flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > Buddism (possibly offencive, beware)

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 12, 13, 14  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Maverick



Joined: 07 Aug 2006
Posts: 251
Location: Citizen of the Universe
Maverick
f0dder wrote:
Maverick: that's not what you told me last night - you charlatan!

Wink Wink Wink

Oh, may I have been drunk hard.. and what did I tell you in our INTIMACY? :DDD

(remains to be seen how could we have intimacy (apart that we don't really want it anyway (darn gf and wife!)), at a mere 3000+ Km of distance Very Happy ).
BTW: any snow yet in your land? Smile

Everybody: beware, fodder is one of those '60s East German blonde spies with big tits that have stolen secrets from all western world first ministers. :^)
Post 09 Jan 2007, 14:34
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
Nope, no snow yet - a bit scary, really. And people claim there's no global warming? *chuckle*
Post 09 Jan 2007, 15:17
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Maverick



Joined: 07 Aug 2006
Posts: 251
Location: Citizen of the Universe
Maverick
Yeah, I saw also in Moscow.. people in t-shirt (or, nearly). Razz
Very weird.

Here in Sicily it's nearly 20C. Very Happy

Tomorrow I should finally get my Tektronix TDS-2024B so there's no time to dedicate to the sun, anyway! Smile
Post 09 Jan 2007, 15:28
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
Nope, no snow yet - a bit scary, really. And people claim there's no global warming? *chuckle*


From blizzards to absolutely no snow in america. Global warming must work fast, irregardless, this was about budhism... i gues there's no hope in preventing topics from being hijacked. Oh well
Post 10 Jan 2007, 03:33
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
kohlrak: this topic about buddhism, not about topic hijacking, so stop it. Razz Wink
Post 10 Jan 2007, 04:45
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
That last post was me confessing that i give up. lol I could see Jackle here, though, but none of you know him. He would have thrown a major fit for any word that was off topic. He'd probably give a huge sermon on the evils of topic hijacking, just to sound half on topic.
Post 10 Jan 2007, 06:20
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
rhyno_dagreat



Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 487
Location: Maryland, Unol Daleithiau
rhyno_dagreat
From what I recall, I either read it on the web or heard it in a World Civilization course, but before the Palestinians turned to Islam, they were primarily a Christian society. Then, because of land squabbles with Israel (and fear of the Western influence) they turned to Islam. In fact, it's not all of Palestine and Arabs that are against Israel, because from what I've heard is that in Israel there are some communities where the Israelis and Palestinians live in peace together. Again, like ancient times, it's mostly territorial dispute.

As far as the Buddhist thing, I had a World Civilizations course, and when we were covering Buddhism he mentioned that it's not a religion but a philosophy. What has happened over periods of time is nations have molded the philosophy into their own images and turned it into a religion. In fact I recall hearing, and I don't remember where I heard it, but I know I heard it more than once, that Buddha said something along the lines of "I don't know if there is a God, if there is then worship Him. Don't worship me because I am not a god." Which is why I have a lot of respect for him, despite the fact I am a Christian. He was humble enough to admit that he wasn't a god. My viewpoints may be biased, and I'm sorry, but that's my outlook on everything.
Post 11 Jan 2007, 05:02
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tantrikwizard



Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 142
tantrikwizard
The original question is loaded, asking if buddhists believe in gods is like asking if christians believe in the pope. Catholics are xians that believe in the nazi pope, baptists are xians that dont.

The buddhism taught by Gautama recognized 'belief' as a function of the mind. It was not concerned with the existence or non-existent of said deities, it was more concerned with the trouble of the mind. Ego was a term never used by Gautama, its a western concept and didn't exist in his time. Over the years many sects have spawned off from the original teachings of Gautama until you have todays mish-mash of spirituality cults that barely resemble the original teachings as given by Gautama.

