Why More And More People Accepting Buddhism ?

[Xangsamhua]

Amen, brother. One could pick at bits of what you've said, but in general terms I think your thoughts match mine.

I suggest, however, that "thinking about the past changes nothing" be replaced by "dwelling in the past is not helpful".

Thinking about the past can be helpful if one learns from it, though it can be dangerous if approached from egocentric and negative perspectives, such as personal or group resentment. A misreading of past events, e.g convincing oneself and one's countrymen that the Jews and Communists were responsible for Germany's defeat in World War One, can lead to disaster. One can learn from that, but at a terrible price.

How do we learn then from the past? By observing it without ego-involvement, if possible. This may be very difficult to do, but the alternative is a vicious karmic chain of claim and counter-claim, attack and defence, with no winners in the long run.

[lungmi]

Tan P.A. Payutto

The importance of ditthi in the creation of kamma

However, if we look more deeply into the processes taking place, we will see that the defilement which exerts the most influence is the third one -- ditthi. Ditthi is view or belief, the attachment to a certain way of thinking. Our attitudes and ways of thinking will decide the type of personal gain and influence that we aspire to. When there is the view that a certain condition is desirable and will provide true happiness, craving for personal gain is directed toward that end. Craving and pride generally play a supporting role to ditthi. Ditthi is therefore the most important and powerful of these three defilements.

Social directions are decided by ditthi. A sense of value of any given thing, either on an individual or social basis, is ditthi. With this ditthi as a basis, there are efforts to realize the object of desire. People's behavior will be influenced accordingly. For example, with the belief that happiness is to be found in an abundance of material goods, our actions and undertakings will tend to this end. This is a wrong view, thus any undertakings resulting from it will also be wrong. All attempts at so-called progress will be misguided and problematic. Material progress always brings problems in its wake, because it is founded on two basically wrong and harmful views:

1. That humanity must conquer nature in order to achieve well-being and find true happiness;

2. That happiness is dependent on material wealth.

These two views are the main forces behind the modern surge for progress.

The kind of civilization which is exerting its influence over the entire world today is founded on the basic premise that mankind is separate from nature. According to this view, Mankind is nature's owner, free to manipulate nature according to his will. In the present time we are beginning to see that many of the problems arising from material progress, particularly the environmental ones, are rooted in this basic misconception.

Guided by wrong view, everything else goes wrong. With right view, actions are guided in the right direction. Thus, desires for personal gain can be beneficial if they are founded on right view, but with wrong view or wrong belief, all resultant actions become harmful. On the individual level, views express themselves as beliefs in the desirability of certain conditions, which in turn lead to efforts to effectuate them. On the social level, we find attitudes adhered to by whole societies. When there is a conviction in the desirability of any given thing, society supports it. This collective support becomes a social value, a quality adhered to by society as a whole, which in turn pressures the members of the society to perpetuate such beliefs or preferences.

It is easy to see the influence social values have on people. Sociologists and psychologists are very familiar with the role played by social values and the effect they have on our minds. From social values, ditthi extends outwards to become belief systems, ideologies, political and economic systems, such as capitalism, communism and so on, and religions. When theories, beliefs and political ideologies are blindly adhered to, they are always products of the defilement of ditthi.

From one person, these ideas fan out to become properties of whole groups and societies. One individual with wrong view can effect a whole society. A case in point is the country of Cambodia. One leader, guided by wrong view, desiring to change the social system of Cambodia, proceeded to try to realize his aim by authorizing the killing of millions of people and turning the whole country upside down. Another example is the Nazis, who believed that the Jewish race was evil and had to be destroyed, and that the Aryan race were to be the masters of the world. From this belief arose all the atrocities which occurred during the Holocaust in World War II.

Then there are economic systems and ideologies, such as Communism and Consumerism: many of the changes that have taken place in the world over the last century have been based on these ideologies. And now it seems that it was all somehow some kind of mistake, we have to turn around and undo the changes. And this causes another momentous upheaval for the population, as can be seen in Russia and the former Soviet States.

One of the ways in which ditthi causes problems on a social level is in the field of religion. When religious ideologies are blindly clung to, human beings resort to exploitation and violence in the name of religion. Wars fought in the name of religion are particularly violent. This kind of clinging has been a great bane to mankind throughout history. The Buddha recognized the importance of ditthi and greatly emphasized it in his teaching. Even belief in religion is a form of ditthi, which must be treated with great caution in order to prevent it from becoming a blind attachment. Otherwise it can become a cause of persecution and violence. This is why the Buddha stressed the importance of ditthi, and urged circumspection in relation to it, as opposed to blind attachment.

