no converting pls, learn from the Buddha
-
sorie the other topic is close, so i reply here.
Originally posted by path_seeker:
ya if i criticise/argue them back..then i'll be no better than them. get wat i mean.
My view is that the email was written by someone who have absolutely no clue of what he's writing, as if he knew it all about Buddhist, but seems like it's not a discussion which was in his email, rather a one way criticising of Buddhism.
Anyway, agree that there's no point emailing back, because that will only turn a "discussion" into an argument. The email is a good exhibit of the writer's level of maturity.
remember the case of Upali (a former Jain), Buddha never wish to converts Upali. okok..i re-quote:There is one story of Upali, a great Jain disciple and debator. See
/\
what Buddha said.
quote:
------------------------
Upali was one of the chief followers of the Jain master, Mahavira. Because of his intelligence, Upali often appeared in public debates on behalf of the Jains.
There was one incident where Upali had a debate with the Buddha. At
the end of the debate, Upali was so impressed with the Buddha's teachings that he asked to be the Enlightened One's follower. "Venerable Sir, please allow me to be your follower".
To that, the Buddha answered, "Upali, you are at the height of your emotions. Go home and reconsider it carefully before you ask me again".
Upali was extremely impressed, "If it was any other guru, he will parade a banner saying, 'Mahavira's chief lay-disciple has become my follower'. But you, Venerable Sir, you asked me to go home and reconsider. Now, I want to be your follower even more. I will not stand up until you accept me".
Finally, the Buddha agreed to accept Upali, under one condition, "Upali, as a Jain, you have always given alms to Jain monks. When you become my follower, you will CONTINUE to give alms to Jain monks. This is my condition".
Upali agreed to this condition. -
Dalai lama urges Christians not to convert to Buddhism
My master said, "Buddha never do converting. Buddha was not discriminating to race, countries and religions. People of other faith went to ask Buddha, Buddha was always delighted to help. He never tell them to convert. You never see it in the texts/sutras. If they are Brahma/Jain religion, they can still have faith in their own religion. They went to Buddha to seek for wisdom. Buddha always respect all the many religions in India during that time. He never even criticize them in anyway. Rare and understanding was Buddha. Look at Ksitigarbha Sutra, a Brahma girl was still a Brahma(aka hindu) even when she attain enlightenment."
By Fran Race
Ekklesia, UK
21 November 2005
The Dalai Lama has urged Christians not to convert to Buddhism.
The controversial words were spoken by the spiritual leader of Tibet and the
leader of the Tibetan Government in Exile at a conference entitled "Ethics
for a New Millennium" in Edinburgh, Scotland this weekend.
Instead, the Dalai Lama urged Western Christians and Muslims embrace the
teachings of compassion and peace that can be found in their own religious
traditions.
"All major religions carry the same messages. Messages of love, compassion,
forgiveness, tolerance, contentment and self-discipline. I have Muslim
friends, Christian friends. All have these same values."
The Dalai Lama is the spiritual leader of Tibet, but has lived in exile for
nearly 50 years since his homeland was invaded by China.
Despite the continued use of violence against his people by the Chinese he
has inspired the hearts and minds of many across the world with his
teachings of non-violence and compassion.
For his tireless work to promote human rights and peace he was awarded a
Nobel Prize in 1989.
As part of his address he urged the USA and Britain to take a "firm stand"
with China regarding democracy, freedom of speech and human rights.
These words come days after British Prime Minister Tony Blair engaged in
discussions with Chinese President Hu Jintao, and at a time when US
President George Bush is in Beijing.
Proposals to increase trade with China has been met with fierce opposition
by both human rights and free Tibet protestors.
Fran Race is a reporter for Ekklesia and a member of All Hallows Anglican
church in Leeds.
/\ -
HiOriginally posted by sinweiy:My master said, "Buddha never do converting. Buddha was not discriminating to race, countries and religions. People of other faith went to ask Buddha, Buddha was always delighted to help. He never tell them to convert. You never see it in the texts/sutras. If they are Brahma/Jain religion, they can still have faith in their own religion. They went to Buddha to seek for wisdom. Buddha always respect all the many religions in India during that time. He never even criticize them in anyway. Rare and understanding was Buddha. Look at Ksitigarbha Sutra, a Brahma girl was still a Brahma(aka hindu) even when she attain enlightenment."
/\
Beg to differ. The Buddha did criticise the religious and social context of India during his time. For example he was very vocal towards aspects of extreme ascetism e.g. Dog duty ascetism, irrational worship, traditional views, caste systems as well as the lesser arts (fortune telling etc) and systems of governances. His form of criticism are usually in the form of "by engaging in such thoughts and acts, one would move to a woeful plane". It can be easily seen as a criticism.