Many people hung out with Gautama, one day a man came up to his entourage and asked 'Is there a god?' Gautama said 'No' and the man went away happy. Later another man came to the group and asked 'Is there a God?' and Gautama said 'Yes' and the man went away happy. One of Gautama's group asked 'Why the contradiction?' Gautama said 'Those answers were not for you, they were for those other men.' So the man asked 'Is there a God?' Gautama didn't answer, he just closed his eyes and began to meditate. The man followed Gautama's lead and meditated, after a while he opened his eyes, smiled and went away happy.
Post 11 Jan 2007, 19:42
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
MichaelH



Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 402
MichaelH
Called the pope a nazi, that's very brave of you Shocked

Quote:

Ego was a term never used by Gautama, its a western concept and didn't exist in his time.


IMVHO there are several things in various religions that have not translated well to other languages. The word praise for instance I believe never meant to vocalise ones love for their god by singing, yelling or stating things like "Jesus is the light" etc but actually meant something different, i.e to praise ones god, one only needs to follow the lessons taught by that religion such as peace, love, being humble etc. Today because of this huge mistake we have most religion screaming out their religious beliefs pissing others off who don't beleave in their particular faith and ultimately causing the conflict we see today.

Another example is the "one god" thing, it's caused so much conflict, surely originally it was, a god/gods for the one (individual).
Post 11 Jan 2007, 20:43
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tantrikwizard



Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 142
tantrikwizard
tom tobias wrote:
mahasattva wrote:
He [i.e. Siddhartha] was the perfect scientist in the field of life. He was the perfect psychologist who was able to analyse the real nature of the mind - so much so that His teaching was acclaimed as the only scientific religion.
oops. "the only scientific religion". Hmm. The technical word for this is oxymoron (e.g. "make haste, slowly".) Religion and science are completely antithetical as this quote from the same author shows:


Most learned in the original Buddhism as taught by Gautama will agree that it is not a religion, its more like a philosophy. There are no beliefs in the supernatural that must be accepted by faith as found in other religions. This of course can be argued, but the precepts of Buddhism are logically consistent with observation and science. Most religions are ideologies, Buddhism is more of a philosophy and mind science. The precepts of the original Buddhism were called the 4 noble truths, not the 4 noble beliefs. Additionally Gautama encouraged people not to believe him, he recognized the diseases of the mind and susceptibility to be influenced. He encouraged people to realize for themselves and not fall for his word. Gautama recognized belief as a problem. People can (and will) believe in anything no matter how outlandish and beliefs doesn't solve the condition of 'suffering' in fact, in most cases, as is observed daily, belief is the source for much suffering (crackpot christs, psychotic prophets and goofy gods all fighting against one another).

Gautama was revolutionary because of his approach to the disease and cure of the human condition. His approach nearly identically matched that to the approach of the medical physicians of his time. The problem in Mahasattva statement was in comparing Buddhism to religion, it is no more a religion than any mind science such as psychology is a religion. Likewise, it is no more a hard science than any other mind science is a hard science because it deals with the subjectivity of the human mind.

Most incorrectly categorized Buddhism as a religion. If Buddhism is to be categorized amongst religions then it is correct to say that Buddhism is the most scientific of all religions. If psychology were categorized amongst religions then it would be correct to say that psychology is the most scientific of all religions.


Last edited by tantrikwizard on 12 Jan 2007, 00:36; edited 1 time in total
Post 12 Jan 2007, 00:28
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
tantrikwizard



Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 142
tantrikwizard
MichaelH wrote:
Called the pope a nazi, that's very brave of you Shocked


It is by the nazi popes own admission as being a member of the Hitler Youth.
Post 12 Jan 2007, 00:33
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
tantrikwizard wrote:

Gautama was revolutionary because of his approach to the disease and cure of the human condition. His approach nearly identically matched that to the approach of the medical physicians of his time. The problem in Mahasattva statement was in comparing Buddhism to religion, it is no more a religion than any mind science such as psychology is a religion.
I am completely ignorant of any notion of "the Buddha" as a healer. Medicine, as we know it today, originates with GREEK, not Hindu clinical writing, though, it is my personal opinion, NOT FACT, that Avicenna, author of the principal medical book used in Europe for 400 years, longer than any other text in recorded history, based his own clinical observations on the silk route traders, including, I SUSPECT, (no evidence) direct contact with the Chinese surgeons attending the numerous wounds suffered by the soldiers who accompanied the caravan--protecting its riches from marauding bandits. In other words, it was CHINESE, not Hindu medicine,
http://hinduwebsite.com/buddhism/chinese_buddhism.asp
in my opinion, NOT FACT, that led to Ibn Sina's brilliant chef d'ouvre, the CANNON. So, maybe I am wrong, and you are correct, perhaps it is HINDU, not Chinese medicine, that led to "revolutionary" approaches to treatment of disease. Nevertheless, ASSUMING you are correct, and I am in error, I still do not share your opinion, that :
Quote:
If Buddhism is to be categorized amongst religions then it is correct to say that Buddhism is the most scientific of all religions.

In my opinion, it is ABSOLUTELY incorrect, not simply a matter of opinion, to lump SCIENCE, i.e. VERIFICATION-centric mental process, with Buddhism, of any flavor, for Buddhism, AT LEAST IN PRACTICE, if not in theory, demands adherence to certain RITUALS based upon FAITH, not reason. You may revere "the Buddha" for his supposed medical skills, but I have witnessed, in China and Japan, too many Buddhist funerals to accept the notion that there is something rational, i.e."scientific", about its practices....
I disallow any fuzziness on the central point: there is no such thing as
Quote:
"most scientific of all religions"
This statement is both oxymoron, and unverifiable platitude. All religions, BY DEFINITION, are FAITH based, not rational, not based upon reason or logic, but upon tradition and custom. The strength of any religion is manifested in its adherents' devotion to duty, not their inquisitiveness, or data gathering skills, displayed publically on an expedition to challenge orthodoxy. Science demands anonymity, all Religions require devotion to a cult figure. I am glad that Tomasz ceased using "Privalov", and began posting with his own name, precisely to AVOID giving the impression that FASM users are cultists.
Smile
Post 12 Jan 2007, 01:27
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tantrikwizard



Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 142
tantrikwizard
tom tobias wrote:
tantrikwizard wrote:

Gautama was revolutionary because of his approach to the disease and cure of the human condition. His approach nearly identically matched that to the approach of the medical physicians of his time. The problem in Mahasattva statement was in comparing Buddhism to religion, it is no more a religion than any mind science such as psychology is a religion.
I am completely ignorant of any notion of "the Buddha" as a healer. Medicine, as we know it today, originates with GREEK, not Hindu clinical writing<snip>


Pay close attention to the highlighted. The medical science of the times dont remotely resimble the medical science of today, that was never the assertion. Gautama was a revolutionary because his approach to the suffering condition of life was taken as a medical approach, not a hokus pokus belief and fantasy based religious system as other systems are. Just as the psychology of today is not a hokus pokus belief based fantasy, yet its also not a hard science.

tom tobias wrote:

Nevertheless, ASSUMING you are correct, and I am in error, I still do not share your opinion, that :
Quote:
If Buddhism is to be categorized amongst religions then it is correct to say that Buddhism is the most scientific of all religions.

In my opinion, it is ABSOLUTELY incorrect, not simply a matter of opinion, to lump SCIENCE, i.e. VERIFICATION-centric mental process,...


I agree in the same sense that psychology is not a hard science (measurable and repeatable) because it deals with the subjective nature of the human mind and cannot be measured or repeated like physics. Psychology is a pseudo-science just as Buddhism, yet Buddhism, as in psychology, if grouped with religions, is the most scientific of all religions. I agree that it is wrong to group Buddhism with science, likewise it is also wrong to group Buddhism with religion. If Buddhism is categorized with other hard sciences, it is correct to say that Buddhism is the least scientific. However, if Buddhism is grouped together with religions, it is correct to say that Buddhism is the most scientific. If psychology and Buddhism were categorized together in 'religion' it would be correct to say that psychology were the most scientific of all religions and Buddhism a close second. If christianity were categorized as 'science' it would be correct to say that christianity is the least scientific of all sciences.

tom tobias wrote:
...with Buddhism, of any flavor, for Buddhism, AT LEAST IN PRACTICE, if not in theory, demands adherence to certain RITUALS based upon FAITH, not reason. You may revere "the Buddha" for his supposed medical skills, but I have witnessed, in China and Japan, too many Buddhist funerals to accept the notion that there is something rational, i.e."scientific", about its practices....


