If you were to follow a particular religion...

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

The simplest, most inclusive belief 'system' I've come across; Sufism,as explained by Indries Shah Sayed. IE "Sufi Chist? Sufi Suf'ist"

Reference "The Sufis" Indries Shah.

[Minimalist]

What? You really don't have a clue,do you. Self immolation and suicide of any kind are not basic tenets of any form of Buddhism any more than burning crosses on people's lawns is a tenet of Christianity. Drongo..

For fuck sake do some reading before you start making stupid claims about other religions.

Neither were the Inquisition and Crusades part of Biblical Christianity, but it still happened and has become an integral part of the history of the Christian religion.

Incorrect.

Cited by persecutors

Christian anti-Semites blame Jews in general for the death of Jesus (whom Christians believe to be God made man). This belief has been cited by many Anti-semites as justification for their animosity towards the Jews. St Matthew's Gospel (Mt 27:25) quotes a Jewish mob crying, shortly before the Crucifixion, "His blood be on us and on our children"; this quotation is taken by some to refer to all Jews. This view held sway in many parts of Christian Europe throughout the Middle Ages, including by Heinrich Kramer and James Sprenger (aka Jacob Sprenger) in the Malleus Maleficarum (1486):

[Polaris]

Simplest belief 'system' of all; Sufism,as explained by Indries Shah Sayed. IE "Sufi Chist? Sufi Suf'ist"

Sufism though is quite strict from what I remember studying. My studies of Sufism actually influenced my own beliefs when I looked past the fact it was a Moslem faith and looked at it from a more human perspective.

@Min. So you're saying Jesus or Paul advocated for murder? Paul sought reconciliation with the Jews, not bloodshed.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

He made his position on them clear in the Mahacattarisaka sutta and further elucidated in others. His thinking was that such views led one toward ethical behavior, but were ultimately speculative. He did use the principles as teaching tools, leading folks ultimately away from them and toward his own teachings, and most importantly, his practices.

Anatta, well, that is never going to sit well with someone who doesn't want to let go of the notion of a soul.

Um, I don't believe in a soul. So, to use your favorite term, "Straw man!"

Really? What then is your understanding of the Buddha's teaching of anatta?

And the question is not whether the Buddha himself advocated agnosticism on these questions, I'm told he did, and lacking research on the matter, I'm willing to accept that as true, pending further study.

QED.

The question is whether any particular Buddhism is defined authoritatively by what we have of the Buddha's exposition.

Not at all, really. Any sect that calls itself "Buddhist" answers to the Buddha's teachings, and most relevant here is the Four Great References. You have heard of them...?

(Ignoring side issues for the moment.

Not a side issue at all. At the very core, actually.

In one of the sutras, he is reported to have said it is impossible to identify a Buddha, so he himself may not be a Buddha, by his own reasoning.)

Your source?

Off the top of my head, it would appear that many forms of Mahayana Buddhism differ with specific things Siddhartha said, or is reputed to have said. That doesn't make them something other than Buddhism.

NO, but nonetheless any claim they make must answer to the Buddha's own teachings.

Arguing that Buddhism is what we have of what he said is an example of the genetic fallacy.

Ah, that straw man you found was yours, not mine.

[Angrboda]

Rumi rocks my world. For such an intellectually oriented person, I seem inexorably drawn to mysticism. This likely fits with a half-baked theory that I have concerning religion. My suspicion is that for most people, religion serves (at least) two distinct functions; one is descriptive, and one is proscriptive. The descriptive aspect, which includes both metaphysics and history, provides the believer with a model of reality, by which they can reason toward instrumentally utilitarian responses to life. The second aspect is proscriptive in that it tells the believer how to behave. My theory, based on my own experience alone, is that we tend to choose religions whose proscriptive aspect complements a lack we have in that area. So one might choose a religion of compassion because they see compassion as something valuable, but something which they largely lack.

I don't know where to go with this, other than to expand my data set.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Sufism though is quite strict from what I remember studying

I qualified my comments with 'as taught by Idries Shah'. He says Sufism is much more than a school of Islamic mysticism, and that Sufis are found in all religions. I'm aware this view is not the consensus. Indeed,there is no consensus when it comes to defining who is and is not a Sufi. Of course your view is right, but I think a bit limited.

