By Mza.zakky –
Mza.zakky
Buddhism is divided into two main divisions and several sub divisions based on country and culture. Fundamental beliefs include the three jewels, the four noble truths, the eightfold path and the five precepts. The three jewels are the Buddha, the Dharma (the teachings), and the Sangha (the community) and taking refuge in them is the basis of Buddhist practice. The four noble truths are the universality of suffering, the origin of suffering, the overcoming of suffering and the way leading to the suppression of suffering.
The way or path is known as the eightfold path and consists of dṛṣṭi (ditthi): viewing reality as it is, not just as it appears to be, saṃkalpa (sankappa): intention of renunciation, freedom and harmlessness, vāc (vāca): speaking in a truthful and non-hurtful way, karman (kammanta): acting in a non-harmful way, ājīvana (ājīva): a non-harmful livelihood, vyāyāma (vāyāma): making an effort to improve, smṛti (sati): awareness to see things for what they are with clear consciousness, being aware of the present reality within oneself, without any craving or aversion, samādhi (samādhi): correct meditation or concentration.
The five precepts outline Buddhist ethics. Do not kill, be kind to all creatures. Do not steal, give rather than take. Do not lie, be honest and open. Do not misuse sex and do not consume alcohol or use recreational drugs.
Alcohol consumption is inconsistent with a Buddhist’s quest to understand and develop the mind. Buddhists believe that by practicing meditation, wisdom and morality, every individual has the innate ability to experience true happiness.
The Buddha encouraged his followers to refrain from consuming any kind of intoxicant. This included alcohol, cigarettes and drugs. These substances are said to be inconsistent with Buddhist beliefs as they distort the mind. Buddhists regard the mind as precious; they work diligently, through meditation, to master it.
Buddhists follow five precepts, serving as guidelines for correct and moral behavior. One of the precepts clearly states that Buddhists should ‘refrain from taking intoxicants’. Buddhists adhere to these guidelines with differing degrees of success.
Only a small number of followers practice Buddhism seriously, even though an overwhelming number of people in Buddhist countries, such as Sri lanka, identify as Buddhists. Despite the Buddha’s teachings, a number of Srilankan Buddhists adolescents consume alcohol.
A survey conducted in a semi-urban community in southern Sri Lanka (total sample size n = 783) revealed that
5% of females and 52.5% of males aged above 10 years old were current alcohol users. Age-specific prevalence
of alcohol use was highest among those aged between 40 to 50 years for both sexes. By ethnicity, the highest prevalence was found among Tamils (43%), followed by Sinhalese (32%) and Muslims (9%).
WHO Global Status Report on Alcohol 2004
Despite the popularity of Buddhism as a philosophy in the west, few people are willing to follow the Buddha’s advice regarding alcohol. People with a shallow understanding of Buddhism may believe that alcohol is acceptable if used in moderation, justifying this in terms of the Buddha’s preaching of the ‘Middle Way’ philosophy.
The Buddha was against any form of alcohol consumption, even in moderation, because of the effect it has on the mind.
Mindfulness is central to Buddhist philosophy. This concept requires a constant awareness of changes occurring in the mind and body. Mindfulness enables the individual to react wisely to emotions and sensations when they arise. Alcohol distorts the mind and makes it impossible to practice this tenet.
Karma is another Buddhist teaching inconsistent with the use of alcohol. The Buddha taught that each individual must be responsible for one’s own Karma. This involves being responsible for the consequences of one’s actions, speech and thoughts. Alcohol tends to encourage irresponsibility. It is possible to generate much negative karma while under the influence of alcohol.
The Buddha taught that true happiness was to be found in letting go of attachments. Many people are deeply attached to the feelings they experience when drinking alcohol. Through meditation it is possible to let go of this attachment. Buddhist meditation has been successful in treating alcoholism.
Many people use alcohol as a means of avoiding problems that arise in life. Buddhism encourages people to deal with life’s difficulties and challenges. It encourages individuals to view problems as opportunities to learn and grow. By practicing meditation, an individual can develop the courage and determination to deal with life, rather than rely on alcohol to create an artificial sense of contentment. Alcohol consumption is inconsistent with Buddhist beliefs for a number of reasons. Buddhists exert an enormous amount of effort through meditation in order to change the mind. By consuming alcohol the individual is unable to have any control over the mind.
Islam also has same philosophy about alcohol consumption. Islam’s holistic approach to health and well-being means that anything that is harmful or mostly harmful, is forbidden. Therefore, Islam takes an uncompromising stand towards alcohol and forbids its consumption in either small or large quantities. Alcohol is undoubtedly harmful and adversely affects the mind and the body. It clouds the mind, causes disease, wastes money, and destroys individuals, families, and communities. Researchers have proven that there is a strong link between alcohol and gambling. Drinking impairs judgment, lowers inhibition, and encourages the type of risk taking involved in gambling and dangerous activities. God tells us in the Quran that intoxicants and gambling are abominations from Satan and orders us to avoid them. (Quran 5: 90)
Alcohol is considered highly carcinogenic, increasing the risk of mouth, pharynx, larynx, esophagus, liver, and breast cancers. Drinking alcohol during pregnancy can lead to Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, causing the child to be small at birth, have some facial malformations, small eye openings, webbed or even missing fingers or toes, organ deformities, learning disabilities, mental retardation and much more.
Even though it is clear that alcohol is responsible for a great many evils it is legal and even encouraged in most societies. In Muslim countries where alcohol is forbidden many people still find it difficult to resist temptation and fall prey to the disease that is alcoholism. Amazingly even in the light of such startling evidence against alcohol, people around the globe continue to consume alcohol in ever-increasing amounts.
At the time of accident, 89% of drivers and 28.1% of pedestrians were under the influence of alcohol. Alcohol was related to 67.4% of accidents taking place during the night.
According to the Department of Traffic Police, the detections of driving under the influence of alcohol were 8.86% in 1990 but had increased to 20.75% in 1993.
According to the Ministry of Health, the number of cases of those hospitalized due to alcohol psychosis, alcohol dependence and alcohol withdrawal had increased by 4436 cases from 1998 to 1999.
– WHO Global Status Report on Alcohol 2004
Alcohol affects the mind and makes sinful behavior and evil actions fair seeming. It creates enmity and hatred between people, prevents them from remembering God and distracts them from praying, and calls them to participate in unlawful sexual relationships. Alcohol generates shame, regret, and disgrace, and renders the drinker witless. It leads to the disclosure of secrets and exposure of faults.
“Satan wants only to excite enmity and hatred between you with intoxicants (alcoholic drinks) and gambling, and hinder you from the remembrance of God and from the prayer. So, will you not then abstain?” (Quran 5:91)
“O you who believe! Intoxicants (all kinds of alcoholic drinks), gambling, idolatry, and diving arrows are an abomination of Satan’s handiwork. So avoid that so that you may be successful.” (Quran 5: 90)
The Quran is a book of guidance sent to all of humankind. It is a set of instructions from the Creator for His creation. God links alcohol and gambling to idolatry and declares it filthy and evil; however, He is merciful and generous towards the believers and acknowledges the power of addiction. Islam is a community-oriented faith. There is no place for an individual to do what he wants to do, if it hurts others. Alcohol abuse affects not just the alcoholic but also his or her family, and community. There is great wisdom in the prohibition of alcohol.
A survey conducted in a semi-urban community in southern Sri Lanka (total sample size n = 783) revealed that 5% of females and 52.5% of males aged above 10 years old were current alcohol users. Age-specific prevalence of alcohol use was highest among those aged between 40 to 50 years for both sexes. By ethnicity, the highest prevalence was found among Tamils (43%), followed by Sinhalese (32%) and Muslims (9%). WHO Global Status Report on Alcohol 2004
According to this report Tamils and Sinhalese are first opponents of a main concept (precepts) of Buddhism. We can’t kill human by approving alcohol. So as Muslims, we follow Islam as well as many concepts of Buddhism. We never give halal certificate to alcohol. In these things Muslims are real Buddhists. Why don’t refrain alcohol from srilanka? We are ready to make history. We Muslims invite Sinhalese to make our nation as wonder of Asia by giving haram (not acceptable) certificate to alcohol
*Mza.zakky – student of Faculty of medicine, Eastern university
Rahula / June 3, 2013
Lester is not your real name, you are a coward. next your rebirth wish you a bull. and your m**t will be sold in the m**t shop in Srilanka.
/
disappointed / June 4, 2013
ask Lester to say here that LTTE were fascists, he wouldn’t be able to :) ask him to say that hinduism/shaivism is also mythology, according to his ‘vitamin D’ science as it is popular nowadays? that should tell you a lot of things :) peace.
/
Arseon / June 4, 2013
And BBS will choose a retarded sacrificial goat among them for the immolation.
/
AYMAN / June 3, 2013
ZAKY,
YOU CAN SPEAK FOR YOURSELF. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF MUSLIMS.SINCE YOU DO NOT KNOW THE BASICS OF ISLAM.
TO BE A MUSLIM ONE HAS TO TESTIFY WITH FIRM CONVICTION THAT THERE IS
NO GOD BUT ALLAH, AND MUHAMMAD IS HIS MESSENGER,WHO CAME WITH THE
REVELATION-THE QURAN
TO YOU ISLAM IS JUST ABOUT DRINKING AND SMOKING AND WHAT NOT.
YOU ARE CONFUSED AND CONFUSING OTHERS. WILL A BUDDHIST ACCEPT THE
SHAHADA. AND YOU AS A MUSLIM WILL YOU SEEK REFUGE IN THE BUDDHA THE DHAMMA AND SANGHA. WE SEEK REFUGE IN ALLAH.
HERE IS WHAT ISLAM IS;
If anyone has a real desire to be a muslim and has full conviction and strong belief that Islam is the true religion ordained by Allah for all human-being, then, one should pronounce the “shahada”, the testimony of faith, without further delay. The Holy Qur’an is explicit on this regard as Allah states :
“The Religion in the sight of Allah is Islam” (Qur’an 3:19)
in another verse of the Holy Qur’an, Allah states :
“If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (Submission to Allah), Never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (their selves in the hell fire).” (Qur’an 3:85)
In addition, Islam is the only religion prevailing over all other religions. Allah states in the Holy Qur’an :
“To thee We sent the Scripture in the truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety :…. (Qur’an 5:48)
Mohammad, the Prophet of Allah (Peace and blessing of Allah be upon him), said :
“The superstructure of Islam is raised on five (pillars) : testifying that there is no God (none truly to be worshipped) but Allah, and that Mohammad is the messenger of Allah, performing the prayer, paying the Zakah (poor-due), fasting the month of Ramadan, and performing Hajj.”
The Shahada can be declared as follows :
“ASH-HADU ANLA ELAHA ILLA-ALLAH WA ASH-HADU ANNA MOHAMMADAN RASUL-ALLAH”.
The English translation is :
“I bear witness that there is no deity (none truly to be worshipped) but, Allah, and I bear witness that Mohammad is the messenger of Allah.”
However, it would not be sufficient for anyone to only utter this testimony oraly either in private or in public; but rather, he should believe in it by heart with a firm conviction and unshakeable faith. If one is truly sincere and complies with the teachings of Islam in all his life, he will find himself a new born person.
This will move him to strive more and more to improve his character and draw nearer to perfection. The light of the living faith will fill his heart until he becomes the embodiment of that faith.
What would be next after declaring oneself a Muslim ? one should then know the real concept underlying this testimony which means the oneness of Allah and meet its requiremants. One must behave accordingly, applying this true faith to every thing one speaks or does.
What do the words of the “Shahada” signify? The significant point which every Muslim must know very well is the truth that there is no God (deity) to be worshipped other than Allah. He-glory be to Him – is the only true God, Who alone deserves to be worshipped, since He is the Giver of life and Sustainer and Nourisher of mankind and all creation with His unlimited bounties. Man must worship Allah, Who alone is worthy of worship.
The second part of the Shahada “i.e., Wa Ash-hadu anna Mohammadan abduhu wa rasuluh” means that Prophet Mohammad (Peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) is the servant and chosen messenger of Allah. No one must have two opinions about this matter. In fact the Muslim has to obey the commands of the Prophet (Peace and blessing of Allah be upon him), to believe him in what he has said, to practise his teachings, to avoid what ha has forbidden, and to worship Allah alone according to the message revealed to him, for all the teachings of the Prophet were in fact revelation and inspirations conveyed to him by Allah.
What is the meaning of worship? It simply means rendering sincere service, showing reverence for Allah. In a deeper shade of meaning, it implies total submission and complete obedience to Allah’s commandments both in utterances and actions of man whether explicit or implicit.
Worship fall into two categories :
Visible (manifest or outward). Invisible (concealed or inward).
Visible worship includes acts such as uttering the two parts of the “Shahada”, performing prayers, giving Zakah (the poor-due), recitation of the Holy Qur’an, supplication, adoring Allah by praising Him, purifying our bodies before prayers, etc.
This type of worship is associated with movement of the parts of the human body.
Invisible worship is to believe in Allah, in the Day of Judgement (in the Hereafter), in the Angels, in the Books of Allah, in the Prophets of Allah, in the Divine Decree of destiny (that good and bad are determined by Allah alone).
This type worship does not involve movement of parts of the body but it surely has bearing on one’s heart which subsequently affects one’s way of life.
It should be borne in mind that any worship not dedicated to Allah alone will be rejected as one form of polytheism and this causes apostasy from the Islamic fold.
The next step for a newly revert to Islam is the purify himself by taking a cmplete bath. He should then resolve to comply with the principles and rules of Islam in their entirety. He should disown all forms of polytheism and false beliefs. He should reject evil and be rigtheous. Such rejection of evil and being righteous is one of the requisites of the motto of Islam – that is, Laa ilaha illallah.
Allah states in the Holy qur’an :
“…whoever rejects evil and believes in the Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy Hand-hold, that never breaks…” (Qur’an 2:256).
We have to consider that when declare from our heart that “ there is no god (deity) worthy to be worshipped but Allah”, it implies on our part love, devotion, faith and obedience to the rules of Islamic legislations which are legally binding on all Muslims. It is a requiremant of “there is no god worthy to be worshipped but Allah” to love for the sake of Allah and to reject for the sake of Allah.
This is the firmest anchor of belief which materialise the meaning of “AL WALA” and “AL BARA”. It means that a Muslim should love and be loyal to his Muslim brothers. He should, as a practise, dissociate himself completely from the unbelievers and refuse to be influenced by them, both in wordly and religious matters.
We conclude with a humble prayer to Allah that may He cleanse the hearts and souls of those who are genuine seekers of truth and may He bless the community of believers.
Aameen.
/
zakky mza / June 3, 2013
first see the heading. i mentioned “many concepts of Buddhism”
1.i never say all concepts of Buddhism(bcz Buddhism says there is no god.and there are lot of concepts against Islam).
