Buddhist thoughts on christian bible
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Actually there is a place to criticize churches or any religious place that are teaching something that ought to be examined.
For example, I am glad that spotlight has gone to Pastor Rony and the stuff he taught has been revealed to the public. Without it he would have continued with his old ways and giving misleading information about what Buddhism is about.
I think it should not be limited to Pastor Rony - as Cck689461 have already criticized a certain church based on his/her own experience to bring such issues to light.
I think this is a good step - it is a good use of the internet/information age, whatever taught should be revealed to public and open to scrutiny. In the same way that books in Amazon.com have a section to allow readers to post their reviews, comments, and ratings. I hope the same can be done to Spirituality and Religion so that people can read carefully and decide for themselves.
Not just Christians, but any religions, even Buddhist. If a Buddhist monastery taught something that is not agreeable, it should also be open to scrutiny. And if you find something good about that monastery/church/temple/etc, you can also post good reviews about it to inform others about their merits. Just like Amazon.com.
If a cult teaches people to commit suicide, or do evil things - that should also be open to scrutiny, and the authority should investigate into that matter (this is a more extreme example).
However I think it is best to post this in a Christian forum, or at least not in a Buddhist forum since it is not related to Buddhism. Like if this is a review of a Christian church based on your experience - it is more appropriate to post it in a Christian forum. If this is a review of a Buddhist monastery or dharma center, then no problem in posting it here since it is the right venue. We should not just shut off these people from speaking the truth. Provided that we are all speaking from experience.
It is important not to follow everything blindly - even if it is taught in your church, temple, or whatever - the Buddha clearly taught us to examine the teachings, and not just follow by authority.
Buddha
(Anguttara Nikaya Vol. 1, 188-193 P.T.S. Ed.)To what extent does criticism serve to end criticism, or intolerance serve to end intolerance, or exclusiveness serve to end exclusiveness, or hatred serve to end hatred, or ignorance serve to end ignorance?
Is it true that one acting in good faith and manner of intention may read and recite the words of the Dhamma, the Dhamapada, the Yammakavagga, and yet not act and live and speak accordingly?
To what end does such criticism serve another? For when one is so judged and leaves our sight, will the earth fall away from beneath their feet? Will the sun, shining on all else, withhold light and warmth from them? Will water turn bitter upon their tongues? Is it the Dhamma, the Dhamapada, the Yammakavagga that defers judgment neither upon man, or earth, or sun, nor upon the waters of life, but rather instructs quietly, gently and demurely the compassionate heart in the nourishment of those caught in the flows of ignorance so that they may one day ebb?
Is it perhaps in this way the dire pleadings of ignorance will fall deafly upon the ears of the self-righteous, and yet held unfaltering to the compassionate heart they will be? Is it perhaps this way that none amongst us is the greater or wiser, for perhaps if we all have the wisdom to learn then all may teach us their virtues?
-
Originally posted by AtlasWept:
To what extent does criticism serve to end criticism, or intolerance serve to end intolerance, or exclusiveness serve to end exclusiveness, or hatred serve to end hatred, or ignorance serve to end ignorance?
Is it true that one acting in good faith and manner of intention may read and recite the words of the Dhamma, the Dhamapada, the Yammakavagga, and yet not act and live and speak accordingly?
To what end does such criticism serve another? For when one is so judged and leaves our sight, will the earth fall away from beneath their feet? Will the sun, shining on all else, withhold light and warmth from them? Will water turn bitter upon their tongues? Is it the Dhamma, the Dhamapada, the Yammakavagga that defers judgment neither upon man, or earth, or sun, nor upon the waters of life, but rather instructs quietly, gently and demurely the compassionate heart in the nourishment of those caught in the flows of ignorance so that they may one day ebb?
Is it perhaps in this way the dire pleadings of ignorance will fall deafly upon the ears of the self-righteous, and yet held unfaltering to the compassionate heart they will be? Is it perhaps this way that none amongst us is the greater or wiser, for perhaps if we all have the wisdom to learn then all may teach us their virtues?
Hi, I fully agree with your post.
However I might add, what I am talking about is constructive criticism.
Constructive criticism can become a cause for improvement. It can also bring awareness of these issues to others.
For example, ck posted his/her negative experience with a particular church after going there for a period of time.
If he/she did not make this known, then others will 'fall victim' or rather go through the same unpleasant experiences.