On the negative side, intention works through the various defilements, such as those mentioned just now. On the positive side, we have the opposite kind of influences. When people's minds are guided by positive values, the resulting events within society will take a different direction. And so we have the occasional attempts to rectify social problems and create constructive influences and human society does not completely annihilate itself. Sometimes human beings act through kindness and compassion, giving rise to relief movements and human aid organizations. As soon as kindness enters into human awareness, people will undertake all sorts of works for the purpose of helping others.

International incidents, as well as relief movements, are results of intention, fashioned by either skillful or unskillful qualities, proceeding from mental kamma into verbal and bodily kamma. These institutions or organizations then proceed to either create or solve problems on the individual level, the group level, the social level, the national level, the international level and ultimately the global level.

The importance of ditthi, whether as a personal view, a social value or an ideology, cannot be overemphasized. The reader is invited to consider, for example, the results on society and the quality of life if even one social value, that of materialism, were to change into an appreciation of skillful action and inner well-being as the foundations for true happiness.

[healthcaretaker]

I think Camerata is quite right to point out the spurious provenance of the "Einstein" quote. Bogus quotes are a major problem in the google age. They are often attributed to iconic people to lend authority to a particular point of view; hence they are manipulative and, simply, false information and/or instruction. It's always worth checking the source of quotes, stories, news items, etc that appear on the net or circulate through email.

I don't think Buddhists are given to use bogus quotes manipulatively because they're not usually so desperate to win arguments or convert people, and my grumbling is certainly not directed against Lungmi, who has used a (probably) bogus quote that appears all over the net and could quite reasonably be assumed to be authentic.

I don't think I'm being pedantic. As a teacher, teacher of teachers and education manager for 45 years I am very sensitive to people being led astray by not checking their sources and then leading others astray as a result. Attribution of fictional, spurious or plagiarized quotes to an iconic figure, when done intentionally, is usually done knowingly to manipulate people. When done unintentionally it is usually done to give weight to an argument that that argument lacks without it.

I repeat though that I am not directing my remarks at Lungmi, and apologize if it seems that way.

First, I'm surprised...sounds like you and I had/have somewhat similar careers in education.

I guess I've always looked at using a quote during a debate (or argument) a little differently. In this particular instance, I could care less whether Einstein has some particular belief about Buddhism or any other topic, unless I'm discussing physics. At most, his personal opinions are of passing interest to me. On the other hand, I could care less what the Dalai Lama thinks about physics, but I'll listen/read what he says about Buddhism and religion.

If you REALLY wish to know more about Buddhism and what the Dalai Lama says, you should try to learn some sciencem, at least basic physics, otheriwse it will be "blind" belief that don't make sense. Then better believe in some other "non-sensible" religion that is not related to science.

Any subject related to human and the universal world is related to physics.

May the Lord enlighten you sooner.

[phetaroi]

I think Camerata is quite right to point out the spurious provenance of the "Einstein" quote. Bogus quotes are a major problem in the google age. They are often attributed to iconic people to lend authority to a particular point of view; hence they are manipulative and, simply, false information and/or instruction. It's always worth checking the source of quotes, stories, news items, etc that appear on the net or circulate through email.

I don't think Buddhists are given to use bogus quotes manipulatively because they're not usually so desperate to win arguments or convert people, and my grumbling is certainly not directed against Lungmi, who has used a (probably) bogus quote that appears all over the net and could quite reasonably be assumed to be authentic.

I don't think I'm being pedantic. As a teacher, teacher of teachers and education manager for 45 years I am very sensitive to people being led astray by not checking their sources and then leading others astray as a result. Attribution of fictional, spurious or plagiarized quotes to an iconic figure, when done intentionally, is usually done knowingly to manipulate people. When done unintentionally it is usually done to give weight to an argument that that argument lacks without it.

I repeat though that I am not directing my remarks at Lungmi, and apologize if it seems that way.

First, I'm surprised...sounds like you and I had/have somewhat similar careers in education.

I guess I've always looked at using a quote during a debate (or argument) a little differently. In this particular instance, I could care less whether Einstein has some particular belief about Buddhism or any other topic, unless I'm discussing physics. At most, his personal opinions are of passing interest to me. On the other hand, I could care less what the Dalai Lama thinks about physics, but I'll listen/read what he says about Buddhism and religion.

