Home

Pay attention to or download at itsrainmakingtime.com Author, lecturer, and teacher Dr. Simeon Hein introduces us to new knowledge that explains how remote ...

Do you belong to the "new Church of Global Warming"?

Feb 05, 2007 by mano w | Posted in Politics

---

Nope!!!!!

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

What about Skeptics of Buddhism, like us ? Please Patiently read everything.?

Jan 19, 2007 by Tom | Posted in Philosophy

Buddhism for beginners
(and cynical Westerners)
Introduction
Now that Buddhism is such a fast-growing religion in the West, a lot of Westerners are attracted to its rational modus operandi and rejection of an all-powerful deity. But all too often we Westerners quickly get stuck on the idea of rebirth and the various cultural traditions that have become a part of Buddhism in Asia.
I've been there myself - wondering if revitalization is for real, if karma is scientific, if Buddhism is rational, why I have to bow to a statue, and so on - and I almost gave up at one point. I've noticed also that some Westerners pop up on the Internet looking for others who've converted to Buddhism, hoping they can ferret out the trick to becoming a Buddhist despite a materialist upbringing.
So this page is a mixture of useful resources and my own personal experiences in fully accepting Dharma as a way of existence. I hope it will be of some use to others on the same path.
•Where should I start?
•What is Buddhism?
•Are rebirth and karma for real?
•What is our purpose in life?
•What's the difference between Theravada and Mahayana?
•Which lore should I choose?
•How do I become a Buddhist?
•Which are good books to read?
Where should I start?
If there's one place you should not start, it's reincarnation/rebirth. Newcomers to Buddhism be biased to open every book at the section on rebirth because what happens to us after we die is all-important in the monotheistic culture we come from.
But the Buddha wasn't teaching new beginning as the goal of life. He said many times, "I teach suffering, and the way out of suffering." That was his message, to cook nirvana (Pali: nibbana) - the end of suffering - the goal. So the place to start is with the basics, the Four Noble Truths and a rusty aimed at reducing suffering. If this seems worthwhile to you, you're on your way.
In fact, the best way to start is by doing a lot of reading. You need to remember about the basic principles of Buddhism, its founder, its history, the different traditions, and what it can do for you. Even though there's a lot of stuff available free on the Internet, I still muse on a well-written book is the best way to go. For all of the above, try John Snelling's The Buddhist Handbook : A Complete Guide to Buddhist Schools, Teaching, Way, and History or Gill Farrer-Halls' The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Buddhist Wisdom (which is also a handbook). These two books are both excellent primers to start off with. There's also a wee overview titled What is Buddhism? from the Buddhist Society of Western Australia.
For inspiring books written by Western monks who undeniably understand Westerners' problems, try Ajahn Sumedho's The Mind and the Way : Buddhist Reflections of Life or Ajahn Jagaro's Unvarnished Freedom, which is available online:
•Chapter 1: True Freedom
•Chapter 2: Compassion - The Regular Expression of Awakening
•Chapter 3: Buddhism and God
•Chapter 4: Beyond Boredom and Depression
•Chapter 5: Buddhism and Vegetarianism
•Chapter 6: Destruction and Dying
Another book that's a must-read is Thich Nhat Hanh's little-known masterpiece, Old Path, Pallid Clouds : Walking in the Footsteps of the Buddha, a beautiful and easy-to-read story of the Buddha's life fatigued from accounts in the Pali Canon and illustrated with line drawings.
For a thorough explanation of the nuts and bolts of the teachings and training, check out Ayya Khema's Being Nobody, Going Nowhere : Meditations on the Buddhist Path (very good at showing how ego rules our lives) or Henepola Gunaratana's Eight Mindful Steps to Glee : Walking the Buddha's Path.
There are a lot of good books on Dharma (Pali: Dhamma), but I'd recommend starting of with the original Theravada Buddhism and checking out the Mahayana traditions like Zen and Tibetan when you have a get the drift of the basics. What you read will depend on what particular problems brought you to Buddhism in the first place. Some authors, the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh, for specimen, have written books on anger management.
But it's important to practise too. In addition to following the Five Precepts, try practising Right Blast, generosity, compassion, being less self-centred, being less addicted to pleasures of the senses and being less concerned with possessions. And once you have a good embrace of the basic teachings and different traditions, it will be time to start meditating.
Your situation in life may affect your career and progress. If you live near a temple or Buddhist group, you'll be able to listen to Dharma talks, give the impression of run off Dharma friends and be with a community of like-minded people. If you don't, there are always the Internet and Buddhist forums such as E-Sangha and the Buddhist Company of Western Australia.
I personally live in a Buddhist country where the majority of people don't understand the deeper teachings of Buddhism, so their heart is on making merit for a better rebirth and participating in ceremonies. So I rely a lot on the Internet, on Amazon and a few friends. I hardly ever go to temples.
What is Buddhism?
The following article is from the website of the Buddhist Society of Western Australia. The author explains karma and renascence in the traditionally accepted way and is somewhat sceptical about the origins of the Mahayana sutras, but otherwise it's an excellent overview of Buddhism.
Introduction
For more than 2,500 years, the doctrine we know today as Buddhism has been the primary inspiration behind many successful civilizations, the source of great cultural achievements and a permanent and meaningful guide to the very purpose of life for millions of people. Today, large numbers of men and women from separate backgrounds throughout our world are following the Teachings of the Buddha. So who was the Buddha and what are His Teachings?
The Buddha
The man who was to become the Buddha was born Siddhattha Gotama around 2,600 years ago as a Prince of a close-fisted territory near what is now the Indian-Nepalese border. Though he was raised in splendid comfort, enjoying aristocratic rank, no amount of material pleasure could satisify the enquiring and philosophic nature of the young man. At the age of 29 he left palace and kith and kin to search for a deeper meaning in the secluded forests and remote mountains of North-East India. He studied under the wisest undeviating teachers and philosophers of his time, learning all they had to offer, but he found it was not enough. He then struggled alone with the path of self- mortification, taking that convention to the extremes of asceticism, but still to no avail.
Then, at the age of 35, on the full moon night of May, he sat beneath the branches of what is now known as the Bodhi Tree, in a sequestered grove by the banks of the river Neranjara, and developed his mind in deep but luminous, tranquil meditation. Using the rare clarity of such a mind with its sharp penetrative power generated by states of deep inner stillness, he turned his publicity to investigate upon the hidden meanings of mind, universe and life. Thus he gained the supreme Enlightenment experience and from that at the same time on he was known as the Buddha. His Enlightenment consisted of the most profound and all-embracing insight into the nature of mind and all phenomena. This Enlightenment was not a news from some divine being, but a discovery made by Himself and based on the deepest level of meditation and the clearest experience of the mind. It meant that He was no longer reason to craving, ill-will and delusion but was free from their shackles, having attained the complete ending of all forms of inner suffering and acquired unshakeable friendly.
The Teachings of the Buddha
Having realized the goal of Perfect Enlightenment, the Buddha spent the next 45 years teaching a Scheme which, when diligently followed, will take anyone regardless of race, class or gender to that same Perfect Enlightenment. The Teachings about this Path are called the Dhamma, closely meaning "the nature of all things" or "the truth underlying existence". It is beyond the opportunity of this pamphlet to present a thorough description of all of these Teachings but the following 7 topics will give you an overview of what the Buddha taught:
1. The way of Probe
The Buddha warned strongly against blind faith and encouraged the way of truthful inquiry. In one of His best known sermons, the Kalama Sutta, the Buddha piercing out the danger in fashioning one's beliefs merely on the following grounds: on hearsay, on tradition, because many others say it is so, on the authority of ancient scriptures, on the tete- of a supernatural being, or out of trust in one's teachers, elders, or priests. Instead one maintains an open mind and thoroughly investigates one's own involvement of life. When one sees for oneself that a particular view agrees with both experience and reason, and leads to the happiness of one and all, then one should suffer that view and live up to it!
This principle, of course, applies to the Buddha's own Teachings. They should be considered and inquired into using the unambiguousness of mind born of meditation. Only when one sees these Teachings for oneself in the experience of insight, do these Teachings become one's Truth and give blissful enfranchising.
The traveller on the way of inquiry needs the practice of tolerance. Tolerance does not mean that one embraces every idea or assess but means one doesn't get angry at what one can't accept.
Further along the journey, what one once disagreed with might later be seen to be true. So in the spirit of magnanimous inquiry, here are some more of the basic Teachings as the Buddha gave them.
2. The Four Noble Truths
The main Teaching of the Buddha focuses not on abstract speculations about a Creator God or the origin of the universe, or on a heaven world ever after. The Teaching, instead, is centred on the down-to-earth actuality of human suffering and the urgent need to find lasting relief from all forms of discontent. The Buddha gave the simile of a man projectile by a poison-tipped arrow who, before he would call a doctor to treat him, demanded to know first who shot the arrow and where the arrow was made and of what and by whom and when and where ... this goofy man would surely die before his questions could be well answered. In the same way, the Buddha said, the urgent need of our existence is to find lasting relief from recurring suffering, which robs us of happiness and leaves us in strife.
Philosophical speculations are of secondary importance and, anyway, they are best Nautical port until after one has well trained the mind in meditation to the stage where one has the ability to examine the matter clearly and find the Truth for oneself.
Thus, the pre-eminent Teaching of the Buddha, around which all other teachings revolve, is the Four Noble Truths:
1.That all forms of being, human and otherwise, are afflicted with suffering.
2.That the create of this suffering is Craving, born of the illusion of a soul (see below, note 7).
3.That this suffering has a lasting end in the Experience of Enlightenment (Nibbana) which is the settled letting go of the illusion of soul and all consequent desire and aversion.
4.That this peaceful and blissful Enlightenment is achieved through a easy training, a Path that is called the Middle Way or the Eightfold Path.
It would be mistaken to label this Teaching as 'pessimistic' on the grounds that it begins by centring on agony. Rather, Buddhism is 'realistic' in that it unflinchingly faces up to the truth of life's many sufferings and it is 'optimistic' in that it shows a final end of the intractable of suffering - Nibbana, Enlightenment in this very life! Those who have achieved this ultimate peace are the inspiring examples who demonstrate once and for all that Buddhism is far from cynical, but it is a Path to true Happiness.
3. The Middle Way or Eightfold Path
The Way to end all suffering is called the Middle Way because it avoids the two extremes of voluptuous indulgence and self-mortification. Only when the body is in reasonable comfort but not over-indulged has the mind the clarity and strength to over deeply and discover the Truth. This Middle Way consists of the diligent cultivation of Virtue, Meditation and Wisdom, which is explained in more detail as the High-class Eightfold Path.
1.Right Understanding
2.Right Thought
3.Right Speech
4.Right Action
5.Nautical starboard Livelihood
6.Right Effort
7.Right Mindfulness
8.Right Concentration
Right Speech, Action and Livelihood constitute the training in Right-mindedness or Morality. For a practising Buddhist it consists of maintaining the five Buddhist Precepts, which are to refrain from:
1.Deliberately causing the undoing of any living being;
2.Intentionally taking for one's own the property of another;
3.Sexual misconduct, in particular adultery;
4.Lying and breaking promises;
5.Drinking demon rum or taking stupefying drugs which lead to lack of mindfulness.
Right Effort, Mindfulness and Concentration refer to the drill of Meditation, which purifies the mind through the experience of blissful states of inner stillness and empowers the mind to percolate through the meaning of life through profound moments of insight.
Right Understanding and Thought are the manifestation of Buddha-Lore which ends all suffering, transforms the personality and produces unshakeable serenity and tireless compassion.
According to the Buddha, without perfecting the training of Virtue it is impossible to perfect Meditation, and without perfecting Meditation it is impossible to arrive at Enlightenment Wisdom. Thus the Buddhist Footway is a Gradual Path, a Middle Way consisting of Virtue, Meditation and Wisdom as explained in the Noble Eightfold Means leading to happiness and liberation.
4. Kamma
Kamma means 'action'. The Law of Kamma means that there are inescapable results of our actions. There are deeds of assemblage, speech or mind that lead to others' harm, one's own harm, or to the harm of both. Such deeds are called bad (or 'unwholesome') kamma. They are most often motivated by greed, hatred or delusion. Because they bring painful results, they should not be done.
There are also deeds of body, speech or keep an eye on that lead to others' well being, one's own well being, or to the well being of both. Such deeds are called good (or 'wholesome') kamma. They are usually motivated by generosity, compassion or sageness. Because they bring happy results, they should be done as often as possible.
