Lama Ole Nydahl, what do you think?

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Re: Lama Ole Nydahl, what do you think?

Postby Malcolm » Wed Jun 01, 2011 4:36 pm

Pero wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
tobes wrote:I'm sure you'll find a way to say that this is irrelevant, but it's not. There's far more cross fertilisation than most people assume, and any knowledgeable person from those three traditions recognises and appreciates this.

:anjali:


The nature of monotheism is imperialistic in general. Where only one god is regarded as valid, everything else is false.

N

Hehe well Buddhism is not a monotheistic religion and it regards everything else as false too.



Not exactly. Part of Buddhism is the vehicle of gods and men. It leads to higher rebirth. These are not false, just not liberative in an ultimate sense.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12145
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Lama Ole Nydahl, what do you think?

Postby Pero » Wed Jun 01, 2011 4:46 pm

Got it guys. :smile:
Although many individuals in this age appear to be merely indulging their worldly desires, one does not have the capacity to judge them, so it is best to train in pure vision.
- Shabkar
Pero
 
Posts: 1841
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:54 pm

Re: Lama Ole Nydahl, what do you think?

Postby Malcolm » Wed Jun 01, 2011 4:47 pm

tobes wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
tobes wrote:
This is just nonsense.

Absolutely no understanding of the theological underpinnings of monotheism, and perversely, the intense kinship all three traditions have had ostensibly through Aristotle.



Who cares what philosophical justification Christianity and Islam use? Theological underpinnings have nothing to do with the systematic ethnic cleansing that both Christians and Muslims have engaged in. Theology is just their excuse. Theology is bullshit anyway.



Fine, so if it is not theology motivating violence, then what is it?

Political causes and conditions?

If that is the case, then your argument should not be against Islam or Christianity as religions, but the historical-material-political forces which produce violence.

That would be a wise position: for example, the current instability in the Middle East therefore related to colonialism, the west's addiction to oil.......realist politics. Islam thus playing merely a rhetorical role in all of this. In which case, why are you attacking it, and not colonialism, American consumption and geo-political stategies?

:anjali:


Christianity and Islam are both based on an historical interpretation of the role of God in human history and lay claim to a unique and privileged position vis a vie divine sanction. Much of their respective theologies is organized around justifying their respective claims to empire based on a specific reading of history that stems from the divinely sanctioned ethnic cleansing found in the old testament.

Islam and Christianity both attempt to seal their dominance by declaring an end to divine revelation, thus securing themselves the position of final authority in all matters both religious and mundane.

Both C and I are reactions and accommodations to the Hellenization of the Ancient World.

As for your last point, I have and do attack "...colonialism, American consumption and geo-political stategies".

However, '...colonialism, American consumption and geo-political stategies" is just an outgrowth of the Western Spirit, and thus the endgame of Christian empire politics. The religious impulse driving these politics is not longer relevant, but the ethics and the precedents driving them are still in force because of protestant values that drove the rise of capitalism to begin with. Like monotheism, capitalism and communism are both hegemonic economic systems driven by economic imperatives which derive from the same religious psychology that drives their predecessors, Christianity and Islam.

The impulse to both religious and mundane empire is present in the Koran.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12145
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Lama Ole Nydahl, what do you think?

Postby conebeckham » Wed Jun 01, 2011 4:58 pm

Namdrol wrote:Christianity and Islam are both based on an historical interpretation of the role of God in human history and lay claim to a unique and privileged position vis a vie divine sanction. Much of their respective theologies is organized around justifying their respective claims to empire based on a specific reading of history that stems from the divinely sanctioned ethnic cleansing found in the old testament.

Islam and Christianity both attempt to seal their dominance by declaring an end to divine revelation, thus securing themselves the position of final authority in all matters both religious and mundane.

Both C and I are reactions and accommodations to the Hellenization of the Ancient World.

As for your last point, I have and do attack "...colonialism, American consumption and geo-political stategies".

However, '...colonialism, American consumption and geo-political stategies" is just an outgrowth of the Western Spirit, and thus the endgame of Christian empire politics. The religious impulse driving these politics is not longer relevant, but the ethics and the precedents driving them are still in force because of protestant values that drove the rise of capitalism to begin with. Like monotheism, capitalism and communism are both hegemonic economic systems driven by economic imperatives which derive from the same religious psychology that drives their predecessors, Christianity and Islam.

The impulse to both religious and mundane empire is present in the Koran.


