35
   

I am a Buddhist and if anyone wants to question my beliefs then they are welcome to do so...

 
 
igm
 
  1  
Sat 17 Aug, 2013 10:00 am
@tomr,
There is quite a lot in your post. I disagree with some of it. I will give it some thought and get back to you by posting from your post again. I have answered some of these questions in my previous posts in this thread. If you haven't read them then I'd suggest doing, that in the interim.

There is also another thread running at the moment where I have also answered some of your question either today or in the last couple of days; check that out as well if you wish... the thread is, 'Have you ever questioned other peoples beliefs?'
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Sat 17 Aug, 2013 10:03 am
@igm,
igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

When you answered the question: “Do you also “see” that this may all be illusionary?” with a “NO”…you are asserting that you are accepting all that stuff blindly…without questioning it. How on Earth can you not see that it MAY be illusionary…without accepting it blindly?

Let's deal with this...and then go on to the others.


This is more like it Frank. Although others won't learn much about Buddhism now we are down to this level of discourse but if that is what you want then if I have time I'll oblige.

You have a 'may' in there Frank so what I'm saying is, 'No, reality, may not be, illusionary'. Show me how you can accuse me of blind faith when I say, 'Reality may not be illusionary'.

If you want to narrow my options down don't use words like 'may' and 'if'... it's entirely up to you of course.





You have got to be kidding here, igm.

You asked me to explain what the "this" meant in my question, so let me rewrite the question with the "this" out and the actual wording in it:

“Can you “see” that the notion that the Buddha knew how to identify suffering and knew how to put an end to it…and was able to establish landmarks to guide other to it…

…MAY ALL BE ILLUSIONARY?

You are answering that question “NO”, igm.

But the notion that the Buddha knew how to identify suffering…MAY BE ILLUSIONARY.

The notion that the Buddha knew how to put an end to suffering…MAY BE ILLUSIONARY.

The notion that the Buddha knew how to esablish landmarks to guide others to be able to end suffering…MAY BE ILLUSIONARY.

C’mon, igm.

This is one of the easy ones. We’ve got hard ones to deal with. If we cannot even get you past this…you are lost.

Bottom line: Everythink you are accepting as TRUTH in that statement MAY BE ILLUSIONARY. The Buddha may not know how truly to identify suffering in any meaningful way; the Buddha may not know the first thing about how to end suffering of any kind (other than by death); and the Buddha may not have the slightest inkling about how to teach others to do what he might not have been able to do himself.

Any assertions of these things are pure guesswork on your part.
igm
 
  1  
Sat 17 Aug, 2013 10:39 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

The Buddha may not know how truly to identify suffering in any meaningful way; the Buddha may not know the first thing about how to end suffering of any kind (other than by death); and the Buddha may not have the slightest inkling about how to teach others to do what he might not have been able to do himself.

Any assertions of these things are pure guesswork on your part.


Frank you say the Buddha 'may' not know. I'm saying the Buddha 'may' know. What are you trying to prove? When I say the Buddha 'does know' and I know that he knows.... then you can make your claims.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Sat 17 Aug, 2013 10:41 am
@igm,
igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

The Buddha may not know how truly to identify suffering in any meaningful way; the Buddha may not know the first thing about how to end suffering of any kind (other than by death); and the Buddha may not have the slightest inkling about how to teach others to do what he might not have been able to do himself.

Any assertions of these things are pure guesswork on your part.


Frank you say the Buddha 'may' not know. I'm saying the Buddha 'may' know. What are you trying to prove? When I say the Buddha 'does know' and I know that he knows.... then you can make your claims.


Why, then, did you answer that first question "NO?"

Why did you not answer it "YES?"
igm
 
  1  
Sat 17 Aug, 2013 10:47 am
@Frank Apisa,
igm wrote:

Frank you say the Buddha 'may' not know. I'm saying the Buddha 'may' know. What are you trying to prove? When I say the Buddha 'does know' and I know that he knows.... then you can make your claims.


You've lost me Frank... this is my position... what other position could I have?

