Mr. Akbar wrote: [[[While choosing the word fear grammar was not in my mind. I took the meaning and its implications on a persons mind.]]]
My rebuttal: Let me put aside the grammatical confession and let's us focus on the issue of fear. How could you take the meaning of a word and its implications out of a persons mind? Buddha had asked his followers to test what he preaches and to feel them as experience, and not to accept simply on superficial grounds and I ask him, what is mind?
[[[Fear is a state of mind when a person seeks shelter from a situation which overcomes his power.]]]
My rebuttal: If fear is a state of Mr. Akbar's mind then when he would or under what circumstances he would take refuge or seek shelter from a situation(what kind of situation?) which would overcome Akbar's power?
[[[His rational thinking does not work, he uses his mind not brain to over come the issue in front him.]]]
My rebuttal: A person without knowledge, maleducation or without education would not have rational thinking at first place whether s/he uses his/her mind or brain to overcome whatever the issue awaiting in front of him, be you Buddhist or Muslim or Hindu or christian or Jew. It is avidya or ignorance to suggest that people become rational or irrational out of fear or lack thereof. People become irrational when greed or excessive desires of materialistic goods take precedence.
People become irrational when people like Akbar tries to use information(for instance, fear) which is technically true, but is being presented out of context in order to create a false implication and this deception of irrationality is being achieved by leaving out information or by associating valid information in such a way as to create false correlations. The manipulation and fabrication of information is greater fear and concern of mine than being a hit by a lightening stroke.
Have I acted irrationally or used my mind in place of brain when I'm being confronted with the fear of manipulation or fabrication that are being employed by Akbar? I think not.
[[[Fear created by religion nips reason and dogma takes precedence over reason.]]]
My rebuttal: As he vaguely purports to express by an undefined word religion which has no hands or brain to create fear upon mankind or his proposition "fear created by religion" part is not literally meaningful because proposition is not empirically verifiable. It is avidya or ignorance to formulate a sentence without providing whose religion or what specific verse that creates fear that nips reason and then define what is dogma that takes precedence over reason.
I think it is a fabrication on Akbar's part for the purpose of disinformation strategy and tactics to formulate and presented out of context in order to create false implication.
[[[This is the most violent side of religious fanaticism. Examples are abundant around us.]]]]
My rebuttal: For out of material greed and desire or manipulation of knowledge and power, people of all kinds including religious and non-religious alike are being engaged in fanaticism and that's the violent side of reality we can't deny. No nirvana or moksha can overcome these violent side of manufactured realities.
For wanting of a theory to remove desires to overcome the most violent side of religious or non-religious fanaticism, even if all people go and sat beneath a giant Bodh tree or in a mountain's cave to attain salvation or nirvana by being enlightened is unattainable.
Does Akbar kinds think by traveling from city-to-city bare-footed, clean-headed, with nothing more on his self than his saffron robe, walking stick and begging bowl and preach about suffering and misery which can be removed by removing self-delusional desire and thereby all forms of fanaticism will disappear?
Then may I ask, why does he require a begging bowl for alms or charity as form of food or clothes for his survival instincts? and who would be there for him to provide his food, clothes and shelter if every man in the world follows his kind of nirvana? would he only sit idle by the bodh tree without food? where is his responsibilities? is it attainable? How?
[[[Emancipation is the child of freedom.]]]
My rebuttal: Ideas matter and the idea of freedom had borned out of slavery in American vocabulary and now the word freedom is being used as propaganda purposes by many people for many different reasons and many different causes but the meaning of "freedom is emancipation" or "emancipation is child of freedom" in relation to "moksha" or "nirvana" is a grand deception, fabrication, manipulation and disinformation propaganda.
Nirvana literally means "blowing out" or "extinction" or cessation of all from of sorrow which can be achieved by removing desire. The fallacies of removing misery and suffering by removing desires are unattainable. If it was then he would not have come to Canada to remove his desire to attain nirvana. Moksha is attained by liberation from all karma and those who have attained moksha are called siddha(liberated souls). Does moksha mean the anti-thesis of cause and effect? if not then how moksha is attained by liberation of all form of karma? Can you provide the path for attaining moksha(liberation) from samsara(reincarnation)? I don't understand reincarnation.
[[[Indian spiritualism talked about muki, moksha or nirvana.]]]
My rebuttal: Is "Indian spiritualism" euphemism of religion? In Buddha's teachings there are no concepts of soul or no creator. Since Buddha does not recognize the concept of soul then what does "Indian spiritualism" mean? What is atma or what is spirit that the ideology of spiritualism is derived from in Buddha's? is there a specific word for spirit in Buddha's teachings?
or Is Mr. Akbar synthesizing atma and spirit interchangeably? For your information, in case he is not aware of that in Prophet Muhammad's teachings there are concepts of soul(nafs) and spirit(ruh) that I came to know from Quranic revelations.
[[[Are these conditions can be attained in the mountain caves or in the woods only?]]]
My rebuttal: Are you asking me? If karma is not required then be you sit underneath the fig tree or bodh tree or in caves or in jungle is up to you. I have not preached to any "true religious" person like Akbar that liberation from karma(moksha) is the first goal in order to achieve nirvana.
[[[These are easy ways. The real moksha is here among the multitudes. Among the sounds and bites.]]]
My rebuttal: Yes there are easy ways and it can be achieved by residing in Canada or Sweden where sound bites of monkish true religious persons don't have to do karma nor does he require a begging bowl cause handouts is by default.
[[[Live in the samsar but don't allow samsar to live in you.]]]
My rebuttal: Is samsara means cycle of rebirth or reincarnation? Sound very much like a paradoxical sentence. If samsar means rebirth then who lives in the samsar and who doesn't allow samsar(rebirth) to live in you[whose body or soul] where concept of soul is non-existence in Buddha's teaching?
My rebuttal: What true/right knowledge provides the path for attaining liberation(moksha) from samsara(i.e.,cycle of rebirth or reincarnation)?
[[[Freedom from all attachments but not from responsibilities.]]]
My rebuttal: What do you mean by the word freedom or imply - "moksha" or "nirvana? moksha from all attachments(karma)? if karma means duty then what is responsibility?
[[[There we prove our real strength.]]]
My rebuttal: Yes indeed, it is real strength by evading responsibilities and looking for handouts not charity which has religious connotation! And a "real religious" person who has no religion does not accept charity but handouts and it is OK because it does not sound religious. By revealing and proving his real strength, he is really proud of his "true religious" identity. What a strength! I m proud of you.
[[[These are not fallacies, these are achievable goals.]]]
My rebuttal: If things are achievable by moksha which means liberation from all form of karma then why did he come to Canada? or how do you achieve your goals without performing karma? Oops Canada and Sweden have achieved his goals and one does not require a begging bowl and those monks are using their Internet connection to preach and synthesize all anti-thesis for rest of the monks. Oh no, there are no fallacies at all, just previllege perhaps rights of recieving handouts.
[[[We need to find out the synthesis from all anti theses.]]]
My rebuttal: If he is in need of a solution to find out the synthesis of all thesis and anti-thesis then moksha will jump out from the soul/spirit which is by the way non-existence in Buddha's teachings to begin with? Can he synthesize the concept of liberation of all form of karma which is moksha without handout/begging bowl? if Buddha would have had lived in Canada or Sweden, then i think, he would not have invented the word moksha because those countries provide handout for those monks since karma is not the part and parcel of moksha.
[[[A truly religious person does not embrace any religion.]]]
My rebuttal: I think that's where his wisdom is knocking on the tavern doors.
------------------------------------
[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.comYahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:alochona-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:alochona-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
alochona-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/