Agree entirely. Those of you who wish to separate "Politics" from "Religion"----good luck. The argument that "Politics" just uses "religion" as a means to an end is not entirely true, though it seems to work that way at times. But American Capitalism has it's roots in Calvinist Doctrine and the Doctrine of the Elect. This is a deeply ingrained American Mindset. I'm in complete agreement with Namdrol in this regard.

In the same sense, claiming that the Koran doesn't specifically say Capital Punishment is required for Apostates, it's pretty clear that the Hadiths, and the "Majority Opinion" in most Islamic Sects, support this. This, alone, should give potential Islam Apologists pause.
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.
User avatar
conebeckham
 
Posts: 2719
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Lama Ole Nydahl, what do you think?

Postby Dechen Norbu » Wed Jun 01, 2011 5:03 pm

tobes wrote:
I don't feel part of any group: when I see a position which is prejudicial and potentially divisive, I simply point out the logical errors which support that position.

It doesn't matter what your feelings are for the case at hand. It's your behavior that establishes your group coordinates. In this case you are lumped with others presenting arguments defending the Islam. Assuming you are a Buddhist, you are placed inside our group, in the actual dominant endogroup. I'll give you a very simple example: it doesn't matter if you didn't feel that you belonged to the group of the members of Dharma Wheel. Your behavior, when signing up, determined that you are part of such group. Your behavior in this thread defines your position in the group.
With all due respect, you and Namdrol have made many unfounded and specious claims. If I hadn't seen you both make wise and considered responses elsewhere, I would simply consider that you're both trolling.

I could say that you are a fellow with strong anti american feelings, trolling in this thread, by those standards. Our arguments find a great deal of support in actual facts. Your position has been shown wrong several times already with factual quotes from textual passages, people's statements, historical events and so on and so forth. You, on the other hand, bring us an abstract theory based on opinion about religion playing no role whatsoever in the violent behavior of some Muslims/ Christians and Jews, claiming we are attributing to religion the sole responsibility for violence. We never did that.

Then you contradict yourself by saying that Islam merely plays a rhetorical role. Yes, and that is the problem we are pointing over and over again. It plays a rhetorical role because it contains very problematic messages which accentuate unenlightened human's proclivity to violence. Please, stop beating the straw man, tobes. The poor fellow can't take it any longer.

In turning to social psychology you're now resting on ground which says that any attempt to point out the logical errors of your position is likely to be motivated not by the (lack of) substance of your position, but by group dynamics.
So my logic is a thinly disguised psychologism, and yours the word of truth. How very convenient.


Now you are reading my mind and defining my intentions. You're a riot, dude! :lol: I'm not to blame for your lack of knowledge regarding group dynamics. Whether you like it or not, they always play a role in situations like this. I am not using any kind of artifice here. The theories I've presented have predictive power, but I've used them post fact, descriptively in regard to what already happened. Were I to play such a card, as you claim I did, and I would have tried to manipulate opinions in my first post, making indirect attempts to condition the speech of others. There's such an abundant array of logical fallacies I could resort to win debates that the problem would be knowing where to start. You definitively have a favorite: the straw man. Well, I did none of that. I even created a practical situation as an example of cloaked opinion manipulation little after I've introduced the theme of group dynamics, but I'm not sure you got that part. You seem quite selective about what you pick from what read so it comes without surprise that you end missing the whole picture and focusing only on fragments, that indeed quite convenient. There are much better cards in my pocket though, although I am aware you don't know much about it. I prefer to be honest and not playing games though. That has been my attitude all along and I'm not making friends or gaining anything by sticking to it.
User avatar
Dechen Norbu
 
Posts: 2798
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:50 pm

Re: Lama Ole Nydahl, what do you think?

Postby Dechen Norbu » Wed Jun 01, 2011 5:07 pm

Namdrol wrote:
tobes wrote:
What's astounding about this is your sense that all monotheists work with the same (imperialistic) conception of god.



The monotheistic impulse is merely a reflection of the human desire for empire. One ruler. Concentrated Power. Hegemony.


Forget about thousands of years of debate, and an almost infinite collection of positions on what the idea of god might actually mean.


This is all just intellectual bullshit. There is no god. So who cares what arguments people have about it. It is like arguing over the horns on a rabbit.

All that is of interest is the fact that given a chance, Muslim culture will seek to obliterate all others in its centuries long quest for world domination. And those it choose to permit to exist, get taxed. Can you imagine? Taxing others because they follow a faith different than yours?

