PDA

View Full Version : The Buddha Was Wrong, a Skeptical Buddhist Site


Pages : [1] 2 3

Nathyn
25th May 2007, 05:22 AM
On the eSangha forum, someone anonymously sent me a link to this site:

http://thebuddhawaswrong.com/

The majority of Buddhists are just as superstitious as other religions. They believe in flying monks, that there's literally six dimensions where we're reborn into after we die, that there actually is such a thing as qi\chi, especially the Tibetan Buddhists. Oh, and they consider it unethical to even say, "the Buddha was wrong." That's called "defaming the Buddha." For them, the Buddha is God and the sutras are their Bible. And a lot of them are into the traditional Chinese and Tibetan medicine which you guys know is pseudoscience.

Well, there is also a minority of "modern" Theravada and Zen practitioners which are skeptics and atheists. Most likely, this movement is the result of Buddhism entering America, because Theravada and Zen have been fairly widespread in America (as opposed to, say, Pureland Buddhism) and skeptical Buddhists seem to me to be exclusively western.

Anyway, these folks that run this website seem to be motivated by hatred, which isn't good.

But this one article on the Dalai Lama really made me laugh:

http://thebuddhawaswrong.com/dalai.php

strathmeyer
25th May 2007, 06:30 AM
The Dali Lama is a homophobe? Who knew? I didn't know such bigotry was so widespread.

Ryokan
25th May 2007, 08:10 AM
Well, there is also a minority of "modern" Theravada and Zen practitioners which are skeptics and atheists.

There's one of the Theravada variety right here. Hello.

Most likely, this movement is the result of Buddhism entering America, because Theravada and Zen have been fairly widespread in America (as opposed to, say, Pureland Buddhism) and skeptical Buddhists seem to me to be exclusively western.

There sure are fewer sceptics among the 'native' Buddhists, but I wouldn't say 'exclusively western'.

Also, most of the superstition in Theravada and Zen countries have nothing to do with Buddhism, they come in addition to it.

Rufo
25th May 2007, 08:23 AM
The Dali Lama is a homophobe? Who knew? I didn't know such bigotry was so widespread.
I wouldn't go that far. From what I understand, he sees nothing wrong with same-sex relationships as such, he is opposed to certain forms of sex (pretty much anything besides genital, I suppose). That rule includes eveyone, but obviously it effects his views on homosexuality negatively.

Still, he is not one to point fingers - especially not to non-Buddhists. Also, he seems open-minded enough to listen to new ideas.

Dancing David
25th May 2007, 08:32 AM
Well, there is also a minority of "modern" Theravada and Zen practitioners which are skeptics and atheists. Most likely, this movement is the result of Buddhism entering America, because Theravada and Zen have been fairly widespread in America (as opposed to, say, Pureland Buddhism) and skeptical Buddhists seem to me to be exclusively western.



Yay for sceptics, i will see if they quote the alleged historical buddha or the folowers of the alleged historical buddha.

Time for Yrreg to appear.

Here is what I found, some good ,some attributions to the buddha that might or might not be the product of the AHB



From the buddha part:
http://thebuddhawaswrong.com/buddha.php

If you seen the guy below telling you that he is perfectly enlightened and there wont be another guy like him for another few aeons would you take him seriously?
...
yet he seemed to have no trouble seeing several gazillion years into the future.

Certainly the belief of some of the buddha's followers and up there with the sex change of Avolokiteshivara, but in some people's minds not a teaching of the AHB.


From the dammha part
http://thebuddhawaswrong.com/nibbana.php

It is a naïve belief held by beginner Buddhists that nibbana is a state of mind where a small part of whatever it is you are gets left over for eternity to enjoy the ultimate never ending bliss and happiness. However, the pali canon and numerous Buddhist monks make it clear that it is not a state of mind and absolutely nothing is left over. It is complete extinguishment of mind and matter from the subjective viewpoint of the 5 aggregates.

I think there has been a great discussion about the subject of nibbanna on this board, and miost would disagree with this characterization of nibbanna.

With this being the case, nibbana only makes sense in the context of a rebirth world view therefore, without rebirth, there is no need for nibbana
...
Buddhist monks waste their whole lives trying to attain a state of non existence which happens automatically at death

I would disagree with these statements as well.

http://thebuddhawaswrong.com/rebirth.php

Without the concept of rebirth, the rest of Buddhist philosophy breaks down and becomes irrelevant

I disagree with this as well.

http://thebuddhawaswrong.com/meditation.php

But so what? Why all the dogma? Why all the cultural baggage and superstition? Why all the religious mumbo jumbo?

i agree.

From the section on the sangha
http://thebuddhawaswrong.com/sangha.php


After spending a lot of time in various monasteries, both east and west, it is hard to tolerate the hypocrisy and sheer foolishness of such places.

Makes sense to me.

http://thebuddhawaswrong.com/dana.php

If you need anymore clues that holy people throughout the ages preach generosity as a fund raiser look no further than Buddhism. Rock up to any multi million dollar Buddhist monastery and see the rich business men making their donations in hope for a better rebirth.

I agree.

Blasphemy you say Mr Dogmatic monk? Disrespecting the sangha leads to the hell realms does it? How long must the people of this world tolerate this parasitical relationship with an elite spiritual class? It is blatantly obvious with the Catholic Church and various Jewish organisations and it would be a mistake to exclude Buddhism from this farce.

Quite true, but not all buddhists follow the silly dogma.

Ryokan
25th May 2007, 08:44 AM
Also, remember that the Dalai Lama does not speak for Buddhism. He only speaks for Tibetan Buddhism, which is both a small denomination and very different from other forms of Buddhism.

l0rca
25th May 2007, 09:47 AM
Time for Yrreg to appear.


I LAUGHED AT THAT.

(Caps lock for added creativity in reply.)

sesshin
25th May 2007, 10:27 AM
I've never understood the venom and hostility that some people have when criticizing Buddhism. I can understand criticizing it from a logical or skeptical standpoint, but it seems like some of these people just have so much out and out hatred, it makes me wonder what their motivation is.

strathmeyer
25th May 2007, 12:35 PM
Maybe you're just confused because some people like to be big jerks on the Internet? I assure you I hate most things equally.

onemind
26th May 2007, 10:46 PM
Hi all,

I am the author of this website and appreciate the comments.

Geez you skeptics are fast, its only been up for a few days and your already pulling it to peices :P

Anyway, these folks that run this website seem to be motivated by hatred, which isn't good.

??

Hatred? I'm sorry that you get that impression. Other than my immature nazi page about esangha i think i have presented my views in a respectful manner.

Anyway, its not "folks" running this site, just me :)

Thanks again for the critique. Any further construcive critisism is greatly appreciated.

Cheers

onemind
26th May 2007, 10:52 PM
I think there has been a great discussion about the subject of nibbanna on this board, and miost would disagree with this characterization of nibbanna.


I would appreciate a link to that discussion.

I have had many emails about my definition of nibbana and i stand by it. All this pureland, eternal happiness, all is one stuff is not in the pali canon. There are greater scriptural backing for the cessation of existence than there is for some kind of eternal heaven.

I think the best definition of nibbana written was by the famous western monk, Ajahn Brahm which i will post below.

This is an excerp from ajahn brahms book: "Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond".

What Nibbana is Not

In this chapter I will explain enlightenment as the buddha meant it to be taught, that is, with precision and clarity. I will also describe the final parts of the process during which it occurs. But first I will comment on what nibbana is not.

Dumbing Down Nibbana

Whenever Buddhism becomes fashionable, there is a tendency to change the meaning of nibbana to suit more people. The pressures born of popularity will bend the truth to make it more accomodating. Teachings are very well recieved when they tell people only what they want to hear.Furthermore, vanity induces some Dhamma teachers to explain nibbana in ways that do not challenge their own unenlightened state. This all leads to a dumbing down of nibbana.

One can read in modern buddhist literature that enlightenment is nothing more than passive submission to the way things seem to be (as distinguished from the way things are, seen only after jhana). Or that the unconditioned is merely the easily accessible mindfulness-in-the-moment, within which anything goes-absolutely anything. Or that the deathless state is simply a nondual awareness, a rejection of all distinctions, and an affirmation that all is one and benign. The supreme goal of buddhism then becomes little more than the art of living in a less troubled way, a hopeless surrender to the ups and downs of life, and a denial of dukkha as inherent in all forms of existence. It is like a neurotic prisoner celebrating his incarceration instead of seeking a way out. Such dumbed down Dhamma may feel warm and fuzzy, but it is a gross understatement of the real nibbana. And those who buy into such enchanting distortions will find they have bought a lemon.

Banana Nibbana

When I was a teenager, I asked many Christian teachers to explain the meaning of god. Either they would tell me what it was not or they would give me an answer that was unintelligible. For example, they would say God is "the ineffible" or "the ultimate reality" or "the ground of all being" or "infinite conciousness" or "the pure knowing".

Later I asked many Buddhist teachers to explain the meaning of nibbana. Either they would tell me what it was not or they would give me an answer that was unintelligible. For instance, they would say nibbana is "the ineffible" or "the ultimate reality" or "the ground of all being" or "infinite conciousness" or "the pure knowing". Then insight arose: I've heard such mumbo-jumbo somewhere before! For the very same reasons i rejected meaningless descriptions of god as a youth, so even now I reject all the gobbledygook descriptions of the Buddhist nibbana.

Some definitions of nibbana are plain oxymorons, such as, for example, "non manifest conciousness" or "attuning to the ungraspable". Conciousness is that essential part of the cognitive process that makes experience manifest, so "nonmanifest conciousness" actually means "nonmanifesting manifesting" or "unconcious consciousness" which is nonsense.One can only attune to what is possible for the mind to grasp, so the latter definition becomes "attuning to the unattunable" or "grasping the ungraspable". These and other similar descriptions are mere foolishness dressed up as wisdom.

The underlying problem is that it is very embarrassing to a Buddhist not to have a clear idea of what nibbana is. It is like getting on a bus and not quite being sure where the bus is going. It is worse when your non buddhist friends ask you to describe where you are heading on your buddhist journey. So, many Buddhists resort to obfuscation, meaning bamboozling their audience with unusual combinations of mystical sounding phrases. For if your listeners dont understand what you're saying, then there is a good chance that they'll think it profound and consider you wise!

Such crooked descriptions of nibbana are so lacking in straight forwardness, so bent out of line, that I call them "banana nibbana". Experience tells us that, when one knows a thing well and has frequent and direct experience with it, then one will be able to supply a clear, detailed, and starightforward description. Mystification is the sure sign that the speaker does not know what they're talking about.

Demystified Nibbana

The Remainderless Cessation of Body and Mind

In the time of the Buddha, even simple villagers understood the meaning of nibbana. For nibbana was the word used in common usage for an oil lamp being extinguished (see Ratana Sutta, Sn 235). When the oil was used up, or the wick had burned out, or a wind carried the heat away, the villagers would say that the flame had been "nibbana-ed". Nibbana was the word used in ordinary usage that described the remainderless ending of a natural process, whether it was a simple flame, or this complex body and mind..or a fashionable curiosity box. When one penetrates to the heart of this insight, then there is nothing at all to lose and nothing to be annihilated. Only when there is some persistent entity there to begin with can we use the word annihilation. But for the remainderless ending of the empty natural process, we call it cessation. Nibbana is the empty and natural process of body and mind doing its cessation thing.

Dancing David
27th May 2007, 03:45 AM
Hi all,

I am the author of this website and appreciate the comments.

Geez you skeptics are fast, its only been up for a few days and your already pulling it to peices :P



??

Hatred? I'm sorry that you get that impression. Other than my immature nazi page about esangha i think i have presented my views in a respectful manner.

Anyway, its not "folks" running this site, just me :)

Thanks again for the critique. Any further construcive critisism is greatly appreciated.

Cheers

Welcome to the forum!

I think that your critiques of structural buddhism are great. As I have said to friends and with friends in the past, "It is not religion I can't stand, it is just religous people." :)

Dancing David
27th May 2007, 03:49 AM
I would appreciate a link to that discussion.

I have had many emails about my definition of nibbana and i stand by it. All this pureland, eternal happiness, all is one stuff is not in the pali canon. There are greater scriptural backing for the cessation of existence than there is for some kind of eternal heaven.

I think the best definition of nibbana written was by the famous western monk, Ajahn Brahm which i will post below.

This is an excerp from ajahn brahms book: "Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond".


Sorry about the typos in my post. Just about any thread started by Yrreg will give good results, I will try to find the specific ones involving the discussion of nibbana.

Ajahn Brahms sounds interesting.The issue for many buddhists on this thread is that there is a difference between what the AHB taught and what is actualy practised in many syncretic versions of buddhism. I certainly agree that like most human endevours about 90% is nonsense.

Dustin Kesselberg
28th May 2007, 06:55 AM
Isn't doubting reincarnation and the words of the Buddha the 10th unwholesome action in Buddhism? How can you be a skeptical Buddhist when the religion is so rigid in it's interpretations of what the "universal truths" are and the "only way to true happiness" is? Isn't it a bit presumptuous to assume that a 2,500+ year old philosophy has the answers on the meaning of life and understanding of the universe? About as presumptuous to believe a 1,800 year old text called "Genesis" does.

onemind
28th May 2007, 10:26 AM
exactly

Dancing David
29th May 2007, 05:01 AM
Isn't doubting reincarnation and the words of the Buddha the 10th unwholesome action in Buddhism? How can you be a skeptical Buddhist when the religion is so rigid in it's interpretations of what the "universal truths" are and the "only way to true happiness" is? Isn't it a bit presumptuous to assume that a 2,500+ year old philosophy has the answers on the meaning of life and understanding of the universe? About as presumptuous to believe a 1,800 year old text called "Genesis" does.

Kindly cite your source for this information. I have always stated that there are some very religous and superstitious aspects to buddhism. Which school holds that to be the tenth unwholesome action?

I have found that the buddha cited in the Pali canon appears to have been either heavily edited or the AHB was not as superstitious as thier followers.

Dancing David
29th May 2007, 08:34 AM
I would appreciate a link to that discussion.



Here are some links to the discussion on this board.
Almost all the sceptics agree that the majority of buddhist practices and the like are total hogwash and foolish mummery. Some take my perspective that what is alleged to be from the Alleged Historical Buddha does not contain the same level of nonsense.

Prior to the arrival of yrreg there were occasional conversations regarding buddhism. But hes purred greater effort from us and really helped me clarify my thinking about what i consider to be buddhism.

Karma

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=61734

Tanha, purpose of life

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=55812

Sceptics and buddhism(a thread I started)

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=50217

Nirvana, rebirth, annatta
(Perhaps the introduction of yrreg and buddhism)
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=48138

Dustin Kesselberg
30th May 2007, 02:31 AM
Kindly cite your source for this information. I have always stated that there are some very religous and superstitious aspects to buddhism. Which school holds that to be the tenth unwholesome action?

I have found that the buddha cited in the Pali canon appears to have been either heavily edited or the AHB was not as superstitious as thier followers.

I read it from one of the Dali Lama's books. The 10th unwholesome action is listed as being "Wrong views" which include denying the fact that consciousness is eternal(afterlife or reincarnation) as well as the efficacy of moral actions. I don't know about any sources.

Perhaps you could address the other parts of my post.

Taffer
30th May 2007, 02:51 AM
I read it from one of the Dali Lama's books. The 10th unwholesome action is listed as being "Wrong views" which include denying the fact that consciousness is eternal(afterlife or reincarnation) as well as the efficacy of moral actions. I don't know about any sources.

Perhaps you could address the other parts of my post.


You must have missed this:

Also, remember that the Dalai Lama does not speak for Buddhism. He only speaks for Tibetan Buddhism, which is both a small denomination and very different from other forms of Buddhism.

Dustin Kesselberg
30th May 2007, 03:00 AM
You must have missed this:

I didn't miss it. That fact doesn't make the Dali Lama wrong about the 10th unwholesome action. The fact is, Buddhism is like any other religious movement. It has it's dogmas and it's religious leaders and it has numerous "sects" like any other religious movement does. I frequently see people claiming that they are Buddhists but they don't believe in reincarnation, karma and don't even always follow what the Buddha himself said. So in what sense are they Buddhists? What makes one a Buddhist? Even if it's simply following what the Buddha said, what makes one thing that what the Buddha said is true? As I mentioned earlier, it's absurd to think that some Indian philosopher or spiritual leader 2,500 years ago figured out the meaning of life, cause of suffering, path to end suffering, and path to "enlightenment" whatever that really even means.

Taffer
30th May 2007, 04:21 AM
I didn't miss it. That fact doesn't make the Dali Lama wrong about the 10th unwholesome action. The fact is, Buddhism is like any other religious movement. It has it's dogmas and it's religious leaders and it has numerous "sects" like any other religious movement does. I frequently see people claiming that they are Buddhists but they don't believe in reincarnation, karma and don't even always follow what the Buddha himself said. So in what sense are they Buddhists? What makes one a Buddhist? Even if it's simply following what the Buddha said, what makes one thing that what the Buddha said is true? As I mentioned earlier, it's absurd to think that some Indian philosopher or spiritual leader 2,500 years ago figured out the meaning of life, cause of suffering, path to end suffering, and path to "enlightenment" whatever that really even means.

I can only speak of Chinese Buddhism, but in that, reincarnation and other things are spoken of in philosophic terms, not as concrete ideas. So your blanket of "all Buddhists" is a bit off. You cannot judge all Buddhism on what the Lama says.

Dancing David
30th May 2007, 05:23 AM
I read it from one of the Dali Lama's books. The 10th unwholesome action is listed as being "Wrong views" which include denying the fact that consciousness is eternal(afterlife or reincarnation) as well as the efficacy of moral actions. I don't know about any sources.

Perhaps you could address the other parts of my post.


Hiya Dustin!

It comes down to a number of things, I really despise most forms of fundamental Xianity, but have met many a decent fundamentalist. I could blame the structure of the church for the behavior of the individuals, and I sure used to foam at the mouth about it.

However obnoxious I find the particulars of the institutions and the behavior of the individuals i can not blame the individual who might or might not have existed and was called Jesus and who might or might not have made the statement attributed to them. In fact I am still rather a fan of the teachings of Jesus.

Now when it comes to your post. There are a number of questions that can be answered to generate my POV:

1. Who made the statements that " "universal truths" are and the "only way to true happiness" . Not the AHB? The four noble truths (definitly vaued laden words there) are the four noble truths about what? Suffering ? And while the buddha(alleged and likely mythological) stated that he felt he found the cause of suffering and the path to it's easing, he also put a lot of stock on self examination, critical thinking and rejecting his path f one disagreed with it.

2. Who made the statements about "meaning of life and understanding of the universe" ? And should buddhism be held to the statements of a particular woo woo individual?

i and many others have stated repeatedly and endlessly on this forum that there are many foolish, mistaken, superstitious and stupid beliefs that are practised in buddhism.

However is one examines the Pali canon which had five hundred years of oral traditions and then was edited by a mass conclave after the alleged teaching of the alleged historical buddha, you will find that the 'buddha' was rather careful in the statements that they made, that there is a rather careful statement of the teachings, that there is an underlysing foundation of critical thought and that self knowledge and scepticism seem to be encouraged.

Now this does not of couse prevent the followers of the AHB from acting really stupid, the first major schism in buddhism was caused by what? A debate over wether an arharant has seminal emisions after attaining a state of nibbanna? And then there is the syncretic path of the phenomena known as relions. So yes, the majority of buddhists around the world may engage in foolish superstitions and dangerous woo beliefs.

Just as the Xians have argued if Jesus wore a purse and others have made statements that "Jesus would support the Iraq war."

So one can find the lotus above the mud or the jewel in the sows ear.

Dancing David
30th May 2007, 05:34 AM
I didn't miss it. That fact doesn't make the Dali Lama wrong about the 10th unwholesome action. The fact is, Buddhism is like any other religious movement. It has it's dogmas and it's religious leaders and it has numerous "sects" like any other religious movement does. I frequently see people claiming that they are Buddhists but they don't believe in reincarnation, karma and don't even always follow what the Buddha himself said. So in what sense are they Buddhists?
What makes one a Buddhist?

Calling one's self a buddhist.

Even if it's simply following what the Buddha said, what makes one thing that what the Buddha said is true? As I mentioned earlier, it's absurd to think that some Indian philosopher or spiritual leader 2,500 years ago figured out the meaning of life, cause of suffering, path to end suffering, and path to "enlightenment" whatever that really even means.

I completely agree and totaly understand, there is a lot, and I mean a whole lot of foolish nonsense in buddhism.

There are answers if you want to know them. The AHB taught that a person should examine the teachings and judge them for merit and then if they are found useful to follow them.

