sir." — "Condemned or commended by the wise?" — "Condemned by the wise, venerable sir." — "Being adopted and put into effect, do they lead to harm and suffering, or do they not, or how does it appear to you in this case?" — "Being adopted and put into effect, venerable sir, they lead to harm and suffering. So it appears in this case." — "Now that was the reason why I told you 'Come Salha, do not be satisfied with hearsay... When you know in yourself "These things are unprofitable," then you should abandon them.'
"What do you think? Are these things profitable or unprofitable?" — "Unprofitable, venerable sir." — "Reprehensible or blameless?" — "Reprehensible, venerable sir." — "Condemned or commended by the wise?" — "Condemned by the wise, venerable sir." — "Being adopted and put into effect, do they lead to harm and suffering, or do they not, or how does it appear to you in this case?" — "Being adopted and put into effect, venerable sir, they lead to harm and suffering. So it appears in this case." — "Now that was the reason why I told you 'Come Salha, do not be satisfied with hearsay... When you know in yourself "These things are unprofitable," then you should abandon them.'
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 579
- Points
- 108
Perhaps you are right, so what now, shall we just kill them all?
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 579
- Points
- 108
Oh dear, this isn't suppose to be here at all. I most certainly don't think we should be killing people! I don't seem to be able to edit that post. This is very unfortunate and I apologize for this horrible statement.
A
AdvaitaZen
Guest
We do not disagree on what is real.
I simply try to bring your attention back to the one who agrees.
I see great potential in you, but it appears to me that you still fundamentally function from mind - you are still basically identified with your thoughts.
What you say is irrelevant, you have enough knowledge.
Now you must find out the knower.
My motivation for being on this site is not to engage in intellectual discussions about the various religions. Many seem to try to engage me in this way, but I simply don't care what any scripture has to say about anything. Scripture falls so short of truth that it isn't even worth discussion for me.
I address each by the capacity I see in them, in seekers just beginning to question things, I will help them board the roller coaster. Riding the roller coaster too many times is bad for you though, your organs will be constantly bashing against each other and you will become sick.
Of course, due to the nature of this form of dialog, others will look at what I say to you and comment as though it was intended for them. I speak to each as they need, so take it as a great compliment that I'm trying to show you that you no longer need the boat. I still cannot make you stop carrying it though...
A
AdvaitaZen
Guest
Where people will constantly miss me is if they think I actually believe what I'm saying.
What I say is to bring you out of your identifications, it is not an assertion of my own.
Yet, in reply, mostly people simply assert their identifications with even more vigor, not realizing that my words have simply exposed their ego.
The ego is the nature of separation.
A holy man is one who only sees the whole.
What I say is to bring you out of your identifications, it is not an assertion of my own.
Yet, in reply, mostly people simply assert their identifications with even more vigor, not realizing that my words have simply exposed their ego.
The ego is the nature of separation.
A holy man is one who only sees the whole.
A
AdvaitaZen
Guest
The danger is that you take those words as a new belief.
Rather, simply learn to live from sunyata, brahman - be the no-thing-ness.
Mind wants to know how to do this, it wants to consider it, but do molecules of water need a particular reasoning to trust the current?
A car remains a car, a mountain remains a mountain, but unless you are describing something to an absent friend, what is the need for definitions, for the minds commentary?
Just be here.
Rather, simply learn to live from sunyata, brahman - be the no-thing-ness.
Mind wants to know how to do this, it wants to consider it, but do molecules of water need a particular reasoning to trust the current?
A car remains a car, a mountain remains a mountain, but unless you are describing something to an absent friend, what is the need for definitions, for the minds commentary?
Just be here.
A
AdvaitaZen
Guest
To say directly: Whatever we think truth is, whatever we think reality is, it isn't.
Truth, reality, they reside only as the perceiver of all that appears.
Yet, even the perceiver is perceived... by what?
That cannot be said, for words only describe perceptions.
It is the unknown, the unknowable.
The eye cannot look on itself.
All else depends the perceiver, without its arising, there is no truth, no reality, no experiencing.
World and ego cannot be there, subject and object fall, nothing is.
With the arising of the perceiver, all that is perceived arises.
Living as something which has arisen is ignorance, it is the mind (small m) or self (small s).
To see you are the container for all that is perceived, only this potential for experiencing, for life, for everything... this is the Mind (big m) or Self (big S).
Yet you are none of it, it is all simply confirming that you are.
We can know the function of the eye because of what is seen, we can know our nature only by seeing what arises from it. Yet, seeing how what we are cannot be touched, no more is there any worry about the arisings, no more any stress about our future. We simply sit back and enjoy the show, just as we sit and watch shows in the movie theatre, letting the scene carry us where we may, knowing all the time that really we are just sat in a chair watching. It doesn't lesson our reactions to the movie, we still cry and laugh, all is still available.
This is renunciation, to be completely in the world, in the story, yet not of the world, for you are just the watcher.
Only here is there true peace, happiness, love, silence.
These can never be sustained within the story.
Yet, every story is ultimately the search for these.
Truth, reality, they reside only as the perceiver of all that appears.
Yet, even the perceiver is perceived... by what?
That cannot be said, for words only describe perceptions.
It is the unknown, the unknowable.
The eye cannot look on itself.