If you REALLY wish to know more about Buddhism and what the Dalai Lama says, you should try to learn some sciencem, at least basic physics, otheriwse it will be "blind" belief that don't make sense. Then better believe in some other "non-sensible" religion that is not related to science.

Any subject related to human and the universal world is related to physics.

May the Lord enlighten you sooner.

Actually, my Bachelors and Masters Degrees are in the Sciences. My post-Masters work is in Educational Administration.

More than 99% of the Buddhists in the world know little, if any, physics. Yet they are potentially fine Buddhists.

Furthermore, what I said (rather than what you twisted) was that I don't personally care about the religious beliefs of one specific man...in this case, Einstein. However, if you think Einstein was Buddhist, then you're horribly mistaken. He said a few things that were favorable about Buddhism. But he also said, "As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene." When asked if he believed in a historical Jesus, he once said, "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life." Yet, he did not consider himself a Christian.

I would suggest that if you (and I do mean you) want to be a real Buddhist, then you have to be a bit more open-minded, rather than a "the book is closed" and "all is already known" thinker.

[healthcaretaker]

I think Camerata is quite right to point out the spurious provenance of the "Einstein" quote. Bogus quotes are a major problem in the google age. They are often attributed to iconic people to lend authority to a particular point of view; hence they are manipulative and, simply, false information and/or instruction. It's always worth checking the source of quotes, stories, news items, etc that appear on the net or circulate through email.

I don't think Buddhists are given to use bogus quotes manipulatively because they're not usually so desperate to win arguments or convert people, and my grumbling is certainly not directed against Lungmi, who has used a (probably) bogus quote that appears all over the net and could quite reasonably be assumed to be authentic.

I don't think I'm being pedantic. As a teacher, teacher of teachers and education manager for 45 years I am very sensitive to people being led astray by not checking their sources and then leading others astray as a result. Attribution of fictional, spurious or plagiarized quotes to an iconic figure, when done intentionally, is usually done knowingly to manipulate people. When done unintentionally it is usually done to give weight to an argument that that argument lacks without it.

I repeat though that I am not directing my remarks at Lungmi, and apologize if it seems that way.

First, I'm surprised...sounds like you and I had/have somewhat similar careers in education.

I guess I've always looked at using a quote during a debate (or argument) a little differently. In this particular instance, I could care less whether Einstein has some particular belief about Buddhism or any other topic, unless I'm discussing physics. At most, his personal opinions are of passing interest to me. On the other hand, I could care less what the Dalai Lama thinks about physics, but I'll listen/read what he says about Buddhism and religion.

If you REALLY wish to know more about Buddhism and what the Dalai Lama says, you should try to learn some sciencem, at least basic physics, otheriwse it will be "blind" belief that don't make sense. Then better believe in some other "non-sensible" religion that is not related to science.

Any subject related to human and the universal world is related to physics.

May the Lord enlighten you sooner.

Actually, my Bachelors and Masters Degrees are in the Sciences. My post-Masters work is in Educational Administration.

More than 99% of the Buddhists in the world know little, if any, physics. Yet they are potentially fine Buddhists.

Furthermore, what I said (rather than what you twisted) was that I don't personally care about the religious beliefs of one specific man...in this case, Einstein. However, if you think Einstein was Buddhist, then you're horribly mistaken. He said a few things that were favorable about Buddhism. But he also said, "As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene." When asked if he believed in a historical Jesus, he once said, "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life." Yet, he did not consider himself a Christian.

I would suggest that if you (and I do mean you) want to be a real Buddhist, then you have to be a bit more open-minded, rather than a "the book is closed" and "all is already known" thinker.

I think you are the one with a "closed" mind if not a narrow. The way you wrote also showed that you have not been very honest. In this last post alone, I can find that you have "intentionally" or "unintentionally" made at least five(yes 5 !!) very unreasonable points with the intentions to oppose Buddhism theories as well as mine beside trying to promote Jesus or christianity here.

As to the 5 points that I can prove on your message, will you like me to highlight it out ?

I wonder why you linger around here(this Buddhism forum) for so long if you hardly agree to what others agree on Buddhism. You are definitely not trying to learn Buddhism. I wonder do you spend as much time going to a christianity forum and go against them ?

More on it later.