Agreed, the Buddhism of today is far removed from the teachings of Gautama. The Buddhism of today is to traditional Buddhism as the pope is to jesus. Gautama didn't teach rituals based on faith and there was no adherence required in the roots of the teachings. These things have been added over thousands of years. It is correct to say that the approach of Gautama was scientific just as the approach of psychology is scientific. These are not hard sciences because theyre based on the subjective nature of the mind and cannot be measured or repeated. It is pseudo-scientific, yet much more scientific than religions. This is why most learned in the traditional teachings of Gautama agree it is a philosophy, not a religion. Most religion can be classified as ideology, not philosophy.

tom tobias wrote:
I disallow any fuzziness on the central point: there is no such thing as
Quote:
"most scientific of all religions"
This statement is both oxymoron, and unverifiable platitude.


It is only fuzzy because you have taken it out of context and/or misunderstood the point. Buddhism should not be classified as a religion just a psychology should not. I agree, the statement "most scientific of all religions" is a very fuzzy partial statement, but when taken in its entirety the fuzziness disappears e.g.:
Quote:
Most incorrectly categorized Buddhism as a religion. If Buddhism is to be categorized amongst religions then it is correct to say that Buddhism is the most scientific of all religions.


tom tobias wrote:
All religions, BY DEFINITION, are FAITH based, not rational, not based upon reason or logic, but upon tradition and custom. The strength of any religion is manifested in its adherents' devotion to duty, not their inquisitiveness, or data gathering skills, displayed publically on an expedition to challenge orthodoxy.


Agreed, and one should differentiate (as I believe I have done) between the traditional teachings of Gautama and the Buddhism of today. The two are in stark contrast and don't remotely resemble one another. As stated, the Buddhism as taught by Gautama didn't have any such religious beliefs or faith, in fact he shunned them and recognized them as problems. Gautama said not to believe him, he said to discover for yourself. The buddhism of today is more like pseudo-newage wana be buddhism and doesnt remotely reflect the teachings of the author, just as the christianity of today doesnt remotely reflect the teachings of the crackpot christ.
Post 12 Jan 2007, 03:09
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
rhyno_dagreat



Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 487
Location: Maryland, Unol Daleithiau
rhyno_dagreat
Quote:
the christianity of today doesnt remotely reflect the teachings of the crackpot christ.


Are you implying Jesus was a crackpot? As I have said earlier, I am a Christian, and that can be taken as pretty offensive.
Post 12 Jan 2007, 03:45
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tantrikwizard



Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 142
tantrikwizard
rhyno_dagreat wrote:
Are you implying Jesus was a crackpot?

Yes, that was the implication.
rhyno_dagreat wrote:
As I have said earlier, I am a Christian, and that can be taken as pretty offensive.

It can be and also cannot be, the choice is yours.
Quote:
Remove thy opinion, and then there is taken away the complaint, "I have been harmed." Take away the complaint, "I have been harmed", and the harm is taken away. --Marcus Aurelius Antonius
Post 12 Jan 2007, 03:58
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
MichaelH



Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 402
MichaelH
Wow, a christian verse a tantrik ( a wizard of the philosophy no less ) square off. Beats the usual christian muslim nonsense Smile

Lead with your left rhyno_dagreat, keep your arms up and when he least expects it ( when he's meditating ), use the upper cut.

