Originally posted by MrBach:
I regard Buddhism as simply a philosophy which contains (as it happens) a great deal of truth.
To those who only study dharma academically only may think that it is such. But in fact it is beyond that, because it's a way of life, a practise of enlightenment.
Ven. Jue-Hsing
A scholar once asked, "Buddhism seems a great theory, and I find it useful. Is Buddhism a Philosophy?"
"Master Shen-Kai once said 'Buddhism is not Philosophy but beyond Philosophy,'" I replied.
"Why so?" The scholar asked.
"Philosophy is a system of thoughts based upon logical reasoning." I answered. "However, Buddhism is about realizing truths while detaching from thoughts."Here is my critique:
1) 'He said - knowledge seekers like us from the university should not resort to such uncivilised ways of preaching.'
Response: Is your master implying that 'knowledge seekers' like yourself (whom he identifies with the students at a university) ought alone to abstain from such 'uncivilised ways of preaching'? Is he suggesting that it would be beneath you to have recourse to such 'ways of preaching'?
Does he not know that by appealing to your pride to keep your instincts in check, he is actually bringing about a situation wherein you will seem to yourself to be virtuous because of your success at keeping your instincts in check, even though you will in fact be a very proud person?
Does your master not regard pride as a sin?
I'm not in university but in secondary school.

But anyway, maybe you misunderstood what I say, the "He Said" refers to the University Lecturer,
not my Master. And it was probably not out of pride that the research into Buddhism was done, but out of reasoning and logic.
2) 'From then on, he researched into all the teachings of Buddhism and found that it is flawless and was the teaching that he wanted to bring to the people. Being repentant of his earlier action, he renounced as a monk.'
Response:
If your master found Buddhist teachings flawless, then that must be because he had found the teachings of other faiths to be flawed; and if he then wanted to bring the message of Buddhism to the people, then it had to have been the case that he was fully aware of the fact that by disseminating Buddhism in this way, he would necessarily have been forced to imply to his audiences, that the messages preached by the other faiths were all flawed.
This being the case, your master too is engaged in the act of criticising (albeit not overtly and in an uncivilised fashion) the messages preached by other faiths.
You should understand why did my master research into Buddhism teachings? It is because of the intent to
find faults and flaws to write it in his critique. But upon his deep research and studying however, eventually he found that it is flawless, and on top of that he found that Buddhism offers what he wanted to bring to humanity. He did not specifically claim that other religions have alot of flaws, but he just did not find flaws in the scriptures he read and therefore his critique could not be completed.
By the way there is another similar story which is much more well known, he was Dr. Rhys David, son of a famous clergyman. He had the intention to prove superiority of Christianity over Buddhism, so he went to find the Buddhist scriptures. At those times Buddhist scriptures were not translated to English (that was over a hundred years ago), so he began his translation to write his own critique. However in the end he became a Buddhist and helped translate many scriptures to English, so Buddhists would have to thank him for many important English scriptures like the Dhammapada today.
Moreover, if your master felt that it was necessary for him to become a Buddhist in order to repent of his earlier action, then it is obvious that he has not fully understood Christianity; for on any sound view of Christianity, it would be simply wrong that one should communicate the message of Christianity to a Buddhist by the method of persuading him that his faith as a Buddhist is in every sense demonic.
To repent for his earlier action is one matter, the other matter is to pursue his original vision as mentioned in my post.
Also it is good that you do not see Buddhism as demonic

If people do not have such extreme views than I'm sure Singapore will have more religious harmony.
3) 'So, people who want to put down other people religions must in the first place go and learn more about it - otherwise it will be hated by others. Which is why Christians also receive quite many 'bashings'. This is karma, they bash ppl, ppl bash them
'
Response:
If it's 'karma' that a person is 'getting bashed' because he 'bashed' someone then it has to follow that whoever he bashed must himself have deserved the bashing he received; otherwise, it would seem impossible for the latter person to have been able to be bashed in the first place.
Sometimes people are bashed innocently, sometimes in crimes, robbery etc. These things are very unpredictable. But karma is beyond the present life, we also have past life karma, and are also planting the karmic seeds for the next life. There is a saying, if you want to know your past life, see what is your life like now. If you want to know your future life, see what are you doing in your life now.
But if this is so, then why cannot I take the view that I should be entirely justified in doing something which is evil, so long as I would be prepared to reap the consequences for doing it?
Interesting. But it would be ignorant for someone to do evil and fall into hell. I don't think anyone is willing to fall into hell. For "lighter" karma, I would say Yes, some people are willing to take the consequence. This is what my dharma teacher told me - for example if the dharma centre had pest problems, or bee hives etc, would she ask pest control to come? She say yes, she would take the karmic consequences but for a greater benefit.
On this view of the matter, we do not even need to consider whether or not such 'bashing' is morally correct in the first place (whether there is any sense in which it could ultimately be said to be moral); for so long as we feel that the operation of 'karma' will ensure that whatever evil we do will come to affect only those persons who could deservingly be made subject to its sway, we need not even be bound to feel that the evil which we do is in fact evil, except from a certain subjective point of view.
That is why many Buddhists regard morality as subjective; and that is one of the reasons why I am not a Buddhist.
Buddhism teaches compassion for every single person. So as long as we cause miseries/unhapiness for another person that is also against Compassion. Can our evil affect others? Of course, but it is also part of their previous karmas to be affected by you.
Buddhism not only teaches us to do good and avoid evil, but to cure the root cause of evil - that is from the Mind. That is why Buddhism often emphasizes the need to purify the mind, because the Mind is the source of all good, all evil, all sufferings and hapiness/etc. Why is there Evil? In Buddhism, sentient beings have the 3 poisons, Greed, Hatred, Ignorance. And that is due to the illusion of a 'Self'. Because of the 'Self', we do all sorts of things, causing people sufferings, and only care for ourselves. So Compassion is the opposite of this. And ultimately, our aim is to attain Buddhahood, Enlightenment, Liberation from Samsara.
"A human being is part of a whole, called by us the "Universe," a part
limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and
feelings, as something separated from the rest--a kind of optical delusion
of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting
us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us.
Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles
of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its
beauty." - Albert Einstein