Sri Lanka to ban burqa and close 1,000 Islamic schools

[GurjantGnostic]

5 hours ago, Suchi said:

Whom we know as Buddha,  stated that there is no creator ie no God and is said to be Atheist.  This could only be true on the basis that there is empty space in the Universe ie. nothingness

That's not what Buddha said. Buddha said you can't comprehend God with the mind so quiet it entirely. 

[GurjantGnostic]

30 minutes ago, justasking said:

some bhuddist sects r messed up i knew a vietnamese guy from school who said in his culture and buddhism he follows they r allowed to kill others. 

So are we. Morally required in fact. 

[GurjantGnostic]

19 minutes ago, Suchi said:

Where does Buddha mention God?  As far as I'm aware, he says everything is impermanent, including the soul, therefore no God.  

I'd say that sounds more like common misconceptions about Buddhism than the Buddhism I've read about and studied. 

I don't have access to the primary physical text I reference, I came across it as Uchi Deshi and it had been translated from Japanese. 

It read more like this. 

It started with praise of a creator beyond human comprehension bringing reality into existance also in a way totally beyond our comprehension. 

It said Buddhists only concern the limited mind with questions it can answer and things it can do or not do. 

It then said that the root of all suffering is desire and thoughts stemming from desire. That these are to be eliminated by stilling the mind with meditation, releasing desires, and following the Noble Path of living that is congruent with the meditation. 

It said by stilling the mind and living rightously that the mind becomes undisturbed or clear and that only in this clear state can ego be stepped out of, limitation set aside, reality seen and the Indescribable One approached. 

Not only is the idea no soul no God one I haven't encountered from Buddhists but the type of logic applied is very unbuddhist in nature which concerns itself with direct perception. 

 

 

 

 

[GurjantGnostic]

11 minutes ago, Suchi said:

the chinks watched that SPOT closely --and then took a plant which grew next to it and boiled it, hoping that they wont fall asleep , while meditating.

I almost spit my tea out reading past this one. 

[GurjantGnostic]

12 minutes ago, Suchi said:

He would talk endlessly on his mindfulness techniques which I found to be numbingly boring to be honest. I couldn't see how anyone could benefit from it.

Yeah. I don't see how or why anyone would follow such teachings. Clearly not original. Theres no way Buddhism exploded based on that thinking. 

Let it be a lesson to us what they'll try and turn Sikhi into if we allow it. 

[Ranjeet01]

11 hours ago, Suchi said:

As for Bodhidharma, it is not clear whether he really existed or not, and if so, where he was from.  However, martial arts were invented in India (probably Kerala or Tamil Nadu) as part of Yogic teachings and introduced to regions that India had friendly relations with or was controlling.

In China he is known as Damo. 

If you ever get the chance to talk to a Shaolin, they have a lineage that they can trace back generations. 

They have a story they tell you when Damo went to China and he met with the emperor and the Emperor was showing all these amazing Buddhist temples that were built and Damo was not impressed. The Emperor was insulted but because Damo was holy he could not execute him so he asked him to leave. 

He eventually found himself at the Shaolin temple. He found the monks there quite fragile and weak. And when he was talking and found one of the monks falling asleep he told all the monks to get up and they started to train.

And that is how it began.

There is also the story of Damo meditating in a cave for 9 years staring at the cave wall.

[Ranjeet01]

6 hours ago, justasking said:

some bhuddist sects r messed up i knew a vietnamese guy from school who said in his culture and buddhism he follows they r allowed to kill others. 

Vietnamese are ruthless. They are one of the few countries that the Chinese fear.

[MisterrSingh]

4 hours ago, KingTarunjot said:

Shoudn't we sikhs just kill every other human being as they could be a threat in the future? Actually we should kill eachother as well... who knows when someone will come out a traitor... 

Then there is nothing wrong with any of the three sikh gallughara's, , lakhpat rai was just eliminating anything which would prove an existential threat to the mughal raj, durrani saw the sikhs as a rising power and threat to him and Indira Gandhi saw that the sikhs would be a existential threat to the brahmin raj of india. So all they were doing was defending themselves, i guess there is nothing wrong with that....

The main point is the lack of sympathy for the rohingya's by the mynamar budhist majority. Nothing wrong with having army but when it is used to commit genocide against a minority with no condemnation but instead racism and support from the prime minister or from the majority budhist population, then were would that fit in, does not seem to be any legitimate form of defence for me. They are treading on the path of fascist  hindutavi's.

Without the khalsa sikhi would have been long gone, i have said nothing against using weapons

You've done the typical Sikh thing of going 100mph when 30mph was enough. It's all or nothing. The places where you're getting your information from are the same places that are crying that Islam is a religion of peace. Am I condoning genocide? No. Am I suggesting the Buddhists made the right choice in how hard they hit? No. 

Islam is best nipped in the bud EARLY before they've embedded themselves in the institutions of a nation. They understand nothing but force. Any romanticised notions of conciliation or coexistence is eking out the inevitable. Depending on where you live and how old you are, you'll come to realise this as it relates to your own existence. By then it will be too late, and you'll, if you're honest, view the Buddhists with a little more understanding.

Quote

Then there is nothing wrong with any of the three sikh gallughara's, , lakhpat rai was just eliminating anything which would prove an existential threat to the mughal raj, durrani saw the sikhs as a rising power and threat to him and Indira Gandhi saw that the sikhs would be a existential threat to the brahmin raj of india. So all they were doing was defending themselves, i guess there is nothing wrong with that....

To the victor goes the spoils. Survival of the fittest. If we ever have our own nation, and an upstart sect begins to cause trouble for your Sikh state with good reason from their perspective, will you, as a Sikh general, fail to leave the house that morning and hope they simmer down of their own accord? Or will you put them down to send a message? I know what I'd do, and it doesn't involve hypocrisy and double standards.

[Ranjeet01]

3 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

Islam is best nipped in the bud EARLY before they've embedded themselves in the institutions of a nation. They understand nothing but force. Any romanticised notions of conciliation or coexistence is eking out the inevitable

Abrahamic ideologies being of the desert and tribal has a framework of a scarcity mentality so sharing has no basis in their mindset.

A Dharmic philosophy is based by in large of an abundance mentality. It is the mentality of the forest where there is more than enough to go ahead therefore co-existence is possible. 

 

[GurjantGnostic]

1 hour ago, Suchi said:

Its original. Just Google it. Just as well that there are many other schools of thought within Buddhism that have developed over time or have been imported to the Far East and China.

Mmm I'll trust everything I read on paper, heard from a Buddhist, and makes sense to me combined. 

Perhaps you can elaborate or reference something?