|
|
|
nescafe
New Member
USA
19 Posts |
 Posted - 12/23/2006 : 08:20:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
I have already said that Buddhism essentially consists of and in karma, rebirth, Nirvana.
If they are not the essential, central or whatever tenets that make Buddhism what it is to anyone who is a Buddhist in the traditional homelands of Buddhism, then you tell me?
Yes, I know, you will now be asking me what I or it is to be understood by the words: essential, central, tenets, etc.
Well, I have tried before, but here we go again:
The Central Tenets of Buddhism:
- Life is full of anguish.
- Anguish is caused by attachment.
- It is possible to get rid of anguish.
- Here are some attributes to cultivate (the Eightfold Path) which will help you grok the above 3.
You probably are using these meanings:
- Karma -- the belief that your good deeds will be rewarded and your bad deeds punished, if not in this life than in another.
- Rebirth -- the idea that you will literally be "born in another body" after you die, one that is suited to teach you a lesson about how you acted in your prior life.
- Nirvana -- a state of mental perfection that (among other things) takes you out to the endless cycles of rebirth that karma and rebirth imply.
There is no need to believe in these concepts in order to call yourself a Buddhist -- throw them away, and you still have a nice practical philosophy of ethics -- a game, if you will, that is both positive sum (the game is designed so that winners do not have to win at the expense of the losers (if there are any)) and infinite (the object of the game is to keep the game going). And you still get to call yourself a Buddhist.
|
Insert witty saying here. |
| Edited by - nescafe on 12/23/2006 08:23:45 |
 |
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2006 : 12:52:32 [Permalink]
|
Just a few comments:
Pachomius said:
quote:
But the cause of suffering in the world, that is where Buddhism becomes supernatural in its underpinning doctrines, namely, karma, rebirth, and Nirvana.
Buddhism doesn't believe these things are the cause of suffering in the world. Suffering is intrinsic to the world and the human condition. It's part of the underlying nature of the universe and existance and I don't believe this is a supernatural belief. Indeed, it's more or less true.
Pachomius said:
quote:
And here is where Buddhism also goes into supernaturalism; because it tells us that suffering cannot be assuaged in life, but beyond life in a what we can call a supernatural realm, supernatural meaning here as not within and of nature as we know nature from our attitude as rational scientific skeptics
Again I have to completely disagree. There is nothing supernatural about the means by which suffering is to be dealt with. It has to do with very real mental discipline and shaping of expectations. The supernatural comes into play when someone gets exceptionally good at this discipline and then escapes the world of suffering altogether, but that's, again, exceptional and only well after the suffering in life has long been dealt with.
Pachomius said:
quote:
By the way, can man really find happiness or relief from suffering in this life, i.e., in our essentially biological existence, with Buddhism? yes, but only if you steep your mind and heart in Buddhist supernaturalism and play the drama of their karma, rebirth, and meditation on the Four Noble Truths to arrive at Nirvana via the Eightfold Path.
I disagree. I don't believe you need accept any of the supernatural aspects of Buddhism to use it's principles to find contentment/happiness in life.
quote:
I don't think I want to arrive at that kind of a happiness; I would honestly prefer wealth and pleasures,
Likely this won't work for you. You can't buy happiness, I'm afraid. 
Regarding wealth, a few years back I read about a study in the news done in Brittain where they found that people of working class who get a windfall of money do indeed experience an increase in happiness. I don't recall if they found that people born wealthy are happier by default than those born working class. And please don't ask me to cite a source, as I don't have one and don't care to look. |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 12/23/2006 12:54:17 |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2006 : 13:02:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by nescafe
Well, I have tried before, but here we go again:
The Central Tenets of Buddhism:
- Life is full of anguish.
- Anguish is caused by attachment.
- It is possible to get rid of anguish.
- Here are some attributes to cultivate (the Eightfold Path) which will help you grok the above 3.
You probably are using these meanings:
- Karma -- the belief that your good deeds will be rewarded and your bad deeds punished, if not in this life than in another.
- Rebirth -- the idea that you will literally be "born in another body" after you die, one that is suited to teach you a lesson about how you acted in your prior life.
- Nirvana -- a state of mental perfection that (among other things) takes you out to the endless cycles of rebirth that karma and rebirth imply.
There is no need to believe in these concepts in order to call yourself a Buddhist -- throw them away, and you still have a nice practical philosophy of ethics -- a game, if you will, that is both positive sum (the game is designed so that winners do not have to win at the expense of the losers (if there are any)) and infinite (the object of the game is to keep the game going). And you still get to call yourself a Buddhist.
Nice.  |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2006 : 14:59:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
.