At least Christianity has been neutered by secularism. That was my point in the beginning. I still stand by that point. Why do you think Christian fundamentalists in the US are trying to put Christian theology back into the school system as "creationism" etc.? Fundamentalist Christians know their balls have been cut off by science. So they are trying to destroy science. Next step: The Theocratic States of America.

All of this stems, as I said, from the human quest for empire.

At least materialism is more honest.

N


Exactly.
User avatar
Dechen Norbu
 
Posts: 2798
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:50 pm

Re: Lama Ole Nydahl, what do you think?

Postby tobes » Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:53 am

Namdrol wrote:Christianity and Islam are both based on an historical interpretation of the role of God in human history and lay claim to a unique and privileged position vis a vie divine sanction. Much of their respective theologies is organized around justifying their respective claims to empire based on a specific reading of history that stems from the divinely sanctioned ethnic cleansing found in the old testament.

Islam and Christianity both attempt to seal their dominance by declaring an end to divine revelation, thus securing themselves the position of final authority in all matters both religious and mundane.

Both C and I are reactions and accommodations to the Hellenization of the Ancient World.

As for your last point, I have and do attack "...colonialism, American consumption and geo-political stategies".

However, '...colonialism, American consumption and geo-political stategies" is just an outgrowth of the Western Spirit, and thus the endgame of Christian empire politics. The religious impulse driving these politics is not longer relevant, but the ethics and the precedents driving them are still in force because of protestant values that drove the rise of capitalism to begin with. Like monotheism, capitalism and communism are both hegemonic economic systems driven by economic imperatives which derive from the same religious psychology that drives their predecessors, Christianity and Islam.

The impulse to both religious and mundane empire is present in the Koran.


Bizarre argument. Hegel + Weber + universalised psychology of empire.....

Again, unbelievably reductive. You're murdering the very idea of history here....and, I might add, the logic of dependent origination.

:anjali:
User avatar
tobes
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 1140
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Lama Ole Nydahl, what do you think?

Postby tobes » Thu Jun 02, 2011 1:16 am

Dechen Norbu wrote:I would agree with you tobes if you weren't so insistent in completely excluding the contribution of the violent messages contained in some passages of the Abrahamic religions to the multiplicity of wars during history. Nobody is saying that politics, economics and so on do not contribute to this scenario. You are the only one insisting that these are the only causes, religion having nothing to do with it.

However, by your own words you admit the rhetorical role of the Islam as tool used to spread hatred. Well, that's exactly the problem. It can very easily be used to such purposes as it contains numerous passages inciting to war, superiority and hatred. You keep affirming your pet thesis, that religion has nothing to do with it, while the terrorists own words dismiss it as absurd . Attributing the situation only to secular aspects of society while disregarding the formative role of religion is irresponsible and uninformed. The fact that you are not a faith prone person doesn't mean that there aren't people who kill solely on religious motives. There are and they kill if their religion tells them to do so. Of course there are social causes for someone to grow into such fanaticism, otherwise everyone who read those passages would be a fanatic. Nevertheless, those passages can be read because they are there and explicitly incite hatred.


Absolutely I admit this.

The distinction between us, which I think is very profound, is that whilst I am attributing these rhetorical movements to perverted, extremist and very marginalised interpretations of the text, you have consistently claimed that these interpretations are central to the text and the religion itself.

This is a very, very big difference.

I in no way deny that Islamic terrorist groups willfully engage in tremendously politicised and violent readings of Islamic thought.

It is simply that one cannot extrapolate from that, anything meaningful about Islamic texts and the tradition itself.

:anjali:
User avatar
tobes
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 1140
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Lama Ole Nydahl, what do you think?

Postby Malcolm » Thu Jun 02, 2011 3:14 am

tobes wrote:
You're murdering the very idea of history here....and, I might add, the logic of dependent origination.

:anjali:


Not at all -- I just don't subscribe to effete and ineffectual "nuanced" politically correct interpretations of Christian and Moslem history.

And history, as we know, is written by the conquerers.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12145
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Lama Ole Nydahl, what do you think?

Postby Malcolm » Thu Jun 02, 2011 3:15 am

tobes wrote:
Absolutely I admit this.