Take it from here... one question at a time would be best for me.
igm
 
  1  
Sat 17 Aug, 2013 11:34 am
@tomr,
tomr wrote:

My problem is with the fact that the Buddha was an entitled person who had no first hand experience with pain himself. And I am of the opinion pain is not something you can really understand from watching someone in it. Now if the Buddha had actually experienced such suffering himself then he would be qualified to be an authority on it. But he lived in luxury for some time in his life and then goes outside and in a few years has it figured all out. When others have spent their whole lives suffering and no doubt trying to find a way to end that suffering. It looks suspicious to me. (But if you take it that reincarnation is real then he could have learned about suffering in a previous life and remembered those experiences in meditation. I don't.)


Everyone can suffer even the rich. It is said that the poor suffer physically and the rich suffer mentally.

The Buddha did not believe in reincarnation but did teach rebirth; they have different names because they are not synonymous; the first is the transmigration of the soul. The Buddha could not find a reason to believe in a soul but could not find a reason to believe that reality ceases either and he taught that we are aspects of reality and therefore cannot cease. One experiences appearances that appear to be birth, life, death, rebirth etc. but it is just caused by various causes and conditions.

Moderate pain is useful and is not to be removed if it is showing a problem that can be cured with treatment. Suffering is more to do with mental suffering, which an understanding of the true nature of reality can remove…, according to the Buddha’s teachings.

Happiness and freedom from suffering is an innate quality that arises when reality no longer ignores its own true nature.

Some want to attempt to put an end to suffering and are willing to follow the Buddhist path to see if this is possible… only those who have succeeded know for sure but on the way one experiences less suffering and more inner happiness that is unconditioned… but of course you can’t just take my word for it. This is my description of a destination that may be attainable; only those who wish to try to find out if it is attainable can ever know for sure.

0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Sat 17 Aug, 2013 02:36 pm
@igm,
igm wrote:

igm wrote:

Frank you say the Buddha 'may' not know. I'm saying the Buddha 'may' know. What are you trying to prove? When I say the Buddha 'does know' and I know that he knows.... then you can make your claims.


You've lost me Frank... this is my position... what other position could I have?

Take it from here... one question at a time would be best for me.


igm wrote:

igm wrote:

Frank you say the Buddha 'may' not know. I'm saying the Buddha 'may' know. What are you trying to prove? When I say the Buddha 'does know' and I know that he knows.... then you can make your claims.


You've lost me Frank... this is my position... what other position could I have?

Take it from here... one question at a time would be best for me.


Okay...why did you answer the first question "no?"

If the Buddha MAY KNOW or MAY NOT KNOW...the answer should have been "Yes."

The question was: “Can you “see” that the notion that the Buddha knew how to identify suffering and knew how to put an end to it…and was able to establish landmarks to guide other to it…

…MAY ALL BE ILLUSIONARY?

If you are acknowledging that the Buddha MAY OR MAY NOT know…the answer to that question has to be “yes.”

So…the one question is:

Why did you answer it “no?”
igm
 
  1  
Sat 17 Aug, 2013 03:38 pm
@Frank Apisa,
igm wrote:

Frank you say the Buddha 'may' not know. I'm saying the Buddha 'may' know.



This is my position Frank. I'm not going to check whether I was confused by your post. This is my position take it from here.. or... not... I'm happy either way.

It's a path that the Buddha says he's travelled and that I have not fully travelled although I want to make the attempt. I won't know unless I try and I won't know if the Buddha was correct until I arrive. If I can put an end to suffering and then be able to show all others (should they wish to know) how to do the same, then that will be worthwhile in my opinion.

There are many parts to the Buddhist path and each one I've studied has not disappointed me... the study involves reasoning at all stages... there is no blind faith.. but there is the confidence required to continue on the path to enlightenment... the end of suffering.


maxdancona
 
  1  
Sat 17 Aug, 2013 04:04 pm
@igm,
Quote:
the study involves reasoning at all stages... there is no blind faith.


I don't buy this at all. Every world view from Christianity to Buddhism to political philosophies appeal to reason. But every one of them has things they accept on blind faith.

In this way, Buddhism is no different from or superior to Christianity. At the core of each way of thinking are things you just accept, and then you use reason to come up with a logically consistent world view.