Therefore I suggest that people should write reviews, whether they are criticism or commendations of that church/temple/monastery so that people who are interested to go there can be made aware of the choices they have.
Also, if something they teach is not right or not agreeable it should be open to scrutiny.
An example is Pastor Rony in Singapore, he was putting down other religions like Buddhism and making false statements about Buddhism. This caused an uproar in the internet and got the attention of the Internal Security Department of Singapore, and after a meeting with him he formally apologised for his misbehavior.
This is good because otherwise, he will continue to spread false information about Buddhism and create bad karma (from a Buddhist perspective), not to mention sowing discord in our multi racial and religious society.
Nowadays people use Amazon.com to buy books, electronics, or whatever... there is a comments section and a ratings section which is very useful for potential customers to choose and select their products.
I don't see why we shouldn't and couldn't do this for institutions of Religion as well.
Of course, it should be noted that any particular institution does not represent the whole of the religion, and we should not use an institution as an example to denigrate the entire religion.
In fact I have written in the Christan forum just recently, saying that I see no point in trying to argue against other people's faith. If people already chose their path and their faith, they have already put faith ahead of logic, and therefore no amount of logic will likely move their faith. They may be offended, or they may try to defend their faith, but it is unlikely that any amount of logic is going to change anything. Therefore those non-Christians criticizing Christianity are actually criticizing it to the wrong audience, much like the Chinese idiom of playing the lute to a cow. The cow cannot appreciate anything, to the cow it is just more noise.
If people have not yet chosen their path, or are willing to find out the truth for themselves, they will do so regardless of whether his faith is being criticized.
Furthermore it is not like the other religions are not improving and transforming the lives of their followers in a positive way, as many find positive changes in their lives through following their religions, so there is no reason to try to convert them
Since Buddhists don't consider non-believers as 'destined for hell', the compulsion to convert others deep into their own belief isn't strong: instead time is better spent if we focus our efforts to bring 'potential people' to Buddhism, potential as in those who have the interest and conditions to explore and seek to find out the Dharma.
If the dharma is being made more accessible and well known, people can make a better decision for themselves by comparing the different religions and seeing what is more suitable or agreeable for themselves. This, I believe, is much more constructive than criticising the faith of others.
-
Originally posted by Pinknutri:
3) "Kidnap" Pharaoh and brought him to hell to have a look, he would sure repent.
Off-topic but... I just remembered that Buddha brought someone to hell (he was destined to go there in two more lifetimes due to his karma)... that person converted and became a monk as a result, and later attained Arhatship.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Off-topic but... I just remembered that Buddha brought someone to hell (he was destined to go there in two more lifetimes due to his karma)... that person converted and became a monk as a result, and later attained Arhatship.
who is that monk?
-
Originally posted by Rooney9:
who is that monk?
If my memory also doesn't remember wrongly i think it was Arhat Nanda, Ananda's brother and Buddha's half-brother.
-
Originally posted by sanath:
If my memory also doesn't remember wrongly i think it was Arhat Nanda, Ananda's brother and Buddha's half-brother.
Nanda? thought he was the one the Buddha brought to heaven and Buddha promised him the nymphs (fairies) if he attain arhatship. when he attained it, the promise have been released. one of the skill means by the buddha to guide his disciples to Arhatship.
-
From what i remember from the continuation of the story, I think after the visit to the deva realm the Buddha also brought him to the hell realm. As i said, this is from not-so-good memory but from what i remember it was Nanda. There's many variations of the same story concerning Nanda's entry into monkhood.
-
Originally posted by sanath:
From what i remember from the continuation of the story, I think after the visit to the deva realm the Buddha also brought him to the hell realm. As i said, this is from not-so-good memory but from what i remember it was Nanda. There's many variations of the same story concerning Nanda's entry into monkhood.
ahhh yes...at first Nanda was very happy because he thought that by practising Buddha's path can lead him to Heaven. But then, when Buddha brought him to Hell, Nanda saw his own oil-frying pot in preparation for him. He was extremely depressed.
Buddha told him learning the path is not go Heaven but to end the endless cycle of this 6 realms.
From then onwards, Nanda practised diligently and he obtained the fruit of Arahatship.