The distinction between us, which I think is very profound, is that whilst I am attributing these rhetorical movements to perverted, extremist and very marginalised interpretations of the text, you have consistently claimed that these interpretations are central to the text and the religion itself.
:



That is because you are an apologist for a pernicious religion.

N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12145
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Lama Ole Nydahl, what do you think?

Postby Dechen Norbu » Thu Jun 02, 2011 4:42 am

tobes wrote:
Absolutely I admit this.

The distinction between us, which I think is very profound, is that whilst I am attributing these rhetorical movements to perverted, extremist and very marginalised interpretations of the text, you have consistently claimed that these interpretations are central to the text and the religion itself.


Says who? That's only one interpretation of the Islam, not shared by millions who would gladly disagree with you. I'm pretty confident than in a few Islamic states your mild interpretation of the Islam could get you killed.
There are entire countries where most people interpret Islam in an extremist fashion. I would say calling it a marginalized interpretation is completely inaccurate.
More than that, you present an interpretation of Islam which is mostly patent in places where Islam does not have absolute power. It's more likely that you find milder interpretations of the Islam in secular nations instead of Islamic states. By Islamic state I mean those that use the Sharia law or the Koran as a form of legislation, like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan,Yemen, Somalia, etc. These are all great places to live in, I'm sure.
In these states you can't clearly separate politics and religion, so your thesis that only politics are responsible for violence and the messages of hatred contained in the holy books have nothing to do with it fails right from the start. Plus, you idea that it was western colonization, capitalism and so on that made these nations violent is absurd as violence due to religious motives predates these phenomena by hundreds of years. Violence against nonbelievers started as soon as the Islam was created by the hands of the prophet himself. Inform yourself, tobes.
Even dogs manifest agonistic behavior when they are not the leaders of the pack, but if they gain power they may well turn into ruthless beasts against those who defy their dominance. I'm not sure if that milder interpretation of Islam doesn't arise as a result of external pressures and loss of power more than anything else. This was the case for Christians, for we all know the atrocities they committed in the name of Christ when the Church lead nations with an iron fist.

This is a very, very big difference.

Indeed. You have a nice pair of pink glasses on.

I in no way deny that Islamic terrorist groups willfully engage in tremendously politicised and violent readings of Islamic thought.


Not if you aren't mentally deranged, you don't. The twin towers didn't collapse by themselves, as you know. You just deny that Islam has anything to do with it, in spite of what the terrorists said themselves before crashing and killing themselves, their last words being of religious nature. It's also funny that while you try to detach the message of Islam from violent actions, you trace these actions to violent readings of Islamic thought. Amusing, to say the least.

It is simply that one cannot extrapolate from that, anything meaningful about Islamic texts and the tradition itself.


How could I extrapolate such violent meaning from texts who directly tell Muslims that killing disbelievers pleases Allah? I must be barking mad!

How could I extrapolate that passages such as:

Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority".
Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"


may contribute to bring violence to this world! I must be out of my mind!

Listen tobes, you keep repeating the same argument ad nauseam, but that doesn't make it more convincing. We never denied the role of a myriad of factors contributing to violent expressions of the Islam. We simply say that the textual message contained in the Islamic holy books can't be completely detached from them. The more you travel to the past, the less powerful were the external pressures applied to the Islamic world and the more violent was the expression of the Islamic thought. Its peak was a little after the prophet's death. After that there wasn't much people to kill in the Arabic peninsula, so perhaps that explains why they calmed down a little.

Yet you keep banging the same drum that the violent passages of the Koran have nothing to do with it. Of course they do. Of course they aren't alone in causing such violence as many other factors are at play.
Do us a favor and please show some compassion towards that straw man you've been spanking.
User avatar
Dechen Norbu
 
Posts: 2798
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:50 pm

Re: Lama Ole Nydahl, what do you think?

Postby Fa Dao » Thu Jun 02, 2011 4:55 am

In truth we re not actually talking about just a few exhortations to violence and cruelty in the quran (and the bible as well), we are talking about HUNDREDS!!
Want proof? want actual citations from the quran or bible itself? check this out:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm

This site has not only quran but biblical references as well. All of it in their own words, directly out of their "holy" books. It gets so tiresome hearing apologists say "youre taking that one passage out of context" Take the time then to read the context..read the surrounding passages as well. If it was just one or two passages that wouldnt be so bad, but we are literally talking about hundreds here folks.
"But if you know how to observe yourself, you will discover your real nature, the primordial state, the state of Guruyoga, and then all will become clear because you will have discovered everything"-Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche
User avatar
Fa Dao
 
Posts: 483
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2011 5:42 pm

Re: Lama Ole Nydahl, what do you think?

