IS INTERFAITH VIABLE?

[Gem]

Originally Posted by The Cobbler's Apprentice

The Buddhist writer Stephen Batchelor once observed that according to the fundamental Theravada texts each of the Four Noble Truths had to be acted upon.

I think that needs a bit of elaboration because in Buddhist philosophy one doesn't take the 4NT as objective knowledge, but apprehends them subjectively with themselves. To act upon would mean you notice suffering internally, like, 'this is suffering' and so on. Hence, the truth claims in Buddhist texts are not objective in nature (not taken-to-be-true in faith), but subjectively investigated. However, that's just how people operate in wisdom by way of insight, and doesn't have anything to do with Buddhism per-se.

[BigJohn]

and then there was the Buddha's discussion on Dharma, what is a Buddha, etc.......

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by HITESH SHAH

EXCERPT

Indeed your interest and persistence in the thread is worth saluting . What u say is right . If we want to make world a better place to live , looking at things in common and respecting /loving others while improving ourselves (like removing dogma/superstition, promoting reason in spirituality ,getting practical ideas to balance this life and after life ) wherever possible , building bridges between communities etc will definitely be good steps in that direction (making world a better place to live)

Thanks.......

I think you say "it" a lot better then I do.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

and then there was the Buddha's discussion on Dharma, what is a Buddha, etc.......

Yep, the problem with that is, dhamma is universal but people wrote it down and created a discursive structure of knowledge to base an identity on called 'Buddhism', whereas dhamma is what it is regardless of Buddhism or any other religion. Hence it makes no difference if you're a Buddhist or not-Buddhist. That is entirely superfluous. However, people ascribe to the narrative and give it a lot of importance as they identify with it, which is a great delusion of mind reinforced by symbols, costumes, temples etc, and reaffirmed with rituals and repetitions. By that identity structure there are imaginary Buddhists, and as a result, not-Buddhists are likewise imagined. In that way, the division is essential to the creation of religion. People say it's important and we have to respect it and be tolerant etc, and we do have to because there is no point fighting folly, but the ideal of peaceful interfaith is impossible because conflict between the I am and he's-not is already functioning as part of the religious delusion. Not that I'm against it mind you... It's just a passing thought pattern after all. However, it will lead to strife as it has always done as people identify with their religion, thereby giving it utmost importance, and will do literally anything to preserve and maintain it. As soon as the discourse that the entire structure is based on is disrupted or undermined, they'll do whatever it takes to preserve it. You can't preserve the thought since it is impermanent in nature, so the religious structure is constantly under threat of vanishing, and that makes the religious very volatile.

[BigJohn]

Dharma means different things based on their belief system.
Probably the oldest definition of Dharma is found in Jainism. The next form of Dharma probably is Hinduism followed by Buddhism then Sikhism. And....... each version of Dharma associated with the above religions, is different from each of the others.

It was Maitreya, who in the Rice Seedling Sutra, reiterated what the current Buddha had said (basically defined) about Dharma.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

Dharma means different things based on their belief system.
Jainism Hinduism Buddhism Sikhism. each version of Dharma , is different from each of the others.

Then it's a mishmash of differences between religious sects and not the universal reality of nature as it is.

[The Cobbler's Apprentice]

Originally Posted by Gem

Then it's a mishmash of differences between religious sects and not the universal reality of nature as it is.

Obviously the OP of the "Christ, Tao, Logos, Buddha-nature etc etc" thread is relevant here.

[BigJohn]

IS INTERFAITH VIABLE?

Over 20 years ago, I would attend an annual fair held by the Wiccan/Pagan community. What I would do is tell people where to put their hands to feel another person's aura. Generally, I would go out at least 5 levels and I would be demonstrating this with 2 couples at a time.

Back then, auras were virtually unknown to that group of people but today, many of them are familiar with Auras and Chakras.

I find it amazing how easy it is for various groups of people to assimilate the beliefs of others.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by The Cobbler's Apprentice

Obviously the OP of the "Christ, Tao, Logos, Buddha-nature etc etc" thread is relevant here.

I think you mean these are all words for the same thing and therefore interfaith is viable, but I think you know religion is a discursive construct and the lets say "Tao" isn't. I believe the story so "I'm a Christian" (and you're not). "We are God's chosen people" (and you're not). That act of putting someone in the 'not' position to contrast the the religious identity is the essence of the violence. And there is no way around that.

[The Cobbler's Apprentice]

Originally Posted by Gem

I think you mean these are all words for the same thing and therefore interfaith is viable

No "therefore" intended. Just relevant.