Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Buddhists of all sects always discuss in great detail enlightenment, karma, rebirth, etc. However, there seems not to be any discussion at all about ascertaining objective criteria and empirical evidence as to what constitutes an enlightened person so that the rest of the world isn't misled or deceived. Similarly, Pure Land Buddhism refers to all the great buddhas, especially Amitabha Buddha, the pure lands etc. without ever being able to prove that these assertions are factual or just mythological, and the same can be said for the recitation of specific phrases such as in Nichiren Buddhism.
I'm a Theravadan, and I have the same concerns. This idea that there have been 28 Buddhas...not a shred of evidence. Perhaps some evidence of Siddhartha. And the idea that the future Buddha has been identified -- Maitreya. Nothing to back that up either.
That is why I say to my Buddhist brothers the same thing that I say to christians and the people of almost any other religion -- focus on the principles, not on what can't be shown to be true due to an almost total lack of evidence.
Duvduv, your post is right on target. I'm a Theravadan, and I have the same concerns. This idea that there have been 28 Buddhas...not a shred of evidence. Perhaps some evidence of Siddhartha. And the idea that the future Buddha has been identified -- Maitreya. Nothing to back that up either. That is why I say to my Buddhist brothers the same thing that I say to christians and the people of almost any other religion -- focus on the principles, not on what can't be shown to be true due to an almost total lack of evidence.
it seems to me that if someone claims to be a Buddhist, and says "there is no evidence of enlightenment" and it can't be shown to be true, then that is not someone who is putting a "focus on the principles" of Buddhism.
it seems to me that if someone claims to be a Buddhist, and says "there is no evidence of enlightenment" and it can't be shown to be true, then that is not someone who is putting a "focus on the principles" of Buddhism.
1. So what is the hard evidence for enlightenment (not that I said there isn't any)?
2. There are many principles in Buddhism that do not rely on enlightenment.
1. So what is the hard evidence for enlightenment (not that I said there isn't any)?
2. There are many principles in Buddhism that do not rely on enlightenment.
3. Are you familiar with the Kalama Sutra?
why do you need hard evidence
to focus on the principles of Buddhism?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