I got this information from AsiaPac... haha
-
Originally posted by 2009novice:
ahhh yes...at first Nanda was very happy because he thought that by practising Buddha's path can lead him to Heaven. But then, when Buddha brought him to Hell, Nanda saw his own oil-frying pot in preparation for him. He was extremely depressed.
Buddha told him learning the path is not go Heaven but to end the endless cycle of this 6 realms.
From then onwards, Nanda practised diligently and he obtained the fruit of Arahatship.
I got this information from AsiaPac... haha
haha based on this and looking at my own experiences, i think arhatship should be my "right livelihood", not whatever i am chasing now in the transient world of jobs and dreams..... bingo
-
haha based on this and looking at my own experiences, i think arhatship should be my "right livelihood", not whatever i am chasing now in the transient world of jobs and dreams..... bingo
Actually arhatship cannot be considered 'right livelihood'.
Right livelihood means that practitioners ought not to engage in trades or occupations which, either directly or indirectly, result in harm for other living beings. In the Chinese and Pali Canon, it is explained thus:[15][27][45][46][47]
And what is right livelihood? There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, having abandoned dishonest livelihood, keeps his life going with right livelihood: This is called right livelihood.The five types of businesses that are harmful to undertake are:[48][49][50]
- Business in weapons: trading in all kinds of weapons and instruments for killing.
- Business in human beings: slave trading, prostitution, or the buying and selling of children or adults.
- Business in meat: "meat" refers to the bodies of beings after they are killed. This includes breeding animals for slaughter.
- Business in intoxicants: manufacturing or selling intoxicating drinks or addictive drugs.
- Business in poison: producing or trading in any kind of toxic product designed to kill.
--------
Now, what is 'Arhatship' then?
Arahat is a Pali word that gets spelled a lot of ways and translated a lot of ways, such as Saint, Conquerer, Holy One, etc. Arhatship is considered as a form of fruition.
And what is the path? The Noble Eightfold Path leads to this Fruition.
One of them is Right Livelihood, as I mentioned above. There are many other factors involved, altogether making up 8:
- 4 Wisdom (PrajñÄ� • PaññÄ�)
- 5 Ethical conduct (Śīla • SÄ«la)
- 6 Sam�dhi: mental discipline, concentration, meditation
If you diligently practice the Noble Eightfold Path, you will eventually attain the First Stage of Enlightenment in the Hinayana path, which is Sotapanna or Stream Entry. Followed by Sakadagami, or Once Returner. Followed by Anagami, or Non Returner. Followed by Arhatship, which is the Fruition of the Hinayana path, the fourth and final stage of Enlightenment in the Hinayana path.
Means, you have finished your path. Ended is your suffering and future births. No more rebirth. It is like graduation - you have already achieved your Bachelor from the University.
Mahayana Buddhism considers there is a higher goal: Buddhahood, and that is by practicing the Mahayana/Bodhisattva path. However that is even higher level: sort of like Ph.D in comparison to University level. A Buddha is not only liberated, he is also concerned and highly capable of liberating a lot of others unlike any other enlightened beings, and he perfected all virtues (paramitas) and other qualities like omniscience, etc.
If you achieve Arhatship, you already achieved the 'Fruition', the goal of the path of Sravakas, you already 'graduated' from your path. Finished.
If you have not attained enlightenment yet, you cannot claim to be Arhat. Arhatship is a fruition, not the path.
There are people today (and I personally know some of them) who continue to achieves Arhatship, or Bodhisattvahood. It is totally achievable even for lay persons like us (since I have personally know some of them) to attain Enlightenment. You just need the right teaching, the right teacher, the right practice. You need to have a good grasp what Buddhism is about and how to practice it in your lives.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Actually arhatship cannot be considered 'right livelihood'.
Right livelihood means that practitioners ought not to engage in trades or occupations which, either directly or indirectly, result in harm for other living beings. In the Chinese and Pali Canon, it is explained thus:[15][27][45][46][47]
The five types of businesses that are harmful to undertake are:[48][49][50]
- Business in weapons: trading in all kinds of weapons and instruments for killing.
- Business in human beings: slave trading, prostitution, or the buying and selling of children or adults.
- Business in meat: "meat" refers to the bodies of beings after they are killed. This includes breeding animals for slaughter.
- Business in intoxicants: manufacturing or selling intoxicating drinks or addictive drugs.
- Business in poison: producing or trading in any kind of toxic product designed to kill.
--------
Now, what is 'Arhatship' then?