[phetaroi]

I think you are the one with a "closed" mind if not a narrow. The way you wrote also showed that you have not been very honest. In this last post alone, I can find that you have "intentionally" or "unintentionally" made at least five(yes 5 !!) very unreasonable points with the intentions to oppose Buddhism theories as well as mine beside trying to promote Jesus or christianity here.

As to the 5 points that I can prove on your message, will you like me to highlight it out ?

I wonder why you linger around here(this Buddhism forum) for so long if you hardly agree to what others agree on Buddhism. You are definitely not trying to learn Buddhism. I wonder do you spend as much time going to a christianity forum and go against them ?

More on it later.

In this past post I said nothing negative about Buddhism. Saying something positive about one religion DOES NOT EQUATE TO being negative about another religion. You had discussed Einstein's positive comments about Buddhism, and implied that they meant that science supported Buddhism. I am merely pointing out that a man (in this case Einstein) who was really an agnostic, had positive things to say about Buddhism AND Christianity AND Judaism. They're not my quotes, they're Einstein's quotes. You will also find that very famous Buddhists -- Thich Nhat Hanh and the Dalai Lama, for example -- also write very positive things about Christianity, but they remain devout Buddhists.

I will say to you again what I believe I have said before. These discussions are not about any one religion WINNING or LOSING. That's the kind of thinking that people like Rush Limbaugh use. The volume of the Dhama that sits here on my desk is full of wise teachings that I can fully accept and which I do utilize in my daily life. On the other hand, it also says, "But one night Queen Maya had a strange dream, in which she saw a white elephant entering into her womb through the right side of her chest, and she became pregnant." Sorry, I don't believe that's how it happened, and I don't think it supports the concept that Buddha was a wise man whose principles are based on his testing of concepts in a somewhat scientific manner. There are just as many silly stories in Christianity. But some valid principles, also.

The first Thai Buddhist monk that I had some extensive discussions with about Buddhism said, "You can be a Christian AND a Buddhist." (Or perhaps he said, "You can be a Buddhist AND a Christian").

[healthcaretaker]

I think you are the one with a "closed" mind if not a narrow. The way you wrote also showed that you have not been very honest. In this last post alone, I can find that you have "intentionally" or "unintentionally" made at least five(yes 5 !!) very unreasonable points with the intentions to oppose Buddhism theories as well as mine beside trying to promote Jesus or christianity here.

As to the 5 points that I can prove on your message, will you like me to highlight it out ?

I wonder why you linger around here(this Buddhism forum) for so long if you hardly agree to what others agree on Buddhism. You are definitely not trying to learn Buddhism. I wonder do you spend as much time going to a christianity forum and go against them ?

More on it later.

In this past post I said nothing negative about Buddhism. Saying something positive about one religion DOES NOT EQUATE TO being negative about another religion. You had discussed Einstein's positive comments about Buddhism, and implied that they meant that science supported Buddhism. I am merely pointing out that a man (in this case Einstein) who was really an agnostic, had positive things to say about Buddhism AND Christianity AND Judaism. They're not my quotes, they're Einstein's quotes. You will also find that very famous Buddhists -- Thich Nhat Hanh and the Dalai Lama, for example -- also write very positive things about Christianity, but they remain devout Buddhists.

I will say to you again what I believe I have said before. These discussions are not about any one religion WINNING or LOSING. That's the kind of thinking that people like Rush Limbaugh use. The volume of the Dhama that sits here on my desk is full of wise teachings that I can fully accept and which I do utilize in my daily life. On the other hand, it also says, "But one night Queen Maya had a strange dream, in which she saw a white elephant entering into her womb through the right side of her chest, and she became pregnant." Sorry, I don't believe that's how it happened, and I don't think it supports the concept that Buddha was a wise man whose principles are based on his testing of concepts in a somewhat scientific manner. There are just as many silly stories in Christianity. But some valid principles, also.

The first Thai Buddhist monk that I had some extensive discussions with about Buddhism said, "You can be a Christian AND a Buddhist." (Or perhaps he said, "You can be a Buddhist AND a Christian").

I caught you again. This last post of yours have all that is needed to be pointed at you, (yes, you yourself). Judging from the manner you wrote against so many others here who supported Buddhism, they clearly showed your statements are not "mistakes" but intentional.

For instance:

1) I NEVER said science supported Buddhism;

2)I have used Einstein's theory only and NOT his "positive comments about Buddhism"(I don't even know he made positive comments about Buddhism or not)

3)I have NOT "misquoted" you in any manner([Pls don't try to accuse or create misunderstandings in any manner. If you think I did, be specific, which of my words ?)