My own studies began at University,studying about some of the Sufi lodges in the Atlas mountains. I also received some personal tuition from a member of a Sufi lodge in London.The crux of his world view; the greatest good is service to others.



Do I consider myself a Sufi? No I do not.


00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Sufism as a form of timeless wisdom

Shah presented Sufism as a form of timeless wisdom that predated Islam.[41] He emphasised that the nature of Sufism was alive, not static, and that it always adapted its visible manifestations to new times, places and people: "Sufi schools are like waves which break upon rocks: [they are] from the same sea, in different forms, for the same purpose," he wrote, quoting Ahmad al-Badawi.[26][41] Shah was often dismissive of orientalists' descriptions of Sufism, holding that academic or personal study of its historical forms and methods was not a sufficient basis for gaining a correct understanding of it.[41] In fact, an obsession with its traditional forms might actually become an obstacle: "Show a man too many camels' bones, or show them to him too often, and he will not be able to recognise a camel when he comes across a live one," is how he expressed this idea in one of his books.[41][42]

Shah, like Inayat Khan, presented Sufism as a path that transcended individual religions, and adapted it to a Western audience.[27] Unlike Khan, however, he deemphasised religious or spiritual trappings and portrayed Sufism as a psychological technology, a method or science that could be used to achieve self-realisation.[27][43] In doing so, his approach seemed to be especially addressed to followers of Gurdjieff, students of the Human Potential Movement, and intellectuals acquainted with modern psychology.[27] For example, he wrote, "Sufism ... states that man may become objective, and that objectivity enables the individual to grasp 'higher' facts. Man is therefore invited to push his evolution ahead towards what is sometimes called in Sufism 'real intellect'."[27] Shah taught that the human being could acquire new subtle sense organs in response to need:[26]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idries_Shah...ess_wisdom

[Angrboda]

---

Um, I don't believe in a soul. So, to use your favorite term, "Straw man!"

Really? What then is your understanding of the Buddha's teaching of anatta?

And the question is not whether the Buddha himself advocated agnosticism on these questions, I'm told he did, and lacking research on the matter, I'm willing to accept that as true, pending further study.

QED.

The question is whether any particular Buddhism is defined authoritatively by what we have of the Buddha's exposition.

Not at all, really. Any sect that calls itself "Buddhist" answers to the Buddha's teachings, and most relevant here is the Four Great References. You have heard of them...?

(Ignoring side issues for the moment.

Not a side issue at all. At the very core, actually.

In one of the sutras, he is reported to have said it is impossible to identify a Buddha, so he himself may not be a Buddha, by his own reasoning.)

Your source?

Off the top of my head, it would appear that many forms of Mahayana Buddhism differ with specific things Siddhartha said, or is reputed to have said. That doesn't make them something other than Buddhism.

NO, but nonetheless any claim they make must answer to the Buddha's own teachings.

Arguing that Buddhism is what we have of what he said is an example of the genetic fallacy.

Ah, that straw man you found was yours, not mine.

---

Asked and answered. When you actually have a real point or question, let me know.

....any claim they make must answer to the Buddha's own teachings

This is the point I addressed and referred to as an example of the genetic fallacy. Either you don't know what the genetic fallacy is, you don't know what your claim is, or you don't know what a straw man is (which you assert my bringing up the genetic fallacy is). Whichever it is, I really could give a rat's ass, because you obviously don't know what the fuck you are talking about. (For example, your accusing me of believing I have a soul when in the very post you were responding to I announced that I was an eliminative materialist. Apparently, in Taqiyya land, it makes sense to respond to a post you don't fully understand. What, the, fuck, ever.)

The genetic fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit.

Even from bad things, good may come; we therefore ought not to reject an idea just because of where it comes from, as ad hominem arguments do.

Equally, even good sources may sometimes produce bad results; accepting an idea because of the goodness of its source, as in appeals to authority, is therefore no better than rejecting an idea because of the badness of its source. Both types of argument are fallacious.

—

[Minimalist]

@Min. So you're saying Jesus or Paul advocated for murder? Paul sought reconciliation with the Jews, not bloodshed.

Dear xtian,

I am of the opinion that neither jesus or paul existed and thus said nothing and wrote nothing. The fuckheads who made up the words attributed to them were doing precisely that in the name of unifying the empire under a single, stupid, doctrine.