Clarification

D

DaoYin

Guest
Messages
137
Reaction score
20
Points
18
You may see me putting traditions in contrast across the forums, this is because it's important to understand what each is really saying individually...

Despite this I see within each an expression of oneness and this is where interfaith dialog can be more fruitful.

I would like that the divisive aspects of each be dropped so that we can dive deeper into where each peak meets.

Yet, as long as they are upheld there cannot be real peace, there just are reasons for conflict between them... this should not be overlooked.

I also rank traditions based on their effectiveness at expressing oneness, they are not all equal.

This can seem contradictory or even antagonistic, but I have a pretty deep understanding of many traditions so I can't pretend they don't say what they say.

This will not be appreciated by those who want interfaith dialog to ignore differences so we can pretend to get along.

I apologize, but I think my overall intent is worth it.
 
fwiw:

1. Daoism (especially Dao De Jing and Chuangzi)
2. Buddhism (especially Zen and Dzogchen)
3. Hinduism (especially Avadhut Gita and Ashtavakra Gita)
4. Christianity (especially Galatians)
5. Islam (especially Rumi and Ibn Irabi)
6. Jainism (especially Anekantavada)
7. Sikhi (especially Gurmat/Gurmukh)
8. Judaism (especially Ecclesiastes)
 
I also like philosophers like Plotinus and Heraclitus but mostly that tradition isn't very useful today...

It's interesting that in 1 Maccabees 12:21 the Greeks are called brothers of the Jewish people, this seems to give rise to later conceptions of monotheism and ultimately everything good about Christianity in my opinion.

They should be honored but they don't make my list.

This is mostly due to unnecessary verbosity.
 
Last edited:
Heraclitus gives us the unity of opposites and calls that oneness Logos...

Plotinus teaches henosis by combining various strands of philosophy... this is the Greek word for oneness.

This oneness is always my focus.

This complies with Galatians via Galatians 3:20 and 3:28... thus I never fall foul of Galatians 1:8... trying my best to remember Galatians 6:1 when engaging.

I do not uphold any tradition, parts of each approach the curse.

I would like that no one be cursed.
 
Search for a greatest meaning of "One God" the creator of all that is seen and unseen.

The same God hears all our prayers, despite all our differences.

You will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God.
 
EricPH said:
Search for a greatest meaning of "One God" the creator of all that is seen and unseen.

The same God hears all our prayers, despite all our differences.

You will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God.
Click to expand...

For me the notion of "One God" has created much evil.

I am saying God is oneness, and if you give God attributes it is secondary to oneness... you are creating necessary division.

We can live that oneness too, this is the point of religion.
 
If God is a distinct entity union is impossible.

It is only by overcoming our own separation that union is possible.

This is because now there is no barrier.

It suggests already there is none on the side of God.
 
This does not result in two Gods.

Nor is oneness increased in size.

Only ignorance is subtracted and it's not a tangible thing, just a mental mistake.
 
Last edited:
EricPH said:
Search for a greatest meaning of "One God" the creator of all that is seen and unseen.

The same God hears all our prayers, despite all our differences.

You will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God.
Click to expand...
One God is One God, who asked the Israelis to kill the Amalekites, who fathered Jesus, who instructed Muhammad, Joseph Smith, Bahaollah and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.
I do not accept fictitious things, I am an atheist.
 
I follow 'Kesamutti Sutta'. Evidence, not faith.
  • Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing (anussava),
  • nor upon tradition (paramparā),
  • nor upon rumor (itikirā),
  • nor upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna)
  • nor upon surmise (takka-hetu),
  • nor upon an axiom (naya-hetu),
  • nor upon specious reasoning (ākāra-parivitakka),
  • nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over (diṭṭhi-nijjhān-akkh-antiyā),
  • nor upon another's seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya),
  • nor upon the consideration 'The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no garū)'
 
Aupmanyav said:
I follow 'Kesamutti Sutta'. Evidence, not faith.
  • Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing (anussava),
  • nor upon tradition (paramparā),
  • nor upon rumor (itikirā),
  • nor upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna)
  • nor upon surmise (takka-hetu),
  • nor upon an axiom (naya-hetu),
  • nor upon specious reasoning (ākāra-parivitakka),
  • nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over (diṭṭhi-nijjhān-akkh-antiyā),
  • nor upon another's seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya),
  • nor upon the consideration 'The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no garū)'
Click to expand...
Kalamasutta, probably, good householder. Yes, the interfaith-committee... it misses the most important point, as interfaith/demo-cracy (diṭṭhi-nijjhān-akkh-antiyā) delights in censure, in it's negation:

* and wise people praise

What's evident aside of craving and not-knowing that leads the whole mass of suffering?
(the author, btw., calls the own ideas,opinion as the most lowest criteria for choices)

The talk was also not given toward interfaith-seeker, but doubters without refuge, legion.

And, to encourage good householder to look after evidence, observe things, in and of themselves, dukkha (suffering) is the cause of Saddhā (faith, surrender).
 
Faithfulservant said:
The word "faith" comes from the Latin word fidēs, which means "trust".

By the definition of the word you do have faith.
Click to expand...
That's important to understand, yes. Not a single deed by anybody not awakened yet, which is not totaly based on believe, faith, trust, that this deed will release from suffering. Evidence... People at large aren't even aware why they act, moment for moment, by body, speech and mind.

So it's always just about doing serving faithful for whom and/or what, in what way.

Liberation of all kind, wrong or right, comes always after having faithful served.
 
Dhammañāṇa Bhikkhu said:
.. it misses the most important point, as interfaith/demo-cracy (diṭṭhi-nijjhān-akkh-antiyā) delights in censure, in it's negation:
* and wise people praise
(the author, btw., calls the own ideas,opinion as the most lowest criteria for choices)
The talk was also not given toward interfaith-seeker, but doubters without refuge, legion.
dukkha (suffering) is the cause of Saddhā (faith, surrender).
Click to expand...
Censure is because they want others to ditto them.
I do not know if the people who praise it are wise or not. Evidently, they have not asked for evidence.
The ideas I follow are not mine. The brightest scientists of the world say that in the beginning there was nothing other than 'physical energy'.
From what we need refuge if we understand Buddha and the Noble Eight-fold path?
True, abandon Saddhā (in Hindi Shraddhā), think on your own, that is the way to 'samata' (equanimity).
That is what Buddha wanted. That is what he said in 'Kesamutti Sutta'.
I have long been a student of Buddha. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top