Arahat is a Pali word that gets spelled a lot of ways and translated a lot of ways, such as Saint, Conquerer, Holy One, etc. Arhatship is considered as a form of fruition.
And what is the path? The Noble Eightfold Path leads to this Fruition.
One of them is Right Livelihood, as I mentioned above. There are many other factors involved, altogether making up 8:
- 4 Wisdom (PrajñÄ� • PaññÄ�)
- 5 Ethical conduct (Śīla • SÄ«la)
- 6 Sam�dhi: mental discipline, concentration, meditation
If you diligently practice the Noble Eightfold Path, you will eventually attain the First Stage of Enlightenment in the Hinayana path, which is Sotapanna or Stream Entry. Followed by Sakadagami, or Once Returner. Followed by Anagami, or Non Returner. Followed by Arhatship, which is the Fruition of the Hinayana path, the fourth and final stage of Enlightenment in the Hinayana path.
Means, you have finished your path. Ended is your suffering and future births. No more rebirth. It is like graduation - you have already achieved your Bachelor from the University.
Mahayana Buddhism considers there is a higher goal: Buddhahood, and that is by practicing the Mahayana/Bodhisattva path. However that is even higher level: sort of like Ph.D in comparison to University level. A Buddha is not only liberated, he is also concerned and highly capable of liberating a lot of others unlike any other enlightened beings, and he perfected all virtues (paramitas) and other qualities like omniscience, etc.
If you achieve Arhatship, you already achieved the 'Fruition', the goal of the path of Sravakas, you already 'graduated' from your path. Finished.
If you have not attained enlightenment yet, you cannot claim to be Arhat. Arhatship is a fruition, not the path.
There are people today (and I personally know some of them) who continue to achieves Arhatship, or Bodhisattvahood. It is totally achievable even for lay persons like us (since I have personally know some of them) to attain Enlightenment. You just need the right teaching, the right teacher, the right practice. You need to have a good grasp what Buddhism is about and how to practice it in your lives.
It's interesting...!But how do one know if he/she has obtained arahatship or "degree"?
I read that if a person is enlightened, he is like a mute tasting honey... indescribable happiness.... 妙��言
The Noble Eightfold path........... I felt that Right Speech and Right Action has already comprises the 5 precepts... Should I take the precepts?
-
Originally posted by 2009novice:
It's interesting...!But how do one know if he/she has obtained arahatship or "degree"?
I read that if a person is enlightened, he is like a mute tasting honey... indescribable happiness.... 妙��言
The Noble Eightfold path........... I felt that Right Speech and Right Action has already comprises the 5 precepts... Should I take the precepts?
You're right. One of those enlightened that I have talked to have told us (those meeting him) that the bliss he is experiencing is not something we can ever understand (unless we experience it of course).
Arahats have finally untangled the knot of perception, dissolved the sense of the center point actually being the center point, no longer fundamentally make a separate Self out of the patterns of sensations that they used to, even though those same patterns of sensations continue. This is a different understanding from those of Third Path (Anagami) in some subtle way, and makes this path about something that is beyond the paths. This is also poetically called the opening of the Wisdom Eye (in contrast to the Dharma Eye that a Stream Winner has obtained).
Taking precepts will ensure that you can follow Noble Eightfold Path. If you break the precepts, then how can it be said that you are following Right Action and Right Speech? Although I never formally took precepts, I try to follow follow the precepts as much as possible.
-
sorry OT
for 'Right Livelihood', then those working in gambling establishments like casino, singapore pools, turf club etc also considered as violation? as in from top management down to the people at the counter?
-
Originally posted by Aloozer:
sorry OT
for 'Right Livelihood', then those working in gambling establishments like casino, singapore pools, turf club etc also considered as violation? as in from top management down to the people at the counter?
Someone asked about this before.
Working at casinos/jobs that deal with gambling isn't clearly stated in Buddha's scriptures as wrong livelihood.
But I would suggest that if it brings harm to others, then there are better alternatives.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Someone asked about this before.
Working at casinos/jobs that deal with gambling isn't clearly stated in Buddha's scriptures as wrong livelihood.
But I would suggest that if it brings harm to others, then there are better alternatives.
last time in the Buddha's time where got casino and singapore pools one lol. where got 4D, horse racing that era
-
Originally posted by Rooney9:
last time in the Buddha's time where got casino and singapore pools one lol. where got 4D, horse racing that era
Gambling in general.