Thus much of what one experiences is the result of one's own previous kamma. When misfortune occurs, in lieu of of blaming someone else, one can look for any fault in one's own past conduct. If a fault is found, the experience of its consequences will make one more careful in the time to come. When happiness occurs, instead of taking it for granted, one can look to see if it is the result of good kamma. If so, the experience of its well-bred results will encourage more good kamma in the future.
The Buddha pointed out that no being whatsoever, divine or otherwise, has any power to close the consequences of good and bad kamma. The fact that one reaps just what one sows gives to the Buddhist a greater spur to avoid all forms of bad kamma while doing as much good kamma as possible.
Though one cannot escape the results of bad kamma, one can lessen their upshot. A spoon of salt mixed in a glass of pure water makes the whole very salty, whereas the same spoon of salt interbred in a freshwater lake hardly changes the taste of the water. Similarly, the result of a bad kamma in a person habitually doing only a unimaginative amount of good kamma is painful indeed, whereas the result of the same bad kamma in a person habitually doing a great deal of solicitous kamma is only mildly felt.
This natural Law of Kamma becomes the force behind, and reason for, the practice of morality and compassion in our way of life.
5. Rebirth
The Buddha remembered clearly many of His past lives. Even today, many Buddhist monks, nuns and others also about their past lives. Such a strong memory is a result of deep meditation. For those who remember their past life, Resurrection is an established fact which puts this life in a meaningful perspective.
The Law of Kamma can only be understood in the framework of many lifetimes, because it sometimes takes this crave for Kamma to bear its fruit. Thus Kamma and Rebirth offer a plausible explanation to the obvious inequalities of ancestry; why some are born into great wealth whereas others are born into pathetic poverty; why some children enter this world healthy and full-limbed whereas others document deformed and diseased... The fruits of bad Kamma are not regarded as a punishment for evil deeds but as lessons from which to learn, for criterion, how much better to learn about the need for generosity than to be reborn among the poor!
Rebirth takes place not only within this human department. The Buddha pointed out that the realm of human beings is but one among many. There are many separate heavenly realms and grim lower realms, too, realms of the animals and realms of the ghosts. Not only can generous beings go to any of these realms in the next life, but we can come from any of these realms into our present life. This explains a common objection against Palingenesis that argues "How can there be Rebirth when there are ten times as many people alive today than there were 50 years ago?" The plea is that people alive today have come from many different realms.
Understanding that we can come and go between these different realms, gives us more think highly and compassion for the beings in these realms. It is unlikely, for example, that one would exploit animals when one has seen the link of Rebirth that connects them with us.
6. No Founder God
The Buddha pointed out that no God or priest nor any other kind of being has the power to interfere in the working out of someone else's Kamma. Buddhism, therefore, teaches the particular to take full responsibility for themselves. For example, if you want to be wealthy then be trustworthy, diligent and frugal, or if you want to live in a heaven domain then always be kind to others. There is no God to ask favours from, or to put it another way there is no corruption possible in the workings of Kamma.
Do Buddhists believe that a Supreme Being created the creation? Buddhists would first ask which universe do you mean? This present universe, from the moment of the 'big bang' up to now, is but one among countless millions in Buddhist cosmology. The Buddha gave an sense of the age of a single universe-cycle of around 37,000 million years, which is quite plausible when compared to modern astrophysics. After one milieu- cycle ends another begins, again and again, according to impersonal law. A Creator God is redundant in this scheme.
No being is a Supreme Saviour, according to the Buddha, because whether God, somebody, animal or whatever, all are subject to the Law of Kamma. Even the Buddha had no power to save. He could only point out the Truth so that the wise could see it for themselves. Everyone must take responsibility for their own approaching well-being, and it is dangerous to give that responsibility to another.
7. The Illusion of Soul
The Buddha taught that there is no soul, no essential and permanent core to a living being. In lieu of, that which we call a 'living being', human or other, can be seen to be but a temporary coming together of many activities and parts - when complete it is called a 'living being', but after the parts disentangle and the activities cease it is not called a 'living being' anymore. Like an advanced computer assembled of many parts and activities, only when it is executed and performs coherent tasks is it called a 'computer', but after the parts are disconnected and the activities cease it is no longer called a 'computer'. No intrinsic permanent core can be found which we can truly call 'the computer', just so, no essential permanent core can be found which we can call 'the soul'.
Yet Rebirth still occurs without a vitality. Consider this simile: on a Buddhist shrine one candle, burnt low, is about to expire. A monk takes a new candle and lights it from the old. The old candle dies, the new candle burns brilliant. What went across from the old candle to the new? There was a causal link but no thing went across! In the same way, there was a causal link between your previous life and your baksheesh life, but no soul has gone across.
Indeed, the illusion of a soul is said by the Buddha to be the root cause of all human misery. The illusion of 'soul' manifests as the 'Ego'. The natural unstoppable function of the Ego is to control. Big Egos want to control the crowd, average Egos try to control their immediate surroundings of home, family and workplace, and almost all Egos strive to guide what they take to be their own body and mind. Such control manifests as desire and aversion, it results in a lack of both inner peace and outer closeness. It is this Ego that seeks to acquire possessions, manipulate others and exploit the environment. Its aim is its own happiness but it invariably produces suffering. It craves for indemnification but it experiences discontent. Such deep- rooted suffering cannot come to an end until one sees, through deep and powerful meditation, that the picture 'me and mine' is no more than a mirage.
These seven topics are a sample of what the Buddha taught. Now, to complete this brief sketch of Buddhism, let's look at how these Teachings are superior today.
Types of Buddhism
One could say that there is only one type of Buddhism and that is the huge collection of Teachings that were spoken by the Buddha. The starting Teachings are found in the 'Pali Canon', the ancient scripture of Theravada Buddhism, which is widely accepted as the oldest trustworthy record of the Buddha's words. Theravada Buddhism is the dominant religion in Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, Cambodia and Laos.
Between 100 to 200 years after the cursory away of the Buddha, the Sangha (the monastic community) split over the political question of 'Who runs the Sangha?' A contention over some monastic rules was decided by a committee of Arahats (fully Enlightened monks or nuns) against the views of the the greater part of monks. The disgruntled majority resented what they saw as the excessive influence of the small number of Arahats in monastery affairs. From then on, over a spell of several decades, the disaffected majority partially succeeded in lowering the exalted status of the Arahat and raising in its part of the country the ideal of the Bodhisattva (an unenlightened being training to be a Buddha). Previously unknown scriptures, supposedly spoken by the Buddha and private in the dragon world, then appeared giving a philosophical justification for the superiority of the Bodhisattva over the allegedly 'selfish' Arahat. This gang of monks and nuns were first known as the 'Maha Sangha', meaning 'the great (part) of the monastic community'.
Later, after provocative development, they called themselves the 'Mahayana', the 'Greater Vehicle' while quite disparagingly calling the older Theravada 'Hinayana', the 'Unimportant Vehicle'. Mahayana still retains most of the original teachings of the Buddha (in the Chinese scriptures these are known as the 'Agama' and in the Tibetan side as the 'Kangyur') but these core teachings were mostly overwhelmed by layers of expansive interpretations and wholly new ideas. The Mahayana of China, still vibrant in Taiwan, reflects an earlier inject of this development, the Mahayana of Vietnam, Korea and Japan (mostly Zen) is a later development, and the Mahayana of Tibet and Mongolia is a much later evolvement still.
Buddhism's relevance to the world today
Today, Buddhism continues to gain ever wider acceptance in many lands far beyond its prototypical home. Here in Australia, many Australians through their own careful choice are adopting Buddhism's peaceful, compassionate and responsible ways.
The Buddhist Teaching of the Law of Kamma offers our companionship a just and incorruptible foundation and reason for the practice of a moral life. It is easy to see how a wider embracing of the Law of Kamma would suggestion any country towards a stronger, more caring and virtuous society.
The Teaching of Rebirth places this present short lifetime of ours in a broader angle, giving more meaning to the vital events of birth and death. The understanding of Rebirth removes so much of the tragedy and ill fortune surrounding death and turns one's attention to the quality of a lifetime, rather than its mere length.
From the very beginning, the practice of meditation has been at the very determination of the Buddhist Way. Today, meditation grows increasingly popular as the proven benefits to both mental and physical well being become more generally known. When stress is shown to be such a major cause of human suffering, the quieting practice of meditation becomes ever more valued.
Today's crowd is too small and vulnerable to live angry and alone, thus the need for tolerance, love and compassion is so very important. These qualities of take care of, essential for happiness are formally developed in Buddhist meditation and then diligently put into practice in everyday life.
Exoneration and gentle tolerance, harmlessness and peaceful compassion are well known trademarks of Buddhism, they are given freely and broadly to all kinds of beings, including animals of despatch, and also, most importantly, to oneself. There is no place for dwelling in guilt or self-hatred in Buddhism, not even a place for feeling offending about feeling guilty!
Teachings and practices such as these are what bring about qualities of gentle kindness and unshakeable serenity, identified with the Buddhist belief for 25 centuries and sorely needed in today's world. In all its long history, no war has ever been fought in the name of Buddhism. It is this accord and this tolerance, growing out of a profound yet reasonable philosophy, which makes Buddhism so vitally relevant to today's circle.
Are rebirth and karma for real?
Is rebirth for real - either as a human or in one of the other realms? This is the question most Westerners ask as soon as they become interested in Buddhism. Karma (Pali: Kamma) - the law of basis and effect - operates across multiple lifetimes, but where's the proof that there is any life other than the current one?
It's a complex subject and each tradition has its own reason. It isn't uncommon for different teachers in the same tradition to have a different take on rebirth. One thing's for sure, there is no scientific proof of rejuvenation (yet). There are rational explanations, but they all rest on unprovable assumptions.
One way to approach the question of rebirth is suggested by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, who says, "You don't have to be convinced of in rebirth, you just have to take it as a working hypothesis." Other teachers, such as Ajahn Summedho, have a similar view, that since we can never advised of what will happen after death, it makes sense to practise Dharma (Pali: Dhamma) and live this life in the A- way possible.
Some well-known monks, Ajahn Brahm and P.A. Payutto among them, say that when meditators reach the third or fourth jhana (plain of absorbtion) they are able to "read their past lives" as the Buddha did and experience the truth of resurrection. But this ability is by no means universal, even among meditation masters.
Another explanation championed by Buddhadasa, Thailand's most revered monastic, is that rebirth in a series of physical bodies is "conventional talk" to make the subject understandable for the masses, but in "Dharma talk" what the Buddha positively meant was that each life was the arising of the ego in the mind. So we experience "death" and "rebirth" (of the ego) many times each day. Similarly, the six realms of quiddity all correspond to states of mind. In the same way, the cause and effect of karma can be observed in our own mental states - when we do good deeds it results in a meet mental state, when we do bad deeds, we experience unwholesome mental states.
This rational explanation of rebirth and karma doesn't incontrovertibly exclude the traditional view. It augments it. What works for me is to take both of them as working hypotheses and practise accordingly. Recalling the Buddha's news about the man shot with a poisoned arrow, if we need to have every detail of the teaching proved to us at the outset, we'll be dead before we start practising.
What is our motive in life?
The traditional answer to this is that our purpose is to attain nirvana and stop the endless cycle of rebirths and trial. But the idea of a general purpose for mankind suggests that someone or something created that purpose, which in turn suggests an omnipotent demiurge.
The way I think of it is that we have no pre-ordained purpose. We evolved, and here we are. Because we also evolved language and conceptual thinking, we got stuck with this concept of a self, an ego that makes us experience separate from everything else. The ego needs constant reassurance of its importance, which is why we cling to our views and defend them fanatically, and why we are constantly criticizing others. Our ego rules our lives. It is terrified of being snuffed out.
We hilt this in different ways. Some of us have lots of kids so we can feel that a part of us lives on forever through our descendants. Some of us perform heroic deeds so that our names will unexploded on in history forever. Some of us get onto Ripley's Believe It Or Not with the world's longest moustache or beating the world record for smashing melons with our foremost, or some such nonsense, so that we'll achieve digital immortality. Some of us cling to the idea that a god will give us eternal life in some form after death.