I doubt you can show that the AHB said they had found the meaning of life.

The buddha taught the following.

There is suffering and a way to ease that suffering.

There is impermanence in all things. There is no self or soul.

There is a way to live your life to reduce suffering.

The buddha(AHB) did not teach that there was one and only one true path, the buddha did(AHB) not teach reincarnation. The buddha(AHB) taught that he was human. The buddha(AHB) taught that there were other paths and other teachers. The Pali Canon is alleged to contain the teachings of a number of people, Sariputta very notably.

The buddha(AHB) did appear to have some issues with recognizing the equality of women.

The AHB died after eating poison mushrooms or bad pork.

Dustin Kesselberg
30th May 2007, 05:41 AM
1. Who made the statements that " "universal truths" are and the "only way to true happiness" . Not the AHB? The four noble truths (definitly vaued laden words there) are the four noble truths about what? Suffering ? And while the buddha(alleged and likely mythological) stated that he felt he found the cause of suffering and the path to it's easing, he also put a lot of stock on self examination, critical thinking and rejecting his path f one disagreed with it.

But you aren't answering my questions and you're asking many yourself when you're supposed to be the Buddhist.


2. Who made the statements about "meaning of life and understanding of the universe" ? And should buddhism be held to the statements of a particular woo woo individual?

Didn't Buddha? Doesn't Buddhism?

Here are some more "truths" of Buddhism...


Refrain from using a high, luxurious bed.
Refrain from dancing, using jewelery, going to shows, etc.
Refrain from eating at the wrong time (only eat from sunrise to noon)

i and many others have stated repeatedly and endlessly on this forum that there are many foolish, mistaken, superstitious and stupid beliefs that are practised in buddhism.

Where do they come from? What makes you a Buddhist if you don't practice them?

However is one examines the Pali canon which had five hundred years of oral traditions and then was edited by a mass conclave after the alleged teaching of the alleged historical buddha, you will find that the 'buddha' was rather careful in the statements that they made, that there is a rather careful statement of the teachings, that there is an underlysing foundation of critical thought and that self knowledge and scepticism seem to be encouraged.

Where did Buddha say that his followers should believe what they see as true and not what he himself has said?

If this is the case(which I doubt it is) what is the value of Buddhism?

Now this does not of couse prevent the followers of the AHB from acting really stupid, the first major schism in buddhism was caused by what? A debate over wether an arharant has seminal emisions after attaining a state of nibbanna?

Huh? :confused:

And then there is the syncretic path of the phenomena known as relions. So yes, the majority of buddhists around the world may engage in foolish superstitions and dangerous woo beliefs.

I don't know what you mean in the 1st part.

Just as the Xians have argued if Jesus wore a purse and others have made statements that "Jesus would support the Iraq war."

Wore a Purse?

So one can find the lotus above the mud or the jewel in the sows ear.

I don't know what this means either.

Taffer
30th May 2007, 05:46 AM
Refrain from using a high, luxurious bed.
Refrain from dancing, using jewelery, going to shows, etc.
Refrain from eating at the wrong time (only eat from sunrise to noon)

Citation?

Dustin Kesselberg
30th May 2007, 05:49 AM
Calling one's self a buddhist.

So basically "Buddhist" is a meaningless term that can be applied to anyone who calls themselves a Buddhist?


I completely agree and totaly understand, there is a lot, and I mean a whole lot of foolish nonsense in buddhism.

That's not the point. I'm saying Buddhism as a movement is worthless.


There are answers if you want to know them. The AHB taught that a person should examine the teachings and judge them for merit and then if they are found useful to follow them.

"AHB"? Buddha said this? What if we found his teachings not to be useful? Are we relegated to an eternity of bad karma?


I doubt you can show that the AHB said they had found the meaning of life.

The buddha taught the following.

There is suffering and a way to ease that suffering.

There is impermanence in all things. There is no self or soul.

There is a way to live your life to reduce suffering.

Quite the cherry picker aren't you?


The buddha(AHB) did not teach that there was one and only one true path, the buddha did(AHB) not teach reincarnation. The buddha(AHB) taught that he was human. The buddha(AHB) taught that there were other paths and other teachers. The Pali Canon is alleged to contain the teachings of a number of people, Sariputta very notably.

So the Buddha did not teach reincarnation, did not believe his followers should follow him and taught that they should follow other teachers? Assuming this is true (which I doubt it is), What is the value of "Buddhism"? What does "Buddhism" even mean? How is it different from "Nothing" in your own definition.


The buddha(AHB) did appear to have some issues with recognizing the equality of women.

The AHB died after eating poison mushrooms or bad pork.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddhartha_Gautama#The_Great_Passing) doesn't mention his last meal being poison.

Dustin Kesselberg
30th May 2007, 05:51 AM
Citation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism#.C5.9A.C4.ABla:_virtuous_behavior_and_the _precepts

andyandy
30th May 2007, 05:55 AM
So basically "Buddhist" is a meaningless term that can be applied to anyone who calls themselves a Buddhist?



There is no absolute definition of "Buddhist" any more than there is an absolute defintion of "Christian" or of what is "moral" or "ethical"....

has the penny finally dropped?

Dustin Kesselberg
30th May 2007, 06:01 AM
There is no absolute definition of "Buddhist" any more than there is an absolute defintion of "Christian" or of what is "moral" or "ethical"....

has the penny finally dropped?

I won't get into moral philosophy in this thread since it's off topic, However here is what the dictionary says about Buddhism.

Buddhism-
a religion, originated in India by Buddha (Gautama) and later spreading to China, Burma, Japan, Tibet, and parts of southeast Asia, holding that life is full of suffering caused by desire and that the way to end this suffering is through enlightenment that enables one to halt the endless sequence of births and deaths to which one is otherwise subject.Buddhist-
one who follows the teachings of Buddha http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Buddhist

Here's what it says about Christianity.

Christianity-
of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.Christian-
One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

You say there is no absolute definition of Christian? I'm an atheist who does not believe in much of what Jesus Christ taught. If there is no absolute definition of Christian then I can rightfully call myself a christian? Is that what you're saying? :rolleyes:

andyandy
30th May 2007, 06:29 AM
You say there is no absolute definition of Christian? I'm an atheist who does not believe in much of what Jesus Christ taught. If there is no absolute definition of Christian then I can rightfully call myself a christian? Is that what you're saying? :rolleyes:

what a surprise - the old "it must be absolute because it's in the dictionary" argument...i assume you have dictionary.com in your favourites :)

Your definitions are nowhere near sufficient - how do you define Christ? How do you define belief? You can reach for the dictionary but it won't give you an absolute answer.

Dancing David
30th May 2007, 07:26 AM
But you aren't answering my questions and you're asking many yourself when you're supposed to be the Buddhist.

They are simple questions. If you don't want to answer them then don't. But please be sanrky if you wish, it is not my problem.

Didn't Buddha? Doesn't Buddhism?

I make no assumptions about what you know or don't know so I state what i believe and have studied.

The buddha is alleged to have been a male who lived in northern india 2500 BCE, he founded a system of philosophy and practice. He had many followers, they spread to many different places. There is a thread of monastic buddhism which was an oral tradition set down five hundred years later when a bunch of monks got together and recited the oral tradition and wrote down what they felt was consistant with the recitations.Tthey say they just recited thier seperate oral traditions and wrote down the ones that agreed with each other. This is the so called Pali Canon.

Meanwhile there were other strains of monastic buddhism that spread. In the Mahayana tradition buddhism merged with many different local traditions, in the mahayana traditions anything which leads to enlightenment is considered to be buddhism. Most of thier traditions were written down at various times after the writing of the Pali canon.

So there are multiple threads to what comprise the teachings of the buddha. There is the 'southern' monastic tradition where there is an oral tradition that is collated and edited five hundred years after the death of the AHB. There are all the other traditions of buddhism which are monastic in origin but much more syncretic.

So what is a teaching of the buddha? Some will say that anything put in the mouth of the buddha is a teaching of the buddha. Many (myself included) take the historical perspective that from the archeological perspective the Pali Canon seems to be very consistant with the recording of an oral tradition of buddhism that is self consistant, either through the stated process of collation or a process of editing an oral tradition.

The texts of the other traditions are harder to verify as to the date of writing and transmission from the Alleged Historical Buddha. There are similarities in the teaching of certain stories and doctrines, there is a complete divergence of other stories and doctrines.

So two and a half thousand years later we are left with what? A set of documents, one that is an edited and collated version of an oral tradition written two thousand years ago. Then there is a huge variety of documents written at various times in various places.

Which is the teaching of the AHB? Most likely none of them, no more than the Gospels represent the actual teachings of Jesus. We can look at the similarities in the documents, it would appear that the four truths and the eightfold path and some of the precepts are very consistant. In buddhism most schools take the Pali Canon to be the best source of the teachings of the buddha. It is the source of most of the sutras/suttas. The Pali canon does seem to represent the most consistant of the documents, it contradicts very few of the things that are consistant across all the documents. But that is also because it is the source text for much of buddhism.

So I tounge in cheeks state the the Pali canon is the "teachings of the buddha". ;)

But anything placed in the mouth of the buddha is also a 'teaching of the buddha'.

And as to what comprises a buddhist, any one who calls themselves a buddhist.


Here are some more "truths" of Buddhism...


Refrain from using a high, luxurious bed.
Refrain from dancing, using jewelery, going to shows, etc.
Refrain from eating at the wrong time (only eat from sunrise to noon)



Where do they come from? What makes you a Buddhist if you don't practice them?

It depends upon the tradition and calling yourself a buddhist.

Some traditions practive 'no harm to life' others eat meat, they are all buddhists.

What makes you a buddhist is following the eightfold path and the 'teaching of the buddha'.




Where did Buddha say that his followers should believe what they see as true and not what he himself has said?

Many places, I can cite my sources, can you?

According to the story of the death of the buddha his dying words were "Be ye lamps unto yourselfs", he is alleged to have told Ananada when he was wailing about the loss of the buddha.

The Kalama sutta is the main one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalama_Sutra


If this is the case(which I doubt it is) what is the value of Buddhism?

It is up to each person to study the buddha's teaching and decide the value for themselves.

The value or lack thereof is up to the individual. I can tell you what I find to be valuable.

Huh? :confused:

You have a teacher (alleged) and you have the followers, 2 1/2 thousand years later how do you decide what is a teaching of the teacher and what is a teaching of the follower? That is called history.

The first big schism in buddhism came about because of an argument over wether an arharant/arhat would have seminal emissions when they slept. Sounds silly to me.



I don't know what you mean in the 1st part.

Misspelling. the phenomena of religion is syncretic. I believe it means aquiring other traditions.


Wore a Purse?


Google, "Two Popes", "i dui Papi", Avignon Papacy




I don't know what this means either.

If ya don't know I won't tell you.

Dancing David
30th May 2007, 07:35 AM
So basically "Buddhist" is a meaningless term that can be applied to anyone who calls themselves a Buddhist?

Then it would have the meaning of 'someone who calls themselves a buddhist' or 'someone who says they follow the path of the buddha'.



That's not the point. I'm saying Buddhism as a movement is worthless.

What is the eightfold path?

"AHB"? Buddha said this? What if we found his teachings not to be useful? Are we relegated to an eternity of bad karma?

Alleged Historical Buddha.

Then they are not useful, And so what?
An eternity for something that has no soul and no self. I doubt it.

Quite the cherry picker aren't you?


I like cherries more than snot.

Read much on how to determine the original source in history in your sarcasm class?

So the Buddha did not teach reincarnation, did not believe his followers should follow him and taught that they should follow other teachers? Assuming this is true (which I doubt it is),

Ah, proof through assertion.

What is the value of "Buddhism"? What does "Buddhism" even mean? How is it different from "Nothing" in your own definition.

Pick more snot, you seem to be full.

The eightfold path.
The people who call themselves buddhists.
"The absence of things" Vs. "people who call themselves buddhists."





Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddhartha_Gautama#The_Great_Passing) doesn't mention his last meal being poison.

Ah, Wikipedia, i suppose if you have only one source it is not a bad one.

Taffer
30th May 2007, 08:15 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism#.C5.9A.C4.ABla:_virtuous_behavior_and_the _precepts

I see your citation fails to mention that these "rules" are universal for all Buddhists. :rolleyes:

Ryokan
30th May 2007, 08:35 AM
Calling one's self a buddhist.

There is no self :p

Ryokan
30th May 2007, 08:43 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism#.C5.9A.C4.ABla:_virtuous_behavior_and_the _precepts

Please note that the rules mentioned here, except the five precepts, are monastic rules, not rules for the man in the street. It would be devastating to humanity if every one of us practiced chastity ;)

Also note, as Wikipeda does, that none of these rules start with 'thou shalt not'. They're just guidelines to a better life.

Solus
30th May 2007, 09:56 AM
I looked at Buddhism years ago and it is more appealing to a person who has had to put up with suffering. The problem with Buddhism like all the other religions though is the supernatural aspects, that's the part I just could never buy into, some of the philosophy is nice though. I'd take Buddhism over christianity if I had to chose a religion that much is sure.

Dustin Kesselberg
30th May 2007, 10:11 AM
what a surprise - the old "it must be absolute because it's in the dictionary" argument...i assume you have dictionary.com in your favourites :)

Your definitions are nowhere near sufficient - how do you define Christ? How do you define belief? You can reach for the dictionary but it won't give you an absolute answer.


We're using a language to communicate. This is the English language. In the "English language" we use specific words to communicate specific ideas. In order for any language to have any meaning it must have definitions for words. The Dictionary uses common usage to define words. The common usage for the words in question was how I defined them given this context.

If you want to make up definitions for words, be my guest. Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously or even understand what you're saying. A word must have a specific number of definitions per context. If a word has numerous definitions for a specific context then the word is pretty much useless and ambiguous.

Taffer
30th May 2007, 10:21 AM
Not every Buddhist version has supernatural aspects.

In particular, Chinese Buddhism is rather devoid of the supernatural.

Ancient Chinese Buddhism, that is.

Dustin Kesselberg
30th May 2007, 10:26 AM
They are simple questions. If you don't want to answer them then don't. But please be sanrky if you wish, it is not my problem.

So your defense of Buddhism is ignore questions asked about it and ask your own questions?

I make no assumptions about what you know or don't know so I state what i believe and have studied.

So?


The buddha is alleged to have been a male who lived in northern india 2500 BCE, he founded a system of philosophy and practice. He had many followers, they spread to many different places. There is a thread of monastic buddhism which was an oral tradition set down five hundred years later when a bunch of monks got together and recited the oral tradition and wrote down what they felt was consistant with the recitations.Tthey say they just recited thier seperate oral traditions and wrote down the ones that agreed with each other. This is the so called Pali Canon.

How is this relevant?

Meanwhile there were other strains of monastic buddhism that spread. In the Mahayana tradition buddhism merged with many different local traditions, in the mahayana traditions anything which leads to enlightenment is considered to be buddhism. Most of thier traditions were written down at various times after the writing of the Pali canon.

How is this relevant?


So there are multiple threads to what comprise the teachings of the buddha. There is the 'southern' monastic tradition where there is an oral tradition that is collated and edited five hundred years after the death of the AHB. There are all the other traditions of buddhism which are monastic in origin but much more syncretic.

How is this relevant?

So what is a teaching of the buddha? Some will say that anything put in the mouth of the buddha is a teaching of the buddha. Many (myself included) take the historical perspective that from the archeological perspective the Pali Canon seems to be very consistant with the recording of an oral tradition of buddhism that is self consistant, either through the stated process of collation or a process of editing an oral tradition.

So the teachings of the Buddha are the teachings that the Buddha taught?

What a concept!

:rolleyes:

The texts of the other traditions are harder to verify as to the date of writing and transmission from the Alleged Historical Buddha. There are similarities in the teaching of certain stories and doctrines, there is a complete divergence of other stories and doctrines.

So?

So two and a half thousand years later we are left with what? A set of documents, one that is an edited and collated version of an oral tradition written two thousand years ago. Then there is a huge variety of documents written at various times in various places.

So?


Which is the teaching of the AHB? Most likely none of them, no more than the Gospels represent the actual teachings of Jesus.

So none of the teachings in Buddhism actually came from the Buddha? :confused:

We can look at the similarities in the documents, it would appear that the four truths and the eightfold path and some of the precepts are very consistant. In buddhism most schools take the Pali Canon to be the best source of the teachings of the buddha. It is the source of most of the sutras/suttas. The Pali canon does seem to represent the most consistant of the documents, it contradicts very few of the things that are consistant across all the documents. But that is also because it is the source text for much of buddhism.

So?

So I tounge in cheeks state the the Pali canon is the "teachings of the buddha". ;)

So Just that?

But anything placed in the mouth of the buddha is also a 'teaching of the buddha'.

You're contradicting yourself over and over.

And as to what comprises a buddhist, any one who calls themselves a buddhist.

This makes no sense. Either there is an accepted teaching of Buddhism or there isn't. If there is then those who follow those teachings are Buddhists. If there isn't then "Buddhism" is a meaningless term.

It depends upon the tradition and calling yourself a buddhist.

So why would anyone want to call themselves a "Buddhist" again?


Some traditions practive 'no harm to life' others eat meat, they are all buddhists.

Just because they say so eh? :rolleyes:

What makes you a buddhist is following the eightfold path and the 'teaching of the buddha'.

I thought you just said that what makes someone a Buddhist is calling themselves a Buddhist? Taking that back now?

Many places, I can cite my sources, can you?

Cite them then.


According to the story of the death of the buddha his dying words were "Be ye lamps unto yourselfs", he is alleged to have told Ananada when he was wailing about the loss of the buddha.

So in the end the Buddha contradicted all of his teachings and told his followers to follow themselves? :confused:



It is up to each person to study the buddha's teaching and decide the value for themselves.

The value or lack thereof is up to the individual. I can tell you what I find to be valuable.

Either the teachings of Buddha contain truth or they do not. Either they should be followed as a religion or they should not. Simply following a few aspects of Buddhism doesn't make one a Buddhist anymore than doing unto others as you would have them do unto you makes you a Christian.

You have a teacher (alleged) and you have the followers, 2 1/2 thousand years later how do you decide what is a teaching of the teacher and what is a teaching of the follower? That is called history.

And if you can't discern fact from fiction in what were really the teachings of Buddhism then you're left with a hodgepodge of stuff that are self contradicting and contain little meaning. (A lot like your posts)

The first big schism in buddhism came about because of an argument over wether an arharant/arhat would have seminal emissions when they slept. Sounds silly to me.

So does Buddhism in general.



Google, "Two Popes", "i dui Papi", Avignon Papacy

You didn't answer my question.



If ya don't know I won't tell you.

Uhh...





You really need to work on your spelling and internal consistency. Your post is full of back tracking and contradictions that I really have no idea what your position is now anymore than I did when I first posted it.

Taffer
30th May 2007, 10:27 AM
We're using a language to communicate. This is the English language. In the "English language" we use specific words to communicate specific ideas. In order for any language to have any meaning it must have definitions for words. The Dictionary uses common usage to define words. The common usage for the words in question was how I defined them given this context.

If you want to make up definitions for words, be my guest. Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously or even understand what you're saying. A word must have a specific number of definitions per context. If a word has numerous definitions for a specific context then the word is pretty much useless and ambiguous.

So we can only use words by how they are in a dictionary? :rolleyes:

Taffer
30th May 2007, 10:31 AM
Y'know, Dustin, I had no problem following what Dancing David was saying. Are you now going to argue that if you can't understand it, it is wrong? :rolleyes:

Dustin Kesselberg
30th May 2007, 10:35 AM
Then it would have the meaning of 'someone who calls themselves a buddhist' or 'someone who says they follow the path of the buddha'.

The former is a circular statement, the latter is also circular since you previously said that the only teachings of Buddha are teachings that are put into his mouth by others. If this isn't the case then we're limited to old texts based on verbal traditions that as you also say most likely aren't the teachings of Buddha either?



What is the eightfold path?

Why?


Alleged Historical Buddha.

Then they are not useful, And so what?
An eternity for something that has no soul and no self. I doubt it.

If his teachings are of no use then why would anyone label themselves a Buddhist?



I like cherries more than snot.

Read much on how to determine the original source in history in your sarcasm class?

How about you tell me.





The eightfold path.
The people who call themselves buddhists.
"The absence of things" Vs. "people who call themselves buddhists."

Apart from "People who call themselves Buddhists" which is a pointless phrase empty of meaning, You say that the eightfold path is what makes one a Buddhist? This not only contradicts your earlier statements, It also is very telling about what you believe of Buddhism.

Moreover, What about the Four Noble Truths? Or the Middle Way? Or the Śīla or the 10 unwholesome actions? None of those other things matter? Just the eightfold path?