4) Of course I know these discussions are not about winning or losing. You need not tell so, why did you mention it ?

5) I never mention anyone who write books about any religion as a supporter or whatever you try to mean about it. Of course I know it. I am coming up my 3nd book soon about religion but I never consider myself as religious. My 2nd book is about many good things about Buddhism but I never consisder myself a Buddhist too. Why bring up such statement ?

6) All Buddhists(not just a monk) know that anyone can be both a christian as well as a buddhist. You need not tell me that. In Asia, only the christians and muslims are not allowed or discouraged to be a buddhist. Hinduism and Buddhism NEVER prohibit anyone to believe in any god or any other religions.

As for your "Dalai Lama" part, I need not know your opinions. I hope you just stay on topic or directly relate to anyone's message you are trying to discuss with, objections or agreements alike.

Look, in your 2nd last message, I pointed that you made 5 mistakes(I have not detail them out yet) or wrongful accusations(only you know which and whether intentional or not). But in this last message of yours you made 6 !!

Just another new advice for you, behave like "christiaan" if you are caught or getting exposed, ie run away from a thread if you have nothing more to argue.

"Think of how fishes got caught".

Edited January 22, 2011 by healthcaretaker

[phetaroi]

I think you are the one with a "closed" mind if not a narrow. The way you wrote also showed that you have not been very honest. In this last post alone, I can find that you have "intentionally" or "unintentionally" made at least five(yes 5 !!) very unreasonable points with the intentions to oppose Buddhism theories as well as mine beside trying to promote Jesus or christianity here.

As to the 5 points that I can prove on your message, will you like me to highlight it out ?

I wonder why you linger around here(this Buddhism forum) for so long if you hardly agree to what others agree on Buddhism. You are definitely not trying to learn Buddhism. I wonder do you spend as much time going to a christianity forum and go against them ?

More on it later.

In this past post I said nothing negative about Buddhism. Saying something positive about one religion DOES NOT EQUATE TO being negative about another religion. You had discussed Einstein's positive comments about Buddhism, and implied that they meant that science supported Buddhism. I am merely pointing out that a man (in this case Einstein) who was really an agnostic, had positive things to say about Buddhism AND Christianity AND Judaism. They're not my quotes, they're Einstein's quotes. You will also find that very famous Buddhists -- Thich Nhat Hanh and the Dalai Lama, for example -- also write very positive things about Christianity, but they remain devout Buddhists.

I will say to you again what I believe I have said before. These discussions are not about any one religion WINNING or LOSING. That's the kind of thinking that people like Rush Limbaugh use. The volume of the Dhama that sits here on my desk is full of wise teachings that I can fully accept and which I do utilize in my daily life. On the other hand, it also says, "But one night Queen Maya had a strange dream, in which she saw a white elephant entering into her womb through the right side of her chest, and she became pregnant." Sorry, I don't believe that's how it happened, and I don't think it supports the concept that Buddha was a wise man whose principles are based on his testing of concepts in a somewhat scientific manner. There are just as many silly stories in Christianity. But some valid principles, also.

The first Thai Buddhist monk that I had some extensive discussions with about Buddhism said, "You can be a Christian AND a Buddhist." (Or perhaps he said, "You can be a Buddhist AND a Christian").

I caught you again. This last post of yours have all that is needed to be pointed at you, (yes, you yourself). Judging from the manner you wrote against so many others here who supported Buddhism, they clearly showed your statements are not "mistakes" but intentional.

For instance:

1) I NEVER said science supported Buddhism;

2)I have used Einstein's theory only and NOT his "positive comments about Buddhism"(I don't even know he made positive comments about Buddhism or not)

3)I have NOT "misquoted" you in any manner([Pls don't try to accuse or create misunderstandings in any manner. If you think I did, be specific, which of my words ?)

4) Of course I know these discussions are not about winning or losing. You need not tell so, why did you mention it ?

5) I never mention anyone who write books about any religion as a supporter or whatever you try to mean about it. Of course I know it. I am coming up my 3nd book soon about religion but I never consider myself as religious. My 2nd book is about many good things about Buddhism but I never consisder myself a Buddhist too. Why bring up such statement ?

6) All Buddhists(not just a monk) know that anyone can be both a christian as well as a buddhist. You need not tell me that. In Asia, only the christians and muslims are not allowed or discouraged to be a buddhist. Hinduism and Buddhism NEVER prohibit anyone to believe in any god or any other religions.