There are easily 2 or 3 angles of interpretation of the quoted Dalai Lama's words. For example with regards to reverse psychology, the role of Buddhism as a godless religion attractive to theistic followers as well as inner reflection.
Above all, I would use Embracing Change in place of religious conversion. We can "Help" people to recognize and embrace changes. -
I didn't born in Buddha's era, so I can't say the exact meaning, hence I could only guess that what Buddha was criticising, was not towards the whole structure of the faith, but on the specific practise, especially on the caste system.Originally posted by earthling82:Hi
Beg to differ. The Buddha did criticise the religious and social context of India during his time. For example he was very vocal towards aspects of extreme ascetism e.g. Dog duty ascetism, irrational worship, traditional views, caste systems as well as the lesser arts (fortune telling etc) and systems of governances. His form of criticism are usually in the form of "by engaging in such thoughts and acts, one would move to a woeful plane". It can be easily seen as a criticism. -
Literally all Buddha's disciples were from other religions. How can one say Buddha didn't convert people?
But from what I see, Buddha's way of converting people, unlike the nowadays method of just keep yakking and yakking. In fact, if one studies the sutra, it won't be difficult to see that Buddha only speak when there was a need to. His actions speak for himself.
Lord Buddha's way of converting people was more of like using His own action and speech as example to convince people. The metta aura the surrounded Him was due to His loving-kindness nature; His loving speech comforting others, etc.
To summarise, action speaks louder than words. -
It is difficult to ask a christian to practise buddhism while not giving up the believes like "god can clear your sins", "non-believer go to hell" and even some evangelist thoughts. Sooner or later, they still have to face the question of whether there is karma and reincarnation.
Dalai Lama and his exile government getting much help from the western country, to maintain good relationship, he can't encourage the converting of christian to buddhism. This we have to understand.
But since our situation is different from him, we should practise the buddha's way. To let people hear the dharma and knowing the truth is a compassion act. -
Agreed with all.
remind me that Elder Moggallana and Shariputra were also from 'other cult' (practice some sort of ascetism) before they tot it was not right. then they met a Buddha's disciple and was slowly lead to Buddhadharma which was more convincing and righteous.
regarding on traditional views, it depends. there are still ways to bend a little. of cos if it's of breaking the precepts and harming others & oneself, then it's not right.
there are things that are not aceptable to some countries, like collecting alms for example. in China, the emperors and people regard monks as holy, hence not allow them to go around collecting alms, like beggars per se.
and like in the west, bowing to monk. they also find it awkward.
so there are some give and take.
/\ -
Today there were missionaries knocking on my door, but I politely shunned them away.
Just wondering is it against the constitutional law to do missionary work knocking on house doors? I believe I've learned somewhere that this is illegal, can anyone confirmed?
Thanks. -
I think no, unless they "abuse" your faith and religion, and there's presense of a witness, then it's against the law. It's probably comes under Nuisance Act.Originally posted by concerned_man:Today there were missionaries knocking on my door, but I politely shunned them away.
Just wondering is it against the constitutional law to do missionary work knocking on house doors? I believe I've learned somewhere that this is illegal, can anyone confirmed?
Thanks. -
Like path_seeker had mentioned, if they 'abuse' your religion, meaning that if they verbally insult and/or making any guestures, most probably he/she has violate section 298. But again, you need evidence and witness to bring up the case.Originally posted by concerned_man:Today there were missionaries knocking on my door, but I politely shunned them away.
Just wondering is it against the constitutional law to do missionary work knocking on house doors? I believe I've learned somewhere that this is illegal, can anyone confirmed?
Thanks.
Fyi,
PENAL CODE
(CHAPTER 224)
CHAPTER XV
OFFENCES RELATING TO RELIGION
Injuring or defiling a place of worship with intent to insult the religion of any class.
295. Whoever destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class of persons, with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons, or with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction, damage or defilement as an insult to their religion, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with both.
Disturbing a religious assembly.
296. Whoever voluntarily causes disturbance to any assembly lawfully engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
Trespassing on burial places, etc.
297. Whoever, with the intention of wounding the feelings of any person, or of insulting the religion of any person, or with the knowledge that the feelings of any person are likely to be wounded, or that the religion of any person is likely to be insulted thereby, commits any trespass in any place of worship or on any place of sepulture or any place set apart for the performance of funeral rites, or as a depository for the remains of the dead, or offers any indignity to any human corpse, or causes disturbance to any persons assembled for the performance of funeral ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person.
298. Whoever, with deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person, or makes any gesture in the sight of that person, or places any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. -
Now "nuisance" is exactly the correct word to describe these..., these.... erm, people.Originally posted by path_seeker:I think no, unless they "abuse" your faith and religion, and there's presense of a witness, then it's against the law. It's probably comes under Nuisance Act.