2.if anybody has good habits we can follow it.we cant say if he is Muslim only i can follow his habits.example-if your father or tamil friend has good habits you can follow it.i see Buddhism and Buddha through this aspect only.
3. i mentioned the word “many concepts”.if u read carefully, i mentioned only five precepts and karma as topics.others are only introduction about Buddhism in this article.
4. don’t beat others by your hard words.if you be hard you cant invite others into Islam. be soft.
5.no body fully perfect.me too.i also may have some bad things and some bad understanding.we are Muslims and all are brothers.
6.first read it carefully and see what i am saying. don’t see heading only.
/
JimSofty / June 3, 2013
Zacky MZa:
You are very correct.
That is why I say Quran can be interpreted in many different ways. That is why there wahabis as well as sufis.
/
Lester / June 4, 2013
Well said, Zakky. Especially (2). We should see others as human first, not through the myopic lens of a religion.
/
nobody / June 4, 2013
and the myopic lens of phobia for religions Lester? :D
/
NAK / June 4, 2013
Zaky,
About 01 above,Buddhism doesn’t say no god but say there is no almighty god. According to buddhism there are many millions of gods of different levels. Buddhism can not have concepts against Islam since there was no Islam when Buddhism was introduced.It has to be the other way around,there are many concepts in Islam against Buddhism.
/
JimSofty / June 3, 2013
See this is how Quran is.
different people interpret it in different ways.
that is why when Sufi’s are very peaceful Wahabis are violent.
IF the Quran can be in many different ways it can not either GOD’s words or even from an intelligent person.
/
zakky mza / June 4, 2013
quran is 100 percentage correct.but human are not like that.we have good side as well as bad side.some people misunderstand quran. if u want to learn quran read fully and get the final decision. don’t see each word of quran separately. i also can take many bad separate words from other religions.we want harmony and unity.can anybody proof quranic words are scientifically wrong by scientific reseaches?????? you cant.
/
Lester / June 4, 2013
How can a book written by humans be 100% correct?
/
zakky mza / June 4, 2013
lester, who said to you about Qur’an? you don’t know anything about Qur’an.Qur’an is from almighty god(ALLAH).
/
AYMAN / June 14, 2013
ZAKY YOU KNOW QURAN IS FROM ALLAH.THATS GREAT
IF YOU KNOW THAT HOW CAN YOU TALK OF COMPROMISE ON CONCEPTS.
/
AYMAN / June 14, 2013
ZAKI,
YOU HAVE POSED A QUESTION!
WELL HERE IS THE ANSWER FROM ALLAH HIMSELF;
Surah al Kafirun Is About Non-Compromised, Not Tolerance (2/2)
Numerous ahadith (Traditions) are pointing to the reason of its revelation, with a simple background. Namely, after all their efforts to silence Muhammad had failed, the leaders of the Quraysh had come to Muhammad the Prophet and offered a compromised. Their proposal was simple: they suggested that Muhammad and his followers worship the idols of the Quraysh for one year, and for another year, the Quraysh would worship the God of Muhammad.1
As a response to that proposal, Allah Himself gave the answer through the revelation of Surah al Kafirun. Muhammad was commanded to proclaim: “Say, O disbelievers, I do not worship that which you worship, nor do you worship the One whom I worship. And neither I am going to worship that which you have worshipped, nor will you worship the One whom I worship. For you is your religion, and for me is my religion.” [al Kafirun: 1-6, i.e., the translation of the whole Surah]
ZAKI, I HOPE YOU ARE NOW CLEAR ON THE QUESTION YOU POSED
/
JimSofty / June 4, 2013
Zacky mzA:
It is a Fact that scientific research contribution from Islamic world is very limited to any discipline that would prove that there is no GOD. Their research contribution to that area is less than 1%. for example [sub atomic particle] nuclear physics.
For example, I don’t think that there is no one from the Muslim world who is a theoretical Physicist. but, there are many Hindus working in that area.
/
zakky mza / June 4, 2013
Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Sīnā[2] (Persian پور سينا Pur-e Sina [ˈpuːr ˈsiːnɑː] “son of Sina”; c. 980 – June 1037), commonly known as Ibn Sīnā or by his Latinized name Avicenna, was a Persian[3][4][5][6] polymath, who wrote almost 450 treatises on a wide range of subjects, of which around 240 have survived. In particular, 150 of his surviving treatises concentrate on philosophy and 40 of them concentrate on medicine.[7][8]
His most famous works are The Book of Healing, a vast philosophical and scientific encyclopaedia, and The Canon of Medicine,[9] which was a standard medical text at many medieval universities.[10] The Canon of Medicine was used as a text-book in the universities of Montpellier and Leuven as late as 1650.[11] Ibn Sīnā’s Canon of Medicine provides a complete system of medicine according to the principles of Galen (and Hippocrates).[12][13]
His corpus also includes writing on philosophy, astronomy, alchemy, geology, psychology, Islamic theology, logic, mathematics, physics, as well as poetry.[14] He is regarded as the most famous and influential polymath of the Islamic Golden Age.[15]
/
Muliyawaikkal / June 5, 2013
So Islamic golden age has passed? Good.
/
zakky mza / June 4, 2013
Avicennian philosophy
Ibn Sīnā wrote extensively on early Islamic philosophy, especially the subjects logic, ethics, and metaphysics, including treatises named Logic and Metaphysics. Most of his works were written in Arabic – which was the de facto scientific language of the time in the Middle East, and some were written in the Persian language. Of linguistic significance even to this day are a few books that he wrote in nearly pure Persian language (particularly the Danishnamah-yi ‘Ala’, Philosophy for Ala’ ad-Dawla’). Ibn Sīnā’s commentaries on Aristotle often corrected the philosopher,[citation needed] encouraging a lively debate in the spirit of ijtihad.
In the medieval Islamic world, due to Avicenna’s successful[citation needed] reconciliation between Aristotelianism and Neoplatonism along with Kalam, Avicennism eventually became the leading school of Islamic philosophy by the 12th century, with Avicenna becoming a central authority on philosophy.[26]
Avicennism was also influential in medieval Europe, particular his doctrines on the nature of the soul and his existence-essence distinction, along with the debates and censure that they raised in scholastic Europe. This was particularly the case in Paris, where Avicennism was later proscribed in 1210. Nevertheless, his psychology and theory of knowledge influenced William of Auvergne, Bishop of Paris and Albertus Magnus, while his metaphysics had an impact on the thought of Thomas Aquinas.[27]
Metaphysical doctrine
Early Islamic philosophy and Islamic metaphysics, imbued as it is with Islamic theology, distinguishes more clearly than Aristotelianism the difference between essence and existence. Whereas existence is the domain of the contingent and the accidental, essence endures within a being beyond the accidental. The philosophy of Ibn Sīnā, particularly that part relating to metaphysics, owes much to al-Farabi. The search for a definitive Islamic philosophy separate from Occasionalism can be seen in what is left of his work.
Following al-Farabi’s lead, Avicenna initiated a full-fledged inquiry into the question of being, in which he distinguished between essence (Mahiat) and existence (Wujud). He argued that the fact of existence can not be inferred from or accounted for by the essence of existing things, and that form and matter by themselves cannot interact and originate the movement of the universe or the progressive actualization of existing things. Existence must, therefore, be due to an agent-cause that necessitates, imparts, gives, or adds existence to an essence. To do so, the cause must be an existing thing and coexist with its effect.[28]
Avicenna’s consideration of the essence-attributes question may be elucidated in terms of his ontological analysis of the modalities of being; namely impossibility, contingency, and necessity. Avicenna argued that the impossible being is that which cannot exist, while the contingent in itself (mumkin bi-dhatihi) has the potentiality to be or not to be without entailing a contradiction. When actualized, the contingent becomes a ‘necessary existent due to what is other than itself’ (wajib al-wujud bi-ghayrihi). Thus, contingency-in-itself is potential beingness that could eventually be actualized by an external cause other than itself. The metaphysical structures of necessity and contingency are different. Necessary being due to itself (wajib al-wujud bi-dhatihi) is true in itself, while the contingent being is ‘false in itself’ and ‘true due to something else other than itself’. The necessary is the source of its own being without borrowed existence. It is what always exists.[29][30] The Necessary exists ‘due-to-Its-Self’, and has no quiddity/essence (mahiyya) other than existence (wujud). Furthermore, It is ‘One’ (wahid ahad)[31] since there cannot be more than one ‘Necessary-Existent-due-to-Itself’ without differentia (fasl) to distinguish them from each other. Yet, to require differentia entails that they exist ‘due-to-themselves’ as well as ‘due to what is other than themselves’; and this is contradictory. However, if no differentia distinguishes them from each other, then there is no sense in which these ‘Existents’ are not one and the same.[32] Avicenna adds that the ‘Necessary-Existent-due-to-Itself’ has no genus (jins), nor a definition (hadd), nor a counterpart (nadd), nor an opposite (did), and is detached (bari) from matter (madda), quality (kayf), quantity (kam), place (ayn), situation (wad), and time (waqt).[33][34][35]
Natural philosophy
Ibn Sina and Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī engaged in a written debate, with Abu Rayhan Biruni mostly criticizing Aristotelian natural philosophy and the Peripatetic school, while Avicenna and his student Ahmad ibn ‘Ali al-Ma’sumi respond to Biruni’s criticisms in writing. Abu Rayhan began by asking Avicenna eighteen questions, ten of which were criticisms of Aristotle’s On the Heavens.[36]
Theology
Ibn Sīnā was a devout Muslim and sought to reconcile rational philosophy with Islamic theology. His aim was to prove the existence of God and His creation of the world scientifically and through reason and logic.[37] Avicenna wrote a number of treatises dealing with Islamic theology. These included treatises on the Islamic prophets, whom he viewed as “inspired philosophers”, and on various scientific and philosophical interpretations of the Qur’an, such as how Quranic cosmology corresponds to his own philosophical system.[38]
Ibn Sīnā memorized the Qur’an by the age of ten, and as an adult, he wrote five treatises commenting on suras from the Qur’an. One of these texts included the Proof of Prophecies, in which he comments on several Quranic verses and holds the Qur’an in high esteem. Avicenna argued that the Islamic prophets should be considered higher than philosophers.[39]
Thought experiments
While he was imprisoned in the castle of Fardajan near Hamadhan, Avicenna wrote his famous “Floating Man” thought experiment to demonstrate human self-awareness and the substantiality and immateriality of the soul. Avicenna believed his “Floating Man” thought experiment demonstrated that the soul is a substance, and claimed humans cannot doubt their own consciousness, even in a situation that prevents all sensory data input. The thought experiment told its readers to imagine themselves created all at once while suspended in the air, isolated from all sensations, which includes no sensory contact with even their own bodies. He argued that, in this scenario, one would still have self-consciousness. Because it is conceivable that a person, suspended in air while cut off from sense experience, would still be capable of determining his own existence, the thought experiment points to the conclusions that the soul is a perfection, independent of the body, and an immaterial substance. The conceivability of this “Floating Man” indicates that the soul is perceived intellectually, which entails the soul’s separateness from the body. Avicenna referred to the living human intelligence, particularly the active intellect, which he believed to be the hypostasis by which God communicates truth to the human mind and imparts order and intelligibility to nature. However, Avicenna posited the brain as the place where reason interacts with sensation. Sensation prepares the soul to receive rational concepts from the universal Agent Intellect. The first knowledge of the flying person would be “I am,” affirming his or her essence. That essence could not be the body, obviously, as the flying person has no sensation. Thus, the knowledge that “I am” is the core of a human being: the soul exists and is self-aware.[40] Avicenna thus concluded that the idea of the self is not logically dependent on any physical thing, and that the soul should not be seen in relative terms, but as a primary given, a substance. The body is unnecessary; in relation to it, the soul is its perfection.[41][42][43] In itself, the soul is an immaterial substance.[44]
/
zakky mza / June 4, 2013
Alhazen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For the Moon crater, see Alhazen (crater). For the asteroid, see 59239 Alhazen.
Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen)
Ibn al-Haytham.png
Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen)
Born July 1, 965 CE[1] (354 AH)[2]
Basra in present-day Iraq
Died March 6, 1040 (aged 74)[1] (430 AH)[3]
Cairo, Egypt, Fatimid Caliphate
Residence Basra
Cairo
Fields optics, astronomy, mathematics, psychology
Known for Book of Optics, Doubts Concerning Ptolemy, scientific method, experimental science, Experimental Psychology, visual perception, Alhazen’s problem, Analysis, Camera obscura, Curved mirror, Emission theory, Empirical theory of perception, Empiricism, Horopter, Moon illusion, Motion, Perspective, Pinhole camera, Proof by contradiction, Scientific demonstration, Vacuum
Influences Aristotle, Euclid, Ptolemy
Influenced Averroes, Bacon, Descartes, Huygens, Kepler, Newton, Witelo,
This article contains Arabic text, written from right to left in a cursive style with some letters joined. Without proper rendering support, you may see unjoined Arabic letters written left-to-right instead of right-to-left or other symbols instead of Arabic script.
Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥasan ibn al-Haytham (Persian : ابن هيثم, Arabic: أبو علي، الحسن بن الحسن بن الهيثم, Latinized: Alhacen or (deprecated)[4] Alhazen) (965 in Basra – c. 1040 in Cairo) was a Muslim[5] scientist, polymath, mathematician, astronomer and philosopher, described in various sources as either an Arab or Persian.[1][6] He made significant contributions to the principles of optics, as well as to astronomy, mathematics, visual perception, and to the scientific method. He also wrote insightful commentaries on works by Aristotle, Ptolemy, and the Greek mathematician Euclid.[7]
He is frequently referred to as Ibn al-Haytham, and sometimes as al-Basri (Arabic: البصري), after his birthplace in the city of Basra.[8] He was also nicknamed Ptolemaeus Secundus (“Ptolemy the Second”)[9] or simply “The Physicist”[10] in medieval Europe.
Born circa 965, in Basra, present-day Iraq, he lived mainly in Cairo, Egypt, dying there at age 74.[9] According to one version of his biography, overconfident about practical application of his mathematical knowledge, he assumed that he could regulate the floods of the Nile.[11] After being ordered by Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, the sixth ruler of the Fatimid caliphate, to carry out this operation, he quickly perceived the impossibility of what he was attempting to do. Fearing for his life, he feigned madness[1][12] and was placed under house arrest, during which he undertook scientific work. After the death of Al-Hakim he was able to prove that he was not mad, and for the rest of his life he made money copying texts while writing mathematical works and teaching.[13] He is known as the “Father of Modern Optics, Experimental physics and Scientific methodology”[14][15][16][17] and could be regarded as the first theoretical physicist.[15]
Book of Optics
Main article: Book of Optics
The theorem of Ibn Haytham.