.
.
And what is the cause of suffering as a human condition? Karma, the doctrine that there exists an order in the universe which determines your lot in life from your previous acts in earlier rebirths.
.
.
.
While this may be true in part, the Second Noble Truth merely states that "the causes of suffering are craving and desire, and ignorance."
Anyway, while there certainly is a significant amount of spirituality and mysticism in Buddhism, I strongly recommend you address the instances in which they appear, rather than building straw men. quote:
What kind of evidence would be acceptable to you?
Really, any evidence would help. This sounds as if you're trying to shift the burden of proof. If you are too lazy to attempt any sort of argument, just say so; then, we can all stop wasting our time. |
|
|
|
Pachomius
BANNED
62 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2006 : 16:29:22 [Permalink]
|
I believe we have to look up some authorities on Buddhism to come to a consensus on what make up the essence or proprietary features of Buddhism.
Do you have any authorities in mind for your understanding of what make up the essential features of Buddhism by which Buddhism is different from other world views or religions?
I have noticed time and again that Western enthusiasts of Buddhism determine for themselves what makes up Buddhism and what don't.
Some even tell me that you don't have to believe in any Buddhist doctrines or observe any Buddhist disciplines to be a Buddhist, you just do some thinking about the self and the world being illusions.
Would you like to propose some authorities who can be accepted by you and me for telling us the essential content of Buddhism?
Perhaps some here will say that everyone is an authority on Buddhism who calls himself a Buddhist for any reasons he believes himself to be a Buddhist; in which case we would have as many authorities on Buddhism as there are people calling themselves Buddhists for any reasons they believe justifying them to use the name of Buddhist on themselves.
The end result would be no one can be certain of anyone being a Buddhist unless on the self-designation by the latter calling himself a Buddhist; and thereby also everyone is a Buddhist even though when judged on the grounds of another calling himself a Buddhist he would not qualify for the name.
Pachomius
|
|
|
|
Pachomius
BANNED
62 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2006 : 16:54:25 [Permalink]
|
Perhaps we should all work together to come to a concurring statement on what makes Buddhism essentially different from other world views or religions; so that even if anyone can call himself a Buddhist yet without that one element or combination of elements he could still be a Hinduist or a Shinto-ist or a Jainist or anything but a Buddhist.
At the present moment I tend to maintain the opinion that what makes up essentially Buddhism is Nirvana, and for a combination of elements, these three items: karma, rebirth, Nirvana.
Karma and rebirth of course are from Hinduism, but Nirvana is peculiarly Buddhistic. There is a corresponding concept in the predecessor Hinduism which I believe is call Moshka, but Moshka is not exactly Nirvana.
Pachomius |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2006 : 19:10:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
Perhaps we should all work together to come to a concurring statement on what makes Buddhism essentially different from other world views or religions; so that even if anyone can call himself a Buddhist yet without that one element or combination of elements he could still be a Hinduist or a Shinto-ist or a Jainist or anything but a Buddhist.
Why? What does it matter how Buddhism differs from Hinduism, Shintoism, Jainism or anything else, unless you're going to claim that something else is "compatible" with rational, scientific skepticism, while Buddhism is not?
If the core doctrine of the Four Noble Truths is exactly the same in Buddhism and Hinduism, so what? That just means that any critique of them regarding Buddhism is also a critique of them regarding Hinduism.
One can understand the Four Noble Truths and try to follow the Noble Eightfold Path without resorting to any belief in karma, nirvana or rebirth. Similarly, one can believe in karma, nirvana and rebirth without understanding much of anything about Buddhism. Plenty of "new agers" do. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Pachomius
BANNED
62 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2006 : 17:20:24 [Permalink]
|
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year; it's Christmas morning in my part of the world at this moment.
---------------------
One can understand the Four Noble Truths and try to follow the Noble Eightfold Path without resorting to any belief in karma, nirvana or rebirth. Similarly, one can believe in karma, nirvana and rebirth without understanding much of anything about Buddhism. Plenty of "new agers" do.
Of course.
But I was asking you twice or thrice whether you are a Buddhist, or Buddhist sympathizer, or doing Buddhist meditation, or partial to the Dalai Lama on his being a reincarnate of previous incarnates.
If you are so, then it is incumbent upon you as an intelligent person and one with the habit of rational curiosity to:
...understand the Four Noble Truths and try to follow the Noble Eightfold Path [by] resorting to [accept] any belief in karma, nirvana or rebirth. ...[for] one can[not] intelligently believe in karma, nirvana and rebirth without understanding... anything about Buddhism. [Unlike] Plenty of "new agers" do.
