Simple_Jack

I've noticed you have never bothered to challenge other tenet systems.

I was pointing out, in a post responding to turtleshell, that Dharmic traditions don't find the notion of a creator god pertinent to understanding the nature of afflictions.

On the other hand I would care if you didn't come into the Buddhist sub-forum to proselytize on NeoAdvaita.

We have our own sub-forum which was meant to segregate our offensive posts from the Vedantins, Christians, etc. Unfortunately that hasn't kept NeoAdvaitans or other eternalists from proselytizing in that forum.

I think some of the moderators on this forum are inherently biased.

I can count on one hand the number of times you have directed this amount of energy towards criticism of other tenet systems; which is zero times.

The above posts which are always conveniently directed towards Buddhism.

Please stop with the double standards.

I am convinced that you should stick with Abrahamic religions. They only require that you have unbending faith in order to be saved.

How do you want me to interpret that statement to you?

Stop trying to narrowly confine Buddhist discourse within the parameters of e-prime.

Interpreted how?

Again with the e-prime? Come on, man.

Also that Dharmic traditions can't narrowly be defined as a form of monotheism.

I didn't say anything about Buddhism in particular, I just pointed out that Dharmic religions don't find the notion of a creator god as pertinent to understanding the nature of afflictions.

Would you do the same if the thread was titiled "Debunking Dependent Origination"? I have a feeling you wouldn't.

He has a grudge against religion in general, which is understandable, but narrow minded. Maybe this stems from growing up in a conservative Christian household. Which was probably exasperated when he came into contact with Tibetan Buddhism.

Not everyone adheres to "non-dualism" as you defined it.

I forgot to add in Panentheism as another category.

This would be ignoring the heavy influence of Buddhism on Daoist iconography, meditation and ritual practice, philosophical discourse, etc.

That's due to their individual inclinations. Is this implying all followers and/or schools of Daoism view the micro and macrocosm in terms of a monotheistic or monistic world view? Do the examples of those teachers imply that the seminal texts of Daoism should only be interpreted in monotheistic or in monistic frameworks?

Bump.

Which is why the Indians have something called bhakti yoga, but jnana, karma and raja yoga should not be neglected.

That's fine, but I think it would be more constructive if people worried more on how afflictions arise, how they endure, and how they cease, since these continue afflicted experience, which according to all Dharmic religions is responsible for furthering our perpetual confusion and migration through what is known as samsara (if you believe in that sort of thing.)

Which are all irrelevant to understanding our individual experiences of suffering.