Alhazen’s most famous work is his seven volume treatise on optics, Kitab al-Manazir (Book of Optics), written from 1011 to 1021.
Optics was translated into Latin by an unknown scholar at the end of the 12th century or the beginning of the 13th century.[33] It was printed by Friedrich Risner in 1572, with the title Opticae thesaurus: Alhazeni Arabis libri septem, nuncprimum editi; Eiusdem liber De Crepusculis et nubium ascensionibus.[34] Risner is also the author of the name variant “Alhazen”; before Risner he was known in the west as Alhacen, which is the correct transcription of the Arabic name.[35] This work enjoyed a great reputation during the Middle Ages. Works by Alhazen on geometric subjects were discovered in the Bibliothèque nationale in Paris in 1834 by E. A. Sedillot. Other manuscripts are preserved in the Bodleian Library at Oxford and in the library of Leiden.
Theory of Vision
Two major theories on vision prevailed in classical antiquity. The first theory, the emission theory, was supported by such thinkers as Euclid and Ptolemy, who believed that sight worked by the eye emitting rays of light. The second theory, the intromission theory supported by Aristotle and his followers, had physical forms entering the eye from an object. Previous Islamic writers (such as al-Kindi) had argued essentially on Euclidean, Galenist, or Aristotelian lines; Alhazen’s achievement was to come up with a theory which successfully combined parts of the mathematical ray arguments of Euclid, the medical tradition of Galen, and the intromission theories of Aristotle. Alhazen’s intromission theory followed al-Kindi (and broke with Aristotle) in asserting that “from each point of every colored body, illuminated by any light, issue light and color along every straight line that can be drawn from that point”.[36] This however left him with the problem of explaining how a coherent image was formed from many independent sources of radiation; in particular, every point of an object would send rays to every point on the eye. What Alhazen needed was for each point on an object to correspond to one point only on the eye.[36] He attempted to resolve this by asserting that only perpendicular rays from the object would be perceived by the eye; for any one point on the eye, only the ray which reached it directly, without being refracted by any other part of the eye, would be perceived. He argued using a physical analogy that perpendicular rays were stronger than oblique rays; in the same way that a ball thrown directly at a board might break the board, whereas a ball thrown obliquely at the board would glance off, perpendicular rays were stronger than refracted rays, and it was only perpendicular rays which were perceived by the eye. As there was only one perpendicular ray that would enter the eye at any one point, and all these rays would converge on the centre of the eye in a cone, this allowed him to resolve the
problem of each point on an object sending many rays to the eye; if only the perpendicular ray mattered, then he had a one-to-one correspondence and the confusion could be resolved.[37] He later asserted (in book seven of the Optics) that other rays would be refracted through the eye and perceived as if perpendicular.[38]
His arguments regarding perpendicular rays do not clearly explain why only perpendicular rays were perceived; why would the weaker oblique rays not be perceived more weakly?[39] His later argument that refracted rays would be perceived as if perpendicular does not seem persuasive.[40] However, despite its weaknesses, no other theory of the time was so comprehensive, and it was enormously influential, particularly in Western Europe: “Directly or indirectly, his De Aspectibus inspired much of the activity in optics which occurred between the 13th and 17th centuries.” [41] Kepler’s later theory of the retinal image (which resolved the problem of the correspondence of points on an object and points in the eye) built directly on the conceptual framework of Alhazen.[41]
Alhazen showed through experiment that light travels in straight lines, and carried out various experiments with lenses, mirrors, refraction, and reflection.[25] He was the first to consider separately the vertical and horizontal components of reflected and refracted light rays, which was an important step in understanding optics geometrically.[42]
The camera obscura was known to the Chinese, and Aristotle had discussed the principle behind it in his Problems, however it is Alhazen’s work which contains the first clear description[43] and early analysis[44] of the device.
Alhazen studied the process of sight, the structure of the eye, image formation in the eye, and the visual system. Ian P. Howard argued in a 1996 Perception article that Alhazen should be credited with many discoveries and theories which were previously attributed to Western Europeans writing centuries later. For example, he described what became in the 19th century Hering’s law of equal innervation; he had a description of vertical horopters which predates Aguilonius by 600 years and is actually closer to the modern definition than Aguilonius’s; and his work on binocular disparity was repeated by Panum in 1858.[45] Craig Aaen-Stockdale, while agreeing that Alhazen should be credited with many advances, has expressed some caution, especially when considering Alhazen in isolation from Ptolemy, who Alhazen was extremely familiar with. Alhazen corrected a significant error of Ptolemy regarding binocular vision, but otherwise his account is very similar; Ptolemy also attempted to explain what is now called Hering’s law.[46] In general, Alhazen built on and expanded the optics of Ptolemy.[47][48]
Alhazen’s most original contribution was that after describing how he thought the eye was anatomically constructed, he went on to consider how this anatomy would behave functionally as an optical system.[49] His understanding of pinhole projection from his experiments appears to have influenced his consideration of image inversion in the eye,[50] which he sought to avoid.[51] He maintained that the rays that fell perpendicularly on the lens (or glacial humor as he called it) were further refracted outward as they left the glacial humor and the resulting image thus passed upright into the optic nerve at the back of the eye.[52] He followed Galen in believing that the lens was the receptive organ of sight, although some of his work hints that he thought the retina was also involved.[53]
/
zakky mza / June 4, 2013
Mohammad Abdus Salam,[2] NI, SPk, KBE[3] (Punjabi, Urdu: محمد عبد السلام; Hindustani pronunciation: [əbd̪ʊs səlɑm]; 29 January 1926 – 21 November 1996)[4] was a theoretical physicist who, when he shared the 1979 award for his contribution to electroweak unification,[5] became the first Muslim and first Pakistani to receive a Nobel Prize in Physics.[6]
Salam was a science advisor to the Government of Pakistan from 1960 to 1974, a position from which he played a major and influential role in Pakistan’s science infrastructure.[6][7] Salam was responsible for not only major development and contribution in theoretical and particle physics, but as well as promoting scientific research at maximum level in his country.[7] Salam was the founding director of Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission (SUPARCO), and responsible for the establishment of the Theoretical Physics Group (TPG) in Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC).[8] As Science Advisor, Salam played an integral role in Pakistan’s development of peaceful use of nuclear energy, and directed the research on development of atomic bomb project of Pakistan in 1972;[9] for this, he is viewed as the “scientific father”[2][10] of this programme in the views of the scientists who researched under his scientific umbrella.[11][12][13] In 1974, Abdus Salam departed from his country, in protest, after the Pakistan Parliament passed a controversial parliamentary bill declaring the Ahmadiyya denomination as non-Islamic. Even after his death, Salam remained one of the most influential scientists in his country. In 1998, following the country’s nuclear tests, the Government of Pakistan issued a commemorative stamp, as a part of “Scientists of Pakistan”, to honour the services of Salam.[14]
Salam’s major and notable achievements include the Pati–Salam model, magnetic photon, vector meson, Grand Unified Theory, work on supersymmetry and, most importantly, electroweak theory, for which he was awarded the most prestigious award in Physics – the Nobel Prize.[5] Salam made a major contribution in Quantum Field Theory and advancement of Mathematics at Imperial College London. With his student, Riazuddin, Salam made important contributions to the modern theory on neutrinos, neutron stars and black holes, as well as the work on modernising the quantum mechanics and quantum field theory. As a teacher and science promoter, Salam is remembered as a founder and scientific father of mathematical and theoretical physics in Pakistan during his term as the chief scientific advisor to the president.[7][15] Salam heavily contributed to the rise of Pakistani physics to the Physics community in the world.[16][17] Even until his death, Salam continued to contribute to physics and tirelessly advocated for the development of science in Third-World countries.[18]
Scientific career
Abdus Salam lectures on G.U.T. at the University of Chicago’s Oriental Institute
Early in his career, Salam made an important and significant contribution in quantum electrodynamics, quantum field theory, quantum chromodynamics, including its extension into particle and nuclear physics. In his early career in Pakistan, Salam was greatly interested in mathematical series and their relation to physics. Salam had played an influential role in the advancement of nuclear physics, but he maintained and dedicated himself to mathematics and theoretical physics and focused Pakistan to do more research in theoretical physics.[24] Though, he regarded nuclear physics (nuclear fission and nuclear power) as non pioneering part of physics as it had already “happened”.[24] Even in Pakistan, Salam was the leading driving force in theoretical physics in Pakistan, with many scientists he continued to influence and encourage to keep their work on theoretical physics.[24] Salam had a prolific research career in Theoretical and High-energy physics, and either he pioneered or was associated with all the important developments in this field.[45] Salam had work on theory of the neutrino —an elusive particle that was first postulated by Wolfgang Pauli in 1930s. Salam introduced Chiral symmetry in the theory of neutrinos. The introduction of Chiral symmetry played crucial role in subsequent development of the theory of electroweak interactions.[46] Salam later passed his work to Riazuddin, who made pioneering contributions in neutrinos. In 1960, Salam carried the work on nuclear physics, where he had pioneered the work on proton decay. Salam introduced the induction of the massive Higgs bosons in the theory of the Standard Model, where he predicted the hypothetical form of radioactive decay emitted by Protons, thus he theorised the existence of proton decay. In 1963, Salam published his theoretical work on the vector meson. The paper introduced the interaction of vector meson, photon (vector electrodynamics), and the renormalization of vector meson’s known mass after the interaction.[47] In 1961, Salam began to work with John Clive Ward on symmetries and Electroweak unification.[48][49] In 1964, Salam and Ward worked on a Gauge theory for the weak and electromagnetic interaction, subsequently obtaining SU(2) × U(1) model. Even though, the work in this was continued in 1959, Salam had deeply convinced that all the elementary particle interactions are actually the Gauge interactions.[50] In 1968, together with Weinberg and Sheldon Glashow, Salam formulated the mathematical concept of their work. While in Imperial College, Salam, along with Glashow and Jeffrey Goldstone, mathematically proved the Goldstone’s theorem, that a massless spin-zero object must appear in a theory as a result of spontaneous breaking of a continuous global symmetry.[50] In 1960, Salam and Weinberg incorporated the Higgs mechanism, into Glashow’s discovery, giving a it a modern form in electroweak theory, thus theorised the Standard Model.[51] In 1968, together with Weinberg and Sheldon Glashow, Salam finally formulated the mathematical concept of their work.
In 1966, Salam carried out the pioneering work on a hypothetical particle. Salam showed the possible electromagnetic interaction between the Magnetic monopole and the C-violation, thus he formulated the magnetic photon.[52]
Following the publication of PRL Symmetry Breaking papers in 1964, Steven Weinberg and Salam were the first to apply the Higgs mechanism to electroweak symmetry breaking. Salam provided a mathematical postulation while observing the interaction between the Higgs boson and the electroweak symmetry theory.[53]
In 1972, Salam began to work with Indian-American theoretical physicist Jogesh Pati. Pati wrote to S
lam several times expressing interest to work under Salam’s direction, in response to which Salam eventually invited Pati to the ICTP seminar in Pakistan. Salam suggested to Pati that there should be some deep reason for which the protons and electrons are so different and yet carry equal but opposite amount of electricity. Protons carry quarks, but the electroweak theory was concerned only with the electrons and neutrinos, with nothing postulated about quarks. If all of nature’s ingredients could be brought together in one new symmetry, it might reveal a reason for the various features of these particles and the forces they feel. This led to the development of Pati-Salam model in particle physics.[54] In 1973, Salam and Jogesh Pati were the first to notice that since Quarks and Leptons have very similar SU(2) × U(1) representation content, they all may have similar entities.[55] They simply provided the simplest realisation of the quark-lepton universality by postulating that “Lepton number is the fourth colour.[56] Physicists believed that there are four fundamental forces of nature; gravitational force, strong and weak nuclear force, and the electromagnetic force. Salam had worked on the unification of these forces from 1959 with Glashow and Weinberg at the Imperial College. Salam was highly convinced that weak nuclear forces are not really different from electromagnetic forces, and two could inter-convert. Salam provided a theory that shows the unification of two fundamental forces of nature, strong and weak nuclear forces and the electromagnetic forces, one into another.[45] From 1959, Salam had searched for such unity that takes place in them. In 1966, Glashow had formulated the same work, and the theory was combined in 1966. In 1967, Salam proved the theory mathematically, and finally published the papers. For this achievement, Salam, Glashow, and Weinberg were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1979.
The Nobel Prize Foundation paid tribute to the scientists and issued a statement saying:
For their contributions to the theory of the unified weak and electromagnetic interaction between elementary particles, including, inter alia, the prediction of the weak neutral current.[5]
/
zakky mza / June 5, 2013
Abdul Qadeer Khan[note 1] (Urdu: ڈاکٹر عبد القدیر خان; b. 1 April 1936); DEngr, NI (twice), HI, FPAS; also respectfully known by some in Pakistan as Mohsin-e-Pakistan (in Urdu: محسن پاکِستان; lit: Savior of Pakistan), more popularly known as Dr. A. Q. Khan, is a Pakistani nuclear scientist and a metallurgical engineer, colloquially regarded as the founder of HEU based Gas-centrifuge uranium enrichment program for Pakistan’s integrated atomic bomb project.[2] Founded and established the Kahuta Research Laboratories (KRL) in 1976, he was both its senior scientist and the director-general until his retirement in 2001, and was an early and vital figure in other science projects. Apart from participating in atomic bomb project, he made major contributions in molecular morphology, physical martensite, and its integrated applications in condensed and material physics.