Ah, Wikipedia, i suppose if you have only one source it is not a bad one.

And?

Dancing David
30th May 2007, 10:37 AM
There is no self :p


Refering to the five heaps as a 'buddhist'?

These are my heaps and I name them Bob the Buddhist!

Dustin Kesselberg
30th May 2007, 10:37 AM
I see your citation fails to mention that these "rules" are universal for all Buddhists. :rolleyes:


"Universal for all Buddhists"? What does this even mean? Either these are truths or they are not. If they are truths then they should be universal for everyone alive. IF they are not truths then they should not be.

Dustin Kesselberg
30th May 2007, 10:41 AM
Please note that the rules mentioned here, except the five precepts, are monastic rules, not rules for the man in the street. It would be devastating to humanity if every one of us practiced chastity ;)

Also note, as Wikipeda does, that none of these rules start with 'thou shalt not'. They're just guidelines to a better life.

Explain to me how refraining from sleeping on a high bed, dancing, or eating at times other than sunrise to noon can improve your life. Dancing is healthy, You should eat small meals all throughout the day.

Dustin Kesselberg
30th May 2007, 10:42 AM
I looked at Buddhism years ago and it is more appealing to a person who has had to put up with suffering. The problem with Buddhism like all the other religions though is the supernatural aspects, that's the part I just could never buy into, some of the philosophy is nice though. I'd take Buddhism over christianity if I had to chose a religion that much is sure.


Someone who has put up with suffering? Who hasn't? :rolleyes:

Taffer
30th May 2007, 10:58 AM
"Universal for all Buddhists"? What does this even mean? Either these are truths or they are not. If they are truths then they should be universal for everyone alive. IF they are not truths then they should not be.

So your argument is "I do not understand them, thus they are wrong"? :rolleyes:

c4ts
30th May 2007, 10:58 AM
They have Buddha's tooth in Sri Lanka. It's under a big pile of gold where nobody can see it.

Dustin Kesselberg
30th May 2007, 11:06 AM
So we can only use words by how they are in a dictionary? :rolleyes:

What's the alternative? Making up words that no one understands and have no common meaning?

Dustin Kesselberg
30th May 2007, 11:07 AM
Y'know, Dustin, I had no problem following what Dancing David was saying. Are you now going to argue that if you can't understand it, it is wrong? :rolleyes:


So explain it to me in 2 paragraphs and let's see if "Dancing David" agrees that it is what he meant.

Dustin Kesselberg
30th May 2007, 11:09 AM
So your argument is "I do not understand them, thus they are wrong"? :rolleyes:

No. Read what I posted. Here's my argument concerning the precepts: Either these are truths or they are not. If they are truths then they should be universal for everyone alive. IF they are not truths then they should not be universal for everyone alive. One or the other.

Taffer
30th May 2007, 11:12 AM
What's the alternative? Making up words that no one understands and have no common meaning?

If you give a definition, you can have a meaningful conversation with any word, Dustin. You do realise that "argument by definition" is wrong because of this, right?

Taffer
30th May 2007, 11:13 AM
No. Read what I posted. Here's my argument concerning the precepts: Either these are truths or they are not. If they are truths then they should be universal for everyone alive. IF they are not truths then they should not be universal for everyone alive. One or the other.

And your point is?

Dancing David
30th May 2007, 11:14 AM
So your defense of Buddhism is ignore questions asked about it and ask your own questions?

I asked you where you got your information and who stated it. That is part of the answer. i see you have a need for defined ordering of things. That's fine by me.
My post does answer the questions, but perhaps not for you. If you wish to uindetsand than you will. I am rather plainly spoken.

So?

The meaning is left for you to choose.

How is this relevant?

When discussing what the buddha is alleged to have said, it is helpful to look at where the words came from.

How is this relevant?

It seems obvious to me, many things are said to have been said by the buddha. Sources vary.

How is this relevant?

there different traditions in what is reffered to as the teaching of the buddha. The Theravada follows the Pali canon, the Mahayana follows many sources including the Pali Canon.

So the teachings of the Buddha are the teachings that the Buddha taught?

What a concept!

:rolleyes:

One tradition says that the Pali canon is the teaching of the buddha and others who were his close associates. The other traditions are less clear in the history of the teachings, some are older than others.

I am sorry that you feel someone should point to one thing and call it the teachings of the buddha. that is like saying "All birds fly north is the spring, those that fly other directions are not birds".

So?

So there are ways to try and figure out what the original teaching was. Or make a good guess at best.

So?

"So two and a half thousand years later we are left with what? A set of documents, one that is an edited and collated version of an oral tradition written two thousand years ago. Then there is a huge variety of documents written at various times in various places."

Is a question and a statement of the apparent facts.

So none of the teachings in Buddhism actually came from the Buddha? :confused:

That is a suprise? not to me. Do you think Omeru actualy composed the Iliad, or just wrote it down?

So?

That statement was clear. Perhaps you should ask your mother what it means.

So Just that?

i said what i do.

You're contradicting yourself over and over.

Some buddhists think of the Pali canon as the teachings of the buddha, others take other sources.

That is not me contradicting myself, that is a statement of fact.

This makes no sense. Either there is an accepted teaching of Buddhism or there isn't. If there is then those who follow those teachings are Buddhists. If there isn't then "Buddhism" is a meaningless term.

Are you a catholic or something? That is a rather narrow defintion of what comprises a group of people. I think you should be prepared for reality to not meet your demands.
There is a not a single accepted teaching of the buddha, big whoop. Welceome to reality.

So people have to conform to your desires, prepare for disappointment.

So why would anyone want to call themselves a "Buddhist" again?

Sorry to disappoint you but the reasons will vary. isn't that grand!

Just because they say so eh? :rolleyes:

I am not one to tell other people what they should call themselves. You can glory in false distinctions if you wish.

I thought you just said that what makes someone a Buddhist is calling themselves a Buddhist? Taking that back now?

Yeah so, a defintion can vary.

"Constancy is the hobgoblin of the small minded"
-Lao Tzu (allegedly)



Cite them then.

I have and I will, but just because you demnad it?

I think not.

The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching by T.N. Hahn is a good place to start.

So in the end the Buddha contradicted all of his teachings and told his followers to follow themselves? :confused:

So?

he told them to examine the teaching all along.





Either the teachings of Buddha contain truth or they do not. Either they should be followed as a religion or they should not. Simply following a few aspects of Buddhism doesn't make one a Buddhist anymore than doing unto others as you would have them do unto you makes you a Christian.

Please do tell people how to conduct themselves and expect the world to meet your expectations.

Your path is yours. If you wish to define a buddhist differently than please do so.

And if you can't discern fact from fiction in what were really the teachings of Buddhism then you're left with a hodgepodge of stuff that are self contradicting and contain little meaning. (A lot like your posts)

Please tell me how I should discern fact from fiction. When there are two and a half thousand years in between. I shall then see if your guidelines are similar.

So does Buddhism in general.

Fine by me, if you have looked at it and found it wanting, then there are other paths.

That is fine.

You didn't answer my question.

Did Jesus wear a purse? was a purse worn by jesus? Did he use a backpack.

You can figure out the rest,.







Uhh...





You really need to work on your spelling and internal consistency. Your post is full of back tracking and contradictions that I really have no idea what your position is now anymore than I did when I first posted it.

You need to learn to think for yourself before you pretend to engage in critical thinking.

I can't help your ignorance and lack of effort.

I would rather engage in critical thinking than be able to spell.

Dustin Kesselberg
30th May 2007, 11:23 AM
If you give a definition, you can have a meaningful conversation with any word, Dustin. You do realise that "argument by definition" is wrong because of this, right?

That's assuming their definition...
Has meaning
Is consistentOtherwise you can't have a meaningful conversation with any word or definition.

And your point is?

Which is it?

Dancing David
30th May 2007, 11:28 AM
The former is a circular statement, the latter is also circular since you previously said that the only teachings of Buddha are teachings that are put into his mouth by others. If this isn't the case then we're limited to old texts based on verbal traditions that as you also say most likely aren't the teachings of Buddha either?

I think you need to read more carefully. Where did I say that? Hmmm. "Some say"..., ah that is so clear and definitive.

I said things the way i see them.

Reality is what it is, isn't that grand!

Circular defintions are the nature of a self referencing set of symbols used to communicate.

Why?

You asked something like what is the meaning of buddhism, or what purpose it had.

"I'm saying Buddhism as a movement is worthless. "

and I am saying that the worth of buddhism is in the eightfold path. I have two questions, is english your native laguage? And Do you think concretly? I do.

If his teachings are of no use then why would anyone label themselves a Buddhist?

they may be found to be useful to those who call themselves buddhist.

How about you tell me.

You will learn more by figuring it out, ask your mother.

Apart from "People who call themselves Buddhists" which is a pointless phrase empty of meaning, You say that the eightfold path is what makes one a Buddhist? This not only contradicts your earlier statements, It also is very telling about what you believe of Buddhism.

I have not contradicted myself, show me where I have? Please. :)

Gosh Dustin, have you really looked at a real dictionary? Why are there multiple defintions under a single word?

Ask someone you trust.

I believe what I beliecve about buddhism, of my posts 3,000 are probably on the subject.

Moreover, What about the Four Noble Truths? Or the Middle Way? Or the Śīla or the 10 unwholesome actions? None of those other things matter? Just the eightfold path?

The four truths are not essential, the sila are a description of the eightfold path.

I state what i believe to be useful, the rest is up to other people.

In my estimation it is the eightfold path where the rubber meets the road.






And?


Your question has no answer.

I made a statement.

Dancing David
30th May 2007, 11:32 AM
We're using a language to communicate. This is the English language. In the "English language" we use specific words to communicate specific ideas. In order for any language to have any meaning it must have definitions for words. The Dictionary uses common usage to define words. The common usage for the words in question was how I defined them given this context.

If you want to make up definitions for words, be my guest. Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously or even understand what you're saying. A word must have a specific number of definitions per context. If a word has numerous definitions for a specific context then the word is pretty much useless and ambiguous.

That is foolish, you must be young or a control freak.

Simple test, how many words have multiple defintions? Prepare for disappointment Pondhopper.

Dancing David
30th May 2007, 11:35 AM
"Universal for all Buddhists"? What does this even mean? Either these are truths or they are not. If they are truths then they should be universal for everyone alive. IF they are not truths then they should not be.


More bold statements Fluke Skyknocker.

Prepare for disappointment. Truth is your finger pointing at the moon.

Something that should be true for every one. How many people do you know?

Dancing David
30th May 2007, 11:36 AM
They have Buddha's tooth in Sri Lanka. It's under a big pile of gold where nobody can see it.

Oh oh, I saw a picture, it looks like an elephant tooth!

Dancing David
30th May 2007, 11:37 AM
What's the alternative? Making up words that no one understands and have no common meaning?

Ah, wisdom is found in not conflating yourself with everyone.

Common meanings can be multiple.

Dustin Kesselberg
30th May 2007, 11:39 AM
I asked you where you got your information and who stated it. That is part of the answer. i see you have a need for defined ordering of things. That's fine by me.
My post does answer the questions, but perhaps not for you. If you wish to uindetsand than you will. I am rather plainly spoken.

You answer questions with questions? How is this an answer at all?

The meaning is left for you to choose.

:rolleyes:



One tradition says that the Pali canon is the teaching of the buddha and others who were his close associates. The other traditions are less clear in the history of the teachings, some are older than others.

I am sorry that you feel someone should point to one thing and call it the teachings of the buddha. that is like saying "All birds fly north is the spring, those that fly other directions are not birds".

"Bird" has a set definition. It includes birds that fly in any direction.

"Taught by Buddha" also has a set definition. It includes everything that the Buddha himself taught, himself. If it doesn't then it wasn't "Taught by Buddha". Get it? Pretty circular and simple. If you can't identify what Buddha taught or didn't teach then just say it. Stop beating around the Bush.

So there are ways to try and figure out what the original teaching was. Or make a good guess at best.

So Buddhism is a guess then?

"So two and a half thousand years later we are left with what? A set of documents, one that is an edited and collated version of an oral tradition written two thousand years ago. Then there is a huge variety of documents written at various times in various places."

Is a question and a statement of the apparent facts.

So?


That is a suprise? not to me. Do you think Omeru actualy composed the Iliad, or just wrote it down?

The Iliad isn't a religious text that people attempt to base their lives on. If the source of the text is doubted and the text relies on it's source then the text itself is doubted.


That statement was clear. Perhaps you should ask your mother what it means.

Or perhaps you should be clearer and elaborate.


i said what i do.

No you didn't.

Some buddhists think of the Pali canon as the teachings of the buddha, others take other sources.

That is not me contradicting myself, that is a statement of fact.

Which do you take as the teachings of Buddha? Just the Pali canon?


Are you a catholic or something? That is a rather narrow defintion of what comprises a group of people. I think you should be prepared for reality to not meet your demands.
There is a not a single accepted teaching of the buddha, big whoop. Welceome to reality.

Not a single accepted teaching of the Buddha? No agreement on whether or not he existed? Sounds like Buddhism has no meaning to me. At least as you're portraying it.

So people have to conform to your desires, prepare for disappointment.

It's a fact of English. If people don't fit a definition of a word they can't use that word to describe themselves.

Sorry to disappoint you but the reasons will vary. isn't that grand!

So why would you want to call yourself a "Buddhist" again?



Yeah so, a defintion can vary.

"Constancy is the hobgoblin of the small minded"
-Lao Tzu (allegedly)

A definition can vary? Sure, Some words have multiple meanings. Given specific contexts their meanings decrease. I've provided the most common definition of the word "Buddhist". My definition is consistent and reasonable, yours is fallacious and meaningless. Tough choice.


I have and I will, but just because you demnad it?

I think not.

The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching by T.N. Hahn is a good place to start.

Try a web source that I can read here and now.


So?

he told them to examine the teaching all along.

And then when he died he contradicted all of his teachings and told his followers to follow themselves. Making Buddhism meaningless.


Please do tell people how to conduct themselves and expect the world to meet your expectations.

Your path is yours. If you wish to define a buddhist differently than please do so.

It seems pretty clear that you're not a Buddhist. You simply idealize Buddhism and try to contort it's definition to the point of having no meaning just so that you can label yourself a "Buddhist".



Please tell me how I should discern fact from fiction. When there are two and a half thousand years in between. I shall then see if your guidelines are similar.

You're changing the subject. Maybe you can't discern fact from fiction in what were really the teachings of Buddhism. In that case you're left with a hodgepodge of stuff that are self contradicting and contain little meaning.



Did Jesus wear a purse? was a purse worn by jesus? Did he use a backpack.

You can figure out the rest,.

I have no idea. You still didn't answer my question.

You need to learn to think for yourself before you pretend to engage in critical thinking.

Think for myself? Really? You mean following the teachings of some Indian from 2,500 years ago as the facts of life?

Or maybe making up definitions, contradicting myself, ignoring questions, and contorting a religion into a meaningless word.


I can't help your ignorance and lack of effort.

:confused:


I would rather engage in critical thinking than be able to spell.

Unfortunately you seem to be unable to do either.

Dancing David
30th May 2007, 11:41 AM
So explain it to me in 2 paragraphs and let's see if "Dancing David" agrees that it is what he meant.

I can in simple sentences.

1. There is no clear defintion of what makes a buddhist. Some people are cultural or ethnic buddhists. Others are not. Some people can even be Xians and say they are buddhist. There are no buddhist police to say who is a buddhist and who is not.

2. There are multiple teachings that are ascribed to the buddha. The pali canon is an oral tradition that was written five hundred years after his death. there are other teaxchings were written down later in other places. They are all alleged to be the teachings of the buddha.

Dustin Kesselberg
30th May 2007, 11:43 AM
That is foolish, you must be young or a control freak.

Simple test, how many words have multiple defintions? Prepare for disappointment Pondhopper.

Go ahead and make up words or definitions. Expect to be ignored for being a nut.

More bold statements Fluke Skyknocker.

Prepare for disappointment. Truth is your finger pointing at the moon.

Something that should be true for every one. How many people do you know?

You can't even get common proverbs right.

Ah, wisdom is found in not conflating yourself with everyone.

Common meanings can be multiple.

So if I say that "Science" actually means "Christianity" then I am technically right according to you? :rolleyes:

Dancing David
30th May 2007, 11:43 AM
That's assuming their definition...
Has meaning
Is consistentOtherwise you can't have a meaningful conversation with any word or definition.



Which is it?


I see a life of diappointment and confision in this young person's future.

"Wear the world as a loose garment".

Dustin Kesselberg
30th May 2007, 11:47 AM
I can in simple sentences.

I didn't ask you.

1. There is no clear defintion of what makes a buddhist.

Then the term is meaningless. The dictionary disagrees.


Some people are cultural or ethnic buddhists.

So now one can be a Buddhist simply by being born into a culture of Buddhists and even though that individual is say..A Baptist Christian? :rolleyes:

Others are not. Some people can even be Xians and say they are buddhist. There are no buddhist police to say who is a buddhist and who is not.

Haha! A Christian and a Buddhist eh? I wonder how many contradictions arise in such a religion, I couldn't even count.

2. There are multiple teachings that are ascribed to the buddha. The pali canon is an oral tradition that was written five hundred years after his death. there are other teaxchings were written down later in other places. They are all alleged to be the teachings of the buddha.

And someone who is actually a "Buddhist" would be someone who follows most or all of said teachings. Contrary to your assertions that anyone who says they are a buddhist is a buddhist.

Dustin Kesselberg
30th May 2007, 11:48 AM
I see a life of diappointment and confision in this young person's future.

"Wear the world as a loose garment".


'diappointment' huh?

'confision' huh?


Interesting.

Dancing David
30th May 2007, 12:34 PM
I didn't ask you.

So? Free board.

Then the term is meaningless. The dictionary disagrees.

Oh, I am cut to the quick, call a doctor. Or better call a nurse!

So now one can be a Buddhist simply by being born into a culture of Buddhists

If that is what you parents raise you to do.

I have to wonder about yours.

Considering that isn't what i said it makes you a an agressive and ignorant example of a pseudo-sceptic, who wants to be a sceptic but lacks the ability to think for themselves.

Are you going to just say "So?" and act like that means you have a thought in your head?


and even though that individual is say..A Baptist Christian? :rolleyes:

Spew straw much?

Haha! A Christian and a Buddhist eh? I wonder how many contradictions arise in such a religion, I couldn't even count.

That really bothers you doesn't it?

Why?
There are many Xians i have met , granted no babtists, who profess to be Xians and follow the eightfold path.

Gosh, you could even be a geologist and a buddhist, or sell ice cream. Why would it be suprising that some Xians would say they also follow the eight fold path?

Not all Xians are rabid fundamentalists.

And someone who is actually a "Buddhist" would be someone who follows most or all of said teachings. Contrary to your assertions that anyone who says they are a buddhist is a buddhist.

Well when you can tell me what the teachings are then we can debate the point.

There sure are a lot of Xians who don't follow the teachings of Jesus but the hate filled war-mongering of the folowers of Jesus.

Dancing David
30th May 2007, 12:39 PM
'diappointment' huh?

'confision' huh?


Interesting.

You still lack the ability to think for yourself and the ability to think criticaly.

So you can spell, big whoop.

You seem to be a conformist sheep who just wants to assert that BAA is the only correct way to think. When you grow up you may find that the world does not conform to your small minded and bigoted expectations. You seem to ask questions because you can't think and answer them for yourself.


You have already demonstrated that you can't follow simple sentences, you can't think for yourself and that you lack critical thinking skills. And when it comes to your lack of history knowledge and your histrionic need for conformity I assume you must be from the USA, which also explains your total lack of language comprehension.

Nanny nanny boo boo.

There are times I act more like a pagan than a buddhist. But i shan't use my powers to turn you into an ignorant dumb stick. It would be redundant.

No wonder you have such people skills as to convince the world of your intelligence.

Poseur, sceptic wannabe, charlatan. those are defined terms that fit your behavior.
I draw the line at intellectual fascist, you are close but haven't crossed the line yet.

Your father was a hamster and your mather smelled of elderberry. I wave my private parts (kept in a special safe just for the occasion) at your aunties. Go away you silly english kinigit before I taunt you again.

Dustin Kesselberg
30th May 2007, 12:41 PM
Do you have dyslexia? If you do then I can understand. However if you don't I have three words for you..."Hooked on Phonics"!


Why?
There are many Xians i have met , granted no babtists, who profess to be Xians and follow the eightfold path.

I know many Atheists who follow much of what Jesus taught. Are these Atheists christians now? They must be according to your logic!


Gosh, you could even be a geologist and a buddhist, or sell ice cream. Why would it be suprising that some Xians would say they also follow the eight fold path?

