Atheists... Your life is pointless

@MattDavis,

bump

0 Replies

@FBM,

I don't take issue with anyone's spirituality or theology, just so long as that view does not cause one to behave irresponsibly.
I take ethics to trump enlightenment or salvation.
I was attempting to continue your analogy with "placebo". Placebos being a form of drug. Thus the previous comment.
Sorry. I should have been more direct and less allegorical.
----------------------------
My response was actually before you added more to your last comment.
I will go back and read your expanded version. Very Happy

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

To me, it's intellectually dishonest, but then again, there's the 'Wittgenstein's ladder' way of looking at it.

Yes. There is an argument to be made, that some will have great difficulty with getting past that rung in the ladder.
It may be the result of a failed upaya by past teachers.
The right lesson for the right student, that is probably important. Very Happy

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Yep. Again, I've got no problem with placeb0 use, and generally speaking, Buddhists tend to not stress out about others using a different or no placebo. Wink

0 Replies

If I asked, "Who here believes in magic?" likely the answer would be "Nobody." And, yet -

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

It's not only magic; for me, it's about UFO's and the leaving of body before death.

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM, you may think you understand Mahayana but you may just be doing it a disservice - when some 'corruptions' of it are the culprit. You talk IMHO in too broad terms about the Mahayana or at least I perceive that to be the case.

The Buddha 'never' taught that there is a truly existent self in the Hinayana or Mahayana or the branch of the Mahayana which is called Vajrayana.

You speak as if you're an expert... you 'may' not be... especially when it comes to the Mahayana.

Talk about your subject the Hinayana but try not to talk about the Mahayana in broad terms and possibly negative terms... if you are negative... you may be wrong and I personally believe you are.

2 Replies

@igm,

The comment above is of course not just about your last post but other previous posts in which you've mentioned the Mahayana (including Tibetan Buddhism). and so finally I thought I needed to mention my views on those past posts.

0 Replies

@Terry,

well he has given you a brain. If you don't use it and do something stupid, it their own fault. People kill and do all these crazy thing is because their lives don't makes sense then eventually you end up killing yourself. People who don't have Christ in their lives will never makes sense. I can testify what HE did in my life is miracles. People don't believe, because he doesn't appear wright in front of you, why should HE? Christians now live in faith, cause he doesn't dwell on earth anymore, but went to heaven to prepare a place for this children. Seek him and you will find him( is what the bible says) My answers comes in strange way sometimes. God doesn't always have to answer your prayers? sometimes when the time is wright then, things turn around for you.
Then you know it is the will of God. His will is not ours.

1 Reply

@claudene,

You just addressed a remark to Terry...who hasn't been around in almost ten years. But she was one of my favorite people and I thank you for bringing her to mind...even if your comment is a primer for why some of us are so turned off on theism in general...and Christianity in particular.

Wherever you are, Terry....a big Hello!

0 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

FBM, you may think you understand Mahayana but you may just be doing it a disservice - when some 'corruptions' of it are the culprit. You talk IMHO in too broad terms about the Mahayana or at least I perceive that to be the case.

The Buddha 'never' taught that there is a truly existent self in the Hinayana or Mahayana or the branch of the Mahayana which is called Vajrayana.

You speak as if you're an expert... you 'may' not be... especially when it comes to the Mahayana.

Talk about your subject the Hinayana but try not to talk about the Mahayana in broad terms and possibly negative terms... if you are negative... you may be wrong and I personally believe you are.

The term "Hinayana" is derogatory and scholars have abandoned its use for years now. Maybe you should spend a little more time with the scholars. I'd suggest Richard Gombrich, Mark Siderits and Susan Hamilton. Ralph Flores also offers excellent insight into Buddhist scripture as seen from a literary viewpoint.

You're right that "The Buddha 'never' taught that there is a truly existent self in the Hinayana or Mahayana or the branch of the Mahayana which is called Vajrayana." because none of those branches existed in the Buddha's lifetime.

Your post contains nothing more than the statement 'I disagree with you.' If you'd care to post something more substantial, say from the suttas/sutras themselves, I'd be willing to give that a go. I've got the entire Pali Canon on my bookshelf, and I'm sure I could access online the sutras unique to the Mahayana, which weren't even written until centuries after the Buddha's parinibbana and which I refused to buy after learning of the focus of their content: esoteric mysticism, a mysterious Pure Land afterlife, True Self, the spiritual land of the nagas where the Buddha's "true" teachings (contra the Pali Canon teachings) were magically preserved until the human race was ready for them, etc.