Abdul Qadeer Khan was one of Pakistan’s top scientists,[3] and was involved in the country’s various scientific programs until his dismissal.[3] In January 2004, Khan was officially summoned for a debriefing on his suspicious activities in other countries after the United States provided evidence to the Pakistan Government, and confessed it a month later.[3] Some have alleged that these activities were sanctioned by the authorities, though the Pakistan government sharply dismissed the claims.[4][5] After years of nominal house arrest, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on 6 February 2009 declared Abdul Qadeer Khan to be a free citizen of Pakistan, allowing him free movement inside the country. The verdict was rendered by Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Aslam.[6] In September 2009, expressing concerns over the Islamabad High Court’s decision to end all security restrictions on Khan, the United States warned that Khan still remains a “serious proliferation risk”.[7]
Contents
Bhutto sensed great danger as the scientists were split between uranium and plutonium routes.[19] Therefore, he called Khan for a meeting, which was held at the prime minister secretariat. With the backing of Bhutto, Qadeer Khan took over the enrichment program and renamed the project to Engineering Research Laboratories (ERL).[19] Abdul Qadeer Khan insisted to work with the Corps of Engineers to lead the construction of the suitable operational enrichment site, which was granted. The E-in-C directed Brigadier Zahid Ali Akbar of Corps of Engineers to work with Qadeer Khan in Project-706.[19] The Corps of Engineers and Brigadier Akbar quickly acquired the lands of the village of Kahuta for the project.[22] The military realized the dangers of atomic experiments being performed in populated areas and thus remote Kahuta was considered an ideal location for reearch.[22] Bhutto would subsequently promote Brigadier Zahid Akbar to Major-General and handed over the directorship of the Project-706, with Qadeer Khan being its senior scientist.[23]
On the other hand, the PAEC did not forgo the electromagnetic isotope separation research and a parallel program was conducted by theoretical physicist Dr. G.D. Allam at Air Research Laboratories (ARL) located at Chaklala PAF base, though G.D. Allam had not seen a centrifuge, but only had a rudimentary knowledge of the Manhattan Project.[24]
At first, the ERL suffered many setbacks, and relied heavily on the knowledge from URENCO brought by Qadeer Khan.[24] Meanwhile in April 1976, theorist Ghulam Dastigar Alam accomplished a great feat by successfully rotating the first generation centrifuges to ~30,000 RPM.[24] When the news reached Qadeer Khan, he immediately requested to Bhutto for G.D. Alam’s assistance which was granted by the PAEC, dispatching a team of scientists including G.D. Alam to ERL.[24] At ERL, Qadeer Khan joined the team of theoretical physicists headed by theorist dr. GD Allam, working on the physics problems involving the differential equations in the centripetal forces and angular momentum calculations in the ultra-centrifuges.[24] On 4 June 1978, the enrichment program became fully functional after Dr. G.D. Alam succeeded in separated the 235U and 238U isotopes in an important experiment in which Dr. A.Q Khan also took part.[24][25] Contrary to his expectation, the military approved to the appointment of Major-General Zahid Ali as the scientific director of entire uranium division.[24]
In 1981, when General Akbar was posted back to combat assignments, Khan took over the operations of ERL as its interim director and senior scientist.[22][23] In 1983, his appointment as director of ERL was personally approved by President Zia-ul-Haq who renamed the ERL after him.[26]
Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan is being honoured by President Farooq Leghari, 1996.
Despite his role Khan was never in charge of the actual development of atomic bombs, mathematical and physics calculations, and eventual weapons testing.[26] Outgoing General Zahid Ali recommended Munir Khan appointment as the scientific director of atomic bomb project. This appointment came as a shock to Khan and surprised many in the government and the military as Munir Khan was not known to be aligned to conservative military.[24][26][27] The government itself restricted to provide full scientific data of atomic projects and had him required the government security clearance and clarifications of his visits of such secret weapons development sites, which he would be visiting with senior active duty officers.[27]
In 1984, the KRL claimed to have carried out its own nuclear cold test of a nuclear weapon, but this was seemed to be unsuccessful while PAEC under Munir Khan had already carried out another test in 1983, codenamed: Kirana-I.[28]
PAEC’s senior scientists who worked with him and under him remember him as “an egomaniacal lightweight”[26] given to exaggerating his scientific achievements in centrifuges.[26] At one point, Munir Khan said that, “most of the scientists who work on the development of atomic bomb projects were extremely “serious”. They were sobered by the weight of what they don’t know; Abdul Qadeer Khan is a showman.”[26] During the timeline of atomic bomb project, Qadeer Khan pushed
his research into rigorous theoretical physics calculations and topics to compete, but yet failed to impress his fellow theorists at PAEC, generally at the physics community. In later years, Abdul Qadeer Khan had became a staunch critic of Munir Ahmad Khan’s research in physics, and on many different occasions tried unsuccessfully to belittle Munir Khan’s role in the atomic bomb projects. Their scientific rivalry became public and widely popular in the physics community and seminars held in the country over the years.[14]
/
zakky mza / June 5, 2013
jimmy, do u enough???? if u want i will give 1000 of examples.
/
AYMAN / June 16, 2013
IS THIS YOUR PH.D. THESIS SUBMITTED TO US FOR EVALUATION.
/
Almanac / June 6, 2013
North Hindians boasts of their prowess in technical and nonsensical spheres to be the pioneers of all crafts, but they are just a pathetic bunch of Grantashastravedis who never educate themselves to improve their livelihoods.
/
American Mama / June 3, 2013
1/ Where is the PROOF that GOD really exuists ??
2. Where is the PROOF that NIRVANA is real ??
/
JimSofty / June 3, 2013
American Mama:
the day you understand that you are an idiot, you see the signs of the existence of Nirvana.
/
Hue & Cry / June 5, 2013
If you run naked like Archimedes shouting ‘Eurika’ it will be the act resembling the real word to word meaning Nivana. The word is derived from an archaic word ‘Aryaan’ meaning naked, meaning without clothes and assimilated to Indic vocabulary meaning ‘nothingness’.
So, if you attain Nirvana, you will dwell in a limbo of emptiness, into in nothingness, and like how you lived in this Sansara without a wisdom nor heuristics but nourished with an artificial knowledge.
/
disappointed / June 3, 2013
they are all matters of faith mama.
let me quote you a friend “the moment you prove there exists a proof, then it becomes a knowledge, not a belief, not a faith”
i think people believe what appeals to them and all are free to believe what they want to believe as long as their doesn’t fingers don’t touch the other persons nose.
/
Jamal / June 4, 2013
And on another occasion the Blessed One dwelt at Savatthi in the Jetavana, the garden of Anathapindika. At that time the Blessed One edified, aroused, quickened and gladdened the monks with a religious discourse on the subject of Nirvana. And these monks grasping the meaning, thinking it out, and accepting with their hearts the whole doctrine, listened attentively. But there was one brother who had some doubt left in his heart. He arose and clasping his hands made the request: “May I be permitted to ask a question?”
When permission was granted he spoke as follows:
“The Buddha teaches that all conformations are transient, that all conformations are subject to sorrow, that all conformations are lacking a self. How then can there be Nirvana, a state of eternal bliss?”‘
And the Blessed One, this connection, on that occasion, breathed forth this solemn utterance: “There is, O monks, a state where there is neither earth, nor water, nor heat, nor air; neither infinity of space nor infinity of consciousness, nor nothingness, nor perception nor non-perception; neither this world nor that world, neither sun nor moon. It is the uncreate. That O monks, I term neither coming nor going nor standing; neither death nor birth. It is without stability, without change; it is the eternal which never originates and never passes away. There is the end of sorrow.
“It is hard to realize the essential, the truth is not easily perceived; desire is mastered by him who knows, and to him who sees aright all things are naught. There is, O monks, an unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed. Were there not, O monks, this unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed, there would be no escape from the world of the born, originated, created, formed. Since, O monks, there is an unborn, unoriginated, uncreated and unformed, therefore is there an escape from the born, originated, created, formed
Buddha the Gospel PAUL CARUS
/
Lester / June 3, 2013
Again to address the issue of whether smoking is haram. Shisha/hukkah was smoked openly during the Prophet’s time and the Quran does not prohibit it. Of course, the effects of smoking were not known at that time. By the way, I cannot find anything to suggest that smoking in moderation is harmful. The problem is with the addictive nature of nicotine.
/
Jamal / June 4, 2013
Lester the Jester, the inveterate Liar, seems to have missed the bus as usual. Here’s the history of tobacco an essential ingredient in the sheesh mix!
/
Lester / June 4, 2013
Tobacco is not the only stimulant. Opium, hashish, marijuana and other stimulants existed in the Arab world long before Columbus.
Some sources have pointed to Muhammad’s flight to Mecca as an out of body experience derived from shamanism, and though the use of some enthoegen. Cannabis is not forbidden in the Koran, but booze and opium are. There has been debate about cannabis since the earliest Islamic period. See THE HERB: Hashish vs Medieval Moslem Society by Franz Rosenthal for both sides of the coin on this and especially some of the beautiful medieval poems dedicated to hashish. There is certainly a long history of spiritual use of cannabis in the Islamic world, particularly amongst the sufis and ismailis, and in Afghanistan and elsewhere there are still massive hashish smoking pilgrimages to saints involved with the history of the herb and Islam.
http://forums.cannabisculture.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1151821
/
DODU / June 4, 2013
He is trying to say cannabis from Afganistan was supplied to Buddha by his father from the age of 9 to keep him focused in girls. BUDDHA BARS ARE COMING UP BASED ON THIS FACT.
/
John / June 5, 2013
Afghanistan’s female opium users lift veil on their addictions
Female drug use is on the rise in Afghanistan, the source for more than 90 per cent of the world’s opium. There is a special stigma placed on female addicts, who must tell their stories anonymously because of the ultra-conservative culture of Muslim Afghanistan.
KABUL—Anita lifted the sky-blue burqa from her face, revealing glazed eyes and cracked lips from years of smoking opium, and touched her saggy belly, still round from giving birth to her seventh child a month ago.
“I can’t give breast milk to my baby,” said the 32-year-old Anita, who like other women interviewed for this story, declined to give her full name. “I’m scared he’ll get addicted.
WORLD DRUG REPORT 2012
Use of Narcotic drug OIPIUM by countries, Annual Prevalence of Use as a percentage of the population aged 15-64 (unless otherwise indicated)
1 USA 5.81
2 Australia 3.40
3 Afghanistan 2.92 Muslim
4 Costa Rica 2.80
5 Russian Fed 2.29
6 Iran 2.27 Muslim
7 UK 1.71
8 Estonia 1.53
9 Azerbaijan 1.50 Muslim
10 Georgia 1.36
11 Mauritius 1.29
12 Puerto Rico 1.15
13 Mexico 1.12
14 China, Macao SAR 1.12
15 New Zealand 1.10
16 Jamaica 1.00
17 Kazakhstan 1.00 Muslim
18 Malaysia 0.94 Muslim
19 Ukraine 0.90
20 Kyrgyzstan 0.80 Muslim
21 Uzbekistan 0.80 Muslim
Source- World Drug Report 2012 http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/WDR-2012.html
Is there a Single Buddhist country among those. ???
/
AYMAN / June 16, 2013
The smoking of tobacco is believed to have began during the times of Native Americans. Christopher Columbus first discovered tobacco and how to smoke it about October 12, 1492. The man that America was named after, Amerigo Vespucci, discovered chewing tobacco. It wasn’t until the time of the Nazis’ that anyone knew that tobacco was cancerous. So to answer your question, smoking tobacco is thought to have started with the native americans for there are no records before that. But logically it would make the most sense if it was started by tribes before civilization.
/
suryagamage nilan / June 3, 2013
Ayman:
Nice one Ayman!
Our man from the east is trying to stir up stupidly that religion is all about smoking or drinking statistics and thru cosy up to the buddhists because they are in the majority. The Muslims when they invaded India firt targetted the Buddhist areas and converted them all to Islam.
So in a way the Muslims are a greater threat to Buddhism than Hinduism as they pretend to be similar!
/
Mohandas Upadyay / June 4, 2013
The similarity they count is more into the person in affection “the good Sakyamuni” and his simple path, not the namesake and distorted ‘ism of the men of chance.
/
AYMAN / June 16, 2013
While thanking you for the compliment.i would like to know,how Muslims
are a threat to Buddhists.
DO NOT COME TO CONCLUSIONS BY THE ACTIONS OF MUSLIM RULERS OR BY THOSE
PROFESSING THE RELIGION OF ISLAM AND CALLING THEMSELVES MUSLIMS,IN THE
PAST AND EVEN NOW.
I CONSIDER BUDDHISM IS A GOOD AND NOBLE RELIGION BUT SADLY,I FIND IT
DIFFICULT TO FIND A GOOD BUDDHIST.YOU ARE JUSTIFIED IF YOU SAY THAT OF ISLAM AND MUSLIMS.
NON MUSLIMS HAVE A VERY NEGATIVE IMAGE OF ISLAM,BY WHAT THE MEDIA PORTRAYS AND OF THE ACTIONS AND SAYING OF SOME MUSLIMS,WHO INDULGE
IN SUICIDE BOMBINGS AND KILLINGS.
IN ISLAM ONE CANNOT KILL A NON-COMBATANT,WOMAN OR CHILD EVEN WHEN MUSLIMS ARE ATTACKED AND THERE IS A WAR.ISLAM IS NOT A THREAT AT ALL.
/
zakky mza / June 3, 2013
first see the heading. i mentioned “many concepts of Buddhism”
1.i never say all concepts of Buddhism(bcz Buddhism says there is no god.and there are lot of concepts against Islam).
2.if anybody has good habits we can follow it.we cant say if he is Muslim only i can follow his habits.example-if your father or tamil friend has good habits you can follow it.i see Buddhism and Buddha through this aspect only.
3. i mentioned the word “many concepts”.if u read carefully, i mentioned only five precepts and karma as topics.others are only introduction about Buddhism in this article.
4. don’t beat others by your hard words.if you be hard you cant invite others into Islam. be soft.
5.no body fully perfect.me too.i also may have some bad things and some bad understanding.we are Muslims and all are brothers.
6.first read it carefully and see what i am saying. don’t see heading only.
/
AYMAN / June 15, 2013
NO RELIGION TEACHES ANYTHING BAD. SO IF WE AS BUDDHISTS MUSLIMS CHRISTIANS HINDUS,PRACTICE THEIR RELIGIONS AS THEY SHOULD AND GIVE RESPECT TO OTHERS VALUES,THERE WILL BE PEACE.
INSTEAD OF WASTING TIME DEBATING LETS GET TO DOING SOMETHING USEFUL.
MACKY YOU HAVE TO FIRST LEARN THE ISLAM OF THE QURAN AND SUNNAH.
BEFORE PREACHING LEARN YOUR BASICS AND PUT INTO PRACTICE.
/
kaluKaputaJihadi / June 4, 2013
The difference is that in Buddhism it is all about self control. There is no Quran or Bible to BAN actions. Buddha preached based on logic on the excessive consumption of Alcohol or dependency on gambling etc.. There is no “Thou shall not” which the the fundamental difference between theistic faiths such as Islam or Christianity and Buddhism. There are no bans. He explained why certain things were harmful. Of course in all religions or philosophies there is a leap of faith. In Buddhism we talk about Nirvana and the mono-theistic Islam and christianity talk about a God as being a supreme entity. Both these are not based on fact, or replicated experiments or scientific rationale. They are views and require a leap of faith. Eating meat vs. killing for pleasure. excessive use of alcohol or gambling, all cause harm. Those are really well explained in the Sigaalovaada sutraya. I doubt if many of these BBS types or Sinhala militant read and practice those tenets.. But the difference is that in Buddhism salvation comes from within and we fear no entity called a God or Goddess. Self discipline is the key and seriously most Sri Lankans lack that; even our so called priests lack that. I have seen more real Buddhist monks in the USA.
Instead of telling So called card-board Buddishts to behave this young lad should examine the blood lust in Islam in the Arab and non-Arab world. Salafists Wahabist Sunnis are killing and terrorising Shias. And they view everyone who is not a Muslim to be an infidel. In our Buddhist philosophy we do not have such harsh practices. A muslim can be a buddhist too if he or she practices the way of life taught in the five precepts and the 8 precepts and also in Sigaalovaada sutraya.