Postby Dechen Norbu » Thu Jun 02, 2011 5:17 am

And you see, what is so applauded as the positive message of these religions is no more than basic human decency, plain humanitarian values.
Many atheists show these qualities.
User avatar
Dechen Norbu
 
Posts: 2798
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:50 pm

Re: Lama Ole Nydahl, what do you think?

Postby tobes » Thu Jun 02, 2011 7:12 am

I concede that I'm a pretentious, rose-coloured glasses wearing, 'apologist' who endlessly constructs strawmen to tire you all with.

I wonder, though, if you think the same thing about the Dalai-lama, and why you refused to engage with his perspective?

Tell us why you think he's wrong.

:anjali:
User avatar
tobes
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 1140
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Lama Ole Nydahl, what do you think?

Postby tobes » Thu Jun 02, 2011 7:47 am

Namdrol wrote:
tobes wrote:
You're murdering the very idea of history here....and, I might add, the logic of dependent origination.

:anjali:


Not at all -- I just don't subscribe to effete and ineffectual "nuanced" politically correct interpretations of Christian and Moslem history.

And history, as we know, is written by the conquerers.


Right, so if I may ask a methodological/ epistemological question: how do you know that each individual monotheist has had intentions of Empire? How precisely have you established this historical fact which underpins your argument?

You're claiming to know the minds and psychological natures of billions of people, not only in the immanence of the present, but over centuries of past time. That's really quite some claim. There's nuance and there's sheer bloody nonsense.

On what basis does this claim rest?

:anjali:
User avatar
tobes
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 1140
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Lama Ole Nydahl, what do you think?

Postby tobes » Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:16 am

Namdrol wrote:
tobes wrote:
Absolutely I admit this.

The distinction between us, which I think is very profound, is that whilst I am attributing these rhetorical movements to perverted, extremist and very marginalised interpretations of the text, you have consistently claimed that these interpretations are central to the text and the religion itself.
:



That is because you are an apologist for a pernicious religion.

N


No, it is because I see very clearly that the religion contains a deep and systematic moral theory of virtue ethics, a political philosophy of community harmony and a fundamental soteriological message of **universal** peace.

In order to retain your position, you have to disavow that these exist as central components of Islam. But they are there, obviously, manifestly: even the most cursory glance into contemporary Islamic studies shows that they are there. This is what is happening in Mosques. This is what Immans are teaching. This is what billions of people are practicing.

Only a deep prejudice would prevent such an investigation. Instead of having the basic intellectual honesty to see what's actually going on in contemporary Islamic discourses, you prefer instead to base your entire view on the absolute extreme....an extreme practiced by a tiny minority, highlighted by the western media and overtly rejected by billions of mainstream Muslims....and then, on the basis of a bizarre philosophy of history, you then establish these as the central axis by which one should understand Islam.

And why? What is to be gained by expending so much energy perpetrating this view?

Why do feel so compelled to defend Lama Ole and refute the Dalai-lama?

Who do you think has more wisdom?
:anjali:
User avatar
tobes
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 1140
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Lama Ole Nydahl, what do you think?

Postby tobes » Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:38 am

Dechen Norbu wrote:
tobes wrote:
Absolutely I admit this.

The distinction between us, which I think is very profound, is that whilst I am attributing these rhetorical movements to perverted, extremist and very marginalised interpretations of the text, you have consistently claimed that these interpretations are central to the text and the religion itself.


Says who? That's only one interpretation of the Islam, not shared by millions who would gladly disagree with you. I'm pretty confident than in a few Islamic states your mild interpretation of the Islam could get you killed.
There are entire countries where most people interpret Islam in an extremist fashion. I would say calling it a marginalized interpretation is completely inaccurate.
More than that, you present an interpretation of Islam which is mostly patent in places where Islam does not have absolute power. It's more likely that you find milder interpretations of the Islam in secular nations instead of Islamic states. By Islamic state I mean those that use the Sharia law or the Koran as a form of legislation, like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan,Yemen, Somalia, etc. These are all great places to live in, I'm sure.
In these states you can't clearly separate politics and religion, so your thesis that only politics are responsible for violence and the messages of hatred contained in the holy books have nothing to do with it fails right from the start. Plus, you idea that it was western colonization, capitalism and so on that made these nations violent is absurd as violence due to religious motives predates these phenomena by hundreds of years. Violence against nonbelievers started as soon as the Islam was created by the hands of the prophet himself. Inform yourself, tobes.
Even dogs manifest agonistic behavior when they are not the leaders of the pack, but if they gain power they may well turn into ruthless beasts against those who defy their dominance. I'm not sure if that milder interpretation of Islam doesn't arise as a result of external pressures and loss of power more than anything else. This was the case for Christians, for we all know the atrocities they committed in the name of Christ when the Church lead nations with an iron fist.