1 Reply

@FBM,

I of course apologize if the term is seen by 'some' as derogatory. It can mean that the vehicle is one that does not lead to Buddhahood but to freedom from Dukkha only.

Since Buddhahood has a greater scope then it - the other vehicle - is seen as a vehicle with a scope that is less than the wish to attain Buddhahood. This is a simple statement of fact not a derogatory term just as being able to free oneself from a prison is not seen as having a scope superior to freeing everyone from the same prison.

The tone of your reply makes my reply easy... there won't be another post to you from me but should you have evidence that the Buddha didn't teach the Mahayana or Vajrayana during his lifetime please let me see it because I say there is evidence that he did... so can you prove otherwise?

Also, if it works follow it, if not don't.. the Buddha's teachings on the Mahayana and Vajrayana work as long as you don't 'cherry pick'.

2 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

I of course apologize if the term is seen by 'some' as derogatory.

Kare A. Lie wrote:

Hinayana, or, more correctly, hiinayaana, is a highly derogatory term. It does not simply mean "Lesser vehicle" as one often can see stated. The second element of hiina-yaana – that is yaana – means vehicle. But hiina very seldom has the simple meaning of "lesser" or "small". If that had been the case, the Pali (or Sanskrit) texts would have used it in other connections as an opposite of mahaa – big. But they don't. The opposite of mahaa is cuu.la, so this is the normal word for "small". (Emphasis mine)

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha140.htm

I suppose even your "qualified" apology does count for something.
"I" accept "your" "apology".

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

MattDavis wrote:

I suppose even your "qualified" apology does count for something.
"I" accept "your" "apology".

No you don't, it seems to me. Why? You need to take the 'words' I've posted as my apology not refer to other sources which indirectly 'rubbish' my apology.

If you can't be 'constructive' butt-out of my apology to FBM (why do I need to apologize to you anyway for something I said to FBM?)

1 Reply

@igm,

Igm, first of all I am not the one in a position to accept or reject your apology.
I am pointing out that a qualified apology is not exactly an apology.
The broader message is that you seem to assume you are on a path to "enlightenment", and struggle with great fervor against any dissenting view.
That struggle is of course fine, but even the texts on which you rely are in disagreement on this regard. I don't know exactly where you are in life, but I do think you do a disservice to both me, you, and the broader community by perpetuating any tribalistic language.
You seem to view yourself as in the "Buddhist" tribe, which you seem to think is truly the "Mahayana" tribe, and you even disagree with that tribe in many of your pronouncements.
Is it possible that your group-identity may be in error?
Is it possible that there are other paths to the "truth"?

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

I used a term that not all find derogatory and was not used by me in that sense. FBM has said that the Mahayana was not taught by the Buddha. I am castigated by you for a minor faux pas and FBM has in the past been derogatory towards the Mahayana many times. Conclusion you without evidence wish to belittle me for some unknown reason and without evidence that I've done anything wrong, you seem to believe I'm someone other than my posts reveal but without knowing anything other than a few posts you've read... why? Actually I'm not interested don't reply unless you're quoting my posts as evidence of your 'new' outburst against me.

1 Reply

@igm,

I am most certainly not trying to belittle you igm.
You should perhaps learn that criticism of action is different than criticism of person.
This seems to be creating in you an offensive/defensive posture.
Us vs. Them
The root of group conflict.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Thanks you've cleared it all up... to your satisfaction. Ken Wilbur (failed cult leader) someone who you often quote and who has influenced you, probably has a book I can read to help me... what do you think?

1 Reply

@igm,

Yes igm that seems much less derogatory. Rolling Eyes

I have read many books igm, Christian books, atheist books, Buddhist books, science books, am I to assume these are all left here by the devil Twisted Evil

?
To tempt me away from "the path".
Stop your arrogance it is unbecoming of you, it also makes you a poor representative of your tribe.

2 Replies

@MattDavis,

I'm here to debate. I not here to represent a tribe. I'll take a point and push forward with it to 'learn' how others will respond. Just because you're not here for the same reason doesn't mean we all have to abide by 'your' rules. I am not here to defend my religion. I'm here to test some questions or tentative answers where I can do little harm.

My advice to you is 'only' give advice when you're asked... people appreciate those that do that and those that don't eventually undermine there own attempted good works.

2 Replies

Atheists... Your life is pointless

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know