BTW rhyno_dagreat, tantriks always talk in nothing sentences like "It can be and also cannot be, the choice is yours", so rather than debating with them, beating your head against a brick wall will actually achieve more Wink
Post 12 Jan 2007, 05:49
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
i see it this way: buddhism is quite good IDEOLOGY, usually practiced by pretty weird people
Post 12 Jan 2007, 06:18
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
tantrikwizard wrote:
Buddhism is more of a philosophy and mind science.
When Catholics defend the papacy, are they not engaged in a "philosophical" enterprise? There is no data here. This is not "mind science". You write:
Quote:
...one should differentiate (as I believe I have done) between the traditional teachings of Gautama and the Buddhism of today.
What? You mean that "the Buddha", who claimed to have attained "enlightenment" by meditation, sitting for weeks and months under a lotus tree, NOT GATHERING and ANALYZING DATA, was a physician?
Quote:
...the approach of Gautama was scientific just as the approach of psychology is scientific.
Nonsense, dear friend. You are delusional on this point. First, we have NO data about either Buddha, or Jesus. We cannot call either one "crackpot", for we know NOTHING about them. Jesus was allegedly a Jewish Rabbi, or TEACHER. Where are his supposed teachings? There are none. There are only traditions, and ideas, and third party anecdotes. There are no primary sources of information available. What we do have, as data, is a history of thousands of "messiahs", all running about, proclaiming themselves the son of god. (Or, in Gautama's case, claiming to have achieved definitive spiritual "enlightenment.") I am informed from the "Bible" that one of Jesus' disciples, Matthew, complained bitterly about mere savings, BURYING the ten silver pieces, rather than recklessly gambling those same silver talents, as Matthew indicated he had preferred, by using the silver talents as collateral with the moneylenders. We know from this same disreputable source, the "Bible", that Matthew attributed that anecdote to Jesus, who supposedly, however, also fought, physically, against these same moneylenders in public. There are MANY similar contradictions in these old documents, because they were rewritten, and recopied, and redefined, and modified, reflecting hundreds of handwriting mistakes, and scores of political manipulations, for literally THOUSANDS of years. AS DOCUMENTS, these several thousand year old writings are of questionable significance, historically. A guy like Gautama, who lived thousands of years ago, may have been a talented fellow, maybe even a good guy, quite rare, and so perhaps worthy of emulation, though, I have yet to see any citation, to a URL showing me the EVIDENCE for his life's contribution, so I am unclear about what we should be emulating. For all we know, the Buddha was just another wealthy man, with a big ego, who hired some scribes to write and distribute his biography! Kong Zi, who lived in the same epoch as Buddha, for my money, is the superior figure for his many, MANY wise comments about morality, virtue, and wisdom, which remain as valid today, as anything written since his death two and a half millenia ago. I am especially fond of this aphorism:
http://www.aphorisms-galore.info/author/Confucius/page2.html
KongZi wrote:
Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance.
Here's another:
KongZi wrote:
Tsze-Kung asked, saying, 'Is there one word which may serve as a rule of practice for all one's life?" The Master said, "Is not Reciprocity such a word? What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others."

This concept, embracing honesty and selflessness, is completely different from the opportunistic teachings of Gautama, if in fact he actually did offer one worried man confirmation of the existence of eternal life after death, while concurrently reassuring another worried man that there was no such place as Heaven, and then, subsequently, refusing to respond to his disciple, witness to those two contradictory affirmations, when asked to provide an accurate, definitive declaration about an afterlife! Smile
Post 12 Jan 2007, 12:27
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
he actually did offer one worried man confirmation of the existence of eternal life after death, while concurrently reassuring another worried man that there was no such place as Heaven, and then, subsequently, refusing to respond to his disciple, witness to those two contradictory affirmations, when asked to provide an accurate, definitive declaration about an afterlife!
citation please? Razz Wink
Post 12 Jan 2007, 13:06
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
tantrikwizard



Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 142
tantrikwizard
tom tobias wrote:
When Catholics defend the papacy, are they not engaged in a "philosophical" enterprise? There is no data here. This is not "mind science".