Because being a geologist or a seller of ice-cream doesn't cause contradictions in belief when being a Buddhist. Though one could argue that one is doing harm by selling ice cream since it's not exactly healthy.

Not all Xians are rabid fundamentalists.

Irrelevant.

Well when you can tell me what the teachings are then we can debate the point.

I'm not the Buddhist. I can't identify all of the teachings. But it's clear at this point that neither can you.

There sure are a lot of Xians who don't follow the teachings of Jesus but the hate filld war-mongering of the folooowers of Jesus.

Then can they be said to be Christians? By definition?


Those "folooowers" of Jesus, eh?

Dustin Kesselberg
30th May 2007, 12:45 PM
You still lack the ability to think for yourself and the ability to think criticaly.

If I don't think for myself then who think for me?


You seem to be a conformist sheep who just wants to assert that BAA is the only correct way to think.

BAA?


When you grow up you may find that the world does not conform to your small minded and bigoted expectations.

I'm small minded and bigoted because I say that a word is defined a specific way? Hmm...

You seem to ask questions because you can't think and answer them for yourself.

Or maybe they're rhetorical questions aimed at helping you understand your contradictions.


You have already demonstrated that you can't follow simple sentences, you can't think for yourself and that you lack critical thinking skills.

I can follow simple sentences. I just can't follow YOUR sentences. You seem to have a problem with the English language.


Nanny nanny boo boo.

:rolleyes:

andyandy
30th May 2007, 12:47 PM
Y'know, Dustin, I had no problem following what Dancing David was saying. Are you now going to argue that if you can't understand it, it is wrong? :rolleyes:

i think dustin works within his own Copernican framework - which claims a very special body around which the earth revolves :D

Dustin Kesselberg
30th May 2007, 12:54 PM
i think dustin works within his own Copernican framework - which claims a very special body around which the earth revolves :D

Incorrect. "Dancing David"'s post was full of nonsensical gibberish and contradictions and was nearly impossible to decipher. Notice how "Taffer" has failed to give a 2 paragraph summary of David's post. I doubt he ever will.

Did YOU understand David's post? Could YOU provide a 2 paragraph summary explaining the post in question? I doubt it.

andyandy
30th May 2007, 12:56 PM
What's the alternative? Making up words that no one understands and have no common meaning?

whenever we use terms like "god," "moral," "ethic," "quite," "heap," "evil" etc etc. we can not rely upon any generic, absolute value. This comes up time and time and time again in your posting. How can you still not understand this? The world does not revolve around you. You are not an absolute arbiter of what is and what isn't. Most people grow out of this egocentric concept around the age of 3. I wonder when you will.

Did YOU understand David's post? Could YOU provide a 2 paragraph summary explaining the post in question? I doubt it.

dancingdavid provided you with a perfectly adequate summary. You are an absolute waste of time dustin - you come across as an ignorant adolescent struggling to justify his own delusions of grandeur. It's quite sad.

andyandy
30th May 2007, 01:00 PM
Incorrect.

Incorrect? What I don't think you work within your own Copernican framework - which claims a very special body around which the earth revolves? i do you know. :D

Ryokan
30th May 2007, 02:03 PM
Haha! A Christian and a Buddhist eh? I wonder how many contradictions arise in such a religion, I couldn't even count.

http://www.zcoc.org/chstzen.htm ;)

Actually, there's doesn't have to be conflict between being a Christian and a Buddhist. You can easily acknowledge the Four Noble Truths yet still believe Jesus is your saviour.

Ryokan
30th May 2007, 02:04 PM
'diappointment' huh?

'confision' huh?


Interesting.

I believe Dancing David is a dyslectic. This shouldn't count against him.

Ryokan
30th May 2007, 02:10 PM
I can only speak of Chinese Buddhism, but in that, reincarnation and other things are spoken of in philosophic terms, not as concrete ideas.

I find that hard to believe, with Pure Land being the biggest denomination in Chinese Buddhism.

onemind
30th May 2007, 02:14 PM
Interesting discussion but i skimmed most of it because my forum has over 400 topics in the past 4 days with the same buddhist definition mess. All buddhist debates are the same, semantics, historical misreferences, poorly defined intersectarian contradictions. Its so tedious and pointless.

Anyone that still calls themselves a buddhist in the 21st century should read this 3 page pdf by sam harris: w w w dot slumdance dot com/blogs/brian_flemming/archives/002062 dot html

[Replace the word dot with . because i havent made 15 posts.]

How anyone could still get hung up on labels after reading that defeats me.

Just incase anyone is interested, there is another discussion about my site on the richard dawkins forum: w w w dot richarddawkins dot net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15762


I think that is the end of my buddhist debating days. Circular logic and dogmatised sheep tripping on lables. Who can be bothered?

Watch your breath, clear your mind and kill the buddha.

Down with religion including buddhism..

andyandy
30th May 2007, 02:19 PM
www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/archives/002062.html



www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15762
[this requires a log in to the forum]

http://www.samharris.org/media/killing-the-buddha.pdf

sam harris' assertion "needless to say all non-buddhists believe buddhism to be a religion" is demonstrably false. The rest of the essay does nothing more than tear down this strawman.

welcome to the forum btw :)

onemind
30th May 2007, 02:22 PM
Thanks Andy :)

Ryokan
30th May 2007, 02:52 PM
Watch your breath, clear your mind and kill the buddha.

Are you sure you're not a Buddhist? :D

Dancing David
30th May 2007, 03:08 PM
Do you have dyslexia? If you do then I can understand. However if you don't I have three words for you..."Hooked on Phonics"!

Can you say orthographic reform? i am dysphonetic, phonics doesn't werk fer me.
I can spell just fine in Spanish and Italian, why? Because they have phonetic spelling.

I know many Atheists who follow much of what Jesus taught. Are these Atheists christians now? They must be according to your logic!

Uh, huh. I don't recall define Xian by that defintion, but by all means show that you can overgeneralize.

Because being a geologist or a seller of ice-cream doesn't cause contradictions in belief when being a Buddhist. Though one could argue that one is doing harm by selling ice cream since it's not exactly healthy.

Nor does anything and buddhism. there are traditions of buddhism that are dogmatic, but not very many.

How does being a buddhist cause contradictions with Xianity?

Irrelevant.

I know methodists who follow the eight fold path?

I'm not the Buddhist. I can't identify all of the teachings. But it's clear at this point that neither can you.

So, lets see, i discussed neutraly what comprises the different things called the teachings of the buddha. I personaly , for various reasons, believe that the Pali canon is about as close as we can get.(Although it could be all fiction.) But because I don't act like a canon thumping buddhist version of a fundamrental Xian, you say I don't know what i have studied. Perhaps you don't know squat about history.

maybe you are just a fool, i hope to find out otherwise.

As stated there are no direct letters from the buddha (alleged historical figure) to his followers, not were there video cameras. I have stated the possible sources im a general way.

So what if your question?

You are the fool for talking of absolute truth. Of which there is none. we human can only approximate and predict the behavior of the universe. we can not know it directly. No duh.

Then can they be said to be Christians? By definition?

Um, you can be a Xian and follow the eight fold path.


Those "folooowers" of Jesus, eh?[/QUOTE]

Just continue to point out that you have no ability to think criticaly or make a substantial argument, Doesn't bother me.

Act the fool, impress the kids at school.

onemind
30th May 2007, 03:09 PM
Are you sure you're not a Buddhist?

No, i was trying to sum up how simple buddhist teachings could be to avoid the masses and masses of bs buddhist spout out.

If i were a buddhist i wouldnt be wasting time with frivolous arguments on the internet and be meditating my way to the end of existence. :)

Ryokan
30th May 2007, 03:14 PM
If i were a buddhist i wouldnt be wasting time with frivolous arguments on the internet and be meditating my way to the end of existence. :)

I guess I'm one of those Buddhists who rather enjoy existance and love wasting my time, then. You see, time is all I have :)

onemind
30th May 2007, 03:20 PM
I guess I'm one of those Buddhists who rather enjoy existance and love wasting my time, then. You see, time is all I have

The buddha said that a person is twice the fool if they know the dhamma and dont practice it than a mere fool who doesnt know dhamma.

Now i can understand people clinging to labels but if you are going to preach it and insist on being labeled a buddhist atleast friggin practice it.

Chapter 2 of the dhammapada - heedfulness

Heedfulness is the way to the Deathless;
Heedlessness is the way to death.
The heedful do not die;
The heedless are like unto the dead.


T I T L E (2) :

Realzing this distinction,
The wise rejoice in heedfulness,
Which is the way of the Noble.

T I T L E (3) :

These wise, constantly meditative,
Ever earnestly persevering,
Attain the bond-free, supreme Nibbana.

T I T L E (4) :

Of him who is energetic, mindeful,
Pure in deed, considerate, self -restrained,
Who lives the Dhamma and who is heedful,
Reputation steadily increases.


T I T L E (5) :

By diligence, vigilance,
Restraint and self-mastery,
Let the wise make for himself an island
That no flood can overwhelm.


T I T L E (6) :

The ignorant, foolish folk
Induge in heedlessness,
But the wise preserve heedfulness
As their greatest treasure.





T I T L E (7) :

Devote not yourselves to negligence;
Have no intimacy with sensuous delights.
The vigilant, meditative person
Attains sublime bliss.





T I T L E (8) :

When banishing carelessness by carefulness,
The sorrowless, wise one ascends the terrace of wisdom
And surveys the ignorant, sorrowing folk
As one standing on a mountain the groundlings.


T I T L E (9) :

Heedful among the heedless,
Wide-awake among those asleep,
The wise man advances
As a swift horse leaving a weak nag behind.



T I T L E (10) :

By vigilance it was that
Indra attained the lordship of the gods.
Earnestness is ever praised,
Carelessness is ever despised.


T I T L E (11) :

The bhikkhu who delights in earnesstness
And discerns dangers in negligence,
Advances, consuming all fetters,
Like fire burning fuel, both small and great.


T I T L E (12) :

The bhikkhu who delights in earnestness,
And discerns dangers in negligence,
Is not lisble to fall away;
He is certainly in the presence of Nibbana.




Ever heard of venerable empty scripture in the pig pen? Have you even read the pali canon? Down with buddhism.

Dancing David
30th May 2007, 03:24 PM
If I don't think for myself then who think for me?

So? as you sated repeatedly and most foolishly?

iI that an argument, does that demonstrate what? that you can think for yourself?
Or when asked to confirm that Xians fought over the issue of jesus and the possesion of a purse, you ask to be spoon fed. Or when someone asks how you would determine what might be the look of an original source from seperate sources two thousand years later and you ask to be spoon fed, that demonstartes what?

That you can't think for yourself? that you are lazy? that you have no ability to frame a coherent argument other than one of doubt?

BAA?

[poor attempt at humor]

I am King Dustin! I say that you must use words the way that i say they must be used. Otherwise I shall smite thee with the Sword of Unmeaningful and I shall defend myself with the Shield of Circular Logic. Ishall not create my own coherent arguments nor shall I defend my statements with evidence, nor shall I respond to direct questions.

I give unto you the word of my followers and it is BAA, you must be sheep and you must conform to all that I say. I need not explain myself , nor shall I defend my arguments. Thou shalt obey King Dustin because I am King and I have told you BAA.
[/poor attempt at humor]

I'm small minded and bigoted because I say that a word is defined a specific way? Hmm...

Some words have more than one meaning dude, language is a fluid set of self referencing symbols. You need to ponder more deeply upon the nature of words and social interaction.
Xians and Muslims are dogmatic, not all 'religions' are. Some are rather disorganised in fact.

You are small minded because you insist that that people conform to your preconcieved notions. I am not sure why you are bigot. maybe you are, maybe you aren't.

Or maybe they're rhetorical questions aimed at helping you understand your contradictions.

When you can answer a direct question then I will believe you.

especialy when you are so clueless as to respond So? to a statement of fact.

What is the eightfold path?

If I state a historical fact of history it will contradict itself.

Show where I contradicted myself, show me my errors and I shall learn.

I can follow simple sentences. I just can't follow YOUR sentences. You seem to have a problem with the English language.

Point out the flaws that i may learn, show me where it is incoherent. Or is it your false expectation that people will fall into a neat little box at your convinience? I stated what the different views are on the teachings of the buddha, get over it.





:rolleyes:

Right back at ya, with a big :)

onemind
30th May 2007, 03:27 PM
did somebody say down with buddhism?

Dancing David
30th May 2007, 03:33 PM
Incorrect. "Dancing David"'s post was full of nonsensical gibberish and contradictions and was nearly impossible to decipher. Notice how "Taffer" has failed to give a 2 paragraph summary of David's post. I doubt he ever will.

Did YOU understand David's post? Could YOU provide a 2 paragraph summary explaining the post in question? I doubt it.

this argument lacks substance.

Let us see, i wrote about the history of the 'buddha's teachings' to which you replied most foolishly So?

If you really are more than a troll pretending you want to be a sceptic, you could go back and replace your childish 'So?s' with questions about what you don't understand in each sentence.

But because I feel you are a total charlatan I doubt that you will do so, I think you are capable but that would show that you really can't make a substantial argument to get out of a wet paper bag.

What is it that you don't understand? Show that you can really think for yourself and point out what you don't understand. Which of the sentences is incoherent?

Where did i contradict myself Dustin? Let me learn from my mistakes.

Or is it that the facts don't agree with you? Hmm?

Dancing David
30th May 2007, 03:37 PM
I believe Dancing David is a dyslectic. This shouldn't count against him.


Those actualy are typing errors, they are not spelling errors, those I need to watch out for.
I can not spell because of the goofy archaic nature of the english language. It doesn't help because I have dysphonia and have to memorise all the words. i usualy mispell Thier and Friend.

thanks for the support!

You are much more patient than I.

Ryokan
30th May 2007, 03:40 PM
The buddha said that a person is twice the fool if they know the dhamma and dont practice it than a mere fool who doesnt know dhamma.

Now i can understand people clinging to labels but if you are going to preach it and insist on being labeled a buddhist atleast friggin practice it.

I'll be the first to admit I'm a fool, and couldn't care less what the Buddha would think of me.

So in your interpretation of Buddhism, the only Buddhists you would accept are the ones meditating themselves mindless in a temple, practicing the Buddha dhamma to extremity?

There is no room for us simple souls who find the Four Noble Truths helpful in everyday life?

- Snipped quotes from the Dhammapada -

What can I say, I'm not a bhikku. If I ever choose to become one, I'll take those words to heart.

Ever heard of venerable empty scripture in the pig pen? Have you even read the pali canon? Down with buddhism.

It's hard to say through written text, but do I sense some hostility? I haven't read all of the Pali canon, no. It's a rather large library of texts, and not all of them have been translated into my language.

By the way, I don't know if I said it, but I rather liked your site.

Dancing David
30th May 2007, 03:41 PM
Watch your breath, clear your mind and kill the buddha.

Down with religion including buddhism..

Sounds good to me! Did you read the threads I linked to? They give a good idea of what sceptical buddhists have to say.

i was hanging around on E-sangha, but i got depressed by it.

Ryokan
30th May 2007, 03:46 PM
Sounds good to me! Did you read the threads I linked to? They give a good idea of what sceptical buddhists have to say.

i was hanging around on E-sangha, but i got depressed by it.

Have you checked out The Sasana (http://sasana.org/) yet?

The Sasana is intended to be a place where those of us who have accepted Buddhism as a way of seeing the world can discuss and practice it without what one of our respondents has called the “dross of 2500 years.” Through the centuries, Buddhism has become an amalgamation of folk beliefs as well as traditional wisdom. The central principles (The Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path) taught by its founder, however, are as true and valid today as they ever were. We are hoping to practice Buddhism without the baggage.

Dancing David
30th May 2007, 03:46 PM
did somebody say down with buddhism?

Does a dog have a buddha nature?

gosh I hope not!

As frequently discussed here, any clinging impedes the path to freedom of action.

So down with buddhism, up the eightfold path!

onemind
30th May 2007, 03:50 PM
By the way, I don't know if I said it, but I rather liked your site.

So your a buddhist that likes my site and doesnt practice buddhism or read much of the pali canon. Why call yourself a buddhist? Just a fashion statement?

Sounds good to me! Did you read the threads I linked to? They give a good idea of what sceptical buddhists have to say.


Not yet, they are on my reading list and will come in very handy.

Why waste time arguing semantics and protecting your ego? Let go :)

Damn, i'm more buddhist than buddhists.

onemind
30th May 2007, 03:51 PM
Have you checked out The Sasana yet?

I got banned from there on my first post because i accidentally said agnostic buddhism makes no sense.

andyandy
30th May 2007, 03:56 PM
So your a buddhist that likes my site and doesnt practice buddhism or read much of the pali canon. Why call yourself a buddhist? Just a fashion statement?
.

this is a true scotsman fallacy. Sam harris also makes it in order to set up his strawman. What is a true Buddhist? A true Christian? These are not absolute values.

onemind
30th May 2007, 03:59 PM
What is a true Buddhist? A true Christian? These are not absolute values.

I'm the queen of england.

Ryokan
30th May 2007, 03:59 PM
So your a buddhist that likes my site and doesnt practice buddhism or read much of the pali canon. Why call yourself a buddhist? Just a fashion statement?

I liked your site because it made a serious attempt at criticizing Buddhism, something other anti-Buddhist sites do not. In my mind, nothing is beyond criticism. Your Dalai Lama article made me literally laugh out loud.

Who said I didn't practice the dhamma? Just because I haven't gone to a monastery to become a bhikku and long to meditate myself into non-existance? I can't be a Buddhist because, in general, I rather like existance?

I have to have read the entire Pali canon to be a Buddhist? That must mean that there are very few Buddhists in the world.

Why call myself a Buddhist? Well, that's a good question. I find the label helpful when trying to find like-minded people to discuss the dhamma (I also rather enjoy the labels atheist and sceptic, for the same reason - to find like-minded people to discuss atheism and scepticism). Other than that, the label is useless. It doesn't even help with picking up girls.

Ryokan
30th May 2007, 04:02 PM
I got banned from there on my first post because i accidentally said agnostic buddhism makes no sense.

That's daft!

I don't see how it can't make sense, though. Even though you said, several post back that you didn't care to discuss Buddhism further, could you elaborate on this? I'm actually quite interested to know.

onemind
30th May 2007, 04:02 PM
I can't be a Buddhist because, in general, I rather like existance?


Its like being a gay homophobe. The first noble truth is that life is unsatisfactory but you like existence so you havent even grasped the basics. The cycle of rebirth is not seen as a good thing by buddhists and the whole idea of being buddhist is to follow the eightfold path out of the cycle.

Why call myself a Buddhist? Well, that's a good question. I find the label helpful when trying to find like-minded people to discuss the dhamma (I also rather enjoy the labels atheist and sceptic, for the same reason - to find like-minded people to discuss atheism and scepticism). Other than that, the label is useless. It doesn't even help with picking up girls.

Fair enough..

onemind
30th May 2007, 04:04 PM
I don't see how it can't make sense, though. Even though you said, several post back that you didn't care to discuss Buddhism further, could you elaborate on this? I'm actually quite interested to know.

There is an article on my website called "Agnostic Buddhism" on the "Articles" menu.

andyandy
30th May 2007, 04:10 PM
I'm the queen of england.

you're conflating indefinite article generic descriptors with an definite article individual descriptor. Why would you choose to do that?

Dustin Kesselberg
30th May 2007, 04:11 PM
whenever we use terms like "god," "moral," "ethic," "quite," "heap," "evil" etc etc. we can not rely upon any generic, absolute value. This comes up time and time and time again in your posting. How can you still not understand this? The world does not revolve around you. You are not an absolute arbiter of what is and what isn't. Most people grow out of this egocentric concept around the age of 3. I wonder when you will.

You're making no sense. "Generic absolute value"? We can define "God" pretty easily.

God-the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe.



dancingdavid provided you with a perfectly adequate summary. You are an absolute waste of time dustin - you come across as an ignorant adolescent struggling to justify his own delusions of grandeur. It's quite sad.

I refuted his summary just like I refuted (what I understood of) his initial post.

Ryokan
30th May 2007, 04:11 PM
Its like being a gay homophobe.

What, you mean like Ted Haggard? :p

The first noble truth is that life is unsatisfactory but you like existence so you havent even grasped the basics. The cycle of rebirth is not seen as a good thing by buddhists and the whole idea of being buddhist is to follow the eightfold path out of the cycle.

The first noble truth says that there is suffering, but it doesn't say that that is all there is. Sure, there i suffering in my life, but I've learned to cope with it. The Four Noble Truths has been helpful in that.