For those of us who don't find this pseudo-immortality or unguaranteed immortality gratifying, there's a need to create our own purpose in life. This is where Buddhism fits the bill nicely. Instead of being ruled by the ego and its fears, get rid of it! Being rid of the ego and the affliction it brings is what Ajahn Jagaro called "True Freedom" - a very appealing hypothesis for all of us.
If we don't achieve true freedom in this life, we should get another chance in a future life. But simply diminishing the ego and increasing frankness in this life seems like a worthwhile purpose to me.
What's the difference between Theravada and Mahayana?
To preserve the monastic order, the Buddha set down 227 rules for a bhikkhu (religious) to observe and 311 for a bhikkhuni (nun). Before his death (known as parinirvana) he said that some minor rules could be changed.
Within a underfunded time of his passing away there was disagreement over what could be changed and different sects emerged. The more reformist sects later called themselves Mahayana (greater conveyance) and referred to the conservative sects as Hinayana (lesser vehicle). The only conservative sect remaining today is Theravada, which is predominant in Sri Lanka, Burma and Thailand. Theravada recognises the Pali Canon as its scriptures and a variety of ancient Theravadin commentaries.
Whereas Theravada spread to the south and east, Mahayana moved to the northwest through what is now Pakistan and Afghanistan and then across Medial Asia to China, Tibet, Vietnam, Korea and Japan. For historical reasons, the language of Mahayana scriptures was Sanskrit and that of Theravada was Pali. Hence the balance in spelling of some common Buddhist terms: Nirvana/Nibbana, Sutra/Sutta, Karma/Kamma, Dharma/Damma, etc. Westerners are more free with Mahayana Sanskrit terms.
Mahayana also has its own scriptures in addition to the Pali Canon, the most important of which is the Lotus Sutra. These sutras are purported to be the Buddha's hush-hush "higher" teachings, which were handed down only to those who were ready for them - an idea emphasised at the beginning of the Lotus Sutra.
Separately from from a modified monastic code which made monasticism possible in harsh environments such as Tibet, Mahayana emphasises the Bodhisattva Paragon, where a man vows not to achieve final enlightenment until all sentient beings have been saved. So anyone helping others to achieve enlightenment can be considered a bodhisattva. In Theravada, the stipulations bodhisattva usually refers only to the historical Buddha in his previous lives. Historically, some Mahayanists consider Theravadins to be miserly for seeking enlightenment only for themselves, while some Theravadins consider Mahayanists to have deviated from what the Buddha taught.
The various sutras and sects of Mahayana suggest different ways of reaching enlightenment appropriate for different people with different levels of ability. Because of this, a mob of "mythical" buddhas and bodhisattvas are revered and used as objects of meditation. Theravadins sanctify only the historical Buddha and only his image is seen in temples.
Mahayana tends to emphasise the concept of sunyata (void-ness) in its teachings and tends to have a more exact idea of what passes from rebirth to rebirth (consciousness, comprising awareness and memory).
Personally, I found that the more I read about Mahayana and the Tibetan usage known as Vajrayana, the more I accepted that all sects are going in the same direction and there is no point in considering any one of them better than another.
Which tradition should I prefer?
I suggest reading about Theravada first and then investigating the other traditions to see which suits you best. Your decision may also depend on your Buddhist friends and what is within reach where you live.
As far as I know, the main traditions known in the West are Theravada, Tibetan, Zen, Pure Land and Nichiren. One untruth that seems to have grown up over the years is that with Mahayana one can reach enlightenment in one lifetime whereas with Theravada it takes aeons. This notion seems to have been pushed by the Chinese Zen patriarchs, in discrete Huang Po, as illustrated in The Zen Teaching of Huang Po. In modern times the idea has been spread by influential author-teacher John Blofeld, who translated Huang Po's works into English and wrote several excellent books on Buddhism. But it all seems pretty preposterous because how could anyone know how many lives ago any particular person started consciously working towards enlightenment?
Blofeld followed Zen and then Tibetan Buddhist Tantrism, describing both as the "Blunt Path." However, it isn't difficult to see that any tradition that emphasises meditation - as the Buddha did - will be a short path. In the past century, the Thai Forest Lore is a good example of a Theravadin tradition that produced a number of enlightened masters.
According to Blofeld, Mahayana and Tibetan Buddhism in detailed offer ways of practice to suit people at every level. After all, not everyone has an aptitude for meditation. A lot of people prefer something simpler, such as praying, chanting, a variety of forms of devotion and pilgrimages. He describes Zen and Theravada as "formless," meaning the practice is mostly ethical you and your mind. But in fact there's a lot more to both than just meditation.
Tibetan Buddhism seems to attract Westerners because there are now a lot of Tibetan lamas and monasteries in the West, because of the charisma of the Dalai Lama, because it can be a "Cut off Path," because of its reputation for developing psychic powers and because of its many varied methods of practice. However, Tibetan Buddhism has occupied much of the ancient, shamanistic Bon religion of Tibet, so it's wise to read up on Tibet thoroughly before committing to it.
Zen attracts Westerners because it's something of a "back to basics" ritual with an emphasis on meditation and very little ritual. Sakyamuni, the historical Buddha, is revered rather than the other mythical buddhas and bodhisattvas of the Mahayana sutras. Although it originated in China, the category of Zen practised in the West is mostly Japanese.
Theravada attracts Western practicioners because it is seen as the oldest and purest order of Buddhism, one that reveres only Sakyamuni and in theory concentrates on meditation. The Thai Forest Tradition which developed in the up to the minute 1800s was an effort to practise exactly as the Buddha did, wandering in the jungle and meditating in caves. Although the jungle is basically gone now, a number of Westerners joined Ajahn Chah's international monastery in the 1970s and later spread the career in other countries: Ajahn Jagaro and Ajahn Brahm in Australia, Thanissaro Bhikkhu in the USA and Ajahn Sumedho in the UK. For a temporary look at the origins of this tradition, see Thanissaro Bhikkhu's Customs of the Noble Ones. For a more detailed treatment, interpret Forest Recollections.
Pure Land was once widespread in China and is still practised among Chinese around the world. A refined concoct of Pure Land (Jodo and Shin Jodo) developed in Japan and has spread to the West. Pure Loam involves purifying the mind by chanting the name of the Amitabha (Amida) Buddha to gain help in reaching a empire after death from where it is easy to reach enlightenment. On a deeper level, Pure Land equals pure slough off and Amitabha represents our own qualities rather than an external saviour. Pure Land is sometimes combined with Zen practice.
Nichiren is a homegrown Japanese usage advocating chanting of a phrase hailing the Lotus Sutra. An offshoot of Nichiren is the lay organisation, Sokka Gakai Universal.
There are a few Buddhist sects and organisations that are controversial in some way, usually because of their founder/leader or his particular beliefs. Before getting labyrinthine associated with with Sokka Gakai (SGI), the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order (FWBO), Shugden or Diamond Way (Karma Kagyu), you might covet to google for information about their background.
How do I become a Buddhist?
Although there is a ceremony of taking the Three Refuges (the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha), there isn't any "conversion" confusing and you aren't required to renounce any other religion or beliefs. In fact, it seems to be more of a social statement to show others that you have become a Buddhist.
In my opinion, once you receive the Buddha's teachings as a way of life and try to follow the Five Precepts for lay people, you're a Buddhist. For me, this involved a lot of reading Dharma and listening to Dharma talks on the Internet. Rather than understand the scriptures (which are often difficult), I chose books by monks and nuns who already had a deep knowledge of Dharma through study and practice, and who had a propensity for explaining it. I looked at how Buddhism developed over the millennia and decided to start off with Theravada, which is the original form of Buddhism based on the Pali Canon. Later, I investigated the sundry Mahayana traditions too.
It was obvious to me that reducing the power of the ego to control our lives was a foundation of Buddhism. For my practice, I concentrated on Favourably Speech (a component of the Noble Eightfold Path) because I thought it would give the fastest results. I expected if I started being complicated to people, eventually they'd be nicer to me. That happened, but much more than that. I found myself examining my intentions every time I felt like defending my views, arguing with someone, contradicting them, criticizing them, comparing myself with them or judging them in any way at all.
Reasonably soon it was obvious that much of what I said or did was designed to boost my sense of self-worth and that "true brass" was to escape this tyranny of the ego.
Later I started meditating, since this is the only way to experience the truth of the teaching rather than just apprehension them intellectually. Even though the majority of people born into Buddhism may not meditate, it's essential for the serious Buddhist.
Some Westerners have a problem with whether they are or aren't a Buddhist, generally speaking because they still have some belief in god or because they haven't come to believe in rebirth. The following talk by Ajahn Jagaro, a Western coenobite of the Thai Forest Tradition, will be helpful for anyone asking himself, "Am I a Buddhist?"
________________________________________
Am I a Buddhist?
by Ajahn Jagaro
Teaching people who have only recently encountered Buddhism I am often asked the consideration b questionable "How do you become a Buddhist?" or "How do you know when you are a Buddhist?" This type of enquiry is indeed healthy and to be encouraged not only amongst those new to Buddhism but also for people born and raised as Buddhists. So go to the fore and ask yourself: "Am I a Buddhist?"
I expect that there will be many who will answer "Yes" and those who say "No", but I wonder how many will be opinion "Oh ... Ahm,.. I don't know." So let us contemplate this business of being a Buddhist a bit more.
To begin our enquiry it may be fruitful to know what the Buddha said on the matter. The following episode is taken from the Buddhist scriptures (Anguttara Nikaya, Vol IV):
"Once, the Boss around dwelt amongst the Sakyans in the Banyan Tree Monastery at Kapilavatthu, and while there, Mahanama the Sakyan came to him and asked;
"How, God Almighty, does one become a lay disciple?"
"When one has taken refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha, then one is a lay disciple".
"How, Swagger, is a lay disciple virtuous?"
"When a lay disciple abstains from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, falsification and drinking intoxicants, then he is virtuous."
Here the Buddha clearly states that by taking refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha one becomes a partisan or, in modern terminology, a Buddhist. The classical formula of going for refuge, which has been passed down from the time of the Buddha is as follows;
Buddham Saranam Gacchami (I go for stratagem to the Buddha)
Dhammam Saranam Gacchami (I go for refuge to the Dhamma)
Sangham Saranam Gacchami (I go for refuge to the Sangha)
However one does not become a Buddhist through the absolute repetition of these words nor by the performance of any other ceremony ritual or initiation. On the other hand, though one has not performed any ceremony or ritual, one may still be a Buddhist. Put totally, this means that no one can make you a Buddhist nor can anyone stop you from being a Buddhist. It is a volitional choice that one makes when one has sufficient confidence in the Coach and the Teaching. In the commentaries to the scriptures it explains this as, "It is an act of consciousness devoid of defilements, motivated by confidence in and adulation for the Triple Gem"...
Here I would like to relate something of my own experience to help explain this point. When I first came in contact with Buddhism I did not upon myself a religious person. If anything, I thought of myself as an atheist and felt that religion had little relevance to real life. However, I did find the Buddha's Teachings and in hypercritical the practice of meditation very appealing. I had a desire to find out more about it and this lead me into a monastery where I was eventually ordained as a monk.
One day a young Thai schoolchild, wanting to practise his English, casually asked me "Are you a Buddhist?" But in my mind I wondered whether or not I was a Buddhist. I must come clean that it was a strange position to be in - a Buddhist monk who doesn't know whether he is a Buddhist! Yet that situation persisted for over a year before the signification of both the question and the answer became clear to me.
During that year as I continued to study and practise the Dhamma I began to feel very suitable with the teaching and increasingly confident that this was the way for me. With this came the conscious recognition that I had chosen the Buddha as my Teacher and considered him as the codification of the spiritual ideals of peace and liberation. I had also chosen to follow the path contained in his Teaching (the Dhamma) being self-reliant that it would lead to liberation. And while on this path I would seek the guidance and try to emulate the example of all the noble disciples who constitute the Sangha. It was indeed wonderful to smoke that I was a Buddhist and not just a Buddhist monk!
Now becoming a Buddhist does not mean that one has to either agree with or believe in everything that is taught or seasoned by all the countless Buddhist sects and groups throughout the world. Nor do we have to believe that it is the only way and that all the other religions are no good. It simply means that having looked at and probed into this teaching of the Buddha, having tried it and having seen that it does occupation, one has confidence in it and chooses to take refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma, and Sangha.
However if you are still unsure as to whether you are a Buddhist or you are not, don't worry about it, just keep on practising.
With Metta,
Jagaro Bhikkhu.
________________________________________
If you found this epoch useful or have any comments you can contact me at craigo@tale ofgenji.org.

