Martin Luther King nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize:
Quote:
Dr. King nominated Thich Nhat Hanh for the 1967 Nobel Peace Prize. In his nomination Rev. King said, "I do not personally know of anyone more worthy of [this prize] than this gentle monk from Vietnam. His ideas for peace, if applied, would build a monument to ecumenism, to world brotherhood, to humanity."
Tich Nhat Hanh said himself:
Thich Nhat Hanh wrote:
We must not be attached to a view or a doctrine, even a Buddhist one. . . . The Buddha said that if in a certain moment or place you adopt something as the absolute truth, and you attach to that, then you will no longer have any chance to reach the truth. Even when the truth comes and knocks on your door, and asks you to open the door, you won't recognize it. So you must not be too attached to dogma--to what you believe, and to what you perceive
I interperet this to mean we shouldnt be attached to religion...because that blocks us from reaching the truth...what do you think?
I interperet this to mean we shouldnt be attached to religion...because that blocks us from reaching the truth...what do you think?
Hey Mr Proud - I don't think that this is purely talking of religon - but also politics (That becomes almost as such). That he came from Vietnam and was less than happy about American involvement seems to suggest that he may have been making reference to Truman Doctrine. Perhaps it was incidental?
1. Openness
Aware of the suffering created by fanaticism and intolerance, I am determined not to be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory or ideology, even Buddhist ones. Buddhist teachings are guiding means to help me learn to look deeply and to develop my understanding and compassion. They are not doctrines to fight, kill or die for.
2. Non-attachment to Views
Aware of suffering created by attachment to views and wrong perceptions, I am determined to avoid being narrow-minded and bound to present views. I will learn and practise non-attachment from views in order to be open to others’ insights and experiences. I am aware that the knowledge I presently possess is not changeless, absolute truth. Truth is found in life and I will observe life within and around me in every moment, ready to learn throughout my life.
3. Freedom of Thought
Aware of the suffering brought about when I impose my views on others, I am committed not to force others, even my children, by any means whatsoever – such as authority, threat, money, propaganda or indoctrination – to adopt my views. I will respect the right of others to be different and to choose what to believe and how to decide. I will, however, help others renounce fanaticism and narrowness through compassionate dialogue.
Plus Buddhism is the anti-thesis of all other "religions" in that there is no "God" at the centre of it and hence no blind faith.
Quote:
5. The liberation of self is the responsibility of one's own self. Buddhism does not call for an unquestionable blind faith by all Buddhist followers. It places heavy emphasis on self-reliance, self discipline and individual striving.
I disagree that you disagree - in fact you did agree.
Perhaps there is an extremely thin line between politics and religon and maybe that was what he was getting at. I did read in your link that he was an Anti War (Vietnam) campaigner of sorts.
I agreed? I dont think you know what your talking about and Im certain you hadnt even heard of him before you read this thread so lets just leave you to mull it over eh and I'll go back to studying his works and leave you to make unfounded statements based on a 2 minute look at a link I posted
I dont think you know what your talking about so lets just leave you to mull it over eh and I'll go back to studying his works and leave you to make unfounded statements based on a 2 minute look at a link I posted
Have a nice day.
So what statements are you making. Oh listen to that guy isn't that profound. Isn't he special not at all like those beastly moslems and those on the christian right. Wonder how the guy came to know what he was talking about - since obviously he was stuck in some monastry.
Tell you what you could go look in all those books - learn it off by heart and come here preaching that you have found what is wrong with the world. Because that would be just soooo cool right?
That new found fad of yours could be the start of something special and you could then come back and impart that undoubted wisdom on the rest of us. Of course your understanding of it will be soooo much better than everyone elses because you have read purely that alone. You alone will draw the right conclusions from it.
So Mr proud - you go and toddle off and find the answers for everyone else.
So your true colours are coming out now !! Didnt take long..."reels him in"
yeah I thought that was why you posted here, just to have a go....Im not pretending to be an expert on him but I have obviously read more than you on the subject. That was obvious from your first post. Your second post was just mindless rubbish and your third post....well when you have nothing else to contribute
Go have a go at someone else. Its not working on me.
So your true colours are coming out now !! Didnt take long..."reels him in"
yeah I thought that was why you posted here, just to have a go....Im not pretending to be an expert on him but I have obviously read more than you on the subject. That was obvious from your first post. Your second post was just mindless rubbish and your third post....well when you have nothing else to contribute
Go have a go at someone else. Its not working on me.