-----------------------
I have one main opinion: in regard to compatibility or incompatibility between skepticism and Buddhism -- they are not compatible.
And I have a secondary opinion: in regard to how Western intelligentsia are soft on Buddhism while they are not on the traditional religions in the West and Middle East, like Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius=Message #1
I have been getting the impression from skeptics' websites that all kinds of people who are supposedly intellectuals or rationalists or skeptics or atheists or against religions are treating Buddhism with kids' gloves.
Is that true? is that a fact?
Use the search links of the CSICOP and the JREF (James Randi Educational Foundation [dedicated to atheistic skepticism] for Buddhism and see if you can come up with more than the fingers of one hand findings of writings critical of Buddhism.
I asked once Pigliucci by email why? He said that it's because Buddhism and Buddhists don't antagonize the atheistic communities and their analogue groups.
Well, that is interesting, and as a matter of fact I have seen many who are out and out against theism and religion in general take up Buddhism, saying that it is not contrary if not in consonance with secular atheistic philosophies, including scientific skepticism.
First, is it true that the atheists communities and kindred groups treat Buddhism with kids' gloves?*
Second, why? is it because Skepticism and Buddhism are compatible or not incompatible?*
Pachomius
Thanks everyone participating in this thread, I am getting feedbacks for my further education or enlightenment on those two questions.
-----------------------
Back to karma, rebirth, Nirvana.
What do you guys say, about the specific material in Buddhism that makes Buddhism distinctly different from other world-views and religions?
As I said several times here, I think it is the belief in Nirvana.
Does anyone here writing messages in this thread believe in Nirvana and also the post death state of Nirvana, called Parinirvana, i.e., when you attain enlightenment in your lifetime, that is called Nirvana, and when you die in that state of Nirvana, you pass into Parinirvana; but the term, Nirvana, includes both states, so that the mention of Nirvana is equivalent to God's reward for Christians and Muslims, very roughly of course.
Pachomius
*The order of these two questions should really be reversed, as I have always and from the start wanted to rank them -- except for some oversight owing to my way of writing as thoughts and moods occur in my mind.
|
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2006 : 18:15:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
I have one main opinion: in regard to compatibility or incompatibility between skepticism and Buddhism -- they are not compatible.
I don't think anybody here disagrees with you.quote:
And I have a secondary opinion: in regard to how Western intelligentsia are soft on Buddhism while they are not on the traditional religions in the West and Middle East, like Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius=Message #1
I have been getting the impression from skeptics' websites that all kinds of people who are supposedly intellectuals or rationalists or skeptics or atheists or against religions are treating Buddhism with kids' gloves.
Is that true? is that a fact?
Use the search links of the CSICOP and the JREF (James Randi Educational Foundation [dedicated to atheistic skepticism] for Buddhism and see if you can come up with more than the fingers of one hand findings of writings critical of Buddhism.
I asked once Pigliucci by email why? He said that it's because Buddhism and Buddhists don't antagonize the atheistic communities and their analogue groups.
Well, that is interesting, and as a matter of fact I have seen many who are out and out against theism and religion in general take up Buddhism, saying that it is not contrary if not in consonance with secular atheistic philosophies, including scientific skepticism.
First, is it true that the atheists communities and kindred groups treat Buddhism with kids' gloves?*
Second, why? is it because Skepticism and Buddhism are compatible or not incompatible?*
Pachomius
Do you consider that evidence for your claim that "the atheists communities and kindred groups treat Buddhism with kids' gloves?" Seems like Dr. Massimo Pigliucci gave you the answer for the small number of articles on Buddhism. This is not evidence for your position. It is merely evidence that Buddhists don't annoy skeptics as much as many others, so skeptics don't feel the need to talk about Buddhism as much.
Now perhaps I was not blunt enough in my previous post, so I'll try once more: Provide some evidence for your assertion that "the atheists communities and kindred groups treat Buddhism with kids' gloves," or just tell us that you are too lazy to sustain a basic argument. You are wasting our time. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2006 : 19:00:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
One can understand the Four Noble Truths and try to follow the Noble Eightfold Path without resorting to any belief in karma, nirvana or rebirth. Similarly, one can believe in karma, nirvana and rebirth without understanding much of anything about Buddhism. Plenty of "new agers" do.
Of course.
So you agree that one need not believe in karma, nirvana or rebirth in order to be a Buddhist. Thank you for the clarification. So then you would agree that those things cannot be core doctrine if they can be ignored.quote:
But I was asking you twice or thrice whether you are a Buddhist, or Buddhist sympathizer, or doing Buddhist meditation, or partial to the Dalai Lama on his being a reincarnate of previous incarnates.