I'm still not ready to take that big step to embrace the dhamma as a bhikku. Maybe I cling to much to the life I have, and the things in it? I told you I was a fool. But does that make me a non-Buddhist?

Dustin Kesselberg
30th May 2007, 04:12 PM
http://www.zcoc.org/chstzen.htm ;)

Actually, there's doesn't have to be conflict between being a Christian and a Buddhist. You can easily acknowledge the Four Noble Truths yet still believe Jesus is your saviour.


Yet there's a big more to being a Christian than thinking Jesus is your savior and a bit more to being a Buddhist than following simply the 4 noble truths.

Dustin Kesselberg
30th May 2007, 04:14 PM
I believe Dancing David is a dyslectic. This shouldn't count against him.

That's why I asked.

Dustin Kesselberg
30th May 2007, 04:15 PM
Interesting discussion but i skimmed most of it because my forum has over 400 topics in the past 4 days with the same buddhist definition mess. All buddhist debates are the same, semantics, historical misreferences, poorly defined intersectarian contradictions. Its so tedious and pointless.

Oh yea. I just saw and you're being flooded! I wonder where all those "Buddhists" came from?

Ryokan
30th May 2007, 04:22 PM
There is an article on my website called "Agnostic Buddhism" on the "Articles" menu.

Ah, I did read that. Agnosticism (usually, at least) refers to knowledge about gods, so in this sense you can absolutely have agnostic Buddhism.

But I take it you rather mean if Buddhism is stripped of everything supernatural?

Well, the Four Noble Truths would remain, at least. And far from all the suttas contain anything supernatural, the Kalama Sutta for one.

....a bit more to being a Buddhist than following simply the 4 noble truths.

Well, it seems both onemind and Dustin wants to strip away my label as Buddhist.

Well, then, I ask both of you. What is the requirement for being a Buddhist?

I'm a member of the Norwegian Buddhist Federation, the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order, consider myself a Theravada Buddhist and acknowledge the Four Noble Truths and the Three Jewels. What more do I need?

andyandy
30th May 2007, 04:24 PM
You're making no sense. "Generic absolute value"? We can define "God" pretty easily.

God-the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe.


been on dictionary.com again? :)

"god" is an infinite set comprising of any subjective interpretations of the term - such are the inherent contradictions within such a framework to talk in generic terms of "god" is essentially meaningless. Even within your narrowly chosen Abrahamic monothestic framework there is sufficient disagreement with just about every term you provide to render your definition a subjective one.

andyandy
30th May 2007, 04:34 PM
Well, then, I ask both of you. What is the requirement for being a Buddhist?

I'm a member of the Norwegian Buddhist Federation, the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order, consider myself a Theravada Buddhist and acknowledge the Four Noble Truths and the Three Jewels. What more do I need?

You need dustin, arbiter of all that is and is not to say that it is so. For once he has spake, it is true and all men in their hearts shall know it. :)

Ryokan
30th May 2007, 04:37 PM
You need dustin, arbiter of all that is and is not to say that it is so. For once he has spake, it is true and all men in their hearts shall know it. :)

I'll hold my breath while waiting for his ruling, then :D

Tsukasa Buddha
30th May 2007, 05:16 PM
Hello all :D ! I've seemed to have missed out here! Let's see...

Dancing David attempted to answer all of your questions, Dustin. However, you interjected a lot of childish, worthless comments. I understand him perfectly, so I don't think the issue is with him :p . Let me attempt your challenge...

(Note, proper wording not used to make it easier to understand, and because I'm cool like that)

Ahem, a long time ago, in a peninsula far far away... There was (allegedly) a cool dude who we call Buddha. We got our first edition Buddha Bible about five hundred years after his death, which was based upon an oral tradition. This is the most largely recognized text. Over the next centuries a few more sects rose up along with some extra-biblical gospels.

With this in mind, one must realize that it would be very difficult (nigh-impossible) to find the exact, precise, original teachings of the Buddha. Keeping this in mind, we consider all the gospels to be "the teachings of the Buddha." There are a wide variety of beliefs among Buddhists. Generally, one can be considered a "Buddhist" if they follow the four truths and the eightfold path of coolness. In doing so, they are following "the teachings of the Buddha."

Ta da :D ! What do ya think?

Oh, and Ryokan, so you are Theravada? Could you briefly detail your views on Rebirth and Karma?

Dustin Kesselberg
30th May 2007, 05:41 PM
So? as you sated repeatedly and most foolishly?

iI that an argument, does that demonstrate what? that you can think for yourself?
Or when asked to confirm that Xians fought over the issue of jesus and the possesion of a purse, you ask to be spoon fed. Or when someone asks how you would determine what might be the look of an original source from seperate sources two thousand years later and you ask to be spoon fed, that demonstartes what?

I'm afraid I don't understand a single thing you've just said. But I don't believe you ever answered my question.

That you can't think for yourself? that you are lazy? that you have no ability to frame a coherent argument other than one of doubt?

[poor attempt at humor]

I am King Dustin! I say that you must use words the way that i say they must be used. Otherwise I shall smite thee with the Sword of Unmeaningful and I shall defend myself with the Shield of Circular Logic. Ishall not create my own coherent arguments nor shall I defend my statements with evidence, nor shall I respond to direct questions.

I give unto you the word of my followers and it is BAA, you must be sheep and you must conform to all that I say. I need not explain myself , nor shall I defend my arguments. Thou shalt obey King Dustin because I am King and I have told you BAA.
[/poor attempt at humor]

Some words have more than one meaning dude, language is a fluid set of self referencing symbols. You need to ponder more deeply upon the nature of words and social interaction.
Xians and Muslims are dogmatic, not all 'religions' are. Some are rather disorganised in fact.

You are small minded because you insist that that people conform to your preconcieved notions. I am not sure why you are bigot. maybe you are, maybe you aren't.

When you can answer a direct question then I will believe you.

especialy when you are so clueless as to respond So? to a statement of fact.

What is the eightfold path?

If I state a historical fact of history it will contradict itself.

Show where I contradicted myself, show me my errors and I shall learn.

Point out the flaws that i may learn, show me where it is incoherent. Or is it your false expectation that people will fall into a neat little box at your convinience? I stated what the different views are on the teachings of the buddha, get over it.


Right back at ya, with a big :)


I'm done responding to you until you either learn English or get a spell checker and spend more time thinking about what you're going to type and copy editing it before you post it. I can't spend the time deciphering your gibberish just to encounter your blatant contradictions and inconsistencies.

Dustin Kesselberg
30th May 2007, 05:43 PM
Those actualy are typing errors, they are not spelling errors, those I need to watch out for.
I can not spell because of the goofy archaic nature of the english language. It doesn't help because I have dysphonia and have to memorise all the words. i usualy mispell Thier and Friend.

thanks for the support!

You are much more patient than I.

English is your first language (I'm assuming) and since that's the case then the so called "Goofy archaic nature" of the english language shouldn't be a problem. When English is all you grew up knowing then you should be used to it. You just need to work on your spelling or get a spell-checker and spend more time overlooking what you type before posting it. I don't usually comment on spelling since my spelling isn't the best but yours is so bad it's nearly incomprehensible.

Dustin Kesselberg
30th May 2007, 05:47 PM
been on dictionary.com again? :)

"god" is an infinite set comprising of any subjective interpretations of the term - such are the inherent contradictions within such a framework to talk in generic terms of "god" is essentially meaningless. Even within your narrowly chosen Abrahamic monothestic framework there is sufficient disagreement with just about every term you provide to render your definition a subjective one.

You're confusing "God" with "god". The first starting with a capital "G" the latter not. "God" with a capital "G" is the monotheistic God of Abraham. "god" with a lower case "g" is any number of male deities.

Dustin Kesselberg
30th May 2007, 05:53 PM
Well, then, I ask both of you. What is the requirement for being a Buddhist?

I'm a member of the Norwegian Buddhist Federation, the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order, consider myself a Theravada Buddhist and acknowledge the Four Noble Truths and the Three Jewels. What more do I need?

You follow the 4 noble truths and the 3 Jewels? A few questions...


Why not the eight-fold path? You must follow the eight-fold path to actually follow the 4 noble truths since the 4th noble truth leads to the eight-fold path.
Why not acknowledge Śīla?
The 3rd noble truth says that "craving" is the cause of "suffering". Really? Tell me, if I am bitten by a bear in the leg and am suffering, explain how "craving" causes this suffering. My pain receptors are sending signals to my brain telling me that I am injured. I will feel pain whether I crave to or not to feel the pain. Explain how "craving" causes this suffering.

Dustin Kesselberg
30th May 2007, 05:59 PM
Dancing David attempted to answer all of your questions, Dustin. However, you interjected a lot of childish, worthless comments.


I understand him perfectly, so I don't think the issue is with him :p . Let me attempt your challenge...

Let's see...


Ahem, a long time ago, in a peninsula far far away... There was (allegedly) a cool dude who we call Buddha. We got our first edition Buddha Bible about five hundred years after his death, which was based upon an oral tradition. This is the most largely recognized text. Over the next centuries a few more sects rose up along with some extra-biblical gospels.

With this in mind, one must realize that it would be very difficult (nigh-impossible) to find the exact, precise, original teachings of the Buddha. Keeping this in mind, we consider all the gospels to be "the teachings of the Buddha." There are a wide variety of beliefs among Buddhists. Generally, one can be considered a "Buddhist" if they follow the four truths and the eightfold path of coolness. In doing so, they are following "the teachings of the Buddha."

Firstly, You claim that it would be impossible to find the original teachings of the Buddha yet "we"(whoever 'we' is) considers all of the gospels to be the teachings of Buddha? Ok. Who is "We" and why do "we" consider all of the gospels to be the teachings of Buddha when they can't be proven to be?

Secondly, You claim that one can be a "Buddhist" if they follow the 4 truths and 8fold path? What about other teachings including the 10 unwholesome actions, Prajñā and Śīla or possibly including Patimokkha or 10 precepts?

andyandy
30th May 2007, 06:04 PM
English is your first language (I'm assuming) and since that's the case then the so called "Goofy archaic nature" of the english language shouldn't be a problem. When English is all you grew up knowing then you should be used to it. You just need to work on your spelling or get a spell-checker and spend more time overlooking what you type before posting it. I don't usually comment on spelling since my spelling isn't the best but yours is so bad it's nearly incomprehensible.

i can understand it fine. Maybe you're the one with the problem.

yrreg
30th May 2007, 06:06 PM
For the dolid gold, pure, unadulterated, free from all kinds of woo, Buddhism, as intended by Gautama himself except that he accommodated his true, real, inerrant, timeless Buddhism to suit the times and climes of his contemporary followers, there is nothing wrong.

Who know the true, real, genuine, authentic Buddhism as intended by Gautama, but for his condescending adaptations to the infantilistic minds of his original followers?

Ask the Buddhists here like Ryokan and Dancing David and others, who are purebred skeptics and at the same time proud to wear the registered trademark of Buddhism, they are the ones who know the eternally valid teachings of Buddha and his precepts, minus his adjustments to his contemporaries who were not possessed of skeptical ideology founded upon critical thinking and empirical evidence.


Yrreg

andyandy
30th May 2007, 06:14 PM
You're confusing "God" with "god". The first starting with a capital "G" the latter not. "God" with a capital "G" is the monotheistic God of Abraham. "god" with a lower case "g" is any number of male deities.

within my post i granted you the narrow constraints of the Abrahamic monothestic god which you wish to provide an absolute value for. And yet even this given definition is insufficient for a generic term.

Tsukasa Buddha
30th May 2007, 07:32 PM
Firstly, You claim that it would be impossible to find the original teachings of the Buddha yet "we"(whoever 'we' is) considers all of the gospels to be the teachings of Buddha? Ok. Who is "We" and why do "we" consider all of the gospels to be the teachings of Buddha when they can't be proven to be?

"We" as in Buddhists, along with people who look into Buddhism. Well, it is the same with Christianity. We cannot hope to find the exact speeches given word for word. Such transcripts simply do not exist. However, we do have the gospels written by students, and other cool people. We call these things teachings of Buddha for the same reason we call things teachings of Christ, they are ascribed to him.

Secondly, You claim that one can be a "Buddhist" if they follow the 4 truths and 8fold path? What about other teachings including the 10 unwholesome actions, Prajñā and Śīla or possibly including Patimokkha or 10 precepts?

The Four Truths and Eightfold Path are simply the most basic and widely spread beliefs. So they are generally considered the discriminating factor in determining Buddhists from others. Also, most people only have five precepts.

Dustin Kesselberg
30th May 2007, 10:00 PM
within my post i granted you the narrow constraints of the Abrahamic monothestic god which you wish to provide an absolute value for. And yet even this given definition is insufficient for a generic term.

Elaborate.

Dustin Kesselberg
30th May 2007, 10:06 PM
"We" as in Buddhists, along with people who look into Buddhism. Well, it is the same with Christianity. We cannot hope to find the exact speeches given word for word. Such transcripts simply do not exist. However, we do have the gospels written by students, and other cool people. We call these things teachings of Buddha for the same reason we call things teachings of Christ, they are ascribed to him.

Firstly, Anyone trying to discern the "teachings of Jesus" from those that probably weren't would firstly not include the teachings of the authors of the gospels.

Secondly, I don't consider any of the people that you are mentioning "cool".


The Four Truths and Eightfold Path are simply the most basic and widely spread beliefs. So they are generally considered the discriminating factor in determining Buddhists from others. Also, most people only have five precepts.

So why not the Prajñā, Śīla or Patimokkha? Why not include them as well? Are these the teachings of Buddha? If not, what worth are they in Buddhism apart from any odd teachings? If they are then shouldn't they be followed just as anything else the Buddha taught?


Here's another question that hasn't been answered. Why follow the teachings of Buddha at all? What makes you think he was right about anything? What was he right about? Assuming you can even identify his teachings, it would have amounted to a lot more than the Four Truths and Eightfold Path.

So how is the Buddha special apart from any other philosopher? Why call yourself a "Buddhist" simply because you agree with a few of the things he taught? One does not call themselves a "Millist" if they follow the teachings of John Stewart Mill or a "Saganist" if they follow what Carl Sagan wrote.

Ryokan
30th May 2007, 10:42 PM
Oh no, you guys summoned Yrreg! :p

onemind
30th May 2007, 11:35 PM
What, you mean like Ted Haggard?

Exactly, known by all as a semi retarded hypocrite.

I thought this was a skeptic site, whats with all the friggin buddhists? :)

You guys have swallowed a bronze age superstition hook line and sinker.

Believe and call yourselves what you like.

Taffer
30th May 2007, 11:41 PM
That's assuming their definition...
Has meaning
Is consistentOtherwise you can't have a meaningful conversation with any word or definition.



Which is it?

Their definition has different meanings to different people.

Or are you claiming to be the only one who knows the 'true' definition? :rolleyes:

Taffer
30th May 2007, 11:44 PM
i think dustin works within his own Copernican framework - which claims a very special body around which the earth revolves :D

Classic. :D

Taffer
30th May 2007, 11:45 PM
Incorrect. "Dancing David"'s post was full of nonsensical gibberish and contradictions and was nearly impossible to decipher. Notice how "Taffer" has failed to give a 2 paragraph summary of David's post. I doubt he ever will.

Did YOU understand David's post? Could YOU provide a 2 paragraph summary explaining the post in question? I doubt it.

I don't need to know, Dustin, do I? DD has provided a perfectly good summery.

Oh, and "Argument from silence" is a fallacy, just thought you'd like to know.

Taffer
30th May 2007, 11:46 PM
I find that hard to believe, with Pure Land being the biggest denomination in Chinese Buddhism.

Oh, you are quite correct about that. I should have been more specific. "When I studied ancient Chinese Buddhism, I interpreted the teachings to be metaphorical". Many, many, others do not, of course. I shouldn't make such blanket statements in the future. :o

Taffer
30th May 2007, 11:47 PM
So your a buddhist that likes my site and doesnt practice buddhism or read much of the pali canon. Why call yourself a buddhist? Just a fashion statement?



Not yet, they are on my reading list and will come in very handy.

Why waste time arguing semantics and protecting your ego? Let go :)

Damn, i'm more buddhist than buddhists.

Someone can call themselves whatever they like. He follows the Four Nobel Truths. I think this more then allows for his label "Buddhist".

Taffer
30th May 2007, 11:49 PM
You're making no sense. "Generic absolute value"? We can define "God" pretty easily.

God-the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe.

Wow that's the most simplistic, ignorant, definition I have ever seen. Go spout that to a believer and see what they say.

I refuted his summary just like I refuted (what I understood of) his initial post.

Illusions of grandure. :rolleyes:

Taffer
30th May 2007, 11:50 PM
Yet there's a big more to being a Christian than thinking Jesus is your savior and a bit more to being a Buddhist than following simply the 4 noble truths.

Why, because you say so? :rolleyes:

Taffer
30th May 2007, 11:51 PM
I'm done responding to you until you either learn English or get a spell checker and spend more time thinking about what you're going to type and copy editing it before you post it. I can't spend the time deciphering your gibberish just to encounter your blatant contradictions and inconsistencies.

Argument by spelling? "You can't spell, so your argument is clearly false"? :rolleyes:

Taffer
30th May 2007, 11:52 PM
English is your first language (I'm assuming) and since that's the case then the so called "Goofy archaic nature" of the english language shouldn't be a problem. When English is all you grew up knowing then you should be used to it. You just need to work on your spelling or get a spell-checker and spend more time overlooking what you type before posting it. I don't usually comment on spelling since my spelling isn't the best but yours is so bad it's nearly incomprehensible.

More argument by spelling.

Go take a basic logic course, Dustin.

Taffer
30th May 2007, 11:54 PM
Exactly, known by all as a semi retarded hypocrite.

I thought this was a skeptic site, whats with all the friggin buddhists? :)

You guys have swallowed a bronze age superstition hook line and sinker.

Believe and call yourselves what you like.

As I said earlier, there are many interpretations of the Four Nobel Truths and the Eight Fold Path which contain no 'superstitious' elements whatsoever.

Just because you cannot understand it, does not make it false.

Dancing David
31st May 2007, 09:18 AM
Not yet, they are on my reading list and will come in very handy.

Why waste time arguing semantics and protecting your ego? Let go :)

Damn, i'm more buddhist than buddhists.

I argue quite frequently, but the process of debate has many merits to me, I learn much along the way. I have changed my mind a number of times on the board.

The debate things is a character habit that is deeply ingrained.

Thanks for your citation! I enjoyed your site as well.

Dancing David
31st May 2007, 09:19 AM
I'm the queen of england.

Liz Mo Be There!

As a Windsorfarian I am in worship mode!

Dancing David
31st May 2007, 09:40 AM
Hello all :D ! I've seemed to have missed out here! Let's see...

Dancing David attempted to answer all of your questions, Dustin. However, you interjected a lot of childish, worthless comments. I understand him perfectly, so I don't think the issue is with him :p . Let me attempt your challenge...

(Note, proper wording not used to make it easier to understand, and because I'm cool like that)

Ahem, a long time ago, in a peninsula far far away... There was (allegedly) a cool dude who we call Buddha. We got our first edition Buddha Bible about five hundred years after his death, which was based upon an oral tradition. This is the most largely recognized text. Over the next centuries a few more sects rose up along with some extra-biblical gospels.

With this in mind, one must realize that it would be very difficult (nigh-impossible) to find the exact, precise, original teachings of the Buddha. Keeping this in mind, we consider all the gospels to be "the teachings of the Buddha." There are a wide variety of beliefs among Buddhists. Generally, one can be considered a "Buddhist" if they follow the four truths and the eightfold path of coolness. In doing so, they are following "the teachings of the Buddha."

Ta da :D ! What do ya think?

Oh, and Ryokan, so you are Theravada? Could you briefly detail your views on Rebirth and Karma?


I shall need your services in the future thanks!

Tsukasa Buddha
31st May 2007, 09:45 AM
Firstly, Anyone trying to discern the "teachings of Jesus" from those that probably weren't would firstly not include the teachings of the authors of the gospels.

Secondly, I don't consider any of the people that you are mentioning "cool".

Okay... You don't consider the gospels to include the teachings of Christ?

So why not the Prajñā, Śīla or Patimokkha? Why not include them as well? Are these the teachings of Buddha? If not, what worth are they in Buddhism apart from any odd teachings? If they are then shouldn't they be followed just as anything else the Buddha taught?

Yes, those are also teachings of Buddha. However the are not as wide spread, especially not Patimokkha. The four truths and eightfold path are simply the most basic of the basics, and pertain most to daily life (One might also include the five precepts).

Here's another question that hasn't been answered. Why follow the teachings of Buddha at all? What makes you think he was right about anything? What was he right about? Assuming you can even identify his teachings, it would have amounted to a lot more than the Four Truths and Eightfold Path.