You seem to be saying that Buddhism is superior to Christianity (although I don't think you are willing to admit it directly).

But fundamentalist Christianity involves reasoning at all stages in the same way that Buddhism does.

igm
 
  1  
Sat 17 Aug, 2013 04:36 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

That is a cop out. You can compare apples and oranges if you specify how they are going to be compared. For example I can tell you which has more vitamin C, or which has more calories on average.


I used an idiom:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apples_and_oranges

A comparison of apples and oranges occurs when two items or groups of items are compared that cannot be practically compared.

The idiom, comparing apples and oranges, refers to the apparent differences between items which are popularly thought to be incomparable or incommensurable, such as apples and oranges. The idiom may also be used to indicate that a false analogy has been made between two items, such as where an apple is faulted for not being a good orange.

It was not supposed to be taken literally. It means I don't see them as the same. You are free to disagree and try to convince me otherwise but I don't see they are the same. So, one is not superior to the other because they are not the same, they are not analogous.... in my opinion.

maxdancona wrote:

I am asking for a very specific comparison here.

Buddhism offers a view of what is truth and how to gain peace.
Christianity offers a competing view of what is truth and how to gain peace.

Is one superior to the other? Or are they both equally valid. For the record, I think they are equally valid.




I don't agree, with your comparison. I just don't think of theism as the same as non-theism.

maxdancona
 
  1  
Sat 17 Aug, 2013 04:39 pm
@igm,
It is interesting that fundamentalist Christians make the same argument that you make about why their world view is not a religion.

The idea that Buddhism is somehow different than all the other religions bugs me. It is condescending to the other religions.

Buddhism is really just another religion.
igm
 
  1  
Sat 17 Aug, 2013 04:44 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
the study involves reasoning at all stages... there is no blind faith.


I don't buy this at all. Every world view from Christianity to Buddhism to political philosophies appeal to reason. But every one of them has things they accept on blind faith.

In this way, Buddhism is no different from or superior to Christianity. At the core of each way of thinking are things you just accept, and then you use reason to come up with a logically consistent world view.

You seem to be saying that Buddhism is superior to Christianity (although I don't think you are willing to admit it directly).

But fundamentalist Christianity involves reasoning at all stages in the same way that Buddhism does.



Please see my previous answer to you above this one about whether I believe one is superior to the other.

There are no axioms at the heart of Buddhism... but relative truth has to be used to communicate with each other... so on the surface and on the path it seems that there are axioms but there aren't any at the very heart of Buddhism. This is realized by reasoning that understands what the true nature of reality isn't... leaving just naked awareness... ineffable and unelaborated... free from all axioms.

maxdancona
 
  1  
Sat 17 Aug, 2013 04:50 pm
@igm,
Quote:
There are no axioms at the heart of Buddhism


Ironically, this is an axiom. This is like having a doctrine that says you have no doctrine and a dogma that says you have no dogma.

This statement is not making a statement.

igm
 
  1  
Sat 17 Aug, 2013 04:52 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

It is interesting that fundamentalist Christians make the same argument that you make about why their world view is not a religion.

The idea that Buddhism is somehow different than all the other religions bugs me. It is condescending to the other religions.

Buddhism is really just another religion.


I'm not saying it is not religion... you are free to call it whatever you wish... as is anyone else. It is a religion because people label it a religion... I'm happy with that.

Buddhism is obviously not the same as other religions otherwise it could not be differentiated and would not have a different name. It is called Buddhism because everyone can see a difference which requires it be labeled with a different name. But a different name does not make it superior.

Please try not to infer that I have said Buddhism is superior. You will have to prove it by showing a quote that I have made saying this.... you won't find one because I don't believe Buddhism is superior... but it is different.. hence the different name that differentiates it from the other religions.

igm
 
  1  
Sat 17 Aug, 2013 04:55 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
There are no axioms at the heart of Buddhism


Ironically, this is an axiom. This is like having a doctrine that says you have no doctrine and a dogma that says you have no dogma.

This statement is not making a statement.



I disagree.. the absence of something isn't something. But if you want Buddhism to have this axiom i.e. that it has no axioms then that is completely ok.