Comparing catholicism to Buddhisms is like comparing street charlatan to physics.

tom tobias wrote:
What? You mean that "the Buddha", who claimed to have attained "enlightenment" by meditation, sitting for weeks and months under a lotus tree, NOT GATHERING and ANALYZING DATA, was a physician?


Try to pay attention, I will clarify for you again. (also it was not a lotus tree, it was a bodhi tree)
Quote:
Gautama was revolutionary because of his approach to the disease and cure of the human condition. His approach nearly identically matched that to the approach of the medical physicians of his time.


The man himself was not a physician, that was never the implication, try to pay closer attention. His approach to the spiritual problems of the human condition nearly identically matched the approach of medical physician's of his time. This does not imply he was a medical physician, no where was that implied. Rather his approach was the most scientific as there were no hokus-pokus fairy-tales and beliefs involved as found in other so called 'spiritual paths'


tom tobias wrote:
Quote:
...the approach of Gautama was scientific just as the approach of psychology is scientific.
Nonsense, dear friend. You are delusional on this point. First, we have NO data about either Buddha, or Jesus.


I can now say with some confidence that you know next to nothing about Buddhisms. You have failed to locate the original texts of Gautama because you have probably failed to look. The man taught for over 20 years and was a very prolific writer. He authored several original texts which have been translated to several languages.

tom tobias wrote:
We cannot call either one "crackpot", for we know NOTHING about them. ...<snip...long winded monologue about jesus and xianity>...A guy like Gautama, who lived thousands of years ago, may have been a talented fellow, maybe even a good guy, quite rare, and so perhaps worthy of emulation, though, I have yet to see any citation, to a URL showing me the EVIDENCE for his life's contribution, so I am unclear about what we should be emulating.


Your lack of clarity has nothing to do with the topic at hand. If you attempt understand the precepts of Gautama's teachings you will understand that emulation is contrary to them. Additionally, it is not my role to educate you on Buddhisms and it is false to say 'we know NOTHING about them', There is a great deal known about Gautama, you have just failed to find it, I am not a Buddhist so dont have the material laying around, I'm more of a shadetree philosopher and have read all the original translated texts at some time or another, rather you should do your own research and become mildly educated in what you're attempting to dispute.

tom tobias wrote:
For all we know, the Buddha was just another wealthy man, with a big ego, who hired some scribes to write and distribute his biography!

Nonsense, try doing some research, youre clearly illiterate in this subject.
tom tobias wrote:
Kong Zi, who lived in the same epoch as Buddha, for my money, is the superior figure for his many, MANY wise comments about morality, virtue, and wisdom, which remain as valid today, as anything written since his death two and a half millenia ago.


This is a thread about Buddhisms, not christianity or kong zi or comparitive religion. You will get no opinion out of me concerning who is the superior teacher of 500 BCE. I'm sure you can summon all sorts of quotes and opinions of other teachers of the time that many would consider 'more wise' than Gautama. I'm not a proponent of the man Gautama, he is dead and it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I'm not even very educated in buddhism, but clearly much more educated in the topic than you. The original question was whether buddhism believes in god. To that question I believe I have accurately answered, if you can present any creditable (educated) discenting opinions on this matter, it will be welcome.

tom tobias wrote:
This concept, embracing honesty and selflessness, is completely different from the opportunistic teachings of Gautama, if in fact he actually did offer one worried man confirmation of the existence of eternal life after death, while concurrently reassuring another worried man that there was no such place as Heaven, and then, subsequently, refusing to respond to his disciple, witness to those two contradictory affirmations, when asked to provide an accurate, definitive declaration about an afterlife! Smile


It seems you have real difficulty with reading comprehension and projecting your own ideas into what you have read. No where have I suggested Gautama described an afterlife, eternal life, death or heaven. The anecdote was about the existence of god (which is consistent with the origin of this thread), there was no suggestion of death, heaven or afterlife. Try to pay attention.
Post 12 Jan 2007, 14:38
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 12, 13, 14  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.