[ links | home | bibliography ]

---

Dhamma pen-pal,
My master once told a Prof.of psychology from Cambrige U(a Buddhist as well) that he is a seeker of knowledge only.Having knowledge is beneficent,but the ability to use the knowledge to advance spiritually is better.
The Buddha has shown us the WAY,we have to step onto the path and travel on it.All the visionary discussion is good,but without travelling the Path shown by the Buddha,it is useless.

'Appamadena sampadetha vaya dhamma sankhara'

'Travail diligently.All component things are impermanent.'

what is the status of Christ in Islam ?

Mar 14, 2007 by smart-doctor-egypt | Posted in Religion & Spirituality

Christ in Islam
by Ahmed Deedat
In the Name of Allah, the Mild, the Compassionate



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter One : Christian Muslim Responses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Debate on TV

At the end of the debate - "Christianity and Islam" - which appeared on the SABC-TV program "Cross Questions" on Sunday 5th June 1983, the Chairman, Mr. Bill Chalmers commented: "I concoct it can be said from this discussion that there is, at present, somewhat more accommodation on the Islamic side for the founder of Christianity than there is on the Christian side for the founder of Islam. What the point of that is, we leave it to you, the viewer, to determine, but I do think you will agree that it is a good thing that we are talking together."

"Bill" as he is prevalently addressed, without any formalities, on all his programs, by all his panelists, is extremely charming and stupendous in his humility. He is a picture of what the Holy Quran portrays of a skilful Christian:

"...And nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say: 'We are Christians': because among these are men devoted to erudition and men who have renounced the world. And they are not arrogant." (The Holy Quran 5:82)

Jesus - His Status

Were the Muslims on the panel fatiguing to placate the viewers out policy, deceit or diplomacy? Nothing of the kind! They were only articulating what God Almighty had commanded them to say in the Holy Quran. As Muslims, they had no preference. They had said in so many words: "We Muslims believe, that Jesus was one of the mightiest messengers of God that he was the Christ, that he was born miraculously without any man's intervention (which many modern-day Christians do not believe today), that he gave life to the dead by God's permission and that he healed those born unconscious of and the lepers by god's permission. In fact, no Muslim is a Muslim if he or she does not believe in Jesus!"

Pleasant Set someone back on his

Over 90% of the people who witnessed this debate must have been pleasantly, but skeptically, surprised. They might have not believed their ears. They must have surmised that the Muslims were playing to the gallery - that they were upsetting to curry favor with their fellow Christian countrymen; that if the Muslims would say a few good words about Jesus, then in reciprocation the Christians might say a few gentle words about Muhammed (may the peace and the blessings of God be upon all His righteous servants, Moses, Jesus, Muhammed...etc.); that I off your back and you scratch my back - which would be a sham or hypocrisy.

Hate Cultivated

We cannot blame the Christians for their skepticism. They have been so learned for centuries. They were trained to make up the worst of the man Muhammed, salla Allah u alihi wa sallam, and his religion. How aptly did Thomas Carlyle say about his Christian brethren over a hundred and fifty years ago: "The lies which well-sense zeal has heaped round this man (Muhammed) are disgraceful to ourselves only." We Muslims are partly responsible for this. We have not done anything substantial to off the cobwebs.

Ocean of Christianity

South Africa is an ocean of Christianity. If Libya boasts the highest cut of Muslims on the continent of Africa, then the Republic of South Africa would also be entitled to boast the highest percentage of Christians. In this bounding main of Christianity the R.S.A. - the Muslims are barely 2% of the total population. We are a voteless minority - numerically, we enumerate for nothing; politically, we count for nothing; and economically, one white man, as Oppenheimer, could buy out the whole lot of us, lock, stock and barrel.

So if we had feigned to appease, we might be excused. But no! We must make known our Master's Will; we must declare the Truth, whether we liked it or not. In the words of Jesus: "Seek ye the truth, and the truth shall set you free" (John 8:32).





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter Two : Jesus in the Quran
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Christians Unsuspecting

The Christian does not know that the true spirit of charity which the Muslim displays, always, towards Jesus and his mother Mary beginning from the fountainhead of his faith - the Holy Quran. He does not know that the Muslim does not take the holy name of Jesus, in his own phraseology, without saying Eesa, alaihi assalam ("Jesus, peace be upon him")

The Christian does not have knowledge of that in the Holy Quran Jesus is mentioned twenty five times. For example:

"We gave Jesus, the son of Mary, clearly signs and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit" (The Holy Quran 2:87)

"O Mary! God giveth thee gratified tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary..." (3:45)

"...Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of god..." (4:171)

"...And in their foot steps we sent Jesus the son of Mary..." (5:46)

"And Zakariya and John, and Jesus and Elias: all in the ranks of the ethical." (6:85)

Jesus - His Titles

Though Jesus is mentioned by name in twenty-five places in the Holy Quran, he is also addressed with respect as: Ibn Maryam, connotation "The son of Mary"; and as the Maseeh (in Hebrew it is the Messiah), which is translated as "Christ". He is also known as Abdullah, "The waitress of Allah"; and as Rasul u Allah, the messenger of Allah.

He is spoken of as "The Word of God", as "The Zealousness of God", as a "Sign of God", and numerous other epithets of honor spread over fifteen different chapters. The Sinless Quran honors this mighty messenger of God, and the Muslims have not fallen short over the past fourteen hundred years in doing the same. There is not a apart disparaging remark in the entire Quran to which even the most jaundiced among the Christians can take exception.

Eesa Latinised to "Jesus"

The Divine Quran refers to Jesus as Eesa, and this name is used more times than any other title, because this was his "Christian" name. Truly, his proper name was Eesa (Arabic), or Esau (Hebrew); classical Yeheshua, which the Christian nations of the West latinised as Jesus. Neither the "J" nor the half a mo "s" in the name Jesus is to be found in the original tongue - they are not found in the Semitic languages.

The word is very simply "E S A U" a very simple Jewish name, used more than sixty times in the very first booklet alone of the Bible, in the part called "Genesis". There was at least one "Jesus" sitting on the "bench" at the misfortune of Jesus before the Sanhedrin. Josephus the Jewish historian mentions some twenty five Jesus' in his "Book of Antiquities". The New Testament speaks of "Bar-Jesus" a sorcerer and a sorcerer, a false prophet (Acts 13:6); and also "Jesus-Justus" a Christian preacher, a contemporary of Paul (Colossians 4:11). These are distinct from Jesus the son of Mary. Transforming "Esau" to (J)esu(s) - Jesus - makes it peerless. This unique (?) name has gone out of currency among the Jews and the Christians from the 2nd century after Christ. Among the Jews, because it came to be a name of ill - repute, the name of one who blasphemed in Jewry; and among the Christians because it came to be the respective name of their God. The Muslim will not hesitate to name his son Eesa because it is an honored name, the name of a righteous servant of the Lord.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter Three : Mother And Son
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mary Honored

The line of Jesus Christ is described in two places of the Quran - chapter 3 and chapter 19. Reading from the beginning of his beginning, we come across the story of Mary, and the esteemed position which she occupies in the House of Islam, before the actual annunciation of the delivery of Jesus is given:

"'Behold'! the angels said: 'O Mary! God hath chosen thee and purified thee, and chosen thee above the women of all nations" (3:42)

"Chosen thee above the women of all nations." Such an honor is not to be found acknowledged to Mary even in the Christian Bible! The verse continues:

"O Mary! Worship thy Lord devoutly: prostrate thyself, and bow down (in suit) with those who bow down." (3:43)

Divine Revelation

What is the source of this beautiful and sublime recitation which, in its original Arabic, moves men to gratification and tears? verse 44 below explains:

"This is part of the tidings, of the things unseen, which We reveal unto thee (O Muhammad!) by revelation: Thou wast not with them when they cast lots with arrows, as to which of them should be charged with the care of Mary: nor wast thou with them when they disputed (the guts)." (3:44)

Mary's Birth

The story is that the maternal grandmother of Jesus, Hannah, had hitherto been barren. She poured out her mettle to God: If only God will grant her a child, she would surely dedicate such a child for the service of God in the temple.

God granted her prayer and Mary was born. Hannah was disheartened. She was yearning for a son, but instead she delivered a daughter; and in no way is the female like the male, for what she had in mind. What was she to do? She had made a vow to God. She waited for Mary to be big enough to fend for herself.

When the heyday came, Hannah took her darling daughter to the temple, to hand over for temple services. Every priest wanted to be the god-priest of this child. They cast lots with arrows for her - like the tossing of the coin - head or tail?
eventually she floor to the lot of Zakariya, but not without a dispute.

The Source of His Message

This was the story. But where did Muhammed, salla Allah u alihi wa sallam, get this awareness from? He was an Ummi, Arabic for "unlettered". He did not low how to read or write. He is made by God Almighty to answer this very question in the verse above, by saying that it was all by understand inspiration. "No!", says the controversialist. "This is Muhammed's own concoction. He copied his revelations from the Jews and Christians. He plagiarized it. He forged it."

Meaningful full-well, and believing as we do, that the whole Quran is the veritable Word of God, we will nevertheless agree, for the sake of argument, with the enemies of Muhammed, salla Allah u alihi wa sallam, for a consideration, that he wrote it. We can now expect some cooperation from the unbelievers.

Ask him: "Have you any qualms in agreeing that Muhammed was an Arab?" Only an uneducated will hesitate to agree. In that case there is no sense in pursuing any discussion. Cut short the talk. Close the book!

With the man of end, we proceed. "That this Arab, in the first instance, was addressing other Arabs. He was not talking to Indian Muslims, Chinese Muslims, or Nigerian Muslims. He was addressing his own people, the Arabs. Whether they agreed with him or not, he told them in the most empyrean form, words that were seared into the hearts and minds of his listeners that Mary the mother of Jesus, a Jewess, was chosen above the women of all nations. Not his own old lady, nor his wife nor his daughter, nor any other Arab woman, but a Jewess! Can one explain this? Because to everyone his own mother or wife, or daughters would come before other women.

