Prism, I generally do not take that much pain to explain atheists because they are not ready to listen the other side. But, my assumption is that you are not one those thus I am trying.
Because, there was no such need for Buddha or Mahavira to address those kinds of questions. That brings us again to the point that i made in the last post.
[b]Religions are not isolated texts. Each and every religion has a particular context and its propagator tried to address that context only. The purpose of Buddhism and Jainism was merely to make people aware of those unnecessary social practices, which was forced by the Brahmans as an interpretation of Vedas. That is all. They did not go beyond this. That is why they are free from violence.
Buddhism and Jainism are merely complementary religions to Hinduism, not fully fledged ones. The same is for the Christianity too. They do not address all verticals of the life[/b].
One may also conclude in his wisdom that Buddha was not against homosexuality because he did not say that. But, that is not the case because Buddha did not say a word about sex. But, offering a complete life style, both of Hinduism and Islam has to address sex and marriage too.
Are you aware that the famous Kamsutra was written by a sage and was taught to the students besides with other streams of the knowledge! Does that make Vedanta a vulgar religion and Buddhism a sacred one?
Secondly, are you aware that both Hinduism and Islam too, laid down the guidelines even for how one should sit on the toilet seat, which hand should be where and which hand should be used to wash the excreta? Does that make them obscene religions in the comparison of Buddhism and Christianity, as they are free of such things?
The same is in the case of violence too. Hinduism and Islam talked about the violence because that is also an inevitable part of the human behavior too. It does not make any religion violent. Our present social system also lay down the guidelines for war like which weapons should be used and how one country should behave with prisoners of war. Does that mean that our present system is violent?
Unlike Muhammad , Moses and lord Krisha, Buddha did not have to face a war. So, he needs not to set the guidelines for a war. His focus was only the uncalled rituals in the name of Vedas like sacrificing the animals and other unnecessary ones. His only purpose was telling the people that these Brahmans are fooling you. These rituals are not the ultimate purpose and you can know and be like them by doing meditation on your own.
See, that is the problem.
When it comes to Hinduism, its shortcomings (so called) become minor disputable points for you. But, as soon as you find something such in Abrahamic religions, you present those as evil laden texts. Those are not misinterpretations for you! How you concluded that distinction?
Did Lord Krishna not force Arjuna to fight a war against his own cousin brothers, even when he was not ready and wanted that to let go? That war killed millions of innocents from both sides. Lord Krishna said many occasions in Mahabharata that it is okay to cheat a cheater and kill a killer. But, when Muhammad did the same to save his community, he becomes violent for you! Why?
Secondly, how Christianity, who does not propagate violence at any cost, looks evil laden to you?
There is some worth in that argument but already gave the answer to that question in the last post. That was not the fault of the Abrahamic religions but the shortcoming of the people who were being addressed. They were just not mature enough to comprehend subtleties. That is why the most of the Abrahamic prophets restrict themselves to simple day to day issues.
Only Moses and Muhammad addressed that. You may not be aware that there is a very subtle concept of Yetzer Hara in Judaism.
This notion that This, in itself, is not bad, nor is it an abnormality was misused by the Jews as an excuse to justify vested interests after Moses. Jesus tried his best to rectify that and his whole life consumed by this only. That is the only reason why most of the Jesus teachings were about morality not metaphysics.
This very Yetzer Hara is called Nafs in Islam and Man/Chitta in different sects of Hinduism.
Prism, you certainly know more about religions than an average intellectual but you are still far far behind from being an expert. Do not take it as an undermining statement. That is not my purpose at all. I am just trying to give you the actual picture. Religions are very vast and subtle concepts. It takes too much time and commitment to be an expert, sometimes a life time is not enough.
If you remember that in other thread you said that you studied Kant for three years yet that seems not to be enough. If understanding the work of a single person is taking so much time, how much time it will take to understand that collective work of so many scholars?
That is precisely the problem with intellectuals now. They think that reading some articles here and there on the net can make them an expert of anything. And, they start judging everything. It is not that simple.
You are again taking a wrong route without investigating enough.
How you concluded that Sufism is a special class of people and a Sufi is 90% mystic and only 10% conventional. I do not think that you know enough about Sufism to conclude that.
The bombing on Sufi shrines does not proof anything. Infighting within the different sects of a religion is a common amongst all religions. Shias and Sunnis have been involved in fighting and killing each other all over the world since long. That does not make any of them non-Muslim. So, how does the attack of Sufi shrines make Sufism non-Muslim religion?
It is only Wahabi and Salafi community of Islam that does not accept Sufism as a sect of Islam. Unfortunately, they belong to rich Arab countries, especially Saudi Arabia and west takes only Arabs as true flag bearers of Islam, while they are only 20% of the total Muslim population!
They also forget that more than half of the Muslim population lives in the countries like India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, China, Pakistan, Russia etc. Do you know that Indonesia has the largest Muslim population, followed by India, Pakistan and Bangladesh?
If you ever go to the countries of Indian subcontinent, you will be able to realize what the place of Sufism among Muslims is in these three countries, which collectively accounts roughly 1/3 of the world Muslim population. There is no special class of people here who follow Sufism. They are very much common Muslims. The fact of the matter is that you will not able to distinguish between the two here. They offer prayer in the Mosks in the day and visit to Sufi shrines in the evening.
Have a look at this-
But, unfortunately, no western intellectual pays attention to all this. In their opinion, only people like Osama can interpret Islam wisely and no other.
The western premise is that anyone who does not prorogate violence cannot be a Muslim. They all are non-Muslims. It is as simple as that.
Now, let us come to your theory of of 90% Sufi and 10% Muslim.
Sufism accepts Muhammad and Allah in the same way as other sects of Islam. To be a Sufi, a person has to be Muslim in the first place. There is no direct entry to Sufism. One has to follow the Quran before entering into Sufism.
There is no merit in that argument. Explain me the process of your conlusion and i will tell you how it is wrong. Let us go to the details of the brain as it is one of my favourite subject.
You are again back to square one.
The only difference between the Sufism and Conventional Islam is that of interpretation of the text. Otherwise, they share the belief both in Muhammad and Allah. So, how can you say that Islam did not evolve? Existence of the Sufism is the enough evidence that Islam is flexible.
By the way, Buddhism was never pushed out of India. It is still very much there. It spread outside India, not pushed.
Let me also tell you that I am not a Muslim but a Hindu, and a religious one too. But, I have to say right to right and wrong to wrong.
with love,
sanjay