-
aiyo just try and be a good person in general lor....
then when u die.... either god, allah, buddha, sunwukong or whatever will bring you to heaven lar... simple.... as if he will tell you ... oh you never subscribe to my membership when you are mortal... you go hell...
If gods dun exist u go poof .... simple.
Dun think so much ba. Sensitive topic.
Kind Regards
Genie
-
The Buddha recognized that gambling is a venue that leads to ruin, and warned his lay followers against gambling.
From this we can see that gambling is an unwholesome act and leads to ruin and downfall, and hence it is best to avoid gambling or having a livelihood related to gambling since it brings harms to oneself and others.
-
Originally posted by Genie99a:
aiyo just try and be a good person in general lor....
then when u die.... either god, allah, buddha, sunwukong or whatever will bring you to heaven lar... simple.... as if he will tell you ... oh you never subscribe to my membership when you are mortal... you go hell...
If gods dun exist u go poof .... simple.
Dun think so much ba. Sensitive topic.
Kind Regards
Genie
Buddhists don't believe that a supernatural being brings you to heaven.
Buddhists believe that we are reborn according to our own karma, which is a natural law. It is not someone up there judging us.
Also, Buddhists do not believe that non-believers will go to hell. Again as I said, people are reborn according to karma, and this applies whether to believers or non-believers.
The six potential realm of rebirth are (lower realms) Hell, ghosts, animals, and (higher realm) human, asura, heaven
Buddhists however aim for liberation from rebirth and suffering, through enlightenment, liberation, Nirvana.
-
i agree with the moderator.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Hi, I fully agree with your post.
However I might add, what I am talking about is constructive criticism.
Constructive criticism can become a cause for improvement. It can also bring awareness of these issues to others.
For example, ck posted his/her negative experience with a particular church after going there for a period of time.
If he/she did not make this known, then others will 'fall victim' or rather go through the same unpleasant experiences.
Therefore I suggest that people should write reviews, whether they are criticism or commendations of that church/temple/monastery so that people who are interested to go there can be made aware of the choices they have.
Also, if something they teach is not right or not agreeable it should be open to scrutiny.
An example is Pastor Rony in Singapore, he was putting down other religions like Buddhism and making false statements about Buddhism. This caused an uproar in the internet and got the attention of the Internal Security Department of Singapore, and after a meeting with him he formally apologised for his misbehavior.
This is good because otherwise, he will continue to spread false information about Buddhism and create bad karma (from a Buddhist perspective), not to mention sowing discord in our multi racial and religious society.
Nowadays people use Amazon.com to buy books, electronics, or whatever... there is a comments section and a ratings section which is very useful for potential customers to choose and select their products.
I don't see why we shouldn't and couldn't do this for institutions of Religion as well.
Of course, it should be noted that any particular institution does not represent the whole of the religion, and we should not use an institution as an example to denigrate the entire religion.
In fact I have written in the Christan forum just recently, saying that I see no point in trying to argue against other people's faith. If people already chose their path and their faith, they have already put faith ahead of logic, and therefore no amount of logic will likely move their faith. They may be offended, or they may try to defend their faith, but it is unlikely that any amount of logic is going to change anything. Therefore those non-Christians criticizing Christianity are actually criticizing it to the wrong audience, much like the Chinese idiom of playing the lute to a cow. The cow cannot appreciate anything, to the cow it is just more noise.
If people have not yet chosen their path, or are willing to find out the truth for themselves, they will do so regardless of whether his faith is being criticized.
Furthermore it is not like the other religions are not improving and transforming the lives of their followers in a positive way, as many find positive changes in their lives through following their religions, so there is no reason to try to convert them
Since Buddhists don't consider non-believers as 'destined for hell', the compulsion to convert others deep into their own belief isn't strong: instead time is better spent if we focus our efforts to bring 'potential people' to Buddhism, potential as in those who have the interest and conditions to explore and seek to find out the Dharma.
If the dharma is being made more accessible and well known, people can make a better decision for themselves by comparing the different religions and seeing what is more suitable or agreeable for themselves. This, I believe, is much more constructive than criticising the faith of others.
We contend neither the fortunate or unfortunate experiences of this person, or that of others, nor their affability in sharing such experiences. We also do not contend that such experiences are the evidences upon which fact may be pursued, as all such pursuit is surely commendable.
