and metta, as sometimes samatha is not enough. Sometimes both aren’t enough
Do all religions have different paths to the same destination ?, it seems…, the deeper I think about this question, I feel it’s not the case. Most Abrahamic religions ( Judaism, Christianity and Islam ) generally teach that ‘Heaven’ is their highest destination, they also reject the theory of Karma and Rebirth, but believe in the theory of Resurrection and the Judgment Day, on the contrary, Dharmic religions ( Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism ) generally teaches that achieving ‘Moksha’ or ‘Nirvana’ ( Nirvana is higher than Heaven ), is their highest destination, the teachings of these three religions accept the concept of Karma and Rebirth and they don’t teach about Resurrection or Judgment Day. Most of the Abrahamic religions focus more on the dogmatic concepts, while the Dharmic religions place more emphasis on the existence of the Laws of the Universe. You see, these two religious groups have even very different fundament, how could they have the same goal ?..
1 Like
That’s also been my experience. “Abandon views all ye who enter here!” No more clutching at metaphysical straws! 
2 Likes
Not all paths lead to the same destination and not all paths have worthwhile or equal goals either.
Always go by the adage:
‘Never ridicule, demean, or insult another’s religion, faith or spirituality; if for no other reason than it gives them the justification to do the same to you.’
2 Likes
In answer to the original OP, yes, all religions lead to Kolob.
Kolob is a star or planet described in Mormon scripture. … According to this work, Kolob is the heavenly body nearest to the throne of God. While the Book of Abraham refers to Kolob as a “star”, it also refers to planets as “stars”, and, therefore, some Mormon commentators consider Kolob to be a planet.
1 Like
Agree. This is what I normally do but not with my children and people are very close to me and dear to me.
Can you cite the source? i like this but want context.
the adage:
‘Never ridicule, demean, or insult another’s religion, faith or spirituality; if for no other reason than it gives them the justification to do the same to you.’
I think…, this is of course, not includes such activities like a religion’s comparative studies or a criticism based on the aim of finding or testing the truth values of a particular religious dogmas, the spirit which have been said by the Buddha himself in the Kalama Sutta…
It’s extrapolated from statements made by King Asoka. I don’t have an exact source. Sorry.
I don’t think the Buddha would want anyone to ridicule, demean or insult(Wrong Speech), but you can of course inquire without being disrespectful towards others. The Buddha was instructing the Kalamas to be inquisitive and not to take wandering teachers at their word alone. Self-inquiry basically. If you are nasty to people who practice or believe differently than you I don’t think that would be in the spirit of what the Buddha was teaching in the Kalama sutta.
Of course, what you’re saying is absolutely right, and this kind of tolerant attitude ( perhaps ) what causes why the tendency of fanaticism and militantism doesn’t get a place to develop in the buddhist society…
1 Like
Yeah. It’s overtly discouraged.
A translation of Ashoka Edicts can be found at the link below.
https://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/ashoka.html
Would be able to point which edict you had in mind?
Indeed.
And MN139 tells us that, for the sake of not engaging in unnecessary conflict, sometimes even what may be taken as sharp but is true and beneficial to the other should be said when the time is right.
“When you know that your sharp words in someone’s presence are true and correct, but harmful, then you should train yourself not to speak.
When you know that your sharp words in someone’s presence are true, correct, and beneficial, then you should know the right time to speak.
‘Don’t talk behind people backs, and don’t speak sharply in their presence.’
That’s what I said, and this is why I said it.”
1 Like
oh… Hard to “Always go by the adage” then.
But ok, it seems a good thought.
Yeah. I’ve heard a few different version of the statement, but all pretty much exactly same thing.
We can simplify that even further and say to ridicule, demean, or insult is rude. Period.
Hopefully we will all get to a place where neither a carrot nor a stick is necessary for us to behave in ways that don’t harm others.
4 Likes
Buddha Dhamma isn’t entirely pacifist at least when it comes to philosophical debate. Compassion requires not being silent:
Mendicants, even a mendicant who has ordained for a hundred years in this teaching and training would legitimately and completely refute those wanderers who follow other paths just as the householder Anāthapiṇḍika did.”
SuttaCentral
With metta
1 Like