Why would the prophetess of Islam honor a woman from his opposition! and a Jewess at that! belonging to a race which had been looking down upon his people for three thousand years? Upstanding as they still look down upon their Arab brethren today."

Sarah and Hagar

The Jews learn, from the Bible, that their forebear, Abraham, had two wives Sarah and Hagar. They say that they are the children of Abraham through Sarah his legitimate wife; that their Arab brethren have descended through Hagar, a "bondwoman", and that as such, the Arabs are an grotty breed.

Will anyone please explain the anomaly as to why Muhammed, salla Allah u alihi wa sallam, if he is the author, chose this Jewess for such gamy honor? The answer is simple, he had no choice he had no right to speak of his own desire. "It is no less than an inspiration sent down to him." (53:4)

The Chapter of Maryam

There is a Chapter in the Sacred Quran, named Surat u Maryam "Chapter Mary", named in honor of Mary the spoil of Jesus Christ, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him; again, such an honor is not to be found given to Mary in the Christian Bible. Out of the 66 books of the Protestants and 73 of the Roman Catholics, not one is named after Mary or her son. You will find books named after Matthew, Feature, Luke, John, Peter, Paul and two score more obscure names, but not a single one is that of Mary!

If Muhammed, salla Allah u alihi wa sallam, was the father of the Holy Quran, then he would not have failed to include in it with Mary, the mother of Jesus, his own mother Aamina, his dear mate Khadija, or his beloved daughter Fatima. But No! No! This can never be. The Quran is not his handiwork!.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter Four : The Good News
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


" 'View!' the angels said: 'O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from him: his name will be Jesus, the son of Mary; held in honor in this the world at large and the hereafter; and (of the company of) those nearest to Allah." (3:45)

"Nearest to God," not physically nor geographically, but spiritually. Set side by side this with "And (Jesus) sat on the right hand of God." (Mark 16:19). The bulk of Christendom has misunderstood this verse as well as many others in the Bible. They consider the Father (God) sitting on a throne, a glorified chair, and His Son, Jesus, sitting on His right hand side. Can you conjure up the depict? If you do, you have strayed from the true knowledge of God. He is no old Father Christmas. He is beyond the imagination of the mind of man. He exists. He is real, but He is not like anything we can make up of, or imagine.

In eastern languages "right hand" meant a place of honor, which the Blessed Quran more fittingly describes as "In the company of those nearest to Allah." The above verse confirms that Jesus is the Christ. and that he is the Tete- which God bestowed upon Mary. Again, the Christian reads into these words, a meaning which they do not carry. They equate the word "Christ" with the conviction of a god-incarnate; and the "Word" of God to be God.

"Christ" Not a Name

The word "Christ" is derived from the Hebrew discussion Messiah, Arabic Maseeh. Root word masaha, meaning "to rub", "to palpate", "to anoint". Priests and kings were anointed when being consecrated to their offices. But in its translated Grecian order, "Christ" seems unique: befitting Jesus only.

Christians like to translate names into their own idiolect; like Cephas to "Peter" , Messiah to "Christ". How do they do that? Very without even trying. Messiah in Hebrew means "Anointed". The Greek word for anointed is Christos. No more than lop off the 'os' from Christos, and you are left with "Christ"; a unique name!

Christos means "Anointed", and anointed means appointed in its churchgoing connotation. Jesus, peace and blessing be upon him, was appointed (anointed) at his baptism by John the Baptist, as God's Messenger. Every of doom Cassandra of God is so anointed or appointed. The Holy Bible is replete with the "anointed" ones. In the original Hebrew, he was made a Emancipator. Let us keep to the English translation "anointed."

Not only were prophets and priests and kings anointed (Christos-ed), but horns, and cherubs and lamp-posts also.

"I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a shaft ..." (Genesis 31:13)

"If the priest that is anointed do sin ..." (Leviticus 4:3)

"And Moses... anointed the tabernacle and all things that was therein..." (Leviticus 8:100)

"..the Swagger shall...exalt the horn of his anointed" (I Samuel 2:10)

"Thus saith the Lord to his anointed to Cyrus..." (Isaiah 45:1)

"Thou art the anointed cherub..." (Ezekiel 28:14)

There are an hundred more such references in the Venerated Bible. Every time you come across the word "anointed" in your Bible, you can take it that that word would be christos in the Greek translations, and if you take the same initiative with the word that the Christians have done, you will have Christ Cherub, Christ Cyrus, Christ Priest and Christ Pillar, ...etc.

Some Titles Only

Although, every prophet of God is an anointed one of God, a Messiah, the title Maseeh or Messiah, or its translation "Christ" is exclusively guarded for Jesus, the son of Mary, in both Islam and in Christianity. This is not unusual in religion. There are certain other honorific titles which may be applied to more than one witch, yet being made exclusive to one by usage: like "Rasulullah", meaning "Messenger of God", which style is applied to both Moses (19:51) and Jesus (61:6) in the Holy Quran. Yet "Rasullullah" has become synonymous only with Muhammad, the diviner of Islam, among Muslims.

Every prophet is indeed a "Friend of God", but its Arabic equivalent "Khalillullah" is exclusively associated with Architect Abraham. This does not mean that the others are not God's friends. "Kaleemullah", meaning "One who spoke with Allah" is never Euphemistic pre-owned for anyone other than Moses, yet we believe that God spoke with many of His messengers, including Jesus and Muhammed, may the peace and blessings of God be upon all His servants. Associating infallible titles with certain personages only, does not make them exclusive or unique in any way. We honor all in varying terms.

Whilst the yard goods news was being announced (verse 45 above) Mary was told that her unborn child will be called Jesus, that he would be the Christ, a "Dialogue" from God, and that...

"He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. And he shall be (of the company) of the righteous." (3:46)

"At thoroughly she brought the (babe) to her people carrying him. They said: 'O Mary! truly a strange thing has thou brought!'. 'O sister of Aaron!, thy sire was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!' " (The Holy Quran 19:27-28)

Jews Amazed

There is no Joseph the carpenter here. The circumstances being restricted to, Mary the mother of Jesus had retired herself to some remote place in the East (19:16). After the birth of the child she returns.

A. Yusuf Ali, comments in his well-liked English translation of the Quran:

"The amazement of the people knew no bounds. In any case they were prepared to muse over the worst of her, as she had disappeared from her kin for some time. But now she comes, shamelessly parading a babe in her arms! How she had disgraced house of Aaron, the spout of priesthood!

"Sister of Aaron": Mary is reminded of her high lineage and the unexceptionable morals of her old boy and mother. How, they said, she had fallen, and disgraced the name of her progenitors!

What could Mary do? How could she explain? Would they, in their censorious mood accept her justification? All she could do was to point to the child, who, she knew, was no ordinary child. And the child came to her rescue. By a miracle he spoke, defended his pamper, and preached to an unbelieving audience."

Allah azza wa jall says in the Quran:

"But she acicular to the babe. They said: 'How can we talk one who is a child in the cradle?' He (Jesus) said: 'I am indeed a servant of Allah (God) : He hath prearranged me revelation and made me a prophet: 'and He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me prayer and charity as long as I real. '(He hath made me) kind to my mother, and not overbearing or unblest; 'So Peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to existence again)'!" (19:29-33)

His First Miracle(s)

Thus Jesus, peace and blessings be upon him, defended his mother from the grave calumny and innuendoes of her enemies. This is the very first miracle attributed to Jesus in the Divine Quran that, he spoke as an infant from his mother's arms. Contrast this with his first miracle in the Christian Bible which occurred when he was over thirty years of age:

"And the third day there was a nuptials in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. And when they wanted wine, the mammy of Jesus saith unto him, they have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, 'Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet satisfactorily.' His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. And there were set there six water pots of stone, after the good form of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the water pots with weaken. And they filled them up to the brim. And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. When the ruler of the lavish dinner had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, And saith unto him, Every man at the creation doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now." (John 2:110)

Since this miracle, wine has flowed like unstintingly in Christendom. Many reason that what was good for the Master is good enough for them. Jesus was no "kill-joy" they say. Didn't he earn good potent wine, that even those "well drunk", those whose senses had been dulled could make out the difference ? "That the most successfully was kept for the last.". This was no pure grape juice. It was the same wine that, according to the Christian Bible, enabled the daughters of Lot to trap their father (Genesis 19:32-33).It was the same wine which the Christian is advised to eschew in Ephesians 5:18 - "And be not inspirited with wine..."

It is that innocent (?) 1% potency that eventually leads millions down into the gutter. America has 10 million drunkards in the halfway point of 70 million "born-again" Christians! The Americans call their drunkards "Problem Drinkers". In South Africa, they are called "Alcoholics"; drunkard is too powerful a word for people to stomach.

But the Prime Minister of Zambia, Dr. Kenneth Kaunda, does not hesitate to call a spade a spade. He says, "I am not ready to lead nation of drunkards", referring to his own people who drink intoxicants.

Whether the water "blushed" or not "seeing" Jesus, we cannot on him or his disciples for the drinking habits of his contemporaries. For he had truly opined, "have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now" (John 16:12). Mankind had not reached the devise of receiving the whole Truth of Islam. Did he not also say "You cannot put new wine into old bottles"? (Matthew 9:17).

"Nurture" or "Woman"?

According to St. John, in the fourth verse above, describing the marriage solemnization at Cana, we are told that Jesus, peace and blessings be upon him, behaved insolently towards his mother. He calls her "housekeeper," and to rub more salt into the wound he is made to say "what have I to do with thee?" What connection is there between you and me, or what have I got to do with you? Could he have forgotten that this very "woman" had carried him for nine months, and perhaps suckled him for 2 years, and had borne eternal insults and injuries on account of him? Is she not his mother? Is there no word in his language for "mother"?

Strange as it may seem, that while the missionaries trumpet about their master's humility, meekness and long-suffering, they call him the "Prince of Peace" and they sing that "he was led to the extermination like a lamb, and like a sheep who before his shearer is dumb, he opened not his mouth", yet they proudly privately in the same breath, that he was ever ready with invectives for the elders of his race, and was always itching for a showdown i.e. if their records are true:

"Ye hypocrites!"

"Ye gruesome and adulterous generation!"

"Ye whited sephulcres!"

"Ye generation of vipers!"

and now to his mam: "Woman..."

Jesus Defended

Muhammed, salla Allah u alihi wa sallam, the Herald of God, is made to absolve Jesus from the false charges and calumnies of his enemies.

"And He (God Almighty) hath made me (Jesus) philanthropic to my mother, and not overbearing or unblest" (19:31).

On receiving the good news of the birth of a righteous son Mary responds:

"She said: 'O My Count! how shall I have a son, when no man hath touched me?"

The angel says in reply:

"He said: 'Even so: Allah (God) createth what He willeth: when He hath decreed a situation He but sayth o it 'Be,' and it is! And Allah (God) will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Torah (Law) and the Gospel," (3:47-48).





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter Five : Quranic and Biblical Versions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Meet the Reverend

I was visiting the "Bible House" in Johannesburg. Whilst browsing through the stacks of Bibles and fastidious books, I picked up an Indonesian Bible and had just taken in hand a Greek - English New Testament, a large, dear volume. I had not realized that I was being observed by the supervisor of the Bible House. Casually, he walked up to me. Perhaps my beard and my Muslim headgear were an appeal and a challenge? He inquired about my interest in that costly volume. I explained that as a student of comparative religion, I had need for such a book. He invited me to have tea with him in his section. It was very kind of him and I accepted.