I already answered you, and asked a question in reply that you have not answered.quote:
If you are so...
Answered already.quote:
I have one main opinion: in regard to compatibility or incompatibility between skepticism and Buddhism -- they are not compatible.
Yet you refuse to apply any skepticism to the core doctrines of Buddhism.quote:
And I have a secondary opinion: in regard to how Western intelligentsia are soft on Buddhism while they are not on the traditional religions in the West and Middle East, like Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.
Actually, I think I've yet to hear a harsh word from a skeptic regarding Judaism. Like with Buddhism, it's not a religion that goes around telling others how to live their lives. And the Jews don't have a hell with which to threaten anyone, either.quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius=Message #1
I have been getting the impression from skeptics' websites that all kinds of people who are supposedly intellectuals or rationalists or skeptics or atheists or against religions are treating Buddhism with kids' gloves.
Is that true? is that a fact?
What good does copying your OP do? We all know what questions it asks, and we all know that you've largely refused to engage with the answers you were given.quote:
Thanks everyone participating in this thread, I am getting feedbacks for my further education or enlightenment on those two questions.
Ah, that old dodge.quote:
Back to karma, rebirth, Nirvana.
What do you guys say, about the specific material in Buddhism that makes Buddhism distinctly different from other world-views and religions?
That's irrelevant to the answers to your two questions. It's surprising how quickly you can switch subjects like that.quote:
...so that the mention of Nirvana is equivalent to God's reward for Christians and Muslims, very roughly of course.
Only in the shallowest of senses, of course. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2006 : 23:39:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
Well, tell me everyone here who claim to know that I don't the essential or central tenets of Buddhism (to yourselves):
What are the essential or central or whatever tenets of Buddhism making up Buddhism to be what it is -- to you?
There is no -- "to you". It does not matter what you think care about or feel, it matters what 'is'. What is verifiable and reproducable. But here is a simple enough outline for you.
quote:
I have already said that Buddhism essentially consists of and in karma, rebirth, Nirvana.
You may have said that but you are wrong. These are primarily Hindu ideas. Sometimes but not necessarily associated with Buddhism.
quote:
If they are not the essential, central or whatever tenets that make Buddhism what it is to anyone who is a Buddhist in the traditional homelands of Buddhism, then you tell me?
Hindu. On another note, I know a Christian who believes in all of that also, does that make it a central tenet of Christianity to you?
quote:
Yes, I know, you will now be asking me what I or it is to be understood by the words: essential, central, tenets, etc.
In which case, please report to your grade school teacher of English.
Perhaps you will tell me that the central or essential tenets of Buddhism are the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path. I can agree with you, but I want to direct you to more essential or more central tenets of Buddhism which I see to be karma, rebirth, and Nirvana.
I would like to direct you to your grade school teacher (or maybe highschool teacher if you had a bad grade school teacher) so that you can learn how to research a topic. What you see to be essential is totally irrelevent. What is cited by almost all of the resources on Buddhism (third party are best) include the paths as the central tenets. Why are the Hindu ideas the most essential when they pre-date Buddhism by thousands of years, anyway?
|
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2006 : 23:40:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
What kind of evidence would be acceptable to you?
Pachomius
The verifiable and reproducible kind. Opinions are not evidence, pachomius. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2006 : 23:56:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
What is the true purpose of buddhism? To find contentment/happiness in a world that is constructed, one way or another, to provide only lasting suffering.
And here is where Buddhism also goes into supernaturalism; because it tells us that suffering cannot be assuaged in life, but beyond life in a what we can call a supernatural realm, supernatural meaning here as not within and of nature as we know nature from our attitude as rational scientific skeptics (there are skeptics who are not rational and scientific but fanatical and bigoted -- watch out now, some people will start hollering for evidence, definitions, and do namecalling and everything else of no relevance except to tergiversate, hahaha.
And what is that realm propounded in Buddhism where suffering will no longer bind the human condition? What else but Nirvana in this life and Parinirvana in the existence post the grave and all rebirths.
And what is the cause of suffering as a human condition? Karma, the doctrine that there exists an order in the universe which determines your lot in life from your previous acts in earlier rebirths. Karma is certainly as expounded by Buddhist doctrinaires a part of their supernatural metaphysics, like matter and energy is a part of scientific metaphysics.
By the way, can man really find happiness or relief from suffering in this life, i.e., in our essentially biological existence, with Buddhism? yes, but only if you steep your mind and heart in Buddhist supernaturalism and play the drama of their karma, rebirth, and meditation on the Four Noble Truths to arrive at Nirvana via the Eightfold Path. I don't think I want to arrive at that kind of a happiness; I would honestly prefer wealth and pleasures, including of course the pleasures of the mind and the heart which I hope to and I am sure I will accomplish with wealth more certainly than without.