Islami promotes intolerance because of the Saudi Wahabis and Salafists who are using petro dollars to force people to convert to their radical way of life. In England they want to overthrow England’s way of life even though in their own homelands they migrated from there is zero tolerance of other faiths. This young man should take head on the radical Islamists from Saudi Arabia and their Jihadi mentality.
Who destroyed Bamiyan and why were Sri Lankan Muslims silent? it is because they approve such savagery. How about the beheading of an English Soldier? Why didnt the Sri Lankan Muslim Congress condemn that vile attack? How about just on June 3rd when school children were murdered by terrorist bombs in Afghanistan? Islamic radicalism is the biggest threat to world peace in secular nations.
/
Satara Beeri wattoruwa / June 4, 2013
The very concept of meditating to a stone structure believing it is the Buddha in stature is the worst of all disbelief against all the worthy doctrines of what Buddah preached.
/
Lester / June 5, 2013
No one believes the stone structure is Buddha. Humans need images to process information. Why do you think small children use their fingers when they are learning basic maths? Even at a very high level, computer simulations are used to project an image otherwise inaccessible to the eye.
/
Barnyard Sanctity / June 5, 2013
Avidly we pray almost all the time with eyelids shut, as such, it is evidently nonsensical of an argument for a linear image to process information within, unless you have a parallel output correlating to the sanctity of the process. The ultimate truth is, that we formidably betray the teachings of the beloved one, the Sakyamuni.
/
AYMAN / June 15, 2013
FOR YOUR INFORMATION,THE SHIA ARE THE FIRST BREAKAWAY SECT.IT WAS FOUNDED BY ONE ABDULLAH BIN SABAH,WHO WAS A JEW AND A HYPOCRITE.
THE SHEAH AND JEWS ARE BLOOD BROTHERS.THATS WHY THEY DO NOT FIGHT EACH OTHER THAN THREATEN. TYPICAL HYPOCRITES.
THERE IS NO RADICAL OR LIBERAL ISLAM. ISLAM IS ONE AS PER QURAN AND SUNNAH. THE SHIA REJECT SUNNAH BECOZ OF THEIR HATRED TOWARDS ABU BAKR AND UMAR AND THEIR DAUGHTERS WHO WERE MARRIED TO THE PROPHET.
/
AYMAN / June 16, 2013
ONLY BAN HALAL,MOSQUES MADRASSAHS HIJABS ETC.
NO BAN ON CASINOS,BROTHELS,ALCOHOL ETC.
COULD SOMEONE TELL ME HOW THERE IS A CASINO AND ALL THAT GOES WITH IT
LIKE CHINESE AND RUSSIAN PROSTITUTES, NEAR THE WALUKARAMAYA TEMPLE AND MAHANAMA COLLEGE.
IT IS ALLOWED BECOZ ITS OWNED BY A POWERFUL PERRA CLOSE TO THE RAJAPAKSES.
IN SHORT THE BUDDHISM PRACTICED NOW IS THE RAJAPAKSE NIKAYA.
CAN ANYONE DENY THIS.
/
kaluKaputaJihadi / June 4, 2013
Faith is called faith for a reason; it defies logic and science and is a way of life preached and believed. But a Real Buddhist will know that we do not need A god or a goddess or pantheon of deities to become better people. There is no Hell or Heaven and 72 Virgins that the Islamic terrorist Jihadist who are clearly sexually repressed on Earth hope to get when they blow themselves up for Allah..
Do not believe in anything (simply) because you have heard it.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
Do not believe in anything because it is spoken and rumoured by many.
Do not believe in anything (simply) because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
But after observation and analysis when you find that anything agrees with reason
and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all then accept it and live up to it.
-Buddha
(FROM: Anguttara Nikaya Vol. 1, 188-193 P.T.S. Ed)
I eat meat and fish in moderation and I have alcohol in moderation except during the Royal-Thomian and then because of my excessive imbibing I suffer consequences such as headaches, damaged liver, hangovers. All those are practical reasons not to drink.. All those are rational teachings that can be found in Buddhism. Buddhism does not say you will get 72 Virgins for Jihad in Nirvana but Nirvana itself is a LEAP of faith.
/
Mahinda Panapitiya / June 4, 2013
Please read Story behind Sarakani Sutta in Buddhism. What Buddha promoted is Indriya Sanwara Sila based on a View Change about your distorted perception about your Body and Mind combination (Nam/Rupa) which has been synergized by a expectation (Vigna). This synergization like vortex in a stream of water resulted in due to some reason. Because of this Nam Rupa Vignana vortex we misinterpret this vortex as if there is a person with an identity (Sathva Puggala Sangna). As a asresult, we also begin to experience the world separately as yours and outside. Buddha has identified 6 faculties (Eye, Nose, Tongue, Body and mind)called Ayathana in action in this process. Note that we can not see these faculties because they are only activities. What we posses as eye, nose, tongue, body and mind are only outlets for those activities. Also note that only one faculty active at one time. As a result of this process we get the feeling of contact (Passa) for which the Vignana explained earlier play a major role. If this process continue beyond this stage we further established the misconception about ourselves. Any phenomena based on an misunderstanding invariably end up with bad result. The word meant by Dukka in Buddhium has above philosophical backing and it is not negative word such as sorrow.
If a person is a Buddhist, he or she should clearly understand the above process at least conceptually. Mediation meant in Buddhism are private experiments suggested by Buddha to confirm your self about this misunderstanding. Once you fully convinced, Vortex of misunderstanding ceases. Once a vortex in a water ceases can you ask the question “Where it went”
These so called Bad Habits such Drinking Alcohols, Killing Animals ect become Bull Shit activities for a such person. Those so called Virtuousness defined by various religions in different formats is an invariable result because of this wisdom in Buddhism and is not the cause.
So try to slowdown the Vortex.If you miss this opportunity. it will continue for ever until you hear this message.
If you are ready Buddha apperas
/
M.Sivananthan / June 4, 2013
American Mama!
Science never accept any religeous theories.
Muslims tell Mohamed was a Prophet. What are the prophecies he told? That camel rider and womanizer did not know even the oil under his feet!
Now the Muslims are depend on the so called “kaffirs” for food, guns, computers etc.
/
kayal / June 4, 2013
Siva, I have seen your name frequently more than anybody else whenever an article appear in these forums related to Islam. Firstly, you should understand what is Islam means. Before understanding this, do not show your utter ignorance and stupidity of the subject.
You are misinformed about the word “Kaffir” in the Quran. You have taken the matter out of context. You need to read the Complete Verse to understand on which occasion this should be carried out. If all Kaffirs to be executed regardless of reasons, than all Sri Lankan Hindus working/living in Middle east will have their heads cut off bu now. Because, according to you, all Hindus are Kaffirs for Muslims.
You talk about the prophet and ask what prophesies he had told. Numerous you idiot! Those are the same prophesies of David, Moses and Jesus. He is not like Saibaba to perform magics to bring something that has monetary value. He has no concern of oil and gold. He is not Rajneesh to have sanctuary and cheat innocent women. Have you ever seen a Prophet cleaning the stool of a Kaffir by his own hand. That is him. People like you must read the book “The Hundred” in human history written by Michael Hart. If you are lucky in this life you will have a reading in Google Docs. Best of Luck.
/
Ass Assin / June 4, 2013
[Edited out
/
Babangida / June 5, 2013
Crazy moderator, you ruined the art of a superfluous dialogue.
/
DODU / June 4, 2013
He said under my feet there is Black Gold! Petrol is also known as Black Gold! I am writing this not to satisfy idiots like you and I never write like this. I only abuse as thought by Buddha! I am writing this Just to tell others that I know this!
Buddha copied his Philosopy from Hinduism and Jainism made some adjustments and put it as his own! A Mara fellow!
ask Barahminds and Jains they will tell you the rest. If they do not, I am ready to write it here!
/
Bakaranty / June 5, 2013
Couldn’t that be the barbecue charcoal.
/
Muliyawaikkal / June 5, 2013
You must watch “innocence of Muslims” documentary. It is so true and highly educational. I recommend it to everyone.
/
AYMAN / June 15, 2013
THE QURAN HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AS A DIVINE BOOK BY MODERN SCIENTISTS BECOZ OF THE ITS CONTENTS. SCIENCE FOUND OUT THE UNIVERSING IS EXPANDING JUST IN THE LAST CENTURY. IT IS THERE IN THE QURAN 1400 YEARS OLD.
The Big Bang theory showed that in the beginning all the objects in the universe were of one piece and then were parted. This fact, which was revealed by the Big Bang theory was stated in the Quran 14 centuries ago, when people had a very limited knowledge about the universe; Allaah says (what means): “Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?” [Quran 21:30]
As stated in the verse, everything, even the ‘heavens and the earth’ that were not yet created, were created with a Big Bang out of a single point, and shaped the present universe by being parted from each other.
When we compare the statements in the verse with the Big Bang theory, we see that they fully agree with each other. However, the Big Bang was introduced as a scientific theory only in the 20th century.
The expansion of the universe is one of the most important pieces of evidence that the universe was created out of nothing. Although this fact was not discovered by science until the 20th century, Allaah has informed us of this reality in the Quran (revealed 1,400 years ago) saying (what means): ” And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander.” [Quran 51: 47]
SIVA EAT YOUR WORDS OR SWALLOW THE LINGAM
/
Kumaran / June 4, 2013
All religions which evolved over a time teach good things. But, Islam cannot be said so. It is a religion that came forth suddenly due to the ‘revelations’ that occurred to mohammed, its founder. The founder took the then prevailing notions on religion from jews and christians, mixed them with the deadly potion of ‘total submission to the founder’ and served it to the populace.
The population had no choice to choose. They had no choice to question the ‘revelations’ which were coming to him. They had no choice to debate the ‘divine commands’ that were periodically emanating from the founder. It is something similar to VP & LT TE, those who are caught in their grip never had the freedom of choice.
As a result, there arose a vast army of blind believers who couldn’t tolerate debate, discussions, questioning and who fanatically demanded submission from others. Those who refused to submit were slaughtered mercilessly and their families were taken as slaves. One by one, the terrorized communities submitted to the will of the founder.
After the demise of the founder, they submitted to the will of the ‘rightly (or wrongly) ‘guided’ caliphs’. Again, here, nobody could question whether the caliphs were getting guidance from god or satan.
How can you compare such a suddenly discovered ‘religion’ with philosophical streams such as Buddhism or Shaivism (or Hinduism)? In ancient Tamil epics such as Silappadikaram, Manimekalai and Kundalakesi there are detailed debates about various religions. Can an arab write a novel like Silappadikaram debating about the pros and cons of Islam? Never!
When there is no freedom of expression, when there are no debates, ‘dawah’ can be only a one way traffic, searching for the gullible who can be enslaved by repeated rhetoric and psychological threats.
As many suggested here, if you are really interested, you should start a debate about slaughter of animals in the name of God, banning non vegetarian food, stopping violence in the society etc which are the need of the hour and then finally come to alcohol consumption (and also drug abuse – islam doesn’t prohibit that, it only says it is ‘disliked’. In Islam there is a vast difference between ‘ban’ and ‘not favored’, the former is met with death penalty, the later is left with admonishment).
/
DODU / June 4, 2013
Your books are full of wars and sex. You are trying to teach others about you religion and Buddhism! silappadikaram is an story about a Prosrirure! Mahabaratham is full of war. Ramayanam is full of sex. Karunanithi said there Is nothing in Ramayana, it is full of sex! He furter said it is just a myth. In fact Rama never lived! Mahabaraths was made by Brahimins against Buddhism. You are trying to teach us the history of Tamils!
Buddha copied his Philosophy from Brahmins and Jains, Brahmins copied it from others. Buddha killed Brahmins and Brahmins Jilled Buddha. This is the history about Hinduism and Buddhism.
/
Kumaran / June 6, 2013
//Your books are full of wars and sex.//
Which book are you referring to? The Puram poems (on war) or the Agam poems (on love). These Sangam age poems are beautiful and enable us to understand the societal values that existed at that time. They have changed over the period of time. But, I need not elaborate on the book containing the ‘revelations’ to mohammed; what you have mentioned is a Freudian slip, revealing what is contained in the ‘collections of revelations’ which are considered by you all as divine commandments, to be followed for eternity.
//You are trying to teach others about you religion and Buddhism!//
No, I am not trying to teach anything. I am not a prophet who expects you to blindly submit to my commands! Go and read these two great religions. If you are able to see them as it is, without getting biased by your religious background, you will be able to see the truth in my statements.
//silappadikaram is an story about a Prosrirure!//
No, it is a story that tells that even prostitutes can be Saints! It says that outcastes and prostitutes can become Saints. It shows that all of us are noble and there is no connection between birth, caste, profession and our spiritual progress.
Btw, Madhavi was not a prostitute. Her mother was a prostitute who was trying to force her into prostitution. Madhavi was a concubine of Kovalan, a virtuous concubine who refused to sleep with any other man. Please go and read Silappadikaram and then come and say something about that.
//Mahabaratham is full of war.//
No, it is about what is just and what is unjust. It gives guidance to mankind by enumerating the story of a tribe which got destroyed due to unjust actions of a section. It tells the history of India which was lost in antiquity. Every caste, every group in India is connected with the Mahabharatha story.
//Ramayanam is full of sex. //
oh, so? you must have read the dawah websites. Going by the same analogy we should call quron as full of perverted sex.
Ramayana is again about values. Ravana, though he was a devotee of Shiva was unjust in coveting the wife of another. It talks about the destruction of Ravana and his empire by a just King who took back his wife from the clutches of Ravana. Rama, the just warrior retrieved his wife though she was kept in the confines of a far away place.He didn’t marry anyone else, though as a Prince and subsequently as a King he had many chances to do so (compare for yourself the behavior of mohammed).
//Karunanithi said there Is nothing in Ramayana, it is full of sex! He furter said it is just a myth. In fact Rama never lived!//
Rama might have lived or he might not have ever lived. But it is an epic story about morality – a highly moral story for that age. It is a very old epic which got carried away to the shores of distant lands – Thailand, Indonesia etc. Can you tell me about the development of Arabs at that point of time?
Btw, Karunanidhi is a politician. He was an athiest. Why are you quoting him? Would you accept my arguments if I quote Salman Rushdie?
//Mahabaraths was made by Brahimins against Buddhism.//
Buddhism was not there during the time of Mahabharath. Though I feel that spiritual streams similar to Buddhism might have existed at that time.
//You are trying to teach us the history of Tamils!//
No, I am not trying to teach anybody’s history here. I just pointed out that the article is based on wrong facts, wrong comparisons and is merely a propaganda leaflet, wrote to please the believers.