So what are my true colours then?
You have read more - so that means you are right. What he is saying isn't at all political right - so tell you what let's put it in the section labelled Politics and Social Issues.
Mindless rubbish - not really. Perhaps I am wrong but it is ironic that sometimes Bigototry comes from the very people who would spend their lives complaining about the intolerance of others.
Are you really so dismissive or do you just want the last word!
Not right, just better informed. Im still learning.
Like I said up above, I dont pretend to be the expert and I wanted a reasonable discussion (one that wasnt focused on the Vietnam war) (which is what you have focused on)
Now you seem to be calling me a bigot (?) - for what I dont know. Im not intolerant of anybody or anything. Perhaps the mere mention of the word "religion" means you think Im bigoted..grow up
ILWL wrote:
What he is saying isn't at all political right - so tell you what let's put it in the section labelled Politics and Social Issues
thats just stupid. This is the forum for this thread as there isnt a Buddhist forum here, or a Religion forum or a "Way to live your Life" forum so this was the closest to it. Im trying not to be nasty but you're talking rubbish.
ILWL wrote:
Are you really so dismissive or do you just want the last word!
Ironic that statement isnt it...or is the irony lost on you
I dont think you know what your talking about and Im certain you hadnt even heard of him before you read this thread so lets just leave you to mull it over eh and I'll go back to studying his works and leave you to make unfounded statements based on a 2 minute look at a link I posted
Have a nice day.
That is a reasonable discussion backed up with hard conclusive evidence?
Quote:
Not right, just better informed. Im still learning.
Very reasonable and not at all a presumption?
Quote:
Like I said up above, I dont pretend to be the expert and I wanted a reasonable discussion (one that wasnt focused on the Vietnam war) (which is what you have focused on)
You have assumed I have focussed on the war - which I hadn't. I was merely highlighting that this discussion cannot just be defined as religous. And you said that it couldn't be merely political. Two views that I think are equally valid given the material you have given. If you want me to justify my stance I will do so. That would represent a discussion would it not?
Quote:
Now you seem to be calling me a bigot (?) - for what I dont know. Im not intolerant of anybody or anything. Perhaps the mere mention of the word "religion" means you think Im bigoted..grow up
See above the examples (In quotes) for my justification in seeing you as a bigot.
Also if you put perhaps that means that you are unsure - so why tell me to grow up?
Any chance of a reasonable discussion now......Mr Proud?
Martin Luther King nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize:
Quote:
Dr. King nominated Thich Nhat Hanh for the 1967 Nobel Peace Prize. In his nomination Rev. King said, "I do not personally know of anyone more worthy of [this prize] than this gentle monk from Vietnam. His ideas for peace, if applied, would build a monument to ecumenism, to world brotherhood, to humanity."
Tich Nhat Hanh said himself:
Thich Nhat Hanh wrote:
We must not be attached to a view or a doctrine, even a Buddhist one. . . . The Buddha said that if in a certain moment or place you adopt something as the absolute truth, and you attach to that, then you will no longer have any chance to reach the truth. Even when the truth comes and knocks on your door, and asks you to open the door, you won't recognize it. So you must not be too attached to dogma--to what you believe, and to what you perceive
I interperet this to mean we shouldnt be attached to religion...because that blocks us from reaching the truth...what do you think?
Funny you would mention that Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., who was so attached to Christianity that he became an ordained Christian Reverend (and have you ever heard King's Mountaintop speech), nominated your boy, a Buddhist monk, for a Nobel Peace Prize given your interpretation that your boy believed "we shouldnt be attached to religion."
You have assumed I have focussed on the war - which I hadn't
I havent assumed. Im stating a fact:
ILWL wrote:
Hey Mr Proud - I don't think that this is purely talking of religon - but also politics (That becomes almost as such). That he came from Vietnam and was less than happy about American involvement seems to suggest that he may have been making reference to Truman Doctrine. Perhaps it was incidental?
ILWL wrote:
I did read in your link that he was an Anti War (Vietnam) campaigner of sorts.
You think Im assuming you dont know what your talking about?
GayandProud wrote:
I dont think you know what your talking about and Im certain you hadnt even heard of him before you read this thread so lets just leave you to mull it over eh and I'll go back to studying his works and leave you to make unfounded statements based on a 2 minute look at a link I posted
ILWL wrote:
That is a reasonable discussion backed up with hard conclusive evidence?