0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Sat 17 Aug, 2013 04:56 pm
@igm,
Sure, are you agreeing with me now?

Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Islam are are all paths to understanding that are equally based on reason. None of these are better at bringing people to enlightenment than any of the others.

That really is the point.

Studying Buddhism is no better than accepting Jesus into your heart as far as bringing peace or following a path of truth.
igm
 
  1  
Sat 17 Aug, 2013 05:06 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:


Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Islam are are all paths to understanding that are equally based on reason. None of these are better at bringing people to enlightenment than any of the others.

That really is the point.


I am saying Buddhism is based on reason... I'm not saying anything about other religions.. you are and that is fine. To know if one is better than the other they would all have to be compared... have you done that... I haven't.

Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Sat 17 Aug, 2013 05:07 pm
@igm,
igm wrote:

igm wrote:

Frank you say the Buddha 'may' not know. I'm saying the Buddha 'may' know.



This is my position Frank. I'm not going to check whether I was confused by your post. This is my position take it from here.. or... not... I'm happy either way.

It's a path that the Buddha says he's travelled and that I have not fully travelled although I want to make the attempt. I won't know unless I try and I won't know if the Buddha was correct until I arrive. If I can put an end to suffering and then be able to show all others (should they wish to know) how to do the same, then that will be worthwhile in my opinion.

There are many parts to the Buddhist path and each one I've studied has not disappointed me... the study involves reasoning at all stages... there is no blind faith.. but there is the confidence required to continue on the path to enlightenment... the end of suffering.





You asked us to question your "beliefs"...which is what I am doing.

Saying "the Buddha may know how to end suffering" is the same as saying "the Buddha may not know how to end suffering."

I am not sure why you are highlighting the different wording.

The Buddha may or may not know how to end suffering.

Saying "the Buddha may know how to teach others to end suffering" is the same as saying "the Buddha may not know how to to teach others to end suffering."

The Buddha may or may not know how to teach others how to end suffering.

I am not understanding why you are highlighting the different wording there either.

In either case, all you can do is to guess one way or the other (or, more sensibly, simply acknowledge that you cannot know and that any guess would be nothing more than a guess).

Is there a difference between what Christians (for instance) say about their belief system...and yours...that makes yours (Buddhism) more reasonable to accept?
maxdancona
 
  1  
Sat 17 Aug, 2013 09:39 pm
@igm,
Quote:
I am saying Buddhism is based on reason... I'm not saying anything about other religions.. you are and that is fine. To know if one is better than the other they would all have to be compared... have you done that... I haven't.


Yes, I am compared Buddhism with other religions (particularly fundamentalist Christianity). That's exactly what I have been doing in my past few posts here.

Again, I am saying that Buddhism is based on reason the same way that fundamentalist Christianity is based on reason. I have been quite clear. Buddhism is no better at helping someone find peace or to travel a road to truth than fundamentalist Christianity (or any other religion). Studying Buddhism or accepting Jesus into your heart are equally effective at reaching peace or finding truth.

Do you accept this?

igm
 
  1  
Sun 18 Aug, 2013 01:20 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
I am saying Buddhism is based on reason... I'm not saying anything about other religions.. you are and that is fine. To know if one is better than the other they would all have to be compared... have you done that... I haven't.


Yes, I am compared Buddhism with other religions (particularly fundamentalist Christianity). That's exactly what I have been doing in my past few posts here.

Again, I am saying that Buddhism is based on reason the same way that fundamentalist Christianity is based on reason. I have been quite clear. Buddhism is no better at helping someone find peace or to travel a road to truth than fundamentalist Christianity (or any other religion). Studying Buddhism or accepting Jesus into your heart are equally effective at reaching peace or finding truth.

Do you accept this?


How can I? I don't know what reasoning theistic religions have (in enough detail) to compare the two. You have not given any reasons for your conclusion that the two are the same.

You need to make an argument for what you are saying... not just say it... not just rely on rhetoric alone. I am willing to consider an argument that shows this to be the case but I'm not willing just to take your word for it... obviously.

At the moment... as you've not made a case for your opinion.. I disagree.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 09/25/2022 at 11:41:14