//Buddha copied his Philosophy from Brahmins and Jains, Brahmins copied it from others. //
He never claimed that he got it by calling God on hotline. But mohammed lied so and you all including the author of this article believe the lie. Buddha never said that his followers should kill others who disbelieve his preachings, but mohammed said so.
//Buddha killed Brahmins and Brahmins Jilled Buddha. This is the history about Hinduism and Buddhism.//
Buddha killed brahmins?? From where did you get this??
Look my friend, there were fights between various sects. It was a common practice in those days. Even within buddhism, various sects fought with each other. But all these are nothing when compared to the violence, systematic violence advocated through the so called divine revelations of… you-know-who.
/
Lester / June 5, 2013
As a result, there arose a vast army of blind believers who couldn’t tolerate debate, discussions, questioning and who fanatically demanded submission from others.
Yes, we can see the quality of many of these believers even on this very forum. One is writing in caps lock, another is giving his pornographic fantasies, another is condemning Buddhists for alcohol and smoking, even though Muslims are the biggest smokers…
/
Marwan / June 5, 2013
Lester, why are you so concerned if Muslims happened to be the biggest smokers? Why bring in a racist dimension? From where do you derive those statistics? Smoking is an addictive habit that needs to be eradicated. Common to all people irrespective, which needs to be addressed through education, and not a matter confined in practice to a particular community or race. Again, it is your Islamophobic mentality that is clearly pushing you to make such unfounded allegations.
/
Lester / June 5, 2013
@ Marwan,
If smoking is haram but such a large number of Muslims are unable to control themselves, then it is not unreasonable to conclude that Islam is full of hypocrities.
/
Nabil / June 5, 2013
Hang on Lester,
You mixing apples and oranges mann; Islam is the religion and Muslims are the followers!
Don’t blame the religion Islam for its followers being weak and succumbing to temptation
Nabil
/
Lester / June 5, 2013
@ Nabil,
Buddhism can exist without any thought or mention of the Buddha. But Islam cannot exist without mention of Prophet Muhammed. It is part of your religious duty to say “there is no God but Allah and Muhammed is his Prophet.” Unfortunately, as long as the believers have this belief in Muhammed, they will be weak and succumb to temptation, just as he did.
/
Angammana Sumana / June 5, 2013
Whats your problem man, why you bother if the muslims are the largest smokers? If you cant debate get off.
Muslims are peaceful people in this country.
this president is the weakest leader ever came to power.
this president is the least educated man to hold the office (please dont mention he is a LOW-er).
this president is the most corrupt person in the history of SL.
this president has the most comical cabinet inthe world.
Everytime when an SLFP coalation is elected they harass the minority. what are we doing? Why we hate others?
/
Rahula / June 7, 2013
@lester you also fall in this catagory, Your comments proved. you need a mental exercise or visit a good psychiatric before it get worse.
/
Dimbakoshaya / June 5, 2013
…and the PentaKumar ate the potion, thus it got stuck between the gateway of your passage to the rectum convolving his thinking power into illusions.
/
Sofia / June 4, 2013
This young writer is pointing out valid points.
Alone the incident that some mulims ran DANSALA on Vesak days passed me the message that srilanken muslims in general are ready to stay peace and harmony while some buddhist segments are trying to attack them and any anti organisation. Me being a buddhist, would never allow to BBS or any kind of bigotted to organisation to harm us peaceful people in SL.
/
Plain truth / June 5, 2013
Dear Kumaran. Ignorance is number one enemy. You know that: you got a lot of ignorance about Islam: learn about Islam first come to conclusions. Isalm is not new as you think: it according. Quran begun with prophet Adam : learn about Adam and then come to Isalm: Islam is the culmination of devide messages:
/
Kumaran / June 7, 2013
Dear PT,
I consider Quran as full of imaginations (to put it mildly). Hence, I don’t subscribe to the Quranic view that Islam existed before Mohammed and that all the previous religions were Islam and that they got corrupted in course of time. These are all falsehood spread by Mohammed to gain credibility and to lure Christians. The reverse is actually true.
/
American Mama / June 5, 2013
When one notices the antagonism between the two sides as seen on this forum I cannot help but believe that there is no way to resolve the differences between the two ideologies through dialogue ever.
This is why often violence is the only way to settle differences between two opposing ideologies
/
Yammarika / June 5, 2013
“CT’s smack a word championships” _ You the ring master, Dodu vs Lester the contending musclemen, CT the venue, Sumana, Darshanie and Safa the cheergirls. Native & Magribi the Jury guests. Leela the fouly Clown.
Winning Prize – ticket to Mattala, 7 star stay in Yala (including indigenous cuisine (sorry no beef, instead wild boar)) + free Yappetiting namba mates etc. etc.
/
American mama / June 5, 2013
1/ As a man who rejects all forms of violence including violence against animals, I don’t feel that I would be a suitable candidate for a ringmaster of a violent competition :).
2/ However, this is NOT a laughing matter. The polarity we see here between the various followers of Buddhism and Islam is a good example of how bad things can get if we let things get out of hand.
3/ There doesn’t seem to be any kind of middle ground.
/
Minoan / June 6, 2013
Thank you, the Goodhearted American! I salute you.
The Middle ground? CT, where all the body vent their heartfelt frustrations with no returns. In CT we could see cultures clash in a funny way, and the comedy which it burrows makes the CT punters young at heart with the likes of 110000 various Facebook species nail biting their thumbs.
Nothing is to nothing falls!
Thank you again, for the kind words.
/
Muliyawaikkal / June 5, 2013
Agree!
The latest battleground is Turkey. USA is doing very well. I don’t know why SL is not going to bed with USA.
/
paul / June 5, 2013
Is Islam is a religion of piece?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfKLV6rmLxE
/
Ammon Hennacy / June 5, 2013
Like the Paul’s distortions of Injeel?
/
Rahula / June 6, 2013
Being analysed Lester’s comments. I srongly feel that he has a problem. Before it get wore Lester you better see a psychiatric or get rest few days in a mental hospital for treatment
/
paul / June 7, 2013
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2336773/Iran-bans-dog-walking-public-warn-animals-arrested-caught-outside.html
So much for man’s best friend: Iran bans dog-walking in public and warn animals could be ‘arrested’ if caught outside
Dog walking in public and driving them in cars set to be prohibited in Iran
Also banned in 2011 as Iranians with dogs were ‘blindly imitating the West’
/
paul / June 7, 2013
“Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.” — Bukhari 9.84.57 ‘baddala deenahu, faqtuhulu’
http://sheikyermami.com/apostasy-whoever-changes-his-islamic-religion-kill-him/
/
Jamal / June 7, 2013
What’s your problem Paul?
/
paul / June 8, 2013
These are other similarities between the two religions: If a Buddhist changes his or her religion to Islam or Christianity, it is considered apostasy and Buddha says they shall be stoned to death..
And in Buddhism, ALL animals are dirty and Buddhists should not come in to contact with them..
/
Leviticus / June 10, 2013
O blind Paul like the Greek apostate, your lame renderings show your tutelage in the adventure on your own apocryphal books. Flesh and Blood is what you enjoin for pleasure.
/
paul / June 9, 2013
Just replace the word ‘American’ with any other (non-Mohammedan) nationality and you are right on the money:
Can a good Muslim be a good American?
I sent that question to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years.
The following is his reply:
Theologically – no. Because his allegiance is to Allah…
Religiously – no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Koran, 2:256)
Scripturally – no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran (Koran).
Geographically – no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
Socially – no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.
Politically – no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and Destruction of America, the great Satan.
Domestically – no. Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife(s) when she/they disobey him (Quran 4:34).
Intellectually – no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically – no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Spiritually – no. Because when we declare “one nation under God,” the Christian’s God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran’s 99 excellent names.
…
Source:http://sheikyermami.com/about/
/
paul / June 9, 2013
A Religion of Peace..
The Islamic Conquest of India: Bloodiest in Human History
In India the ruthlessness of Muslim invaders continued for a thousand years.
Will Durant, the famous historian summed it up like this:
“The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within.”
Source: http://sheikyermami.com/about/
/
paul / June 10, 2013
Buddhists (and monks in particular) passive nature has been blamed for annihilation and destruction of Buddhist and Hindu civilization by Muslim invaders in India.
“The growth of Buddhism and monasticism in the first year of our common era sapped the manhood of India, and conspired with political division to leave India open to easy conquest. When the Arabs came, pledged to spread a simple and stoic monotheism, they looked with scorn upon the lazy, venal, miracle-mongering Buddhist monks, they smashed the monasteries, killed thousands of monks, and made monasticism unpopular with the cautious. The survivors were re-absorbed into the Hinduism that had begotten them; and eased the return of the prodigal by proclaiming Buddha a god.”
http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Islamic_Onslaught2.htm
What lessons do we learn from these?
/
paul / June 10, 2013
A religion of peace that preaches universal love and compassion
“Shall I tell thee of a worse (case) than theirs for retribution with Allah? (Worse is the case of him) whom Allah hath cursed, him on whom His wrath hath fallen and of whose sort Allah hath turned some to apes and swine, and who serveth idols. Such are in worse plight and further astray from the plain road. (Quran verse 5.6)
http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=5&verse=60
Oooooh, How revealing, how fulfilling..when we hear words like “worse retribution from Allah, cursed by Allah, Allah’s wrath has fallen, Allah has turned to apes and swine”…etc. etc
This is truly divine.
/
Jamal / June 10, 2013
This is a part of LoonWatch’s Understanding Jihad Series.
The basic plank of Islamophobia can be summed up as follows:
Islam is uniquely violent compared to other world religions.
Of course, it’s just not true. In previous articles, I’ve taken a Thor-sized hammer to shatter this myth by proving that Judaism and Christianity are scripturally and theologically just as violent, if not more so. The Bible is far more violent than the Quran, and both the Jewish and Christian traditions have been just as problematic.
It’s also not true from a historical perspective.
Take Judaism for instance: According to the foundational narrative in the Bible, for instance, the Hebrews were persecuted in Egypt, forcing them to flee to Palestine. When they found the Promised Land to be already occupied by the native Canaanites, Moses and the Jews invoked their warrior god to mercilessly slaughter the indigenous population in what can only be called a genocidal holy war.
The Jewish kingdoms were then overrun by outsiders. Eventually, the Jews came under the rule of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who sought to replace Judaism with his own religion. The Jews revolted and overthrew him, leading to the emergence of the Jewish Hasmonean Dynasty. Just previously facing down the barrel of religious oppression, the Jews did not lose a beat and immediately set out oppressing non-Jews. By force of arms, they sought to expand their borders and to ethnically cleanse the land of infidels, either killing non-Jews, forcibly converting them to Judaism, enslaving them, or simply running them off the land.
This Jewish kingdom fell as well, and the Jews would have to wait until the twentieth century to rule again. They faced several centuries of oppression and finally ethnic cleansing at the hands of the Nazis, but eventually regrouped in Palestine. Just yesterday having chanted “never again!”, they seamlessly transitioned to the task of ethnically cleansing Palestine of its non-Jewish population.
Although it’s true that Jews have been on the receiving end of oppression for a great deal of history, it’s also true that they have oppressed when in a position of power. Is oppression then a matter not of religion but simply of opportunity?
Christians had more opportunity for violence than any other religious group on earth, and it is therefore unsurprising that, from a sheer numbers perspective, they have been responsible for the most acts of warlike aggression than any other. It is true that Jesus himself never engaged in violent action, but again, this seems to be an issue of opportunity rather than moral repulsion to violence: he was never in a position of political power and was in fact killed by the authorities. But, according to the Biblical narrative, Jesus will return to earth as a conquering warrior king, flanked by a massive army of earthly and heavenly beasts. He will then kill all his enemies.
The early Church was not pacifist as many modern-day Christians claim. Instead, the early Church fathers enlisted themselves as prayer warriors for the imperial Roman armies. The very minute Christianity rose to power with the conversion of the Roman Emperor Constantine, war in the service of empire and religion was adopted wholesale. Once persecuted by pagans, Christians now set out to destroy paganism in Europe. They sent forth armies to conquer new lands in the name of Christ. Eventually, almost all of Africa, Australia, Europe, South and North America–as well as huge swaths of land in Asia–came under the boots of Christian soldiers. Even today, the Religious Right in the U.S. leads the country down the path of war.
Not a single inhabited continent was spared by the Christian conquerors, so it is very difficult to accept the idea that Islam is somehow uniquely violent.
Of course, there is no denying that Islamic history had its fair share of violence. Just as the Christian Church came under the tutelage of the Roman state, so too did many ulema ingratiate themselves to the rulers. Expansion of the state was religiously justified, and the armies of Islam poured out of the Arabian Peninsula, conquering lands from China to Spain.
Islamophobes often complain that Islam gobbled up a significant part of the Christian world, which is true. Yet, the Christians themselves had conquered these lands aforetime. Is this simply not a case of Christians crying foul play when another religious group does to them what they did to the rest of the world?
It seems clear that Westerners of the Judeo-Christian tradition have no leg to stand on when they single out Islam.
But, what about Eastern religions, such as Buddhism? Is violence merely a problem of the three Abrahamic faiths, as some would have us believe?
Westerners imagine a stark contrast between supposedly violent Muslims on the one hand and pacifist Buddhists on the other. When we recently linked to a story about Buddhist oppression of the Muslim community in Burma, an Islamophobe quipped:
So, Buddhists acting like Muslims for once?
This remark reveals a profound ignorance of history. Stereotypes notwithstanding, the Buddhist tradition is no stranger to violence. This little known story is retold by Professors Michael Jerryson and Mark Juergensmeyer in the book Buddhist Warfare. Jerryson writes:
Violence is found in all religious traditions, and Buddhism is no exception. This may surprise those who think of Buddhism as a religion based solely on peace. Indeed, one of the principal reasons for producing this book was to address such a misconception. Within the various Buddhist traditions (which Trevor Ling describes as “Buddhisms”), there is a long history of violence. Since the inception of Buddhist traditions 2,500 years ago, there have been numerous individual and structural cases of prolonged Buddhist violence. [1]
Prof. Jerryson writes in Monks With Guns: Discovering Buddhist Violence of armed Buddhist monks in Thailand. He notes that the West’s romantic view of Buddhism
shield[s] an extensive and historical dimension to Buddhist traditions: violence. Armed Buddhist monks in Thailand are not an exception to the rule; they are contemporary examples of a long historical precedence. For centuries monks have been at the helm, or armed in the ranks, of wars. How could this be the case? But more importantly, why did I (and many others) hold the belief that Buddhism=Peace (and that other religions, such as Islam, are more prone to violence)?
He then answers his own question:
Buddhist Propaganda
It was then that I realized that I was a consumer of a very successful form of propaganda. Since the early 1900s, Buddhist monastic intellectuals such as Walpola Rahula, D. T. Suzuki, and Tenzin Gyatso, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, have labored to raise Western awareness of their cultures and traditions. In doing so, they presented specific aspects of their Buddhist traditions while leaving out others.