Because when you know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' you enter on and abide in them.

So how is the Buddha special apart from any other philosopher? Why call yourself a "Buddhist" simply because you agree with a few of the things he taught? One does not call themselves a "Millist" if they follow the teachings of John Stewart Mill or a "Saganist" if they follow what Carl Sagan wrote.

If you follow what Mill said you are utilitarian (I think). If you follow what Sagan said you are probably a Skeptic or Rationalist. Remember, the root word of Buddhism is not Buddha. It is 'budh', meaning 'to know or to awaken'. And that is just the name that Westerners decided to give it.

Solus
31st May 2007, 09:47 AM
Someone who has put up with suffering? Who hasn't? :rolleyes:

The other major religions do not say suffering is a part of life in the major tenets.

Dancing David
31st May 2007, 09:47 AM
Here you are Dustin, I will try to spell check.

Now Mr. D. Bluffenthunder,

you are a twit.

What excuse do you have for not pointing out my contradictions?

Because you can't?
Because you won't?
Because you are a weak stick who makes claims and doesn't back them with the evidence.

So where do I contradict myself?

Please be lame, prove your lamenss by not pointing out where I contradict myself.

Corrected for five spelling errors

So? as you sated repeatedly and most foolishly?

Is that an argument, does that demonstrate what? that you can think for yourself?
Or when asked to confirm that Xians fought over the issue of jesus and the possession of a purse, you ask to be spoon fed. Or when someone asks how you would determine what might be the look of an original source from separate sources two thousand years later and you ask to be spoon fed, that demonstrates what?

I'm afraid I don't understand a single thing you've just said. But I don't believe you ever answered my question.

That you can't think for yourself? that you are lazy? that you have no ability to frame a coherent argument other than one of doubt?

[poor attempt at humor]

I am King Dustin! I say that you must use words the way that i say they must be used. Otherwise I shall smite thee with the Sword of Unmeaning and I shall defend myself with the Shield of Circular Logic. I shall not create my own coherent arguments nor shall I defend my statements with evidence, nor shall I respond to direct questions.

I give unto you the word of my followers and it is BAA, you must be sheep and you must conform to all that I say. I need not explain myself , nor shall I defend my arguments. Thou shalt obey King Dustin because I am King and I have told you BAA.
[/poor attempt at humor]

Some words have more than one meaning dude, language is a fluid set of self referencing symbols. You need to ponder more deeply upon the nature of words and social interaction.
Xians and Muslims are dogmatic, not all 'religions' are. Some are rather disorganized in fact.

You are small minded because you insist that that people conform to your preconceived notions. I am not sure why you are bigot. maybe you are, maybe you aren't.

When you can answer a direct question then I will believe you.

especially when you are so clueless as to respond So? to a statement of fact.

What is the eightfold path?

If I state a historical fact of history it will contradict itself.

Show where I contradicted myself, show me my errors and I shall learn.

Point out the flaws that i may learn, show me where it is incoherent. Or is it your false expectation that people will fall into a neat little box at your convenience? I stated what the different views are on the teachings of the buddha, get over it.


Right back at ya, with a big

Tanstaafl
31st May 2007, 09:51 AM
Oh no, you guys summoned Yrreg! :p

So, who won the pool on when Yrreg would show up?

Or did no one think it would be past the first page?

Dancing David
31st May 2007, 09:53 AM
English is your first language (I'm assuming) and since that's the case then the so called "Goofy archaic nature" of the english language shouldn't be a problem.

ever the assertion without evidence. You might be surprised to learn that there are french people who can't spell french either.

try orthographic reform, can you say that, I knew you could..

When English is all you grew up knowing then you should be used to it. You just need to work on your spelling or get a spell-checker and spend more time overlooking what you type before posting it. I don't usually comment on spelling since my spelling isn't the best but yours is so bad it's nearly incomprehensible.

You still can't point out where I contradict myself , oh Master of the Groundless Assertion.

Your ability to spell is not excuse for your inability to think critically.


Want to say "So?" again and prove the caliber of your thoughts?

How about showing me the errors of my thinking and my contradictions.

I bet you are incapable because you are just all Bluff and Thunder, no substance.

Tsukasa Buddha
31st May 2007, 09:55 AM
Oh no, you guys summoned Yrreg! :p

*Attempts to stand in front of Pentagram* Ahem... It wasn't me. Um... It was the gays! Get 'em!

Dancing David
31st May 2007, 09:56 AM
You're confusing "God" with "god". The first starting with a capital "G" the latter not. "God" with a capital "G" is the monotheistic God of Abraham. "god" with a lower case "g" is any number of male deities.

Ah, you are the master of logic!

ROTFLMAO!

Dude you are so, sheepish.

How do you know that Frey worshipers don't call their deity "God" or "Lord".

Dancing David
31st May 2007, 09:59 AM
For the dolid gold, pure, unadulterated, free from all kinds of woo, Buddhism, as intended by Gautama himself except that he accommodated his true, real, inerrant, timeless Buddhism to suit the times and climes of his contemporary followers, there is nothing wrong.

Who know the true, real, genuine, authentic Buddhism as intended by Gautama, but for his condescending adaptations to the infantilistic minds of his original followers?

Ask the Buddhists here like Ryokan and Dancing David and others, who are purebred skeptics and at the same time proud to wear the registered trademark of Buddhism, they are the ones who know the eternally valid teachings of Buddha and his precepts, minus his adjustments to his contemporaries who were not possessed of skeptical ideology founded upon critical thinking and empirical evidence.


Yrreg

Hiya Yrreg!

Long time no read!


Dustin has replaced you as the Master of the Groundless Assertion.

Solus
31st May 2007, 10:02 AM
I'm done responding to you until you either learn English or get a spell checker and spend more time thinking about what you're going to type and copy editing it before you post it. I can't spend the time deciphering your gibberish just to encounter your blatant contradictions and inconsistencies.

Dustin you push too far, insulting someone who has actually CLAIMED they are dyslexic. David may be annoying but you’re just being cruel here. Try living with a disability for a while Dustin and lets see how you handle it...

Solus
31st May 2007, 10:03 AM
So, who won the pool on when Yrreg would show up?

Or did no one think it would be past the first page?

I knew it was going to happen but I should have typed it. What does the winner get?

Dancing David
31st May 2007, 10:07 AM
Let's see...




Firstly, You claim that it would be impossible to find the original teachings of the Buddha yet "we"(whoever 'we' is) considers all of the gospels to be the teachings of Buddha? Ok. Who is "We" and why do "we" consider all of the gospels to be the teachings of Buddha when they can't be proven to be?

There is no "Official Buddhist's Guide to the Scriptures", as you responded to with the resounding "So?", I believe that we can look to the commonalities of the texts to get as close as we can to the "alleged original teachings of the alleged historical buddha". i think the Pali canon is very close but heavily edited.

You will hate this one:

It is a personal choice, the student should use their own skills to decide which texts agree with their thinking.


Secondly, You claim that one can be a "Buddhist" if they follow the 4 truths and 8fold path? What about other teachings including the 10 unwholesome actions, Prajñā and Śīla or possibly including Patimokkha or 10 precepts?

Different traditions follow different paths, there is no "Official Buddhist Doctrine" as there is in the Roman catholic church or the Orthodox church.

As you ignored earlier the Ten Unwholesome Acts are part of a particular tradition.

The ten precepts are post AHB, I believe.

Some people like to have the eight fold path spelled out. I suppose we can find them in the Pali canon, I will check.

Dancing David
31st May 2007, 10:11 AM
So why not the Prajñā, Śīla or Patimokkha? Why not include them as well? Are these the teachings of Buddha? If not, what worth are they in Buddhism apart from any odd teachings? If they are then shouldn't they be followed just as anything else the Buddha taught?


Here's another question that hasn't been answered. Why follow the teachings of Buddha at all? What makes you think he was right about anything? What was he right about? Assuming you can even identify his teachings, it would have amounted to a lot more than the Four Truths and Eightfold Path.



The Pali canon is rather extensive.

Uh, it is up to the person to look at the damma, decide if it has merit and choose of their own free will to be a buddhist.

The AHB advised people to only follow the path if they thought it had merit.

Dancing David
31st May 2007, 10:15 AM
Exactly, known by all as a semi retarded hypocrite.

I thought this was a skeptic site, whats with all the friggin buddhists? :)

You guys have swallowed a bronze age superstition hook line and sinker.

Believe and call yourselves what you like.

Proof , evidence?

More baseless assertion.

You will find that sceptics have been called cafeteria buddhists by one wit.

But please show your lack of knowledge and make baseless accusations.

You ain't no scpetic.

Loss Leader
31st May 2007, 10:16 AM
Oh, I so have to come back and read this thread.

Dancing David
31st May 2007, 10:19 AM
*Attempts to stand in front of Pentagram* Ahem... It wasn't me. Um... It was the gays! Get 'em!
Constrain him to the Triangle of Evokation!

We must writre the Mighty Words of Power

Pes Oir Amsus!

Order!

Common Sense!

Because I Say So!

The Real World!

Dancing David
31st May 2007, 10:21 AM
Dustin you push too far, insulting someone who has actually CLAIMED they are dyslexic. David may be annoying but you’re just being cruel here. Try living with a disability for a while Dustin and lets see how you handle it...

I have dysphonia and I was lazy, I shall use the spell check. It is a learning disability. Fortunately my other issues are well treated.

Thanks for the support!

Dancing David
31st May 2007, 10:24 AM
Oh yea. I just saw and you're being flooded! I wonder where all those "Buddhists" came from?


We are the Vast Buddhist Conspiracy!


There are T-shirts and bumper stickers. We worship Lisa Simpson as the Green Tara.

Dustin Kesselberg
31st May 2007, 02:02 PM
Their definition has different meanings to different people.

Or are you claiming to be the only one who knows the 'true' definition? :rolleyes:

I'm trying to be consistent to have a discussion. If you want to claim that Buddhism means 'anything and everything' and anyone who says they are a buddhist is a buddhist then we can't have any sort of meaningful discourse.

Dustin Kesselberg
31st May 2007, 02:03 PM
Wow that's the most simplistic, ignorant, definition I have ever seen. Go spout that to a believer and see what they say.


I guess the folks over at Princeton are simplistic and ignorant...:rolleyes:

onemind
31st May 2007, 02:03 PM
Proof , evidence?

More baseless assertion.

You will find that sceptics have been called cafeteria buddhists by one wit.

But please show your lack of knowledge and make baseless accusations.

You ain't no scpetic.

Yes, you are right, there is much more proof of rebirth, nibbana and karma.

I am not interested in arguing semantics and lame definitions on who gets to label themselves what.

My site is based on debunking the 3 core teachings that lie at the center of mainstream buddhism.

Like i said, label yourself what you like. I couldnt care less.

Dustin Kesselberg
31st May 2007, 02:04 PM
Argument by spelling? "You can't spell, so your argument is clearly false"? :rolleyes:

It's not an argument. It's a matter of fact. I can't understand what he is saying therefore I can't respond to what he's saying. I'm not saying he's necessarily wrong I'm simply saying I can't respond to him unless he brushes up on his English.

Dustin Kesselberg
31st May 2007, 02:15 PM
Okay... You don't consider the gospels to include the teachings of Christ?

Much of what is in the gospels is from the authors and isn't even claimed to be directly from Jesus.


Yes, those are also teachings of Buddha. However the are not as wide spread, especially not Patimokkha. The four truths and eightfold path are simply the most basic of the basics, and pertain most to daily life (One might also include the five precepts).

So why not follow them? Are them on a level of "less holiness" from the other teachings? Are they less right? Or do you just like to pick and choose like most Christians?

Because when you know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' you enter on and abide in them.

Let's dissect this bit by bit...

Because when you know: 'These things are good;

Questionable. See bottom for further criticism.

these things are not blamable;

Blamable?

these things are praised by the wise;

Who? What "Wise"? Also, this is an appeal to authority.

undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,'

Assuming this is true, This isn't an argument for their validity or reliability. Many Christians lead happy lives because of their religion however this in no way attests to it's legitimacy.



If you follow what Mill said you are utilitarian (I think).

No. Mill taught a lot more than utilitarianism.

If you follow what Sagan said you are probably a Skeptic or Rationalist.

Why not a "Saganist"?


Remember, the root word of Buddhism is not Buddha. It is 'budh', meaning 'to know or to awaken'. And that is just the name that Westerners decided to give it.

However "Buddhism" in the English language means someone who is a Buddhist which is someone who follows the teachings of Buddha including the rituals of the organized religion. You're not a Buddhist if you simply agree with a few things Guatama said. In that case you're simply "A guy who agrees with a few things Guatama said", Not necessarily a "Buddhist".

Dustin Kesselberg
31st May 2007, 02:17 PM
The other major religions do not say suffering is a part of life in the major tenets.

Firstly, This doesn't answer my question. Your initial comment was phrased in a way you made it seem you somehow have been through more suffering than the rest of us.

Secondly, The Abrahamic religions teach of "Original sin" and that all suffering is an inherent part of life and is caused by our sins and the only way to end suffering is to be purified from our sins either by asking for forgiveness or accepting Jesus as ones savior.

Dustin Kesselberg
31st May 2007, 02:21 PM
Ah, you are the master of logic!

ROTFLMAO!

Dude you are so, sheepish.

How do you know that Frey worshipers don't call their deity "God" or "Lord".

"Frey"? Do you mean Freyja? She was a Norse Goddess and in which case she would of probably been referred to as an "Ásynjur".

onemind
31st May 2007, 02:25 PM
So do all the smart people stay out of the religion and philosophy section?

Dustin Kesselberg
31st May 2007, 02:25 PM
Dustin you push too far, insulting someone who has actually CLAIMED they are dyslexic. David may be annoying but you’re just being cruel here. Try living with a disability for a while Dustin and lets see how you handle it...


David said he wasn't Dyslexic. He said he has "Dysphonia" which is actually a problem with the voice and isn't a learning problem. He might of meant "Dysphasia" but I doubt that. He has said that his spelling problems arise from the "goofy archaic nature of the english language" but that's nonsense as well since he's a native english speaker and English would only seem strange to a foreign speaker.

Dustin Kesselberg
31st May 2007, 02:28 PM
I have dysphonia and I was lazy, I shall use the spell check. It is a learning disability. Fortunately my other issues are well treated.

Thanks for the support!


No it isn't.

http://www.dysphonia.org/

http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/voice/spasdysp.htm

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

Dustin Kesselberg
31st May 2007, 02:30 PM
It is a personal choice, the student should use their own skills to decide which texts agree with their thinking.

And if they disagree with them then by definition they aren't "Buddhists".



As you ignored earlier the Ten Unwholesome Acts are part of a particular tradition.

So not Buddha's teachings?

The ten precepts are post AHB, I believe.

"AHB"?

Dustin Kesselberg
31st May 2007, 02:31 PM
Proof , evidence?

More baseless assertion.

You will find that sceptics have been called cafeteria buddhists by one wit.

But please show your lack of knowledge and make baseless accusations.

You ain't no scpetic.


What do you want proof for? You're a Buddhist right? Buddhism is a 2,500 year old religious doctrine. You believe in this religious doctrine. Ergo...

andyandy
31st May 2007, 02:53 PM
I guess the folks over at Princeton are simplistic and ignorant...:rolleyes:

good grief! Just because it's in the dictionary does not mean it's an absolute definition. Here are some commonly used definitions of "God"


G1) “God” = “the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe”
(G2) “God” = “the most Perfect Being”

(G3) “God” = “love” [less common]
(G4) “God” = “the universe” [less common]

(G5) “God” = “the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything”
(G6) “God” = “the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, eternal creator and ruler of the universe”

(G7) “God” = “the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent,
nonmaterial, eternal creator and ruler of the universe”
(G8) “God” = “the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, nonmaterial, atemporal creator and ruler of the universe”

(G9) “God” = ? (No definition is possible; the term is indefinable.)

(G10) “God” = “that being to which no positive properties can be ascribed”

http://www.sewanee.edu/philosophy/Journal/Archives/2002/Conifer.htm

this is by no means exhaustive - nor are any of those definitions sufficient to describe an individual's interpretation of "God." Take a cross section of 10 monothestics from across the faiths, and do you honestly think they'd agree on the absolute definition of what "God" means? Take a cross section within a major faith group, look further into a denominational subset, when do you think your absolute definition is going to arrive?

If you were genuinely interested in the topic, I'd recommend "A history of God" by Karen Armstrong - which documents the evolution of how God is defined through the ages - within the Christian, Jewish and Muslim faith, in unity, in trinity, in philosophy, in mysticism, in reformation, in enlightenment, in secularism, in political conservatism, in liberalism and beyond.

of course, you don't appear interested in anything more than trying to justify your delusions of grandeur through proving just how much cleverer you are than everyone else here. It would be of benefit however to consider actually doing a little reading on the subject.

Ryokan
31st May 2007, 02:59 PM
However "Buddhism" in the English language means someone who is a Buddhist which is someone who follows the teachings of Buddha including the rituals of the organized religion. You're not a Buddhist if you simply agree with a few things Guatama said. In that case you're simply "A guy who agrees with a few things Guatama said", Not necessarily a "Buddhist".

You've just cut Buddhism in half, as Pure Land Buddhism and Zen Buddhism doesn't put emphasis on Gautama Buddha at all. Nor do they put emphasis on the four noble truths, and don't use the same texts as other Buddhist sects do.

That's the problem with making up a definite definition of Buddhism; it can't be done.

onemind
31st May 2007, 03:06 PM
My buddhist sect believes eating lots of chocolate leads to enlightenment..

What is it with you guys? This arguing over the definiton of buddhism stuff is ludicrous.

There are tons of minority sects in buddhism, so what? We are dealing with the majority, mainstream buddhist doctrine as found in the pali canon and is fundamental to therevada, mahayana and tibetan buddhism. The bulk of these three main schools, and i'm not talking minority sects within each school, have the 4 noble truths, the 8fold path, rebirth, karma and nirvana at their core.

If you want to deny nirvana, rebirth, karma and the other mainstream dcotrines and still call it buddhism then you are an idiot and not even worth debunking.

But for all sane people that agree that 80% + of what westerners and easterners consider buddhism is up for debate so enough with filling 5 pages arguing about definitions and semantic bs.

Taffer
31st May 2007, 03:07 PM
I'm trying to be consistent to have a discussion. If you want to claim that Buddhism means 'anything and everything' and anyone who says they are a buddhist is a buddhist then we can't have any sort of meaningful discourse.

It doesn't seem to be a problem to the majority of people in the world. I suggest it is you who is making a deal out of it.

Taffer
31st May 2007, 03:08 PM
I guess the folks over at Princeton are simplistic and ignorant...:rolleyes:

Yes, because of course that's what I mean. :rolleyes:

Taffer
31st May 2007, 03:10 PM
It's not an argument. It's a matter of fact. I can't understand what he is saying therefore I can't respond to what he's saying. I'm not saying he's necessarily wrong I'm simply saying I can't respond to him unless he brushes up on his English.

And the fact that the rest of us have no trouble understanding him? :rolleyes:

I think the fault lies with yourself.

Taffer
31st May 2007, 03:11 PM
Yes, you are right, there is much more proof of rebirth, nibbana and karma.

Not all interpretations of Buddhist teachings take these things to be literal truths.

I am not interested in arguing semantics and lame definitions on who gets to label themselves what.

My site is based on debunking the 3 core teachings that lie at the center of mainstream buddhism.

Like i said, label yourself what you like. I couldnt care less.

But you obviously do. I am forced to wonder why you even bothered to make a website if "you couldn't care less".

Taffer
31st May 2007, 03:14 PM
My buddhist sect believes eating lots of chocolate leads to enlightenment..

What is it with you guys? This arguing over the definiton of buddhism stuff is ludicrous.

There are tons of minority sects in buddhism, so what? We are dealing with the majority, mainstream buddhist doctrine as found in the pali canon and is fundamental to therevada, mahayana and tibetan buddhism. The bulk of these three main schools, and i'm not talking minority sects within each school, have the 4 noble truths, the 8fold path, rebirth, karma and nirvana at their core.

Because you label all Buddhists as believing in the literal truths of these.

If you want to deny nirvana, rebirth, karma and the other mainstream dcotrines and still call it buddhism then you are an idiot and not even worth debunking.

:rolleyes:

But for all sane people that agree that 80% + of what westerners and easterners consider buddhism is up for debate so enough with filling 5 pages arguing about definitions and semantic bs.

Semantics? You are the one who is ascribing traits to all Buddhists when it does not exist. You are arguing with the Straw Buddhist.

Ryokan
31st May 2007, 03:20 PM
My buddhist sect believes eating lots of chocolate leads to enlightenment..