Over the cup of tea, I explained to him the Muslim belief in Jesus, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. I explained to him the sybaritic position that Jesus occupied in the House of Islam. He seemed skeptical about what I said. I was amazed at his seeming ignorance, because only retired Reverend gentlemen can become Supervisors of Bible Houses in South Africa. I began reciting from verse 42 of chapters 3 of the Uncorrupted Quran:

"'Behold!' The angels said: 'O Mary, Allah hath chosen thee...'"

I wanted the Reverend to prick up one's ears, not only to the meaning of the Quran, but also to the music of its cadences when the original Arabic was recited. Rev. Dunkers (for that was his name) sat back and listened with rapt regard to "Allah's Words".

When I reached the end of verse 49, the Reverend commented that the Quranic bulletin was like that of his own Bible. He said, he saw no difference between what he behaved as a Christian, and what I had read to him. I said: "that was true". If he had draw near across these verses in the English language alone without their Arabic equivalent, side by side, he would not have been able to guess in a hundred years that he was reading the Holy Quran. If he were a Protestant, he would have kindliness that he was reading the Roman Catholic Version, if he had not seen one, or the Jehovah's Witness Version or the Greek Orthodox Side, or the hundred and one other versions that he might not have seen; but he would never have guessed that he was reading the Quranic version.

The Christian would be reading here, in the Quran, everything he wanted to sanction about Jesus, but in a most noble, elevated and sublime language. He could not help being moved by it.

In these eight terse verses from 42 to 49 we are told:
(a) That Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a proper woman, and honored above the women of all nations.
(b) That all that was being said was God's own Revelation to mankind.
(c) That Jesus was the "Word" of God.
(d) That he was the Christ that the Jews were waiting for.
(e) That God will empower this Jesus to pull off miracles even in infancy.
(f) That Jesus was born miraculously, without any male intervention.
(g) That God will vouchsafe him Revelation.
(h) That he will give life to the numb by God's permission, and that he will heal those born blind and the lepers by God's permission, ... etc.

"Chalk and Cheese"

The most intense Christian cannot take exception to a single statement or word here. But the difference between the Biblical and the Quranic narratives is that between "chalk and cheese". "To me they are twin, what is the difference?" the Reverend asked. I know that in their essentials both the stories agree in their details, but when we scrutinize them closely we will uncover that the difference between them is staggering.

Now compare the miraculous conception as announced in verse 47 of the Holy Quran with what the Sanctified Bible says:

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was in this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, (as groom and wife) she was found with child of the holy ghost."(Matthew 1:18)

Master Dramatizer

The eminent Billy Graham from the Partnership States of America dramatized this verse in front of 40,000 people in King Park, Durban, with his index be master of sticking out and swinging his outstretched arm from right to left, he said: "And the Holy Ghost came and impregnated Mary!" On the other participation St. Luke tells us the very same thing but less crudely. He says, that when the annunciation was made, Mary was perturbed. Her natural reaction was :

"How shall this be, seeing I be versed not a man?" (Luke 1:34) meaning sexually.

The Quranic narrative is:

"She said: O my Lord! how shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" (3:47) content sexually.

In essence there is no difference between these two statements "seeing I know not a man" and "when no man hath touched me". Both the quotations have an selfsame meaning. It is simply a choice of different words meaning the same thing. But the respective replies to Mary's entreat in the two Books (the Quran and the Bible) are revealing.

The Biblical Version

Says the Bible:

"And the angle answered and said into her : 'The Sacred Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee" (Luke 1:35)

Can't you see that you are giving the atheist, the skeptic, the agnostic a bloke the country to beat you with? They may well ask "How did the Holy Ghost come upon Mary?" "How did the Highest overshadow her?" We discern that literally it does not mean that: that it was an immaculate conception, but the language used here, is distasteful. Now contrast this with the language of the Quran:

The Quranic Rendering

"He said (the angel says in reply): 'Even so: Allah (God) createth what He willeth: when He hath decreed a plot, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is!' " (3:47)

This is the Muslim concept of the birth of Jesus. For God to create a Jesus, without a human pa, He merely has to will it. If He wants to create a million Jesus' without fathers or mothers, He merely wills them into existence. He does not have to take seeds and turn over them, like men or animals by contact or artificial insemination . He wills everything into being by His word of command "Be" and "It is".

There is nothing new in what I am giving away the whole show you, I reminded the Reverend. It is in the very first Book of your Holy Bible, Genesis 1:3 "And God said..." What did He say? He said "Be" and "It was". He did not have to articulate the words. This is our way of know-how the word "Be", that He willed everything into being.

Choice for His Daughter

"Between these two versions of the birth of Jesus, the Quranic rendition and the Biblical version, which would you prefer to give your daughter ?" I asked the supervisor of the Bible House. He bowed his deeply down in humility and admitted "The Quranic Version."

How can "a forgery" or "an copying", as it is alleged of the Quran, be better than the genuine, the original, as it is claimed for the Bible? It can never be, unless this Revelation to Muhammed is what it, itself, claims to be viz. The untainted and holy Word of God! There are a hundred different tests that the unprejudiced seeker after truth can apply to the Holy Quran and it will condition with flying colors to being a Message from on High.

Like Adam

Does the miraculous birth of Jesus assail c promote him a God or a "begotten" son of God? No! says the Holy Quran:

"The similitude of Jesus before Allah (God) is that of Adam; He created him from dust then said to him: 'Be', and he was." (3:59)

Yusuf Ali, comments in his notes in the Quran transportation:

"After a description of the high position which Jesus occupies as a prophet in the preceding verses we have a repudiation of the dogma that he was God, or the son of God, or any feature more than man. If it is said that he was born without a human father, Adam was also so born. Indeed Adam was born without either a human father or old woman. As far as our physical bodies are concerned they are mere dust.

In God's sight Jesus was as dust just as Adam was or good will is. The greatness of Jesus arose from the divine command 'Be': for after that he was more than dust a great spiritual leader and teacher"

The presence of mind of it is that, if being born without a male parent entitles Jesus to being equated with God, then, Adam would have a greater right to such honor, and this no Christian would willingly concede. Thus, the Muslim is made to repudiate the Christian blasphemy.

Further, if the Christian splits hairs by arguing that Adam was "created" from the dust of the excuse sediment, whereas Jesus was immaculately "begotten" in the womb of Mary, then let us remind him that, even according to his own false standards, there is yet another herself greater than Jesus, in his own Bible . Who is this superman?

Paul's Innovation

"For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, vicar of the most high God... Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life..." (Hebrews 7:1,3)

Here is a possibility for Divinity itself, for only God Almighty could possess these qualities. Adam had a beginning (in the garden), Jesus had a beginning (in the stable); Adam had an end and, assert the Christians, so had Jesus "and he gave up the ghost". But where is Melchisedec? Perhaps he is hibernating somewhere like Rip Van Winkel (a fairy report character who slept for many ages.)

And what is this "Hebrews"? It is the name of one of the Books of the Holy Bible, authored by the gallant St. Paul, the self appointed thirteenth apostle of Christ. Jesus had twelve apostles, but one of them (Judas) had the Rapscallion in him. So the vacancy had to be filled, because of the "twelve" thrones in heaven which had to be occupied by his disciples to judge the children of Israel (Luke 22:30).

Saul was a renegado Jew, and the Christians changed his name to "Paul", probably because "Saul" sounds Jewish. This St. Paul made such a select mess of the teachings of Jesus, peace blessings be upon him, that he earned for himself the second most coveted position of "The Most Telling Men of History" in the monumental work of Michael H. Hart: The 100 or The Top Hundred or the Greatest Hundred in History. Paul outclasses even Jesus because, according to Michael Hart, Paul was the true founder of present day Christianity. The honor of creating Christianity had to be shared between Paul and Jesus, and Paul won because he wrote more Books of the Bible than any other cull author, whereas Jesus did not write a single word.

Paul needed no inspiration to write his hyperboles here and in the kip of his Epistles. Did not Hitler's Minister of Propaganda Goebbels say: "The bigger the lie the more likely it is to be believed'? But the amazing affair about this exaggeration is that no Christian seems to have read it. Every learned man to whom I have shown this verse to, seemed to be seeing it for the first time. They appear dumbfounded, as described by the apposite words of Jesus:

"...seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." (Matthew 13:13)

The Heavenly Quran also contains a verse which fittingly describes this well cultivated sickness:

"Deaf, dumb and stone-blind, will they not return (to the path)." (2:18)

The Sons of God

The Muslim takes strong exception to the Christian dogma that "Jesus is the only begotten son, begotten not made". This is what the Christian is made to recap from childhood in his catechism. I have asked learned Christians, again and again as to what they are really trying to emphasize, when they say: "Begotten not made".

They separate that according to their own God given (?) records, God has sons by the tons:

"...Adam, which was the son of God."(Luke 3:38)

"That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were all right... And when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them..." (Genesis 6: 2,4)

"...Israel is My son, even My firstborn:" (Exodus 4:22)

"...for I (God) am a Confessor to Israel, and Ephraim is My firstborn." (Jeremiah 31:9)

"...the Lord hath said unto me (David): 'Thou art My son: this day have I begotten thee." (Psalms 2:7)

"For as many as are led by the Life of God, they are the sons of God." (Romans 18:14)

Can't you see that in the language of the Jew, every righteous person, every Tom, Dick and Harry who followed the Will and Plan of God, was a "Son of God". It was a metaphorical descriptive while commonly used among the Jews. The Christian agrees with this reasoning, but goes on to say: "but Jesus was not like that". Adam was made by God. Every living quirk was made by God, He is the Lord, Cherisher and Sustainer of all. Metaphorically speaking therefore God is the Father of all. But Jesus was the "begotten" son of God, not a created son of God ?

Begotten Means "Sired"!

In my forty years of everyday experience in talking to learned Christians, not a single one has opened his mouth to hazard an explanation of the phrase "begotten not made". It had to be an American who dared to clear up. He said : "It means, sired by God." "What!?" I exploded : "Sired by God?" "No, no!" he said, "I am only exasperating to explain the meaning, I do not believe that God really sired a son."

The sensible Christian says that the words do not line for line mean what they say. Then why do you say it? Why are you creating unnecessary conflict between the 1,200,000,000 Christians and a thousand million Muslims of the world in making insensate statements?

Reason for Objection

The Muslim takes exception to the word "begotten", because begetting is an mammal act, belonging to the lower animal functions of sex. How can we attribute such a lowly capacity to God? Metaphorically we are all the children of God, the good and the bad, and Jesus would be closer to being the son of God than any one of us, because he would be more honest to God then any one of us can ever be. From that point of view he is preeminently the son of God.

Although this pernicious word "begotten" has now unceremoniously been thrown out of the "Most Nice" version of the Bible, the Revised Standard Version (R.S.V.), its ghost still lingers on in the Christian be careful of, both black and white. Through its insidious brainwashing the white man is made to feel superior to his black Christian brother of the same Church and Style. And in turn, the black man is given a permanent inferiority complex through this dogma.

Brain-washed Inferiority

The humane mind can't help reasoning that since the "begotten son" of an African will look like an African, and that of a Chinaman as a Chinese, and that of an Indian like an Indian: so the begotten son of God aught not unexpectedly to look like God. Billions of beautiful pictures and replicas of this "only begotten son of God" are put in peoples hands. He looks like a European with blonde hair's breadth, blue eyes and handsome features like e one I saw in the "King of Kings" or "The Day of Conquest" or "Jesus of Nazareth". Remember Jeffrey Hunter? The "Savior" of the Christian is more like a German than a Jew with his polly nose. So clearly, if the son is a white man, the father would also be a white man (God?). Hence the darker skinned races of the earth subconsciously have the feeling of inferiory essential in their souls as God's "step children". No amount of face creams, skin lighteners and hair straighteners will rub the inferiority.