We however are reminded from time to time that the pursuit of fact, and the relativity of fact itself, may be distinctly severable from truth due to perception, ego and attachment, and exponentially the ego’s attachment to perception, the ego’s attachment to outcome, and the predictable evolution of the imposter of ego as ‘Trier-in-fact’. If such a distinction is agreeable, then perhaps the discussion may be favorable to a subtle ear…
As truth is the exhaustion of all fact, are there no other instruments within the specter of Dhamma by which we may garner the improvement of one’s self, germinate potential in others, and convey goodwill, compassion and prudence? If so, surely such an instrument would serve to unpin the shackles of attachment, contention, and all forms of criticisms, constructive or otherwise?
The sage Lao Tzu of the Dao De Jing has written that one who does not contend that no other may against contend, as one yields and overcomes… and considering this one may acknowledge the willow tree contends not against the wind, yet yields and overcomes… and considering this acknowledge life contends against neither death nor death against life, as each yields and overcomes the other… and considering this acknowledge Dhamma does not contend against truth as truth is the exhaustion of all fact, absent the momentum of contention, criticism, attachment and thusly the dependency of all provenance and ego…
-
I don't usually comment on religious stuff, but this topic seems to attract my attention somehow.
What I feel is that since you say that what some of the bible stuff goes back to Buddha, then have you thought that it might be possible vice versa? Being born to a christian family, I once had this logic of the story 'Journey to the West' that Sun Wukong and gang wasn't suppose to end up in India to get the scriptures but literally to to the west, to find Jesus. Of course that was when I was still young back then. creative thinking from a kid...
-
Originally posted by loki_chaos:
I don't usually comment on religious stuff, but this topic seems to attract my attention somehow.
What I feel is that since you say that what some of the bible stuff goes back to Buddha, then have you thought that it might be possible vice versa? Being born to a christian family, I once had this logic of the story 'Journey to the West' that Sun Wukong and gang wasn't suppose to end up in India to get the scriptures but literally to to the west, to find Jesus. Of course that was when I was still young back then. creative thinking from a kid...
Please read the links below "The Lost years of Jesus Christ" which claim that there are evidence showing Jesus went to Tibet and India to learn Buddhism. The scholars claim that is why the 10 commandments of Christianity are similar to the precepts of Buddhism.
http://www.wolflodge.org/sananda/lost-years-of-jesus.htm
http://tibettalk.wordpress.com/2007/09/01/the-lost-years-of-jesus-in-tibet/
Anyway, Sun Wu Kong and the gang is only a Chinese classical novel written by a famous writer. It is not a true story. The only truth is monk Xuan Zang who traveled alone to the west (India) to get the scriptures.
-
Originally posted by hasene:
Not all are chosen by God to be his children. I hope you respect the decision of choice of their religions.
So many contradictions in the bible.
If you find the bible more contemptible, that's fine. That's your own prerogative. -
Originally posted by AtlasWept:
We contend neither the fortunate or unfortunate experiences of this person, or that of others, nor their affability in sharing such experiences. We also do not contend that such experiences are the evidences upon which fact may be pursued, as all such pursuit is surely commendable.
We however are reminded from time to time that the pursuit of fact, and the relativity of fact itself, may be distinctly severable from truth due to perception, ego and attachment, and exponentially the ego’s attachment to perception, the ego’s attachment to outcome, and the predictable evolution of the imposter of ego as ‘Trier-in-fact’. If such a distinction is agreeable, then perhaps the discussion may be favorable to a subtle ear…
As truth is the exhaustion of all fact, are there no other instruments within the specter of Dhamma by which we may garner the improvement of one’s self, germinate potential in others, and convey goodwill, compassion and prudence? If so, surely such an instrument would serve to unpin the shackles of attachment, contention, and all forms of criticisms, constructive or otherwise?
The sage Lao Tzu of the Dao De Jing has written that one who does not contend that no other may against contend, as one yields and overcomes… and considering this one may acknowledge the willow tree contends not against the wind, yet yields and overcomes… and considering this acknowledge life contends against neither death nor death against life, as each yields and overcomes the other… and considering this acknowledge Dhamma does not contend against truth as truth is the exhaustion of all fact, absent the momentum of contention, criticism, attachment and thusly the dependency of all provenance and ego…
Thank you... this is very true and a good reminder.