This is a very, very big difference.

Indeed. You have a nice pair of pink glasses on.

I in no way deny that Islamic terrorist groups willfully engage in tremendously politicised and violent readings of Islamic thought.


Not if you aren't mentally deranged, you don't. The twin towers didn't collapse by themselves, as you know. You just deny that Islam has anything to do with it, in spite of what the terrorists said themselves before crashing and killing themselves, their last words being of religious nature. It's also funny that while you try to detach the message of Islam from violent actions, you trace these actions to violent readings of Islamic thought. Amusing, to say the least.

It is simply that one cannot extrapolate from that, anything meaningful about Islamic texts and the tradition itself.


How could I extrapolate such violent meaning from texts who directly tell Muslims that killing disbelievers pleases Allah? I must be barking mad!

How could I extrapolate that passages such as:

Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority".
Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"


may contribute to bring violence to this world! I must be out of my mind!

Listen tobes, you keep repeating the same argument ad nauseam, but that doesn't make it more convincing. We never denied the role of a myriad of factors contributing to violent expressions of the Islam. We simply say that the textual message contained in the Islamic holy books can't be completely detached from them. The more you travel to the past, the less powerful were the external pressures applied to the Islamic world and the more violent was the expression of the Islamic thought. Its peak was a little after the prophet's death. After that there wasn't much people to kill in the Arabic peninsula, so perhaps that explains why they calmed down a little.

Yet you keep banging the same drum that the violent passages of the Koran have nothing to do with it. Of course they do. Of course they aren't alone in causing such violence as many other factors are at play.
Do us a favor and please show some compassion towards that straw man you've been spanking.


I notice a shift in your language: you're now deploying the pronouns "us" and "we" in reference to your viewpoint.

I'm not repeating an argument: I'm highlighting the logical fallacies in yours.

My own position on this is somewhat humble: I am very ignorant of Islam, I am not well learned in history, and I think the political conditions we're referring to are tremendously complex. Therefore, I am not out to defend a particular position, but simply to point out that we are all in fact, very ignorant on these matters.

On this basis, I simply think that none of us are in a position to make strong assertions; be they textual, theological, political, historical or some combination of them all.

If there is repetition, it is because you keep belligerently making the same point over and over, as if, through sheer weight of words, I will come to believe your great insight into the tradition of Islam.

But you do not have this insight, and you should stop pretending that you do.

You do not know what's going on in Pakistan or Iran, and you should stop pretending that you do.

All I am asking for here is a bit of intellectual honesty and some humility: don't make strong assertions about traditions which you know nothing about.

:anjali:
User avatar
tobes
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 1140
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Lama Ole Nydahl, what do you think?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:51 am

Dechen Norbu wrote:And you see, what is so applauded as the positive message of these religions is no more than basic human decency, plain humanitarian values.
Many atheists show these qualities.
That's because ALL religions are merely a projection of the human condition. ALL!
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9784
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Lama Ole Nydahl, what do you think?

Postby Malcolm » Thu Jun 02, 2011 3:04 pm

tobes wrote:
No, it is because I see very clearly that the religion contains a deep and systematic moral theory of virtue ethics, a political philosophy of community harmony and a fundamental soteriological message of **universal** peace.



Right, one peaceful, ethical, harmonious world under Islam.

No thanks.

N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12145
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Lama Ole Nydahl, what do you think?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Thu Jun 02, 2011 3:09 pm

Namdrol wrote:
tobes wrote:
No, it is because I see very clearly that the religion contains a deep and systematic moral theory of virtue ethics, a political philosophy of community harmony and a fundamental soteriological message of **universal** peace.



Right, one peaceful, ethical, harmonious world under Islam.

No thanks.

N
Oh I dunno, one peaceful harmonious world under Sufism wouldn't be that bad!
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9784
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

PreviousNext

Return to Tibetan Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

>