@IRFRANK,
IRFRANK wrote:
I apologize Frank. I meant no disrespect. Sometimes I get lazy. When I am on the iPad I don't know how to do the cut and paste quotes. And I'm a bit irritated at the moment from all of this political BS.
Quote:What is ridiculous?
This is what I an referring to:
Quote:..the "belief" that the beliefs of Buddhism are somehow appreciably different from the beliefs of other religions.
Beliefs about beliefs just seemed one step too far. But I do understand what you mean. I don't believe they are different, I know they are different. You can question the beliefs themselves, but the conclusions I draw from them and how they relate to my experiences are very real to me. If you allow that to disconnect, them we truly do not know anything. I thought that was your meaning. It seems to me that you use the possibility that anything can be an illusion to negate any possibility of knowledge. I don't have to have a definitive, absolute knowledge of the nature of reality to know that the basic truths and precepts of Buddhism are true.
Again, my post was trite, and you deserve better. I apologize.
No problem, Frank. I was being too sensitive myself this morning.
Anyway...my point about "beliefs" was made in an ironical way. You had asked about which "beliefs" I had in mind earlier...and I decided to add "the belief that Buddhist beliefs are appreciably different from other religious beliefs" mostly as an ironic comment.
The fact is that Buddhist "beliefs" ARE different from the "beliefs" of other religions (or non-religions)...but they share a commonality that causes me to consider them not substantively different.
The thing they share...which I personally consider the most important ingredient...is that they are assertions about an unknown...and an unknown that has very little unambiguous evidence for back-up.
A belief that there is a GOD...is an assertion with almost no unambiguous evidence as back-up. A belief that no gods exist...is an assertion with almost no unambiguous evidence as back-up.
A belief that there is no self...no soul...is an assertion with almost no unambiguous evidence as back-up. The notion that one can meditate one's self into a state of (whatever)...is an assertion with almost no unambiguous evidence as back-up.
That was the reason I said what I said.
I understand that you, and other reasonable, intelligent individuals cam disagree with me strongly on this point...but I am sharing what I see to be the case.