What is it with you guys? This arguing over the definiton of buddhism stuff is ludicrous.

There are tons of minority sects in buddhism, so what? We are dealing with the majority, mainstream buddhist doctrine as found in the pali canon and is fundamental to therevada, mahayana and tibetan buddhism. The bulk of these three main schools, and i'm not talking minority sects within each school, have the 4 noble truths, the 8fold path, rebirth, karma and nirvana at their core.

If you want to deny nirvana, rebirth, karma and the other mainstream dcotrines and still call it buddhism then you are an idiot and not even worth debunking.

But for all sane people that agree that 80% + of what westerners and easterners consider buddhism is up for debate so enough with filling 5 pages arguing about definitions and semantic bs.

Err, are you calling Pure Land a minority sect? It's by large the biggest sect there is! But of course, by your definition they're not Buddhists at all. Nor are the Zennists.

andyandy
31st May 2007, 03:31 PM
Semantics? You are the one who is ascribing traits to all Buddhists when it does not exist. You are arguing with the Straw Buddhist.


it's just a parroting of the great straw creator Sam Harris (http://www.samharris.org/media/killing-the-buddha.pdf)

"needless to say all non-buddhists believe buddhism to be a religion"

A quote of staggering agricultural byproduct proportions - which forms the basis of his argument to "kill the buddha" :rolleyes:

In it he also goes on to make the simply ludicrous inference that the Northern Ireland conflict [labelled Protestant vs Catholic] was explicitly caused by religion. This is simply not true. Many of the other examples he gives are equally far better understood through nationalist geographical tension. I am actually staggered by the shoddiness of this article.

Dustin Kesselberg
31st May 2007, 07:51 PM
good grief! Just because it's in the dictionary does not mean it's an absolute definition. Here are some commonly used definitions of "God"


G1) “God” = “the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe”
(G2) “God” = “the most Perfect Being”

These are basically synonymous.


(G3) “God” = “love” [less common]
(G4) “God” = “the universe” [less common]

Source?


(G5) “God” = “the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything”
(G6) “God” = “the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, eternal creator and ruler of the universe”

Synonymous with 1st definition.

(G7) “God” = “the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent,
nonmaterial, eternal creator and ruler of the universe”
(G8) “God” = “the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, nonmaterial, atemporal creator and ruler of the universe”

Synonymous with 1st definition.

(G9) “God” = ? (No definition is possible; the term is indefinable.)

Source?

(G10) “God” = “that being to which no positive properties can be ascribed”

http://www.sewanee.edu/philosophy/Journal/Archives/2002/Conifer.htm


This comes from an essay by Steven J. Conifer. It's not a reliable source for definitions of words.

this is by no means exhaustive - nor are any of those definitions sufficient to describe an individual's interpretation of "God." Take a cross section of 10 monothestics from across the faiths, and do you honestly think they'd agree on the absolute definition of what "God" means? Take a cross section within a major faith group, look further into a denominational subset, when do you think your absolute definition is going to arrive?

You're confusing "Definitions" with "Descriptions". Defining a thing and describing all attributes perceived or real of said thing are two totally different actions.

If you were genuinely interested in the topic, I'd recommend "A history of God" by Karen Armstrong - which documents the evolution of how God is defined through the ages - within the Christian, Jewish and Muslim faith, in unity, in trinity, in philosophy, in mysticism, in reformation, in enlightenment, in secularism, in political conservatism, in liberalism and beyond.

Read it. See above.

of course, you don't appear interested in anything more than trying to justify your delusions of grandeur through proving just how much cleverer you are than everyone else here. It would be of benefit however to consider actually doing a little reading on the subject.

Have done plenty.

Tsukasa Buddha
31st May 2007, 07:53 PM
Much of what is in the gospels is from the authors and isn't even claimed to be directly from Jesus.

Are you trying to be dull? I said "include," as in the teachings of Christ are in the gospels. I did not say that every single sentence is considered a teaching of Christ.

So why not follow them? Are them on a level of "less holiness" from the other teachings? Are they less right? Or do you just like to pick and choose like most Christians?

Oh, you insinuated that I have something in common with Christians! Gasp! The horror :rolleyes: !

Perhaps if you took the time to actually study the philosophy of religion we could have a reasonable discussion about this. However, as your statement makes it clear, you just hate religion.

Let's dissect this bit by bit...



Questionable. See bottom for further criticism.



Blamable?



Who? What "Wise"? Also, this is an appeal to authority.



Assuming this is true, This isn't an argument for their validity or reliability. Many Christians lead happy lives because of their religion however this in no way attests to it's legitimacy.

Did you really just read Wiki articles about Buddhism? That was from the Kalama Sutra. It was in response to your inquiry of why people follow Buddhism.

No. Mill taught a lot more than utilitarianism.

Why not a "Saganist"?

However "Buddhism" in the English language means someone who is a Buddhist which is someone who follows the teachings of Buddha including the rituals of the organized religion. You're not a Buddhist if you simply agree with a few things Guatama said. In that case you're simply "A guy who agrees with a few things Guatama said", Not necessarily a "Buddhist".

Look, Buddhist and Skeptic etc. are all just labels. They are labels that we in society use to group people of homologous traits. I am not the grand arbitrator of labels that people have commonly accepted. And neither are you. So why go through this game?

You seem to have issues with Buddhism being a dogmatic religion. While this may be true in many places, it doesn't always have to be true. Read "Buddhism Without Beliefs" by Stephen Batchelor. Read the Kalama sutra. If one doesn't look at all the texts as Holy and containing ultimate truth, it is not hypocrisy to follow some parts while not others.

Dustin Kesselberg
31st May 2007, 07:55 PM
It doesn't seem to be a problem to the majority of people in the world. I suggest it is you who is making a deal out of it.

The majority of people in the world rarely need to adequately define these sorts of terms because they rarely think deeply about them.

Yes, because of course that's what I mean. :rolleyes:

What?

And the fact that the rest of us have no trouble understanding him? :rolleyes:

I think the fault lies with yourself.

The fact that you claim you have no trouble understanding him is simply proof you're a liar and haven't even read his posts. His grammar is terrible, his spelling is terrible, his syntax is terrible, his posts are nearly incomprehensible as they are not to even mention the internal inconsistencies.

Tsukasa Buddha
31st May 2007, 07:57 PM
These are basically synonymous.



Source?




Synonymous with 1st definition.



Synonymous with 1st definition.



Source?



This comes from an essay by Steven J. Conifer. It's not a reliable source for definitions of words.



You're confusing "Definitions" with "Descriptions". Defining a thing and describing all attributes perceived or real of said thing are two totally different actions.



Read it. See above.



Have done plenty.

The dictionary is not the God that commands that a word can only possess the sole definition that exists within its print.

Dustin Kesselberg
31st May 2007, 07:59 PM
Are you trying to be dull? I said "include," as in the teachings of Christ are in the gospels. I did not say that every single sentence is considered a teaching of Christ.

Some of what is in the Gospels probably came from the historical Jesus.


Oh, you insinuated that I have something in common with Christians! Gasp! The horror :rolleyes: !

Perhaps if you took the time to actually study the philosophy of religion we could have a reasonable discussion about this. However, as your statement makes it clear, you just hate religion.

There's a lot to hate about religion.


Did you really just read Wiki articles about Buddhism? That was from the Kalama Sutra. It was in response to your inquiry of why people follow Buddhism.

And I'm pointing out how it's fallacious to follow Buddhism as much as it is fallacious to follow the Torah or the Koran.


Look, Buddhist and Skeptic etc. are all just labels. They are labels that we in society use to group people of homologous traits. I am not the grand arbitrator of labels that people have commonly accepted. And neither are you. So why go through this game?

Why call yourself a "Buddhist"?

You seem to have issues with Buddhism being a dogmatic religion. While this may be true in many places, it doesn't always have to be true. Read "Buddhism Without Beliefs" by Stephen Batchelor. Read the Kalama sutra. If one doesn't look at all the texts as Holy and containing ultimate truth, it is not hypocrisy to follow some parts while not others.

But how are you still a "Buddhist" if you get to pick and choose what to follow and what not to? Am I automatically a Christian if I agree with a few things Jesus said? Of course not. No one with any sense would claim such a thing. I'm an Atheist. Simply because I agree with Jesus on a few things doesn't make me a christian anymore than you agreeing with a few things in a few buddhist texts makes you a "Buddhist".

Dustin Kesselberg
31st May 2007, 08:03 PM
The dictionary is not the God that commands that a word can only possess the sole definition that exists within its print.

The people who author dictionaries are the people who get paid to seek out the common definitions for words and add them. That's what they do and there are dozens of independent dictionaries who all do the same thing. They are the most reliable sources for defining words.

Taffer
31st May 2007, 08:29 PM
The majority of people in the world rarely need to adequately define these sorts of terms because they rarely think deeply about them.

Why, because you say so?

What?

Sarcasm, Dustin, sarcasm.

The fact that you claim you have no trouble understanding him is simply proof you're a liar and haven't even read his posts. His grammar is terrible, his spelling is terrible, his syntax is terrible, his posts are nearly incomprehensible as they are not to even mention the internal inconsistencies.

My god you are a self righteous arse. You are now claiming to know what I understood or didn't? You are now claiming that I am lying when I tell you I understood his post? Get over yourself you twit.

onemind
31st May 2007, 10:45 PM
Not all interpretations of Buddhist teachings take these things to be literal truths.

For the last time, i am addressing the buddhist sects that friggin do so stop being a pedantic pain in the ass. Just because some buddhist sects dont doesnt write off the entire deabte. It is rather convenient for people to just cherry pick from the pali canon the bits their warped sectarian cult chooses to believe.

Science is buddhism, islam is another form of buddhism and so is christianity to any nut that likes playing word games.

Taffer
31st May 2007, 11:04 PM
For the last time, i am addressing the buddhist sects that friggin do so stop being a pedantic pain in the ass. Just because some buddhist sects dont doesnt write off the entire deabte. It is rather convenient for people to just cherry pick from the pali canon the bits their warped sectarian cult chooses to believe.

No, you are making the argument against those who do believe it to be the literal truth, and then blanketing the argument to all Buddhists.

Science is buddhism, islam is another form of buddhism and so is christianity to any nut that likes playing word games.

No, it isn't.

ETA: Heh, just had it pointed out to me. "Nobel Truths". Nobel prize winner Buddhists! :o

onemind
31st May 2007, 11:19 PM
No, it isn't

It is if i say it is so please dont exclude my sect in blanket generalisations. My sect believes the great buddha was a master of quantum physics as shown in earlier suttas that aren't in the pali canon but found in a secret dragon cave in the 3rd century.

Taffer
31st May 2007, 11:32 PM
It is if i say it is so please dont exclude my sect in blanket generalisations. My sect believes the great buddha was a master of quantum physics as shown in earlier suttas that aren't in the pali canon but found in a secret dragon cave in the 3rd century.

Ah, an argument by sarcasm. Good one. :rolleyes:

(See what I just did there? ;) )

Solus
31st May 2007, 11:36 PM
It's not an argument. It's a matter of fact. I can't understand what he is saying therefore I can't respond to what he's saying. I'm not saying he's necessarily wrong I'm simply saying I can't respond to him unless he brushes up on his English.

Makes you sound like a prick though when David mentions he has a learning disability. Show at least some empathy even if you think the guy is wrong about everything else.

andyandy
31st May 2007, 11:42 PM
[QUOTE]These are basically synonymous.
Source?
Synonymous with 1st definition.
Synonymous with 1st definition.
Source?

Good grief you're an absolute moron.


You're confusing "Definitions" with "Descriptions". Defining a thing and describing all attributes perceived or real of said thing are two totally different actions.

more moronic drivel. Something can only be said to be defined absolutely if the definition incorporates all describing elements.


Read it.

Have done plenty

If you have read on this topic and are still so woefully ignorant on it, then there is no hope for you - you must just be plain stupid.

I've reached the limit with you dustin. You're an absolute fool.

Solus
31st May 2007, 11:47 PM
Firstly, This doesn't answer my question. Your initial comment was phrased in a way you made it seem you somehow have been through more suffering than the rest of us.

Secondly, The Abrahamic religions teach of "Original sin" and that all suffering is an inherent part of life and is caused by our sins and the only way to end suffering is to be purified from our sins either by asking for forgiveness or accepting Jesus as ones savior.

No, although more suffering than you I'd be willing to guess.

This discussion is not about Abrahamic religions it is it about Buddhism... I wanted to end MY suffering. The idea with Buddhism is that all suffering can end if you follow the eightfold path which will lead to the end for desire which causes suffering. The problem is all the woo attached to it. So I went with with no religion on my part, when I was younger I read about it though.

Dustin Kesselberg
31st May 2007, 11:48 PM
Makes you sound like a prick though when David mentions he has a learning disability. Show at least some empathy even if you think the guy is wrong about everything else.

You're clearly the one with a learning disability!

David said he wasn't Dyslexic. He said he has "Dysphonia" which is actually a problem with the voice and isn't a learning problem. He might of meant "Dysphasia" but I doubt that. He has said that his spelling problems arise from the "goofy archaic nature of the english language" but that's nonsense as well since he's a native english speaker and English would only seem strange to a foreign speaker.


http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2650333&postcount=164

Dustin Kesselberg
31st May 2007, 11:52 PM
Good grief you're an absolute moron.

Ignore my comments, Childishly insult me, Yet I'm the moron? :rolleyes:



more moronic drivel. Something can only be said to be defined absolutely if the definition incorporates all describing elements.

No. "Definition" is defined as stating the essential nature of things. You don't need to describe every aspect of a thing to adequately define it.





If you have read on this topic and are still so woefully ignorant on it, then there is no hope for you - you must just be plain stupid.

I've reached the limit with you dustin. You're an absolute fool.

Grow up.
Learn to type.
Learn to spell.
Learn to properly debate.

Dustin Kesselberg
31st May 2007, 11:56 PM
No, although more suffering than you I'd be willing to guess.

This discussion is not about Abrahamic religions it is it about Buddhism... I wanted to end MY suffering. The idea with Buddhism is that all suffering can end if you follow the eightfold path which will lead to the end for desire which causes suffering. The problem is all the woo attached to it. So I went with with no religion on my part, when I was younger I read about it though.


Except you can't end suffering simply by following a few rules. If only life were that easy. In reality suffering is caused by a numerous things opposed to simply "urge" or "desire". In reality to end suffering you must work hard on all fronts to counter the endless causes of suffering and following a few rules won't cut it. This is the problem with religion, it trues to simplify life and attempts to compartmentalize it into simplistic explanations.

Solus
1st June 2007, 12:01 AM
Dustin, go back to your old avatar the holocaust denier David Irving. I think we can all agree that suits your mindset better. Godwin... I perfer godlose but whatever.

Lonewulf
1st June 2007, 12:03 AM
Ignore my comments, Childishly insult me, Yet I'm the moron? :rolleyes:

Yes.

No. "Definition" is defined as stating the essential nature of things. You don't need to describe every aspect of a thing to adequately define it.

Wrong.

Grow up.

You first.

Learn to properly debate.

You first.

andyandy
1st June 2007, 12:05 AM
The people who author dictionaries are the people who get paid to seek out the common definitions for words and add them. That's what they do and there are dozens of independent dictionaries who all do the same thing. They are the most reliable sources for defining words.

When are you going to grow out of your dictionary fetish? Just because you can find "God" in a dictionary doesn't mean you've proved an absolute definition of the term. Do you think that all the monothestics in the world are suddenly going to have your epihany -

Greek Orthodox A "hey look - there's an absolute definition of what God is in this Princetown dictionary!"

Evangelical B "really? And we were all busy looking at the bible....."

Shiia C "and the Koran....."

Orthodox Jew D "and the torah...."

Sunni E "when all the time...."

Roman Catholic F "the answer..."

Kaballah G "was right here!"

Mormon H "silly us!"

Protestant I "Well, isn't dustin clever? How about we all worship him instead?"

All "Yes let's!"

:D

Lonewulf
1st June 2007, 12:06 AM
When are you going to grow out of your dictionary fetish? Just because you can find "God" in a dictionary doesn't mean you've proved an absolute definition of the term. Do you think that all the monothestics in the world are suddenly going to have your epihany -

Greek Orthodox A "hey look - there's an absolute definition of what God is in this Princetown dictionary!"

Evangelical B "really? And we were all busy looking at the bible....."

Shiia C "and the Koran....."

Orthodox Jew D "and the torah...."

Sunni E "when all the time...."

Roman Catholic F "the answer..."

Kaballah G "was right here!"

Mormon H "silly us!"

Protestant I "Well, isn't dustin clever? How about we all worship him instead?"

All "Yes let's!"

:D

Well said, orangutang, well said.

andyandy
1st June 2007, 12:09 AM
I'm the moron?

yes you are.

No. "Definition" is defined as stating the essential nature of things. You don't need to describe every aspect of a thing to adequately define it.

so your absolute definition isn't absolute? LOL :D

Grow up.
Learn to type.
Learn to spell.
Learn to properly debate.

:D

Solus
1st June 2007, 12:10 AM
You're clearly the one with a learning disability!

Ad hominems, boring.

You evaded the serious comments that I made. Believe me that I rarely make serious comments in such threads. Well you're just entertainment, and someday maybe you'll realize what you are. :p

Dancing David
1st June 2007, 05:11 AM
I'm trying to be consistent to have a discussion. If you want to claim that Buddhism means 'anything and everything' and anyone who says they are a buddhist is a buddhist then we can't have any sort of meaningful discourse.


No you are arguing that people who don't agree with your definition are wrong. You are engaging in the true scotsman fallacy and the straw man fallacy.

The goal is obviously not discussion, in discussion you can accept the other person's point of view and discuss what they say. Not just stomp your feet and say

"Words have to mean what I want them to mean!"


What about the multiple definitions in the dictionary Dustin?

Dancing David
1st June 2007, 05:16 AM
Yes, you are right, there is much more proof of rebirth, nibbana and karma.

I am not interested in arguing semantics and lame definitions on who gets to label themselves what.

My site is based on debunking the 3 core teachings that lie at the center of mainstream buddhism.

Like i said, label yourself what you like. I couldnt care less.


That is not what you said Onemind! You stated quite openly that the buddhists here at the JREF are following a 2,500 year old superstition.

All without evidence or data.

And then you change the goal posts, because you want to believe that all buddhists will meet your preconcieved notions?

Welcome to the Forum, you need to brush up on scepticism.

Dancing David
1st June 2007, 05:17 AM
It's not an argument. It's a matter of fact. I can't understand what he is saying therefore I can't respond to what he's saying. I'm not saying he's necessarily wrong I'm simply saying I can't respond to him unless he brushes up on his English.


I apologise, I was lazy and will use the spell checker.

Lonewulf
1st June 2007, 05:20 AM
I apologise, I was lazy and will use the spell checker.

(bolding mine)

It's spelled apologize. :)

I apologize, I couldn't help pointing it out for personal amusement value. No offense intended. Just that it's somewhat funny to me.

When I get rid of this sleep deprivation, don't worry; it'll be less funny.

Dancing David
1st June 2007, 05:22 AM
"Frey"? Do you mean Freyja? She was a Norse Goddess and in which case she would of probably been referred to as an "Ásynjur".


Very good! What is her brother's name?

And she is not aesir ahe is vanir that was exchanged to conclude the peace deal. She lives with the aesir.

Cool spelling!

Dancing David
1st June 2007, 05:24 AM
So do all the smart people stay out of the religion and philosophy section?


So do you paint with a broad brush? Another troll point awarded to you!

What evidence, what data?

Dancing David
1st June 2007, 05:30 AM
David said he wasn't Dyslexic. He said he has "Dysphonia" which is actually a problem with the voice and isn't a learning problem. He might of meant "Dysphasia" but I doubt that. He has said that his spelling problems arise from the "goofy archaic nature of the english language" but that's nonsense as well since he's a native english speaker and English would only seem strange to a foreign speaker.

You need to read on dear sir, as I did, my friend said that it was something called 'dysphonetic' based upon the way I read and understand words. I just learned today that it is a form of dyslexia! He didn't tell me that.


And your second argument is just arrogant garbage. I can't spell english because it hasn't had orthographic reform and is not a phonetic spelling but archaic forms that were standardized randomly when there were multiple spelling of the words.

Another sign you don't know much about history.

Dancing David
1st June 2007, 06:19 AM
No it isn't.

http://www.dysphonia.org/

http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/voice/spasdysp.htm

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


And you are so right!

I looked it up and it is not dysphonia (my assumption), it is a form of dyslexia, and my friend who told me my diagnosis had left of the dyslexia part. So i am at fault for assuming that dysphonetic equates to dysphonia.