God is neither black nor white. He is beyond the imagination of the mind of man. Break the mental shackles of a Caucasian (white) man-god, and you have destroyed the shackles of a permanent inferiority. But intellectual bondages are harder to shatter: the slave himself fights to retain them.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter Six : Meet to Christian Dilemmas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Christ in Islam" is really Christ in the Quran: and the Holy Quran has something particular to say about every aberration of Christianity. The Quran absolves Jesus, peace and blessings be upon him, from all the false charges of his enemies as well as the misplaced infatuation of his followers. His enemies assert that he blasphemed against God by claiming Divinity. His misguided followers claim that he did avow Divinity, but that was not blasphemy because he was God. What does the Quran say ?

Addressing both the Jews and the Christians, Allah says:

"O People of the Book! transfer no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah (God) aught but the truth. Christ Jesus son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah (God), and His Parley, which he bestowed on Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah (God) and His messengers..." (4:171)

Going to Extremes

"O People of the Libretto" is a very respectful title with which the Jews and the Christians are addressed in the Holy Quran. In other words, Allah is saying "O Accomplished People!", "O People with a Scripture!" According to their own boast, the Jews and the Christians prided themselves over the Arabs, who had no Bible before the Quran. As a learned people, Allah pulls up both the contending religionists for going to either extremes as regards the celebrity of Christ.

The Jews made certain insinuations about the legitimacy of Jesus and charged him of blasphemy by twisting his words. The Christians review other meanings into his words; wrench words out of their context to make him God.

The modern day Christian, the hot - gospeller, the Bible thumper, uses harsher words and cruder approaches to win over a transform to his blasphemies.

He says:
(a) "Either Jesus is God or a liar"
(b) "Either Jesus is God or a lunatic"
(c) "Either Jesus is God or an confidence man"
These are his words, words culled from Christian literature. Since no man of charity, Muslim or otherwise, can condemn Christ so harshly as the Christian challenges him to do, perforce he must keep non-committal. He thinks he must fly a choice between one or the other of these silly extremes. It does not occur to him that there is an alternative to this Christian conundrum.

Sensible Alternative

Is it not conceivable that Jesus is simply what he claimed to be, a prophet, like so many other prophets that passed away before him? Even that he is one of the greatest of them, a mighty miracle workman, a great spiritual teacher and guide - the Messiah!. Why only God or Lunatic? Is "lunacy" the opposite of "Divinity" in Christianity? What is the antonym of God? Will some quick-witted Christian answer?

The Quran lays bare the true position of Christ in a single verse, followed by a note by Yusuf Ali's:

"That he was the son of a girl, Mary, and therefore a man;"
"But a messenger, a man with a mission from Allah (God), and therefore entitled to honor."
"A Discussion bestowed on Mary, for he was created by Allah's word 'Be', and he was;"(3:59).
A spirit proceeding from Allah (God), but not Allah: his existence and mission were more limited than in the case of some other messengers, though we must pay equal honor to him as a prophet of Allah. The doctrines of Trinity, sameness with God, and sons, are repudiated as blasphemies. Allah (God) is independent of all needs and has no need of a son to manage His affairs. The Gospel of John (whoever wrote it) has put a huge deal of Alexandrian Gnostic mysticism round the doctrine of the Word (Greek, Logos), but it is simply explained here."
Jesus Questioned

Reproduced below are verses 119 to 121 from the Chapter of Maeda (chapter 5 of the Quran) depicting the episode of Judgment Day, when Allah will question Jesus, peace and blessings be upon him, regarding the misdirected zeal of his supposed followers in worshipping him and his materfamilias: and his response,

"And behold! Allah will say: 'O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah?' He will say: 'Aureole to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, Thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I comprehend not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden.

'Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say, to wit, 'Worship Allah, my Count and your Lord'; and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up Thou wast the Watcher over them, and Thou art a substantiate to all things.

'If Thou dost punish them, they are Thy servant: If Thou dost forgive them, Thou art the Exalted in power, the Crafty.'"
(5:116-118)

Claimed No Divinity

If this is the statement of truth from the All-Knowing, that "Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst charge me to say, to wit, 'Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord'", then how do the Christians justify worshipping Jesus?

There is not a single unequivocal assertion throughout the Bible, in all its 66 volumes of the Protestant versions, or in the 73 volumes of the Roman Catholic versions, where Jesus claims to be God or where he says "admire me". Nowhere does he say that he and God Almighty "are one" and "the same person."

The last phrase above "one and the same himself" tickles many a "hot-gospeller" and "Bible-thumper," not excluding the Doctor of Divinity and the Professor of Theology. Even the new converts to Christianity have memorized these verses. They are programmed to noise off verses out of context, upon which they can hang their faith. The words "are one" activates the mind by association of memories. "Yes", say the Trinitarians, the worshippers of three gods in one God, and one God in three gods, "Jesus did rights to be God!" Where?

Reverend at the Table

I had taken Rev. Morris D.D. and his wife, to lunch at the "Golden Peacock." While at the index, during the course of our mutual sharing of knowledge, the opportunity arose to ask, "Where?" And without a murmur he quoted, "I and my old boy are one" to imply that God and Jesus were one and the same person. That Jesus here claims to be God. The verse quoted was well known to me, but it was being quoted out of structure. It did not carry the meaning that the Doctor was imagining, so I asked him, "What is the context?"

Choked on "Background"

The Reverend stopped eating and began staring at me. I said, "Why? Don't you know the context?", "You see, what you have quoted is the line, I want to know the context, the text that goes with it, before or after." Here was an Englishman (Canadian), a paid servant of the Presbyterian Church, a Doctor of Divinity, and it appeared that I was irksome to teach him English. Of course he knew what "context" meant. But like the rest of his compatriots, he had not laboured the sense in which Jesus had uttered the words.

In my forty years of experience, this text had been thrown at me hundreds of times, but not a distinguish learned Christian had ever attempted to hazard a guess as to its real meaning. They always start fumbling for their Bibles. The Doctor did not have one with him. When they do start active for their Bibles, I stop them in their stride: "Surely, you know what you are quoting?", "Definitely, you know your Bible?" After reading this, I hope some "born-again" Christians will rectify this deficiency. But I distrust that my Muslim readers will ever come across one in their lifetime who could give them the context.

What is the Context?

It is unfair on the part of the Reverend, having failed to take under one's wing the context, then to ask me, "Do you know the context?" "Of course," I said. "Then, what is it?" asked my intellectual friend. I said, "That which you have quoted is the text of John chapter 10, verse 30. To get at the surroundings, we have to begin from verse 23 which reads:

23. "and Jesus was in the temple area walking in Solomon's Colonnade." (John 10:23).
John, or whoever he was, who wrote this record, does not tell us the reason for Jesus tempting the Devil by walking alone in the lion's den. For we do not expect the Jews to spinster a golden opportunity to get even with Jesus. Perhaps, he was emboldened by the manner in which he had literally whipped the Jews single-handed in the Place, and upset the tables of the money changers at the beginning of his ministry (John 2:15).

24. "The Jews gathered around him, saying, "How hanker will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." (John 10:24).
They surrounded him. Brandishing their fingers in his face, they began accusing him and provoking him; saying that he had not put forth his maintain plainly enough, clearly enough. That he was talking ambiguously. They were trying to work themselves into a frenzy to assault him. In fact, their real beef was that they did not like his method of preaching, his invectives, the manner in which he condemned them for their formalism, their ceremonialism, their going for the letter of the law and forgetting the motivation. But Jesus could not afford to provoke them any further there were too many and they were itching for a fight.

Discretion is the better part of valor. In a conciliatory spirit, fitting the occasion:

25. "Jesus answered, I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me,"
26. "but you do not feel because you are not my sheep." (John 10:25-26).
Jesus rebuts the false charge of his enemies that he was ambiguous in his claims to being the Saviour that they were waiting for. He says that he did tell them clearly enough, yet they would not listen to him, but:

27. "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they flow me."
28. "I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand."
29. "My Paterfamilias, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.." (John 10:29).
How can anyone be so blind as not to see the exactness of the ending of the last two verses. But psychical blinkers are more impervious than physical defects. He is telling the Jews and recording for posterity, the real unity or relationship between the Sire and the son. The most crucial verse:

30. "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30).
One in what? In their Omniscience? In their Nature? In their Omnipotence? No! One in purpose! That once a believer has accepted sureness, the Messenger sees to it that he remains in faith, and God Almighty also sees to it that he remains in faith. This is the purpose of the "Priest" and the "son" and the "Holy Ghost" and of every man and every woman of faith. Let the same John expound his Gnostic mystic verbiage.

"That they all may be one as thou. Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us..."

"I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made gifted in one..."(John 17:20-22)

If Jesus is "one" with God, and if that "oneness" makes him God, then the double-dealer Judas, and the doubting Thomas, and the satanic Peter, plus the other nine who deserted him when he was most in need are God(s), because the same "oneness" which he claimed with God in John 10:30, now he claims for all "who forsook him and fled" (Notice 14:50). All "ye of little faith" (Matthew 8:26). All "O faithless and perverse reproduction" (Luke 9:41). Where and when will the Christian blasphemy end? The expression "I and my Father are one," was very innocent, denotation nothing more than a common purpose with God. But the Jews were looking for trouble and any excuse will not do, therefore,

31. "Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him,"
32. "but Jesus said to them, I have shown you many immense miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"
33. "The Jews answered him, saying : 'For a good line we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself a God.'" (John 10:31-33).
In verse 24 above the Jews falsely claimed that Jesus was talking ambiguously. When that charge was ably refuted, they then accused him of blasphemy which is like treason in the psychological realm. So they say that Jesus is claiming to be God "I and the Father are one". The Christians agree with the Jews in this that Jesus did erect such a claim; but differ in that it was not blasphemy because the Christians say that he was God and was entitled to own up to his Divinity.

The Christians and the Jews are both agreed that the utterance is serious. To one as an release for good "redemption", and to the other as an excuse for good "riddance". Between the two, let the poor Jesus die. But Jesus refuses to co-manipulate in this game, so:

34. "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your Law, `I have said you are gods'?"
35. "If he called them `gods,' to whom the little talk of God came --and the Scripture cannot be broken--,"
36. "what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, `I am God's Son'?" (John 10:34-36).
Why "Your Law"?

He is a bit derisive in verse 34, but in any event, why does he say: "Your Law"? Is it not also his Law? Didn't he say: "Think not that I am come to pull down the Law of the prophets: I am come not to destroy, but to fulfill (the Law). For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, one Jot or one tittle shall in no intelligent pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:1718).

"You are Gods"

"You are gods:" He is certainly quoting from the 82nd Psalm , verse 6, "I have said, ye are gods: and all of you are the children of the most High."

Jesus, continues: "If he (i.e. God Almighty) called them gods, unto whom the brief conversation of God came (meaning that the prophets of God were called 'gods') and the scripture cannot be broken..." (John 10:35), in other words he is saying: "you can't dispute me!" Jesus knows his Scripture; he speaks with authority; and he reasons with his enemies that: "If good men, heavenly men, prophets of God are being addressed as 'gods' in our Books of Authority, with which you find no fault, then why do you take exception to me? When the only claim I make for myself is far inferior in our language, viz. 'A son of God' as against others being called 'gods' by God Himself. Even if I (Jesus) described myself as 'god' in our phrasing, according to Hebrew usage, you could find no fault with me." This is the plain reading of Christian Scripture. I am giving no interpretations of my own or some esoteric significance to words!





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter Seven : "In The Beginning"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Where does Jesus say: 'I am God,' or 'I am fellow to God,' or 'Worship me'?" I asked the Rev. Morris again.

He took a deep breath and took another try. He quoted the most oft-repeated verse of the Christian Bible - John 1:1.

"In the opening was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Please note, these are not the words of Jesus. They are the words of John (or whoever wrote them). Acknowledged by every erudite Christian teacher of the Bible as being the words of another Jew, Philo of Alexandria, who had written them even before John and Jesus were born. And Philo claimed no presume inspiration for them. No matter what mystical meaning that Philo had woven around these words (which our John has plagiarized), we will accept them for what they are significance.