Based on your contributions so far and in particular the following quote:
ILWL wrote:
Perhaps there is an extremely thin line between politics and religon and maybe that was what he was getting at.
I am certain you have no idea about Thich Nhat Hanh or any of his teachings.
GayandProud wrote:
Not right, just better informed. Im still learning
ILWL wrote:
Very reasonable and not at all a presumption
Very reasonable, not to say generous considering your contribution:
ILWL wrote:
Perhaps there is an extremely thin line between politics and religon and maybe that was what he was getting at.
That was your most "on topic" contribution so far. And that was ill informed conjecture based on what?
A 2 minute reading of the link I posted.
The rest of your contribution was childish attacks...
ILWL wrote:
So what statements are you making. Oh listen to that guy isn't that profound. Isn't he special not at all like those beastly moslems and those on the christian right. Wonder how the guy came to know what he was talking about - since obviously he was stuck in some monastry.
Tell you what you could go look in all those books - learn it off by heart and come here preaching that you have found what is wrong with the world. Because that would be just soooo cool right?
That new found fad of yours could be the start of something special and you could then come back and impart that undoubted wisdom on the rest of us. Of course your understanding of it will be soooo much better than everyone elses because you have read purely that alone. You alone will draw the right conclusions from it.
So Mr proud - you go and toddle off and find the answers for everyone else.
Martin Luther King nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize:
Quote:
Dr. King nominated Thich Nhat Hanh for the 1967 Nobel Peace Prize. In his nomination Rev. King said, "I do not personally know of anyone more worthy of [this prize] than this gentle monk from Vietnam. His ideas for peace, if applied, would build a monument to ecumenism, to world brotherhood, to humanity."
Tich Nhat Hanh said himself:
Thich Nhat Hanh wrote:
We must not be attached to a view or a doctrine, even a Buddhist one. . . . The Buddha said that if in a certain moment or place you adopt something as the absolute truth, and you attach to that, then you will no longer have any chance to reach the truth. Even when the truth comes and knocks on your door, and asks you to open the door, you won't recognize it. So you must not be too attached to dogma--to what you believe, and to what you perceive
I interperet this to mean we shouldnt be attached to religion...because that blocks us from reaching the truth...what do you think?
Funny you would mention that Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., who was so attached to Christianity that he became an ordained Christian Reverend (and have you ever heard King's Mountaintop speech), nominated your boy, a Buddhist monk, for a Nobel Peace Prize given your interpretation that your boy believed "we shouldnt be attached to religion."
Do you see the incongruity in your position?
Martin Luther Kings support of Thich Nhat Hanh, and his nomination of him for a Nobel Peace Prize has nothing to do with my postion. Thich Nhat Hanh is not "my boy". I thought it was interesting that Martin Luther King should nominate him and included that quote for added interest. Thats all. If you want to attach importance to it then by all means go ahead. If you want to highlight Martin Luther Kings personal beliefs then do so. Im talking about a Buddhist teacher and wondering whether what he says is right. That Martin Luther King could see past his personal religious belief and become impressed by a man who professed no faith in God makes me admire Martin Luther King regardless of his personal faith. That these two men could work together and talk and reach understanding is far more interesting to me than any differences they might have had.
I'm sorry Mr gay - but what exactly have you contributed to the thread?
You have not defined any discussion - you gave an opinion and I gave mine. I have mentioned the politics whilst you have done little but bitch.
What exactly was your motivation for posting on this thread? What did you intend to talk about - the guys teachings? What of them? You want to discuss pros and cons?
You instantly said I was wrong because I didn't say what you wanted me to say -
Quote:
Aware of the suffering brought about when I impose my views on others, I am committed not to force others, even my children, by any means whatsoever – such as authority, threat, money, propaganda or indoctrination – to adopt my views. I will respect the right of others to be different and to choose what to believe and how to decide.
Not in the least bit political?
Something you can live up to Mr Proud?
Site Map
FAQ
Usergroups
Search
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Register
My Profile Space
I dont think you know what your talking about and Im certain you hadnt even heard of him before you read this thread so lets just leave you to mull it over eh and I'll go back to studying his works and leave you to make unfounded statements based on a 2 minute look at a link I posted 