Brief overview

http://www.dyslexia.com/qasymptoms.htm#d981130

The terms 'dysphonetic' and 'dyseidetic' are words used to describe typical symptoms of dyslexia. The person labeled 'dysphonetic' has difficulty connecting sounds to symbols, and might have a hard time sounding out words, and spelling mistakes would show a very poor grasp of phonics. This is also sometimes called "auditory" dyslexia, because it relates to the way the person processes the sounds of language.

Dancing David
1st June 2007, 06:29 AM
And if they disagree with them then by definition they aren't "Buddhists".

By your definition, no. But by the way some buddhists define it, yes. the alleged historical buddha said it was the practice that made a buddhist, not the faith.

So not Buddha's teachings?

depends on the tradition or the student, it varies. I will look and see if they are in the pali canon, which I usually agree with although not always.

"AHB"?
Alleged historical buddha, in case you haven't noticed I restrict myself to the pali canon. And then say goofy things like "the teachings of the buddha" and the alleged historical Buddha, or the alleged teaching of the alleged historical buddha.

Dancing David
1st June 2007, 06:33 AM
What do you want proof for? You're a Buddhist right? Buddhism is a 2,500 year old religious doctrine. You believe in this religious doctrine. Ergo...

Ergo... you haven't read the extensive discussion of buddhism on this forum.

i have said repeatedly that I do not believe in reincarnation, that rebirth is the transmission of attitudes and beliefs through acts and communication, that kamma is the consequences of choices and that nibbanna might be a state of free action where the person is mindful and unconditioned to respond blindly to life.

That is why I said what I said, what proof do you have that I am superstitious as a buddhist? Just your personal bigotry and notions about people who call themselves buddhist?

Dancing David
1st June 2007, 06:41 AM
My buddhist sect believes eating lots of chocolate leads to enlightenment..

What is it with you guys? This arguing over the definiton of buddhism stuff is ludicrous.

There are tons of minority sects in buddhism, so what? We are dealing with the majority, mainstream buddhist doctrine as found in the pali canon and is fundamental to therevada, mahayana and tibetan buddhism. The bulk of these three main schools, and i'm not talking minority sects within each school, have the 4 noble truths, the 8fold path, rebirth, karma and nirvana at their core.

If you want to deny nirvana, rebirth, karma and the other mainstream dcotrines and still call it buddhism then you are an idiot and not even worth debunking.

But for all sane people that agree that 80% + of what westerners and easterners consider buddhism is up for debate so enough with filling 5 pages arguing about definitions and semantic bs.


Bam Bam ... another drive by posting.

I said that 90% of buddhism was foolish and silly, so you just repeat what we already say. Some fine thought there.

There are other interpretations of rebirth, kamma and nibbanna. Even by mainstream buddhists like T. N. Hahn.

Then you just assert that people are idiots because you are bigoted against the word buddhist, unless it means what you want it to mean.

And so you just sling your semantic bs and think you have the secrets.

Another troll point!

andyandy
1st June 2007, 06:50 AM
(bolding mine)

It's spelled apologize. :)

.

Oi! Hands off our language! It's apologise :D

Dancing David
1st June 2007, 06:59 AM
The majority of people in the world rarely need to adequately define these sorts of terms because they rarely think deeply about them.

Do you actually know what the eight fold path is yet?

Can you think deeply upon the path of the buddha and not know the eight fold path?

What is the fourth noble truth? What are the Sila? And to which do they refer.




What?



The fact that you claim you have no trouble understanding him is simply proof you're a liar and haven't even read his posts. His grammar is terrible, his spelling is terrible, his syntax is terrible, his posts are nearly incomprehensible as they are not to even mention the internal inconsistencies.

You are another lame stick poster, you couldn't find a contradiction in what I posted, I apologize for the spelling, I will use spell check. But

"some buddhists follow the pali canon" and "some buddhists follow other texts" is not inconsistent. They are statements of fact. It is you who want to label people and make their behavior conform to your thoughts.

Do you feel the same way and conservative democrat or liberal republican?

Does that drive you crazy and make you claim that other people are stupid.

You ***** yourself Dustin, and it is too bad, I agree with much of what you posted in politics, but you ***** yourself by being such as foolish person. You are obviously smart but your lame "he is incomprehensible" "he is incoherent" and then your inability to demonstrate where I am incoherent is just you mocking yourself.

The lotus rises above the muck. ;)

Taffer
1st June 2007, 07:02 AM
Oi! Hands off our language! It's apologise :D

Seconded! :D

Dancing David
1st June 2007, 07:06 AM
Some of what is in the Gospels probably came from the historical Jesus.

And possibly the same is true of the pali canon. The world will never know how many licks it takes to reach the center of a tootsie pop.

There's a lot to hate about religion.

There is a lot to hate about a lot of things. But to be possessed by hatred is a waste of time. I used to foam at the mouth over Xians.

And I'm pointing out how it's fallacious to follow Buddhism as much as it is fallacious to follow the Torah or the Koran.

if one says that one must not think for one's self and just follow everything that someone might label buddhism,that makes sense.

Why call yourself a "Buddhist"?

Why do you call yourself Dustin?

But how are you still a "Buddhist" if you get to pick and choose what to follow and what not to?

Because some define a buddhist that way, shame isn't it, people not meeting your bigoted expectations.

Am I automatically a Christian if I agree with a few things Jesus said? Of course not.

That doesn't follow for all people, but is true for you.

No one with any sense would claim such a thing.

Which sense is that, I hope not common sense.

I'm an Atheist. Simply because I agree with Jesus on a few things doesn't make me a christian anymore than you agreeing with a few things in a few buddhist texts makes you a "Buddhist".


And we can all have different beliefs and still talk to each other.

Koombya.

Lonewulf
1st June 2007, 07:07 AM
Oi! Hands off our language! It's apologise :D

Nuh uh! ;)

Dancing David
1st June 2007, 07:13 AM
For the last time, I am addressing the buddhist sects that friggin do so stop being a pedantic pain in the ass. Just because some buddhist sects don’t doesn’t write off the entire debate.

depends on the debate, you made bold statements about the buddhists at the JREF, poor **** speaks so vaguely and then whines about it.

It is rather convenient for people to just cherry pick from the pali canon the bits their warped sectarian cult chooses to believe.

How convenient of you to limit what people can say and do, fascist much?


Science is buddhism, islam is another form of buddhism and so is christianity to any nut that likes playing word games.

Vague statements are the bane of trolls.


Bam...Bam(driveby posting), and why label everybody here as the buddhists who do.

Your command of the language is astounding and your ability to take umbrage at the consequences of your vague accusations is amazing.

Another troll point!

Keep throwing straw, it will make you strong like Mongo.

Dancing David
1st June 2007, 07:16 AM
It is if i say it is so please dont exclude my sect in blanket generalisations. My sect believes the great buddha was a master of quantum physics as shown in earlier suttas that aren't in the pali canon but found in a secret dragon cave in the 3rd century.

Good, welcome to the Vast Buddhist Conspiracy, kneel that Lisa may brand you!

I don't imagine I will read your scriptures much, except as entertainment. Kind of like the "When buddha was a monkey..." kind of text.

Dancing David
1st June 2007, 07:18 AM
Makes you sound like a prick though when David mentions he has a learning disability. Show at least some empathy even if you think the guy is wrong about everything else.

Sniff, I am wrong about everything else?

Fine, just fine...

:sulks in corner:


;)

My disability is no excuse for my lazy nature, I apologize.

Dancing David
1st June 2007, 07:20 AM
You're clearly the one with a learning disability!




http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2650333&postcount=164

I said i was wrong, I was mistaken, it is dysphonetic dyslexia.

I learned something today! I am still young at mind if not in the body.

Dancing David
1st June 2007, 07:25 AM
No. "Definition" is defined as stating the essential nature of things. You don't need to describe every aspect of a thing to adequately define it.



And what is that essential nature of things? A human concept with a sensational reference to unknowable objects whose behaviors can only be approximated.


Beware Do Not Call The Librarian a Monkey!

Dancing David
1st June 2007, 07:33 AM
Except you can't end suffering simply by following a few rules. If only life were that easy. In reality suffering is caused by a numerous things opposed to simply "urge" or "desire".

Nor did the AHB claim the damma would clean floors or cure cancer. But please do tell, we all agree with you.

Duh.


In reality to end suffering you must work hard on all fronts to counter the endless causes of suffering and following a few rules won't cut it.

that is also true, Duh. The eightfold path will ease attachment from the painful and the attachment to the pleasurable. it will not clean windows. Duh.

This is the problem with religion, it trues

How true , how true, you too Dustin, you try to true everything.

to simplify life and attempts to compartmentalize it into simplistic explanations.


And this is the problem with you Dustin, you look at the surface of things and conclude that you know all there is to know about them.

If the damma does not appeal to you that is fine, follow another path.

Dancing David
1st June 2007, 07:35 AM
Well said, orangutang, well said.

Thank Goodness you didn't call him the M-word!

Dancing David
1st June 2007, 07:36 AM
(bolding mine)

It's spelled apologize. :)

I apologize, I couldn't help pointing it out for personal amusement value. No offense intended. Just that it's somewhat funny to me.

When I get rid of this sleep deprivation, don't worry; it'll be less funny.


Really that is funny!

I love being human.


I have to use spell check even on short sentences.

Very funny that is!

Dancing David
1st June 2007, 07:39 AM
Oi! Hands off our language! It's apologise :D


Have some peanuts and a banana?


:D

andyandy
1st June 2007, 07:50 AM
Have some peanuts and a banana?


:D

oook!

Lonewulf
1st June 2007, 08:08 AM
Thank Goodness you didn't call him the M-word!

Machiavellian?

Loss Leader
1st June 2007, 08:44 AM
I can't spell english because it hasn't had orthographic reform and is not a phonetic spelling but archaic forms that were standardized randomly when there were multiple spelling of the words.



Which, by the way, is one reason Italians with dyslexia fair better than english-speakers with the same disability. Italian has fewer letter combinations in use overall and its spelling is much more phonetic. (source (http://www.dyslexia-teacher.com/t107.html)). What does this have to do with the current topic? Nothing whatsoever.

onemind
1st June 2007, 08:44 AM
And then you change the goal posts

Of course, or you would continue with your bs for another 10 pages. I think the clear moral of this story is that when discussing buddhism or anything for that matter gross generalisations are a mistake and lead to pointless arguments. I have enough common sense to admit that rather than you guys being to pig headed to actually pick a concept of buddhism to debate rather than argue about definitions.

Its like watctching a bunch of retards trying to **** a door knob.

And i'll save you the time and say it for you.

Boom boom, another troll point.

Go and meditate for f sake.

Lonewulf
1st June 2007, 08:51 AM
Its like watctching a bunch of retards trying to **** a door knob.

How cute!

Now run along -- it's a school day, kid!

onemind
1st June 2007, 08:56 AM
kid?

lol, carry on head butting one another with your circular logic and hypocritical attempt to destroy your egos.

Lonewulf
1st June 2007, 09:41 AM
kid?

lol, carry on head butting one another with your circular logic and hypocritical attempt to destroy your egos.

Get to work on your homework. You don't want to make your parents unhappy with a bad report card!

onemind
1st June 2007, 10:10 AM
yawn

Lonewulf
1st June 2007, 10:12 AM
yawn

Indeed, indeed. Yawn indeed.

Tsukasa Buddha
1st June 2007, 12:03 PM
Some of what is in the Gospels probably came from the historical Jesus.

YES. Thank you. The same thinking applies to Buddhist gospels.

There's a lot to hate about religion.

So there is absolutely no value anywhere in religion? All of it is worthy af hate? Religious people ore worthy of derision?


And I'm pointing out how it's fallacious to follow Buddhism as much as it is fallacious to follow the Torah or the Koran.

You aren't doing very well.

Why call yourself a "Buddhist"?

Because you have basic beliefs in common with other Buddhists.

But how are you still a "Buddhist" if you get to pick and choose what to follow and what not to? Am I automatically a Christian if I agree with a few things Jesus said? Of course not. No one with any sense would claim such a thing. I'm an Atheist. Simply because I agree with Jesus on a few things doesn't make me a christian anymore than you agreeing with a few things in a few buddhist texts makes you a "Buddhist".

Well, I am not the grand deity of labels, unlike you :rolleyes: . And it is not a few things, it is the basic things. Like the first things the Buddha taught about suffering and ethics.

Dustin Kesselberg
1st June 2007, 02:26 PM
Ad hominems, boring.

Technically that was an insult not an ad hominem.

You evaded the serious comments that I made. Believe me that I rarely make serious comments in such threads. Well you're just entertainment, and someday maybe you'll realize what you are. :p

What comments am I ignoring? YOU are the one ignoring them. David said he wasn't Dyslexic. He said he has "Dysphonia" which is actually a problem with the voice and isn't a learning problem. He might of meant "Dysphasia" but I doubt that. He has said that his spelling problems arise from the "goofy archaic nature of the english language" but that's nonsense as well since he's a native english speaker and English would only seem strange to a foreign speaker.

Dustin Kesselberg
1st June 2007, 02:28 PM
(bolding mine)

It's spelled apologize. :)

I apologize, I couldn't help pointing it out for personal amusement value. No offense intended. Just that it's somewhat funny to me.

When I get rid of this sleep deprivation, don't worry; it'll be less funny.

Try again.

http://www.bartelby.com/68/54/454.html

Dustin Kesselberg
1st June 2007, 02:29 PM
Very good! What is her brother's name?

And she is not aesir ahe is vanir that was exchanged to conclude the peace deal. She lives with the aesir.

Cool spelling!

Yes you're right about that. However it's irrelevant and off topic. The point was that the old Norse didn't call her by the English term "God".

Dustin Kesselberg
1st June 2007, 02:31 PM
You need to read on dear sir, as I did, my friend said that it was something called 'dysphonetic' based upon the way I read and understand words. I just learned today that it is a form of dyslexia! He didn't tell me that.

It sounds to me that you're making it up as you go along.


And your second argument is just arrogant garbage. I can't spell english because it hasn't had orthographic reform and is not a phonetic spelling but archaic forms that were standardized randomly when there were multiple spelling of the words.

Another sign you don't know much about history.


I can spell English just fine though. Why can I and you can't?

Dustin Kesselberg
1st June 2007, 02:32 PM
By your definition, no. But by the way some buddhists define it, yes. the alleged historical buddha said it was the practice that made a buddhist, not the faith.

Some Christians define Christianity as a "Relationship with Jesus" and not a religion. It's irrelevant and they're wrong.

depends on the tradition or the student, it varies. I will look and see if they are in the pali canon, which I usually agree with although not always.

Either it is or it isn't.

Dustin Kesselberg
1st June 2007, 02:36 PM
There is a lot to hate about a lot of things. But to be possessed by hatred is a waste of time. I used to foam at the mouth over Xians.

Who's possessed over it?

if one says that one must not think for one's self and just follow everything that someone might label buddhism,that makes sense.

No it doesn't.

Why do you call yourself Dustin?

That's the name my parents gave me. It'd be too much trouble to change it. I'm used to it. Therefor I use it.

Because some define a buddhist that way, shame isn't it, people not meeting your bigoted expectations.

Technically they are wrong.

Dustin Kesselberg
1st June 2007, 02:37 PM
And what is that essential nature of things? A human concept with a sensational reference to unknowable objects whose behaviors can only be approximated.


Beware Do Not Call The Librarian a Monkey!

The essential nature of things varies from thing to thing.

What "Unknowable objects" are you talking about?

Dustin Kesselberg
1st June 2007, 02:40 PM
Nor did the AHB claim the damma would clean floors or cure cancer. But please do tell, we all agree with you.

It depends. If I am burned then the burn is causing the pain receptors to send signals to my brain of 'pain' which is causing the suffering. In that case that's the cause.



that is also true, Duh. The eightfold path will ease attachment from the painful and the attachment to the pleasurable. it will not clean windows. Duh.

Ease attachment from the painful and the attachment to the pleasurable? :confused:

And this is the problem with you Dustin, you look at the surface of things and conclude that you know all there is to know about them.

How's that?

If the damma does not appeal to you that is fine, follow another path.

It's not that it doesn't simply "appeal" to me. It's that it's faulty.

Dustin Kesselberg
1st June 2007, 02:42 PM
kid?

lol, carry on head butting one another with your circular logic and hypocritical attempt to destroy your egos.


He's a condescending **** is what he is. Reading his posts is sort of like watching a midget threaten Andre the Giant. Read my signature and the thread where he brags about having fantasies about raping people.

Dustin Kesselberg
1st June 2007, 02:46 PM
YES. Thank you. The same thinking applies to Buddhist gospels.

And?

So there is absolutely no value anywhere in religion? All of it is worthy af hate? Religious people ore worthy of derision?

I never said that. I simply said that there is a lot to hate about religion. There is some value in some of the philosophies of religion. However those values aren't religious but philosophical and they aren't inherent in just those religions either, so it's irrelevant.

You aren't doing very well.

Sure I am. Though it's impossible to use logic to argue someone out of a position they didn't use logic to get themselves into. Your dogmatic belief in Buddhism can't be countered with reason and logic.


Because you have basic beliefs in common with other Buddhists.


I have basic beliefs in common with some Christians, Muslims, Hindu's, Buddhists, Shintoists, Spiritualists, etc. This doesn't make me any of the above. I'm an Atheist by definition who is a skeptic of the paranormal. I'm not a Christian, Muslim, Hindu or a Buddhist. Even if I have some beliefs in common with then doesn't make me one of them.

Try again.


Well, I am not the grand deity of labels, unlike you :rolleyes: . And it is not a few things, it is the basic things. Like the first things the Buddha taught about suffering and ethics.

Which I am calling into doubt.

andyandy
1st June 2007, 02:57 PM
I can spell English just fine though. Why can I and you can't?

You make this boast and yet 5 minutes earlier you posted this.....

He might of meant "Dysphasia" but I doubt that.

Might of meant? Might of meant?

Dear oh dear. What kind of language is that? :rolleyes:

I think you're confusing it with

might have meant

this is often abbreviated to

might've meant

and so people hear it and sometimes think the sentence is actually

might of meant.

This is termed an "aural error" - and is classed as a form of spelling mistake (http://www.whitesmoke.com/top-ten-most-common-grammar-errors.html).

Funnily enough it's the sort of mistake non-native speakers make quite frequently. Fancy that. :D

Dustin Kesselberg
1st June 2007, 03:02 PM
Funnily enough it's the sort of mistake none native speakers make quite frequently. Fancy that. :D

"None native speakers make..."? What sort of English is that?!?!


:rolleyes:

Tsukasa Buddha
1st June 2007, 03:07 PM
He's a condescending **** is what he is. Reading his posts is sort of like watching a midget threaten Andre the Giant. Read my signature and the thread where he brags about having fantasies about raping people.

Not really, no.

andyandy
1st June 2007, 03:16 PM
"None native speakers make..."? What sort of English is that?!?!


:rolleyes:

lol

damn, you posted before i corrected :D

trouble is though dustin, i'm not the one boasting about how well i can spell. You obviously can't "spell fine" - or at least not as well as you like to think. Perhaps you should lay off criticizing others for something you're obviously no better at than the rest of us....especially when the person you're criticizing admits to a form of dyslexia. Does it make you feel big? Does it make you feel clever? Because it makes you look like a real piece of work.

Tsukasa Buddha
1st June 2007, 03:19 PM
And?

And? We were talking about what are considered the teachings of the Buddha are and why. Do you get it now? Or did you lose track of the conversation?

I never said that. I simply said that there is a lot to hate about religion. There is some value in some of the philosophies of religion. However those values aren't religious but philosophical and they aren't inherent in just those religions either, so it's irrelevant

So why don't you study it? You know, there are these things called liberal theologians, who aren't complete fundies? They are probably more common than the fundies, as well.

Sure I am. Though it's impossible to use logic to argue someone out of a position they didn't use logic to get themselves into. Your dogmatic belief in Buddhism can't be countered with reason and logic.

What? When have I displayed a dogmatic belief in Buddhism? How do you even know if I consider myself to be a Buddhist?

I have basic beliefs in common with some Christians, Muslims, Hindu's, Buddhists, Shintoists, Spiritualists, etc. This doesn't make me any of the above. I'm an Atheist by definition who is a skeptic of the paranormal. I'm not a Christian, Muslim, Hindu or a Buddhist. Even if I have some beliefs in common with then doesn't make me one of them.

Try again.

By basic I meant fundamental. All Christians believe in a just god, how ever they can range extremely far in other beliefs.

Which I am calling into doubt.

What? You consider a novice's misunderstanding a calling into doubt? Please. Read more than Wiki. Or else all you have are ignorant childish complaints.