Pachomius
Why do you keep telling us what you would like to do with your life Pachomius. Everything you have posted about Buddhism is your opinion mixed with some guesses you may or may not have gotten from too much television (I don't mean to leave out the posts of others opinions that could also be you). Firstly, you are not an authority on Buddhism and secondly, even if you were, appealing to yourself as an authority is still a fallicy.
You are wrong on the central tenents, I have shown you this twice thus far (not to mention the others here). If you don't want to be a buddhist... who cares! How about giving us some actual evidence that supports your assertions.
If you are happy buying a new car, but your neighbor whould rather wear a burlap sack and ride a bike (not a description of Buddhism or Buddhists) you cannot scream across on your front lawn "You can't be happy without this new car! It is illogical!!" There is no way to emperically prove what will make someone happy or sad in all cases because the brain is so malleable.
Pain to Pleasure: "We're not so different, you and I."
|
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 12/25/2006 : 00:06:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
I believe we have to look up some authorities on Buddhism to come to a consensus on what make up the essence or proprietary features of Buddhism.
You do, we are all quickly loosing interest. For the future, I think I speak for all of us when I say, do your homework before you start posting, not after your caught pants down, ass out.
quote:
Do you have any authorities in mind for your understanding of what make up the essential features of Buddhism by which Buddhism is different from other world views or religions?
Sure. Britanica. Smart fellow(s), you should totally invest.
quote:
I have noticed time and again that Western enthusiasts of Buddhism determine for themselves what makes up Buddhism and what don't.
Some even tell me that you don't have to believe in any Buddhist doctrines or observe any Buddhist disciplines to be a Buddhist, you just do some thinking about the self and the world being illusions.
Yes well that is our(the west) M.O. Point?
quote:
Would you like to propose some authorities who can be accepted by you and me for telling us the essential content of Buddhism?
Ency Clopedia is a genius with words and getting her point across. Lets start there shall we?
quote:
Perhaps some here will say that everyone is an authority on Buddhism who calls himself a Buddhist for any reasons he believes himself to be a Buddhist; in which case we would have as many authorities on Buddhism as there are people calling themselves Buddhists for any reasons they believe justifying them to use the name of Buddhist on themselves.
I certainly hope not.
|
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 12/25/2006 : 00:27:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
If you are so, then it is incumbent upon you as an intelligent person and one with the habit of rational curiosity to:
...understand the Four Noble Truths and try to follow the Noble Eightfold Path [by] resorting to [accept] any belief in karma, nirvana or rebirth. ...[for] one can[not] intelligently believe in karma, nirvana and rebirth without understanding... anything about Buddhism. [Unlike] Plenty of "new agers" do.
Not true. It does not become more true everytime you say it either I am afraid.
"I do believe in fairies. I do. I do. I do. I do belive in fairies." Sorry kid fairies still don't exist.
quote:
I have one main opinion: in regard to compatibility or incompatibility between skepticism and Buddhism -- they are not compatible.
I am glad you acknowledge it as an opinion. One particularly lacking in supportive evidence. Oh, wait! Opinion... that's right no need.
quote:
And I have a secondary opinion: in regard to how Western intelligentsia are soft on Buddhism while they are not on the traditional religions in the West and Middle East, like Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.
Sorry, wrong again. Buddism is not important to most skeptics. It is not threatening. However, any empirically testable and irrational belief (those ones you neglect to point out to us) would recieve the same critical eye if brought before it by the skeptic community.
BTW the irrational Hindu beliefs you think are important to Buddhism are covered in the skeptic literature.
quote:
Back to karma, rebirth, Nirvana.
Why?
quote:
What do you guys say, about the specific material in Buddhism that makes Buddhism distinctly different from other world-views and religions?
As I said several times here, I think it is the belief in Nirvana.
Does anyone here writing messages in this thread believe in Nirvana and also the post death state of Nirvana, called Parinirvana, i.e., when you attain enlightenment in your lifetime, that is called Nirvana, and when you die in that state of Nirvana, you pass into Parinirvana; but the term, Nirvana, includes both states, so that the mention of Nirvana is equivalent to God's reward for Christians and Muslims, very roughly of course.
italics: Way to self defeat.
No, I don't. I certain don't care if other do either though. It is the how they attain Nirvana that can worry me. i.e. killing me, blowing up a few thousand, or holding up the drive through window.
|
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