As for your "Dalai Lama" part, I need not know your opinions. I hope you just stay on topic or directly relate to anyone's message you are trying to discuss with, objections or agreements alike.

Look, in your 2nd last message, I pointed that you made 5 mistakes(I have not detail them out yet) or wrongful accusations(only you know which and whether intentional or not). But in this last message of yours you made 6 !!

Just another new advice for you, behave like "christiaan" if you are caught or getting exposed, ie run away from a thread if you have nothing more to argue.

"Think of how fishes got caught".

No.

[healthcaretaker]

I think you are the one with a "closed" mind if not a narrow. The way you wrote also showed that you have not been very honest. In this last post alone, I can find that you have "intentionally" or "unintentionally" made at least five(yes 5 !!) very unreasonable points with the intentions to oppose Buddhism theories as well as mine beside trying to promote Jesus or christianity here.

As to the 5 points that I can prove on your message, will you like me to highlight it out ?

I wonder why you linger around here(this Buddhism forum) for so long if you hardly agree to what others agree on Buddhism. You are definitely not trying to learn Buddhism. I wonder do you spend as much time going to a christianity forum and go against them ?

More on it later.

In this past post I said nothing negative about Buddhism. Saying something positive about one religion DOES NOT EQUATE TO being negative about another religion. You had discussed Einstein's positive comments about Buddhism, and implied that they meant that science supported Buddhism. I am merely pointing out that a man (in this case Einstein) who was really an agnostic, had positive things to say about Buddhism AND Christianity AND Judaism. They're not my quotes, they're Einstein's quotes. You will also find that very famous Buddhists -- Thich Nhat Hanh and the Dalai Lama, for example -- also write very positive things about Christianity, but they remain devout Buddhists.

I will say to you again what I believe I have said before. These discussions are not about any one religion WINNING or LOSING. That's the kind of thinking that people like Rush Limbaugh use. The volume of the Dhama that sits here on my desk is full of wise teachings that I can fully accept and which I do utilize in my daily life. On the other hand, it also says, "But one night Queen Maya had a strange dream, in which she saw a white elephant entering into her womb through the right side of her chest, and she became pregnant." Sorry, I don't believe that's how it happened, and I don't think it supports the concept that Buddha was a wise man whose principles are based on his testing of concepts in a somewhat scientific manner. There are just as many silly stories in Christianity. But some valid principles, also.

The first Thai Buddhist monk that I had some extensive discussions with about Buddhism said, "You can be a Christian AND a Buddhist." (Or perhaps he said, "You can be a Buddhist AND a Christian").

I caught you again. This last post of yours have all that is needed to be pointed at you, (yes, you yourself). Judging from the manner you wrote against so many others here who supported Buddhism, they clearly showed your statements are not "mistakes" but intentional.

For instance:

1) I NEVER said science supported Buddhism;

2)I have used Einstein's theory only and NOT his "positive comments about Buddhism"(I don't even know he made positive comments about Buddhism or not)

3)I have NOT "misquoted" you in any manner([Pls don't try to accuse or create misunderstandings in any manner. If you think I did, be specific, which of my words ?)

4) Of course I know these discussions are not about winning or losing. You need not tell so, why did you mention it ?

5) I never mention anyone who write books about any religion as a supporter or whatever you try to mean about it. Of course I know it. I am coming up my 3nd book soon about religion but I never consider myself as religious. My 2nd book is about many good things about Buddhism but I never consisder myself a Buddhist too. Why bring up such statement ?

6) All Buddhists(not just a monk) know that anyone can be both a christian as well as a buddhist. You need not tell me that. In Asia, only the christians and muslims are not allowed or discouraged to be a buddhist. Hinduism and Buddhism NEVER prohibit anyone to believe in any god or any other religions.

As for your "Dalai Lama" part, I need not know your opinions. I hope you just stay on topic or directly relate to anyone's message you are trying to discuss with, objections or agreements alike.

Look, in your 2nd last message, I pointed that you made 5 mistakes(I have not detail them out yet) or wrongful accusations(only you know which and whether intentional or not). But in this last message of yours you made 6 !!

Just another new advice for you, behave like "christiaan" if you are caught or getting exposed, ie run away from a thread if you have nothing more to argue.

"Think of how fishes got caught".

No.

You may deny but your messages can't.