It should be clear that such “propaganda” need not necessarily be construed as something sinister. Proponents of other religions–including Judaism, Christianity, and Islam–will, for obvious reasons, often give a positive spin to their faith traditions. Many Buddhists believe their history to be relatively peaceful, because they view their religion to be so. This is no different than Muslims claiming that Islam is “the religion of peace”.
The difference is that the politics of the War on Terror have caused the religion of Islam to be put under heavy scrutiny. Therefore, there is great incentive to refute Muslim “propaganda”, an incentive which simply does not exist for Buddhist “propaganda”. The enemy, after all, is Muslim, not Buddhist. Thus, Buddhism flies under the radar, and Buddhist “advertising” is taken at face-value.
Buddhism’s relative inconspicuousness shields it from the harshest blows of public criticism. Case in point: the Bible and the Quran are well-known and easily accessible to the public. Finding the violent verses in them is just a click away on the internet. Meanwhile, Buddhist scriptural sources are more obscure, at least to the average Westerner. Most people don’t even know what scriptures Buddhists follow, let alone what is contained within them.
As a consequence, many modern-day Buddhists believe that their scriptural sources are in fact devoid of violence, that this is a problem only of the Bible or the Quran. But, Prof. Stephen Jenkins points out that this is just not the case. In fact, ”Buddhist kings had conceptual resources [in the religious texts] at their disposal that supported warfare, torture, and harsh punishments.” [2]
For example, the Nirvana Sutra, a canonical Buddhist text, narrates a story about one of Buddha’s past lives: in it, he kills some Hindus (Brahmins) because they insulted the Buddhist sutras (scriptures):
The Buddha…said…”When I recall the past, I remember that I was the king of a great state…My name was Senyo, and I loved and venerated the Mahayana sutras…When I heard the Brahmins slandering the vaipulya sutras, I put them to death on the spot. Good men, as a result of that action, I never thereafter fell into hell. O good man! When we accept and defend the Mahayana sutras, we possess innumerable virtues.” [3]
Porf. Paul Demieville writes:
We are told that the first reason [to put the Brahmins to death] was out of pity [for them], to help the Brahmans avoid the punishment they had accrued by committing evil deeds while continuously slandering Buddhism. [4]
Here we arrive at a disturbing theme found in Buddhist thought: “compassionate killing”. Killing is normally forbidden because it is done with evil intent (hatred, vengeance, etc.), but if it is done with “compassion”, it becomes something permissible, even praiseworthy.
The Buddhist does the unbeliever a favor by killing him, “an act of charity”:
In the Zen sect in Japan, they interpreted the argument for taking another’s life as “attempting to bring the other’s Buddha nature to life” (Buddha nature exists in virtually every living being), “by putting an end to the passions that lead astray…”
They make killing an act of charity. [5]
This is of course a disturbing belief to most of us. As Prof. Bernard Faure puts it: “‘Killing with compassion’…remains a dubious oxymoron.” [6] One is reminded of the odd Christian belief that a Christian soldier can love his enemies even as he kills them. Of what relevance is such “love”?
Jenkins writes:
If he does so with compassionate intentions, a king may make great merit through warfare, so warfare becomes auspicious. The same argument was made earlier in relation to torture, and the sutra now proceeds to make commonsense analogies to doctors and to parents who compassionately inflict pain in order to discipline and heal without intending harm. [7]
He goes on:
General conceptions of a basic Buddhist ethics broadly conceived as unqualified pacifism are problematic. Compassionate violence is at the very heart of the sensibility of this sutra. Buddhist kings had sophisticated and practical conceptual resources to support the use of force…The only killing compatible with Buddhist ethics is killing with compassion. Moreover, if a king makes war or tortures with compassionate intentions, even those acts can result in the accumulation of vast karmic merit. [8]
There was a second reason to kill the infidels: to defend the Buddhist faith. Prof. Demieville writes:
The Buddha’s second reason for putting them to death was to defend Buddhism itself. [9]
Faure notes:
Another oft-invoked argument to justify killing is the claim that, when the the dharma [i.e. the Buddhist religion] is threatened, it is necessary to ruthlessly fight against the forces of evil…promoting the need for violence in order to preserve cosmic balance… [10]
What about the first precept of Buddhism, which forbids murder? Demieville writes:
In another passage, this same sutra (scripture) declares that there is no reason to observe the five precepts [the first of which is the taking of life], or even to practice good behavior, if protecting the Real Law is in question. In other words, one needed to take up the knife and the sword, the bow and the arrow, the spear and the lance [to defend the faith]. ”The one that observes the five precepts is not a follower of the [Mahayana]! Do not observe the five precepts–if it concerns protecting the Real Law…” [11]
The Nirvana Sutra reads:
The [true] follower of the Mahayana is not the one who observes the five precepts, but the one who uses the sword, bow, arrow, and battle ax to protect the monks who uphold the precepts and who are pure. [12]
The dye is cast for defense in the name of religion. Elsewhere in the Nirvana Sutra, we are told of a king who goes to war in defense of rightly-guided monks:
To protect Dharma [Buddha’s teachings], he came to the defense of the monks, warring against the evil-doers so that the monks did not suffer. The king sustained wounds all over his body. The monks praised the king: “Well done, well done, O King! You are a person who protects the Wonderful Dharma. In the future, you will become the indispensable tool of Dharma.” [13]
This king too was Buddha in a past life; Buddha declared:
When the time comes that the Wonderful Dharma is about to die out, one should act like this and protect the Dharma. I was the king…The one who defends the Wonderful Dharma receives immeasurable recompense…
Monks, nuns, male and female believers of Buddha, should exert great effort to protect the Wonderful Dharma. The reward for protecting the Wonderful Dharma is extremely great and immeasurable. O good man, because of this, those believers who protect Dharma should take the sword and staff and protect the monks who guard Dharma…
Even if a person does not observe the five precepts, if he protects the Wonderful Dharma, he will be referred to as one of the Mahayana. A person who upholds the Wonderful Dharma should take the sword and staff and guard monks. [14]
Demeiville notes:
Along these lines, the Buddha sings the praises of a king named Yeou-to, who went to war to defend the bhiksu (monks). [15]
The general idea is that “[h]eresy must be prevented and evil crushed in utero.” [16]
As for the Brahmins whom Buddha killed, they were in any case icchantika, those who neither believe in Buddha or Buddhism–historically, the Buddhist equivalent of infidel. Buddha says in the Nirvana Sutra:
If any man, woman, Shramana, or Brahmin says that there is no such thing as The Way [i.e. Buddhism], Enlightenment, or Nirvana, know that such a person is an icchantika. Such a person is one of [the demon] Mara’s kindred [Mara = the Lord of Death]. Such a person is not of the world… [17]
An icchantika is “sinful…[because] he does not act in accordance with the Bhuddas’ injunctions.” [18] ”Because the icchantika lacks the root of good,” he “falls into hell.” [19] In fact, “it is not possible…for the icchantika not to go to hell.” [20] The icchantika is “the lowest” and “has to live for an eon in hell.” [21]
Putting to death unbelievers carries no sin or bad karmic result. Demieville writes:
Regardless, these Brahmans were predestined to infernal damnation (icchantika); it was not a sin to put them to death in order to preserve the Real Law. [22]
There are in fact three grades of murder, in increasing order of seriousness, but killing infidels is not one of them. The Nirvana Sutra reads:
The Buddha and Bodhisattva see three categories of killing, which are
those of the grades 1) low, 2) medium, and 3) high. Low applies to the class of insects and all kinds of animals…The medium grade of killing concerns killing humans [who have not reached Nirvana]…The highest grade of killing concerns killing one’s father, mother, an arhat, pratyekabudda, or a Bodhisattva [three ranks of Enlightenment]…
A person who kills an icchantika does not suffer from the karmic returns due to the killings of the three kinds above. O good man, all those Brahmins are of the class of the icchantika. Killing them does not cause one to go to hell. [23]
The Buddha says in the Nirvana Sutra that icchantika’s status is lower than that of the ants:
[T]he icchantikas are cut off from the root of good…Because of this, one may well kill an ant and earn sin for doing harm, but there is no sin for killing an icchantika.” [24]
In addition to issues of faith and unbelief, the Buddhist tradition offered sophistic justifications for killing and war:
[H]ow can one kill another person when…all is emptiness? The man who kills with full knowledge of the facts kills no one because he realizes that all is but illusion, himself as well as the other person. He can kill, because he does not actually kill anyone. One cannot kill emptiness, nor destroy the wind. [25]
Furthermore, killing is sinful because of the evil it creates inside the killer’s mind. But, a true yoga master can train his mind to be “empty” even while he kills. If the killer has “vacuity” of thought, then the murder “did not undermine the essential purity of his mind” and then there is nothing wrong with it. [26] In other words, killing can be excused if it is done by the right person, especially a “dharma-protecting king”.
The Buddhist canonical and post-canonical texts not only provide the religious justifications for war and killing, but provide examples of meritorious holy figures who engaged in it, examples for all Buddhists:
Celestial bodhisattvas, divinized embodiments of the power of enlightened compassion, support campaigns of conquest to spread the influence of Buddhism, and kings vested with the dharma commit mass violence against Jains and Hindus. [27]
In these textual sources, we see dharma-inspired Buddhist kings who “have a disturbing tendency for mass violence against non-Buddhists.” [28]
Buddhist Warfare provides many other examples of the theological justifications for waging war and killing, but these shall suffice us for now: they provide the religious basis for Buddhist holy war: (1) Killing those who slander Buddhism as a necessity; (2) Anyone who rejects Buddhism is by default slandering it; (3) Killing infidels carries no sin; (4) In fact, it is not really killing at all.
These are not merely theoretical justifications found buried in religious texts. Instead, these beliefs were acted upon historically, and continue to be so in the contemporary age. The historical record is something we will explore in part II.
* * * * *
Disclaimer:
Prof. Michael Jerryson issues the following disclaimer:
Our intention is not to argue that Buddhists are angry, violent people—but rather that Buddhists are people, and thus share the same human spectrum of emotions, which includes the penchant for violence.
I could not agree more with Jerryson here. My intent here is not to demonize Buddhism, but rather, to underscore the reality that all religious traditions, not just Islam, have had their fair share of violence. This includes Buddhism.
It’s certainly something uncomfortable for me criticizing a religious tradition in this way, but it seems necessary to dispel the enduring myth that Islam holds a monopoly on violence.
I would also like to take this opportunity to distance myself from those who are using the violence in Burma to further Buddhaphobia. Such claim that “people are ignoring what is happening to Muslims in Burma”, which is certainly true, but we all know that if the shoe were on the other foot–if it were Muslims in Burma oppressing Buddhists–then many of these Muslims would be the silent ones, or even be justifying such oppression (as I have seen many Buddhists doing now).
What is it other than rancid hypocrisy when some Pakistanis are up in arms about Muslims in Burma, but absolutely silent about the oppression of religious minorities in their own country?
How easily these people are able to transfer the same hatred against Islam that is directed toward them on a daily basis to Buddhism!
What I have learned about religions is the following:
#1: Adherents of a religion will cry foul when their coreligionists are the victims of oppression, but will remain silent or even justify such oppression when their coreligionists are the perpetrators of such oppression. This includes Jews, Christians, Buddhists, and Hindus–as well as Muslims.
To this, I recall the words of the Prophet Muhammad, who said: “Help your brother, whether he is an oppressor or he is oppressed.” The people asked him: “It is right to help him if he is oppressed, but how we should help him if he is an oppressor?” Muhammad replied: “By preventing him from oppressing others.”
#2: The corollary to #1 is that religious groups will cry foul when they are oppressed by another religious group, but as soon as they themselves come to power, the very next minute they set to the task of oppressing the religious other. Yesterday, the Jews were ethnically cleansed by the Nazis; today, they ethnically cleanse the Palestinians. It is such a seamless transition–it happens with such mechanistic automatism and absolute obliviousness–that it is something quite amazing to witness.
#3: Following from #2, it becomes obvious that humans oppress when they are given the opportunity to do so. It is not their religious creed that matters so much but rather whether they have opportunity or not.
#4: No major world religion is vastly different from the other when it comes to its propensity to inspire violence.
#5: Instead of using religious violence to demonize particular faiths–instead of using it as a battle ax to split open heads–we should hold in our hearts a continuous candlelight vigil to end inter-religious violence–holding hands with Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus–and start seeing each other as fellow human beings.
Danios was the Brass Crescent Award Honorary Mention for Best Writer in 2010 and the Brass Crescent Award Winner for Best Writer in 2011.
Footnotes:
[1] Jerryson, Michael K., and Mark Juergensmeyer. Introduction. Buddhist Warfare. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2010. 3. Print.
[2] Jenkins, Stephen. “Making Merit through Warfare and Torture.” Buddhist Warfare. By Michael K. Jerryson and Mark Juergensmeyer. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2010. 59. Print.
[3] Nirvana Sutra, Chapter 19.
[4] Demieville, Paul. “Buddhism and War.” Buddhist Warfare. By Michael K. Jerryson and Mark Juergensmeyer. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2010. 41. Print.
[5] Ibid., 44.
[6] Faure, Bernard. “Afterthoughts.” Buddhist Warfare. By Michael K. Jerryson and Mark Juergensmeyer. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2010. 212. Print.
[7] Jenkins, 68.
[8] Ibid., 71.
[9] Demieville, 41.
[10] Faure, 212.
[11] Demieville, 41.
[12] Nirvana Sutra, Chapter 5.
[13] Ibid., Chapter 19.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Demieville, 41.
[16] Ibid., 39.
[17] Nirvana Sutra, Chapter 22.
[18] Ibid., Chapter 24.
[19] Ibid., Chapter 34.
[2o] Ibid., Chapter 39.
[21] Ibid., Chapter 40.
[22] Demieville, 41.
[23] Nirvana Sutra, Chapter 22.
[24] Ibid., Chapter 40.
[25] Faure, 213.
[26] Demieville, 42.
[27] Jenkins, 59.
[28] Demieville, 63.
/
Jamal / June 10, 2013
Above is an extract from an article that appeared in loonwatch.com
/
paul / June 10, 2013
Could someone please provide authentic reference to Buddhist Cannon to support this quote:
“When I heard the Brahmins slandering the vaipulya sutras, I put them to death on the spot.”
Please do not quote from lunatics website like http://www.loonwatch.com
/
Jamal / June 10, 2013
Isn’t it sauce for the goose that is sauce for the gander? Why is it Paul that when you and your ilk start misquoting the Quran, adducing your own twisted meaning, borrowed from islamaphobic sites, it seems fair to you? What about all the lunatic sites you and your lunatic pals, Lester, Leela and the Jim’s and Johns copy and paste from?stop whining like a school boy and elevate yourself to respect other religions as advised in the rock edicts of Emperor Ashoka. Don’t join the bandwagon of religious extremism but strive for the unity of this country.