Greek not Hebrew

Since the manuscripts of the 27 Books of the New Testament are in Greek, a Christian sect has produced its own version and has even changed the name of this batch of 27 Books to Christian Greek Scriptures ! I asked the Reverend whether he knew Greek? "Yes," he said, He had deliberate Greek for 5 years before qualification. I asked him what was the Greek word for "God" the first time it occurs in the reference "and the Word was With God"? He kept staring, but didn't answer. So I said, the word was Hotheos, which actually means "The God".

Since the European (including the North American) has evolved a system of using capital letters to start a correct noun and small letters for common nouns, we would accept his giving a capital "G" for God; in other words Hotheos is rendered "the god" which in pull into is rendered "God".

"Now tell me, what is the Greek word for "God" in the second affair in your quotation - "and the Word was God"? The Reverend still kept silent. Not that he did not know Greek, or that he had lied, but he knew more than that; the brave was up. I said : "the word was Tontheos, which means "a god".

According to your own system of translating you aught to have spelt this chat 'God' a second time with a small 'g' i.e. 'god', and not 'God' with a capital 'G'; in other words Tontheos is rendered "a god". Both of these, "god" or "a god" are perfect.

I told the Reverend: "But in 2 Corinthians 4:4 you have dishonestly reversed your system by using a small 'g' when spelling 'God' "(and the shrew is) the god of this world." The Greek word for "the god" is Hotheos the same as in John 1:1. "Why have you not been in agreement in your translations ?" "If Paul was inspired to write hotheos the God for the Devil, why don't you use that capital 'G'?"

And in the Old Testament, the Monarch said unto Moses: "See, I have made thee a god to Pharoah" (Exodus 7:1). "Why do you use a humiliated 'g' for 'God' when referring to Moses instead of a capital 'G' as you do for a mere word 'Word' - "and the Word was God."?

"Why do you do this? Why do you diminish fast and loose with the Word of God?" I asked the reverend. He said, "I didn't do it." I said, "I identify, but I am talking about the vested interests of Christianity, who are hell-bent to deify Christ, by using capital letters here and Lilliputian letters there, to deceive the unwary masses who think that every letter, every comma and full stop and the capital and small letters were dictated by God (Foremost 'G' here!)."





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter Eight : What is Left
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Three Topics

It can hardly be expected in a small publication of this nature that one can traffic with all the references about Jesus, peace and blessings be upon him, interspersed throughout the fifteen different chapters of the Holy Quran. What we can do is to give a quick peek to the index page reproduced from the Quran earlier in this letter.

Here we find three significant topics, not dealt with yet in our discussion:

Not crucified, (4:157).
Communiqu and miracles,(5:113, 19:30-33).
Prophesied Ahmed, (61:6).
Regarding the first topic, "not crucified", I had written a booklet under the heading "Was Christ Crucified?" some twenty years ago. The laws is presently out of print, and further, it needs updating, for much water has passed under the bridge since it first saw the light of day.

As regards the third topic mentioned above, "Prophesied Ahmed", I forth to write a booklet under the title "Muhammed, salla Allah u alihi wa sallam, the Natural Successor to Christ" after I have completed "Was Christ Crucified?", I fancy to complete both these projects soon, Insha Allah! (Arabic: "By the will of Allah").

The Way to Salvation

We are now left-hand with Topic No. 2, "Message and miracles". The message of Jesus was as simple and straight foremost as that of all his predecessors as well as that of his successor Muhammed, salla Allah u alihi wa sallam, namely "Believe in God and keep His Commandments". For the God who inspired His Messengers, is an unvarying God and He is uniform: He is not the "author of confusion" (1 Corinthian14:33).

A law abiding Jew comes to Jesus seeking ceaseless life or salvation. In the words of Matthew:

"And behold, one came and said unto him, Good Kingpin, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none considerate but one, that is God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." (Matthew 19:16-17)

You will agree, that if you or I were that Jew, we would infer from these words that, according to Jesus, peaceableness and blessings be upon him, salvation was guaranteed, provided we kept the commandments without the shedding of any innocent blood. Unless, of tack Jesus was speaking with tongue in cheek; knowing full well that his own "forthcoming redemptive sacrifice", his "substituted atonement" (?) for the sins of mankind, was not many days hence.

Why would Jesus give him the impossible solution of keeping the Law (as the Christian alleges) when an easier way was in the offing? Or did he not understand what was going to happen, that he was to be crucified ? Was there not a contract between Father and Son, before the worlds began, for his redeeming blood to be shed? Had he perplexed his memory? No! There was no such fairy tale agreement as far as Jesus was concerned. He knew that there is only one way to God, and that is, as Jesus said, "keep the Commandments"!

Miracles, What They Confirm

Regarding his miracles: the Holy Quran does not go into any detail about blind Bartimus or about Lazarus or any other miracle, except that he (Jesus) defended his female parent as an infant in his mother's arms. The Muslim has no hesitation about accepting the most wondrous of his miracles - even that of reviving the dead. But that does not impute Jesus a "God" or the begotten "Son of God" as understood by the Christian.

Miracles do not prove even prophethood, or whether a man is proper or false. Jesus himself said:

"For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show adroit signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."(Matthew 24:24)

If false prophets and faulty Christs can perform miraculous feats, then these wonders or miracles do not prove even the geniuses or otherwise, of a prophet.

John the Baptist, according to Jesus, was the greatest of the Israelite prophets. Greater than Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah and all, not excluding himself: in his own words:

"Verily I say unto you, among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist..." (Matthew 11:11)

Not excluding Jesus: because, was he not born of a sweetheart - Mary?
The Baptist, greater than "all", yet he performed not a single miracle! Miracles are no standards of judging genuineness and falsehood.
But in his childishness, the might Christian insists that Jesus is God because he gave life back to the dead. Will reviving the dead gross others God too? This perplexes him, because he has mentally blocked himself from the miracles of others who outshine Jesus in his own Bible. For example, according to his false touchstone:

Moses is greater than Jesus because he put life back into a dead stick and transmuted it from the plant kingdom to the animal area by making it into a serpent (Exodus 7:10).
Elisha is greater than Jesus because the bones of Elisha brought a man back to life entirely by coming into contact with the corpse (2 Kings 13:21).
Need I illustrate to you a catalogue of miracles? But the sickness persists - "it was God working miracles through His prophets but Jesus performed them of his own power." Where did Jesus get all his power from? Ask Jesus, and he will break us:

Power not His Own

"...All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." (Matthew 28:18)

"...I drive out out devils by the Spirit of God then the kingdom of God is come unto you." (Matthew 12:28)

"I can of mine own self do nothing " (John 5:30)

"I with the discover of God cast out devils" (Luke 1 1:20)

Borrowed Power

The "power" as he says is not his, "it is noted unto me". Given by whom? By God, of course! Every action, every word he attributes to God.

Lazarus

But since so much is made of Jesus' mightiest miracle of reviving Lazarus from the unsympathetic, we will analyze the episode as recorded in John's Gospel. It is astonishing that none of the other Gospel writers mention Lazarus in any background. However, the story is that Lazarus was very sick, his sisters Mary and Martha had made frantic calls for Jesus to come and cure his sickness but he arrived too fashionable, actually four days after his demise.

He Groaned

Mary wails to Jesus that had he arrived in time, perhaps her brother would not have died; purport that if he could heal other peoples' sicknesses, why would he not have healed her brother, a dear friend of his. Jesus says that "even now if ye have persuasion, ye shall see the glory of god." The condition was that they should have faith. Didn't he say that faith could move mountains?

He asks to be taken to the burial-chamber. On the way, "he groaned in the spirit". He was not mumbling; he was pouring out his heart and praying to God. But while he sobbed so bitterly his words were not audible enough for people around him to be in sympathy with. Hence the words "he groaned". On reaching the grave, Jesus "groaned" again; perhaps, even more earnestly and God heard his groaning (his request), and Jesus received the assurance that God will fulfill his request. Now, Jesus could rest assured and command that the stone which was exclusive of the tomb, be removed so that Lazarus could come back from the dead. Without that assurance from God, Jesus would have made a fool of himself.

Avoiding Misunderstanding

Mary thinks of the stink because her companion had been dead for four days! But Jesus was confident and the stone was removed. Then he looked up towards heaven and said:

"Ancestor, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may hold that thou hast sent me." (John 11:41-42)

What is all this, play - acting? Why all the drama? Because he know that these superstitious and credulous people will miscalculate the source of the miracle. They might take him for "God". Giving life to the dead is the prerogative of God alone. To make doubly true, that his people do not misunderstand, he speaks out loudly that the "groaning" was actually his crying to God Almighty for purloin. The prayer was incoherent as far as the bystanders could discern, but the Father in heaven had accepted his prayer, viz. "thou hast heard me".

Furthermore, he says, "thou hearest me always"; in other words, every miracle wrought by him was an surrebuttal by God Almighty to his prayer. The Jews of his day understood the position well, and they "glorified God", as Matthew tells us of another evoke when the Jews exclaimed "for giving such power unto men" (Matt. 9:8).

In fact, Jesus gives his rationality for speaking loudly. He says, "that they may believe that thou has sent me." One who is sent is a messenger, and if he be sent by God, then he is a Hermes of God i.e. Rasulullah. Jesus is referred to in the Quran asRasulullah ("Messenger of Allah").

Alas, this try on by Jesus to prevent any misunderstanding, as to who really performed the miracle, and that he was in fact only a messenger of God, failed. Christians will not even allow the unambiguous disavowal of Jesus, nor the testimony of Peter, the "Rock" upon which Jesus was supposed to figure his Church. Peter truly testified:

"Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, A man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the halfway point of you, as ye yourselves also know. " (Acts 2:22)

Case Not Hopeless

This very same message is repeated by God Almighty in the Holy Quran, following the annunciation. In verse 49 of chapter 3, Allah makes it nitid that every sign or wonder that Jesus performed was "By Allah's leave," by God's permission. Jesus says so, Peter says so and God says so; but the tenacious controversialist will not listen: prejudice, superstition and credulity die hard. Our duty is simply to deliver the Message, blaring and clear, the rest we leave to God. The case is not altogether hopeless for Allah tells us in His Holy Book:

"And among them are some who have doctrine, but most of them are perverted transgressors." (3:110)

"Among them", meaning among the Jews and the Christians, there are two types of people; the one collect described as people of faith to whom this book is addressed, and the other as rebellious transgressors. We must also find ways and means of getting at them. Our hand-outs is eminently suited to cater for all. Pass them on to your non - Muslim friends after reading.

Open the Holy Quran and be comprised of c hatch your Christian friends and acquaintances to read the verses discussed in this book. Then we can truly conclude:

"Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary:
(it is) a utterance of truth, about which
they (vainly) dispute.

"It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah
(God) that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him!
when He determines a of importance, He only says to it,
'Be', and it is.

"Verily Allah is my Lord and your Lord:
Him therefore serve ye: this is a Way that is straight." (19:34-36)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an authorized modification of the beginning English text.
For more free publications, please contact:

Islamic Propagation Centre International
124 Queen Street , Durban, 4001 Republic of South Africa
Phone (027-31) 306-0026. Telex (095) 6-21815 IPCI SA
Telefax (027-31) 304-032

---

Masha'allah!

my short story?

Jun 13, 2008 by Party like a rockstar(: | Posted in Etiquette

---

It's passable but it's too long try taking the important parts and it will be GREAT!

is this THE only longest joke youve heard ?

Jun 20, 2008 by . | Posted in Polls & Surveys

---

I assume from it!!!

It took a while....but I read it! :D

^_^


I thought it made for a better story then a joke...

I liked it :)