All else depends the perceiver, without its arising, there is no truth, no reality, no experiencing.
World and ego cannot be there, subject and object fall, nothing is.
With the arising of the perceiver, all that is perceived arises.
Living as something which has arisen is ignorance, it is the mind (small m) or self (small s).
To see you are the container for all that is perceived, only this potential for experiencing, for life, for everything... this is the Mind (big m) or Self (big S).
Yet you are none of it, it is all simply confirming that you are.
We can know the function of the eye because of what is seen, we can know our nature only by seeing what arises from it. Yet, seeing how what we are cannot be touched, no more is there any worry about the arisings, no more any stress about our future. We simply sit back and enjoy the show, just as we sit and watch shows in the movie theatre, letting the scene carry us where we may, knowing all the time that really we are just sat in a chair watching. It doesn't lesson our reactions to the movie, we still cry and laugh, all is still available.
This is renunciation, to be completely in the world, in the story, yet not of the world, for you are just the watcher.
Only here is there true peace, happiness, love, silence.
These can never be sustained within the story.
Yet, every story is ultimately the search for these.
A
AdvaitaZen
Guest
The key: Do not even get stuck as the perceiver.
As I said, even this is perceived.
You are no-thing, so it is not true to say you were born.
You are no-thing, so it is not true to say you will die.
Every story has a beginning and end, you are just reading the story.
All suffering comes because we think ourselves a character in it.
Yet, also, it is the whole joy of reading.
We only need to learn how to put the book down from time to time when it is too much.
Many burn the book entirely, but it is not necessary.
Only to know it is a book is enough.
As I said, even this is perceived.
You are no-thing, so it is not true to say you were born.
You are no-thing, so it is not true to say you will die.
Every story has a beginning and end, you are just reading the story.
All suffering comes because we think ourselves a character in it.
Yet, also, it is the whole joy of reading.
We only need to learn how to put the book down from time to time when it is too much.
Many burn the book entirely, but it is not necessary.
Only to know it is a book is enough.
Etu Malku
Mercuræn
- Messages
- 1,439
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 38
Hey AdvaitaZen,
Do you just like to hear yourself talk? LOL . . . I've never read more text that said absolutely No Thing . . . but of course that's your goal, No Thing!
Do you just like to hear yourself talk? LOL . . . I've never read more text that said absolutely No Thing . . . but of course that's your goal, No Thing!
A
AdvaitaZen
Guest
No Thing cannot be a goal, it has never ceased to be the case. It is always no-thing-ness pretending to be something, choosing a path that creates this illusion of somethingness, walking that path to arrive at some imaginary destination. In the end what is seen is that it was just false ideas which created the whole play.
I wonder if you realize though that your problem with this actually is about your ego? Your whole path is about confirming the ego, about creating the perfect ego, but it doesn't work that way. We will continue to clash until you understand the ego is simply an illusion, it doesn't exist, it is just a series of thoughts, there is no consistency in it at all. Similarly, identification with the body is delusion, it is never constant either. All I am really pointing at is the real nature of why life has coherence at all. There is something which is constant, unchanging, throughout the process of growing up, maturing, something is there which doesn't move. Everything else is a flux, depending on this for its appearing.
When the foundation of delusion falls, the house built atop it cannot remain standing. I am not someone concerned with removing each brick one by one, it is just a prolonging of delusion - there are no bricks, nor any house, just truth. All that is necessary is to cease clinging. I can go into this and that around this topic, but for what? What emerges naturally from the realization of no-thing-ness is always unique.
For me, it is a crime to bring the house crumbling down, then build it with your own opinions. This only creates slaves, and there are enough slaves. This is all that is accomplished by long winded answers though, inevitably ego will come in and assert things which are outside the realm of truth.
For this reason, freedom is all I am interested in addressing.
A
AdvaitaZen
Guest
Freedom from identifications, our stories, the past and future.
Freedom to simply be here, naked, immediate, intimate.
Here is the only place where life actually resides.
Freedom to simply be here, naked, immediate, intimate.
Here is the only place where life actually resides.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Some folks can't abide individuality and separation. Some folks can't abide unity and connection. Some can't abide mindfulness, while others can't abide mindlessness. It's miraculous how we can manage at all.
A
AdvaitaZen
Guest
Some folks can't abide individuality and separation. Some folks can't abide unity and connection. Some can't abide mindfulness, while others can't abide mindlessness. It's miraculous how we can manage at all.
You have listed only states, ways of perceiving.
In deep sleep, truth remains, thus before perceiving, you are.
I tell you before the body and mind are formed, through the many stages of development of each within the story of our lives, and indeed after they will fall, what you are remains.
We become too much attached to appearances, but nothing can be said about the one they appear for.
Yet without finding it out, you have only a house on sand.
A
AdvaitaZen
Guest
It is so subtle, yet so blatantly obvious.
Just delve into the nature of "I", see that all which arises for it cannot be it.
Thoughts, feelings, sensations, the world... observe it all and see there is distance between yourself and them all. What then can you be? Is there a state associated with this essence?
Find out.
Just delve into the nature of "I", see that all which arises for it cannot be it.
Thoughts, feelings, sensations, the world... observe it all and see there is distance between yourself and them all. What then can you be? Is there a state associated with this essence?
Find out.