/
paul / June 10, 2013
Because Buddha would have never said, and never acted upon writer’s fabricated lie “I put them to death on the spot” as it is quite normal in Islamic literature and practice.
/
Jamal / June 10, 2013
“Because Buddha would have never said” so says Paul. You are hurt Paul, but you do not want to consider the pain and anguish you cause to Muslim readership by citing hate spewing nebulous islamaphobic sources, do you? Your temerity knows no bound when you state as it is quite normal in Islamic literature and practice. just to please your ego and to ride a crest in a bout of oneupmanship. We have stated a myriad times that the ” kill” verses in a war context. In a war you motivate your forces to kill, if not you perish! The battle field is no places to preach BANA. You are blind to reason but the moment your defect is pointed out all Hell breaks out! My advice to you is accept what we say or keep out!
/
Jamal / June 10, 2013
* “kill” verses is in a war context.
/
pc components / June 15, 2013
Greetings! Very helpful advice within this post! It is the little
changes that will make the largest changes. Thanks a lot for sharing!
/
paul / June 15, 2013
One source where you could find the authoritative position of Theravada Buddhism on any subject matter is http://www.accesstoinsight.org
Here is what it says about Buddha’s position on killing:
Killing is never skillful. .. When asked if there was anything whose killing he approved of, the Buddha answered that there was only one thing: anger (i.e kill your anger). In no recorded instance did he approve of killing any living being at all.
When one of his monks went to an executioner and told the man to kill his victims compassionately, with one blow, rather than torturing them, the Buddha expelled the monk from the Sangha, on the grounds that even the recommendation to kill compassionately is still a recommendation to kill — something he would never condone.
If a monk was physically attacked, the Buddha allowed him to strike back in self-defense, but never with the intention to kill. As he told the monks,
“Even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: ‘Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.’ That’s how you should train yourselves.”
— Majhima Nikaya 21
When formulating lay precepts based on his distinction between skillful and unskillful, the Buddha never made any allowances for ifs and buts. When you promise yourself to abstain from killing or stealing, the power of the promise lies in its universality. You won’t break your promise to yourself under any conditions at all. This is because this sort of unconditional promise is a powerful gift.
Take, for instance, the first precept, against killing:
“There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, abandoning the taking of life, abstains from taking life. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings. In giving freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings, he gains a share in limitless freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, and freedom from oppression. This is the first gift, the first great gift — original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning — that is not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and is un-faulted by knowledgeable contemplatives & brahmans.”
— Anguttara Nikaya 8.39
If you make exceptions in your promise to yourself — trying to justify killing in cases where you feel endangered or inconvenienced by another being’s existence — your gift of freedom is limited, and you lose your share in limitless freedom. Thus the gift of freedom, to be fully effective, has to be unconditional, with no room for exceptions, no matter how noble they may sound, of any kind.
Note : The two Nikay’a qouted above are authoritative Buddhist Canonical Texts.
Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/gettingmessage.html
/
paul / June 15, 2013
“We have stated a myriad times that the ” kill” verses in a war context. In a war you motivate your forces to kill, if not you perish! The battle field is no places to preach BANA. You are blind to reason.”
In Buddhism, BANA is preached in battle field too unlike in Islam.
If you want to follow Buddha’s teachings, there’s absolutely no room for killing, stealing, or lying, period.
… The Buddha never taught a theory of just war; no decision to wage war can legitimately be traced to his teachings; no war veteran has ever had to agonize over memories of the people he killed because the Buddha said that war was okay. These facts are among the glories of the Buddhist tradition, and it’s important for the human race that they not be muddied in an effort to recast the Buddha in our own less than glorious image.
Because the Pali Canon is such an unpromising place to look for the justification of killing, most of the arguments for a Buddhist theory of just war look elsewhere for their evidence, citing the words and behavior of people they take as surrogates for the Buddha. These arguments are obviously on shaky ground, and can be easily dismissed even by people who know nothing of the Canon.
…There are, however, writers who try to find evidence in the Pali Canon for a Buddhist theory of just war, not in what the Buddha said, but in what he didn’t. The arguments go like this: When talking with kings, the Buddha never told them not to engage in war or capital punishment. …
But when we actually look at the Pali record of the Buddha’s conversations with kings, we find that the arguments are bogus. The Buddha was able to communicate the message to kings that they shouldn’t kill, but because kings in general were not the most promising students of the Dhamma, he had to bring them to this message in an indirect way.
On the flipside perhaps this pacifist attitude towards war and violence of Buddhists is the reason why invaders – first the Arabs and later Europeans- were so successful in destroying Buddhists and Buddhism in our region…
/
Jamal / June 19, 2013
@Paul says In Buddhism, BANA is preached in battle field too unlike in Islam.. Needles to say there would be no Islam and no Muslims if the Muslims were passive. How many Muslims were Killed only for believing in ONE God? You yourself say On the flipside perhaps this pacifist attitude towards war and violence of Buddhists is the reason why invaders – first the Arabs and later Europeans- were so successful in destroying Buddhists and Buddhism in our region… which indicates the impracticality of the Buddha’s Philosophy!.
Again you say If you want to follow Buddha’s teachings, there’s absolutely no room for killing, stealing, or lying, period.
Even you Paul are not following these precepts when you lie brazenly about Islam. What you have written so far is, for all those idealistic thoughts, Buddhism can never be practised the way Buddha wished it to be. Present day Sri Lanka and Burma are classic examples to prove my point.
/
paul / June 19, 2013
1. In its 2,550 year history, no war was ever fought to propagate Buddhism anywhere in the world. (Another lie from Paul?)
2. One can not be a true Buddhist by labeling, wearing a robe or even praying 11 times a day. It is a goal to be set and keep moving towards. My own experience is that there are better Buddhists among my Christian, Muslim and Atheist friends than among so called Buddhists including members of divisive, homophobic and racist “Buddhist” organisations.
3. I did not claim to be a Buddhist – far from it – As a true Buddhist, I should not be writing on this forum – whether true or not- if it is likely to hurt others feelings. However I did not knowingly told any lies here. I am only quoting from sources which I believe are true.
4. My own observation is : Islam does not need external enemies to discredit it. Islam is its own worst enemy. Unless Muslims are ready to move forward with times by abandoning archaic practices, the way Christians did by e.g. banning purgatory, accepting the world is not flat and by disassociating from the Old Testament etc, it would be eternally fighting the infidels both within and without.
/
Jamal / June 20, 2013
You are wrong here Paul. Did not the Buddha ask to verify before we decide? Can you honestly believe that you know everything there is to know on Islam, before you pass judgement?. I tell you that Internet scholars like Lester and Leela should not be your source of information. Go to the original text and do a critical study. We are not opposed to this if you are honestly in search of the TRUTH!. IF you do this you will find a very different Islam from the one that is practised by the extremists and other radicals, just as in Buddhism. Also you have to have a feel for the traditional practises at the time of the Prophet. Society has evolved (for better or worse you decide!) and we have a pickle of various norms which we call modern. How do you expect the people of 1500 years ago to follow what you consider as correct now? These are points to ponder Paul. May you be guided to the Truth! Peace
/
Jamal / June 20, 2013
Islam is its own worst enemy. Unless Muslims are ready to move forward with times by abandoning archaic practices, the way Christians did by e.g. banning purgatory, accepting the world is not flat and by disassociating from the Old Testament etc, it would be eternally fighting the infidels both within and without.
These comments are the rambling of a half baked man. The foundation of Islam is that the revelation given to the Prophet (S) was from God! So deleting, diluting or modifying His Laws is totally out of the Question. It is virtually asking the Muslims to give up the worship of God. I believe that if you have understood the true precepts of Buddhism you would never ever have suggested this! Again the canard that the Muslims believe that the World is flat is only in the mind of the Islamaphobe Lester. The Quran says that the Earth has been unrolled or unfurled etc. How can something FLAT be unfurled, unrolled? So here again is an example of your very shallow knowledge. My advice is for you to do more research with the original texts before you rush into comment!
/
paul / June 20, 2013
Examples quoted – flat earth, purgatory, Old Testament- all refer to Christianity and not Islam. These were used only as examples. My apologies if I did not make it clear enough.
Islam could start with, for example, by banning the term Jihad – Holy War – and replacing it with something like “Holy peace” and redefining “Infidels” as “Our beloved brothers and sisters belonging to other religions” and redefine the reward for those dying while trying to kill others purely because they belong to another religion or race as 21 ugly witches and not 21 virgins.
Furthermore every Mullah should start preaching their followers to actively demonstrate this love and caring towards people of other faiths, how to spread peace message of love to every one and particularly start showing this love and respect towards Israelites, and Muslims of other denominations (Sunnis loving Shiite’s and Sufis and vice versa), preach to tolerate other religions co-existing with Islam (e.g Reciprocate what is happening in Buddhist countries by allowing constructing couple of Buddhist temples in Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries where hundreds of thousand Buddhists are working and living for a start); show compassion and love towards all animals without discrimination – including mans best friend dog and that lovely creature pigs… I can go on but hope you will get the gist of what I am saying.
/
Jamal / June 21, 2013
Islam could start with, for example, by banning the term Jihad – Holy War – and replacing it with something like “Holy peace”
Islam, a religion of mercy, does not permit terrorism. In the Quran, God has said:
God does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion and have not driven you out of your homes. God loves just dealers. (Quran, 60:8)
The Prophet Muhammad used to prohibit soldiers from killing women and children,(Saheeh Muslim, #1744, and Saheeh Al-Bukhari, #3015.) and he would advise them: {…Do not betray, do not be excessive, do not kill a newborn child.} ( Saheeh Muslim, #1731, and Al-Tirmizi, #1408)
And he also said: {Whoever has killed a person having a treaty with the Muslims shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise, though its fragrance is found for a span of forty years.} (Saheeh Al-Bukhari, #3166, and Ibn Majah, #2686)
He once listed murder as the second of the major sins, and he even warned that on the Day of Judgment, {The first cases to be adjudicated between people on the Day of Judgment will be those of bloodshed.}
Muslims are even encouraged to be kind to animals and are forbidden to hurt them. Once the Prophet Muhammad said: {A woman was punished because she imprisoned a cat until it died. On account of this, she was doomed to Hell. While she imprisoned it, she did not give the cat food or drink, nor did she free it to eat the insects of the earth.}. SaheehMuslim,#2422,andSaheehAl-Bukhari,#2365.
He also said that a man gave a very thirsty dog a drink, so God forgave his sins for this action. The Prophet r was asked: “Messenger of God, are we rewarded for kindness towards animals?” He said: { There is a reward for kindness to every living animal or human. }Saheeh Muslim, #2244, and Saheeh, Al-Bukhari, #2466
.
The real meaning of Jihad
Jihad is an Arabic word from the root Jee Ha Da. It literally means to
struggle or strive. Jihad is struggling or striving in the way or sake of
Allah. Jihad takes a very important status in the doctrine of Islam and is
one of the basic duties for every Muslim.
Though, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the term Holy War. Such
a term, or its equivalent doesn’t exist in the Islamic doctrine. The Christian
Crusaders in the mid-ages invented this ideology of Holy War.
There is nothing “Holy” about wars. Wars only involve killings and disasters!
Jihad has many forms,
Jihad of the heart/soul (jihad bin nafs/qalb)
Jihad by the tongue (jihad bil lisan)
Jihad by the pen/knowledge (jihad bil qalam/ilm)
Jihad by the hand (jihad bil yad)
Jihad by the sword (jihad bis saif)
Jihad of the Heart/Soul
Jihad of the heart/soul; (in Arabic: jihad bin nafs/qalb.)
It is referred as “the greater Jihad” (al-jihad al-akbar).
It is one’s inner struggle of good against evil; refraining oneself from the
whispers of Shaitan (Satan).
This process involves allowing Islam to transform one’s soul to achieving
internal peace; and forgoing the hatred and anger.
“Jihad is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may
be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a
thing which is bad for you. Allah knows but you do not know.”
{Quran, Surah 2: Al-Baqarah, Verse 216; Mohsin Translation}
WHAT JIHAD IS NOT
Jihad is NOT Holy War
Jihad is NOT blowing up one’s self (Suicide is a sin in Islam)
Jihad is NOT killing innocent people
Jihad is NOT flying a plane into a building packed with civilians
Jihad is NOT fighting out of anger and hatred
Jihad is NOT killing others just because they don’t agree with you
Jihad is NOT killing others just because they are not Muslims
…redefining “Infidels” as “Our beloved brothers and sisters belonging to other religions”
The Arabic word kafir means unbeliever. So an unbeliever is used in jurisprudence since Muslims have to pay Zakat, pray five times, etc etc, which the Kuffar are not obliged to. There are words for brother and sister ( akhiy, ukhtiy) which the Arabs use liberally across the religious divide. Paul you apparently have never associated with Arab culture and lean heavily on the Internet for your cultural information. I repeat you are doing a lot of damage to yourself and others by making these pronouncements in ignorance. My advise to you again do your research from Original Sources and not from prejudiced web sites. Do you prefer to learn Buddhism from biased western Orientalists or from the original Pali sources?
/
Lester / June 20, 2013
Very interesting observations, Paul. You have reached the same conclusions as Mosab Hassan Yousef, the son of Hamas founder and leader Sheikh Hassan Yousef. Mosab converted to Christianity. Here are some things he says (his exact words):
““Islam is not a religion of peace. It’s a religion of war,” he said. “Muslims don’t even know the true nature of their own religion.”
“The God of the Quran hates Jews, whether there was occupation or not.”
“It doesn’t exist.” (When asked about moderate Islam).
Watch Mosab Hassan Yousef’s interviews on Youtube. He speaks the truth!
/
PEACELOVER.. / June 16, 2013
WITH REGARD TO HINDUISM , HINDU READERS HERE, PLEASE ANSWER TO THIS COMMENT SENT BY MAIL IN TAMIL LANGUAGE..
[Edited out]
Sorry the comment language is English – CT
/
PEACELOVER.. / June 16, 2013
dear editor,
IF YOU CAN TRANSLATE AND PUT IT HERE , APPRECIATED….PLEASE..
/
paul / June 16, 2013
True Buddhists:
Following an incident where US soldiers allegedly flushed a copy of the Koran down a toilet, Ajahn Brahm (An Australian Buddhist monk) was asked what he would do if someone flushed a Buddhist holy book down a toilet.
“You call a plumber”
Similarly when the Taliban destroyed the Bamyan Buddha statues, if a group of people allowed themselves to seek revenge, that would have meant the Taliban had succeeded not only in destroying the containers, but also the contents. Such people (those who sought revenge) could not have called themselves Buddhists.
/