PeterC wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 6:27 am
tkp67 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2019 1:53 pm
In my experience the god of Abraham and the peoples who believe are grossly misrepresented and misunderstood even by those who believe and worship.
For me the deepest meanings of those texts and the deepest meanings of the buddha's teachings (I base this on my interpretive of the lotus sutra) have many parallels and the distance between adherents is simply ONE side of the same phenomenon.
I can expound on this greatly and have lifetimes of experience that I can share that reveal a completely different narrative than mainstream delusion.
I would politely disagree on two points.
First, the teachings of the Dharma and those of Islam/Christianity/Judaism are absolutely and fundamentally irreconcilable. To claim otherwise betrays a basic misunderstanding of the dharma, and is I think unfair to both traditions: if a Christian were to claim equivalence I would accuse them of not understanding their own articles of faith.
Second, if we’re not talking about the view but about conduct, I think the question is moot: it only matters if you care about peoples’ rationalizations for their actions, which I do not. Most systems of morality, whether religious or not, generally agree on which actions are good and which are evil. However people will argue endlessly about religious exceptions to this general consensus. The simple answer is as always the more reliable one.
Thank you very much for taking the time to read my words and responding. I appreciate your input. On the first point I would like to add clarity to my statement using references from the teachings I follow and some simple commentary to put it in relative context.
This quotes speak of both the dynamic of parallel meaning and reconciliation.
This indicates that non-Buddhist texts should be regarded as a first step toward Buddhist doctrine. Confucius first taught propriety and music 10 so that, when the Buddhist scripture fs were
brought to China, the concepts of the precepts, meditation, and wisdom 11 could be more readily grasped.
The Nirvana Sutra remarks, “All of the non-Buddhist scriptures and writings in society are themselves Buddhist p.223 teachings, not non-Buddhist teachings.”
Now let us examine of the aspects of the Abrahamic religions that seems incompatible with Buddhism but can be viewed differently in the context of the Lotus Sutra as taught by Nichiren according to my interpretation. I hope that anyone with superior understanding quickly corrects any slanderous interpretation in regards to my view of these teachings if they are incorrect.
The concept of soul and mind seem completely different yet if we look at aspects of these concepts more deeply they have some parallels. for example the Implication that actions in this physical lifetime matters after death. While the notion of what happens after death is arguably different the concept that our actions have implications past this existence is denied by nihilism all the same.
Furthermore, in this way an argument between the two practices strengths the nihilist notion that neither are valid yet both put great focus on our behavior as human beings in this existence so denying a treatise between the two becomes counter intuitive to both.
This is one tiny aspect of the subject I broached, there is a wealth of treatise on these practices from various lenses and in my personal experience your statement does not hold true since I discuss dharma with adherents Muslim, Jewish and christian faiths alike. Most adherents of the Abrahamic religions I have met and talked to respect the other Abraham religions as parallel doctrine which is counter intuitive to mainstream perception but the reality I dominantly experience.
However to support your opinion that they are incompatible I will leave the topic here.
In this manner I am deeply sorry for challenging your point of view on this manner topic but since mine IS predicated on a Buddhist practice and since I have a experience within the context of Christianity, Judaism and Muslim interfaith interactions that counters your statement I felt it necessary to remark.
Interestingly enough (to me at least) there is the very important and yes parallel reality in all these teachings and that is if you are to know them at the deepest level (the torah for example has 4 levels of spiritual interpretation some of which are hidden) one must embrace their practice with 100% focus and belief and deviation from this focus can undermine the revealing of those deepest meanings.
These are the types of observations confirm the teachings of the Lotus Sutra but since even these teachings can be viewed as contrarian to other Buddhist practitioners I will also end on this point.
As to the second point it only furthers my commentary on the Lotus Sutra which reveal pre lotus and non buddhist teachings as (and I am paraphrasing) truths relative to the conditions of the people of a given age (such as capacity and cause) in contrast to the Lotus Sutra which puts all relative teachings in context to the ultimate truth which is the teaching of the lotus sutra. Expedient means (or skillful means) comes to mind.
The line of reasoning may be abstract and I can offer more clarity but I don't believe it is necessary unless someone so requests as the point is not to assert one practice over another but rather to simply illustrate my interpretation to avoid propagating any of this outside of that particular context. That is to say these are my interpretations and any implied karmic impediments should be mine to bare.
I do agree the simplest method is the most potent simply does not equate to easy. The simplest practice as I understand it is chanting the daimoku of the lotus sutra as revealed by Nichiren however great faith needed to manifest this practice. This seems to be the challenging aspect of this very simple and potent practice.
I hope this finds you well and thank you for taking the time to consider my thoughts.