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.
Thank you for the lecture and for not answering the question at all. Understanding is easier to teach when both parties are willing to communicate and ask and answer questions insteading of lecturing.
You had your chance and chose to sound superior as opposed to helpful.
No...you were the one that chose to "sound superior"...and she highlighted your post to show that.
I have learned a lot from Tzaphs posts in this thread...very informative on the subject.
Of course...some find that having their negativity pointed out is then a negative (for them) as well...but responses to a negative approach are a defense, not a offense
Thank you for the lecture and for not answering the question at all. Understanding is easier to teach when both parties are willing to communicate and ask and answer questions insteading of lecturing. You had your chance and chose to sound superior as opposed to helpful.
"Buddhism is not, therefore, atheistic in the modern understanding which developed in the West as a reaction to theistic Christianity. Rather, Buddhism affirms many forms of spirituality and belief in gods as means to elevate and improve worldly life. In its spread through Asia, it has been able to adapt to the various native religious traditions to promote the spread of Buddhism. In our modern and contemporary context, Buddhism can coexist with Western beliefs in God because it recognizes that such beliefs assist people in dealing with their everyday needs. However, we can only achieve enlightenment when we understand reality as it is, beyond all concepts and beliefs, and the nature of our own minds which become attached to concepts and beliefs."
you have stated often in the forum [see examples below] that you do not rely on definitions. in your words, if a definition is "just that sentence or two then you might as well be quiet because there is nothing more to say." i have to agree with what another poster wrote with regards to your (or anyone) selective use of definitions: "You vary definitions when needed, then you hold to the literal definition when needed. All based on what you want."
shown below are recent examples of your own justification for dismissing definitions, in your own parlance "being sloppy about definitions," from just the past one year, didn't go back any farther than that. Filing it under 'rules for thee but not for me.'
No, that's not what I've said. What I have said is that you can't rely on strict definitions when you're having a conversation. Dictionary definitions are only the beginning in a discussion. A dictionary is just a dictionary, not a law book.
view expressed in post above is interesting. it is always interesting to me, when people share their own personal individual experiences of questioning and doubt with regards to their chosen path of religion-and-spirituality. So i always appreciate it when people share what it is they are grappling with, what is sometimes called a "crisis of faith." in post above, doubts concerns questions which trouble the person asking, are expressed with regards to enlightenment, which is a fundamental cornerstone of Buddhism.
how does the path itself address and resolve and respond to those questions and doubts raised? There is a reason why learning is done in a community and with the guidance of teachers who are farther along the path than the person asking the questions which they find troublesome. The path itself holds the answers and responses to the doubts and questions and concerns expressed.
an experienced teacher provides not just "explanations" and "answers" but an actual transmission. it's the difference between reading words on a page as an intellectual exercise, and engaging with the living material to receive a visceral transmission.
it's always been interesting and fascinating to me, to read about how people handle and respond to these crises of faith. Do they walk away from the teachings and path due to irreconcilable differences and unsatisfactory answers to their doubts and problems and questions? Or do they end up going deeper into the path and find answers which results in a stronger faith than ever? This has always fascinated me. Crises (of any kind, but in this case crises of faith) are an opportunity for a breakthrough, and that can result in breaking up with the path, or breaking through to a deeper level and advancing.
What is your experience live, face to face, in old world Buddhist communities...not reading...face to face communities?
No, that's not what I've said. What I have said is that you can't rely on strict definitions when you're having a conversation. Dictionarydefinitions are only the beginning in a discussion. A dictionary is just a dictionary, not a law book.
i agree that definitions are a beginning point in a discussion. therefore it is rendered moot to tell others they are "sloppy with definitions" because you yourself admit "you can't rely on strict definitions when you're having a conversation" and "definitions are only the beginning in a discussion."
words have different definitions and usage. However to say that you "don't believe in definitions" while at the same time telling others they are "sloppy with definitions" is a demonstrated double standard.
"In Buddhist teachings, faith has been compared to a boat that will ferry one across the flood of wrong views to safety, a strong branch to lift one on to a giant tree of virtue when pursued by the wild oxen of passions, the door that shuts out the serpent of disbelief and to a strong cable that holds a ship to its anchor in stormy weather. Faith keeps a man attached to the spiritual goal during the destructive storms of scepticism that may trouble him while he is still far from the noble path.
"Faith or confidence is a significant and, indeed, essential factor in Theravada Buddhism which leads to wholesome actions and enables a Buddhist disciple to embark upon the spiritual journey towards liberation from all suffering"
understanding is easier to reach when a person does not approach a topic (any topic) through the lens of "lies" and "wrong" and "oppose" and "useless." Contention (words in bold above) is not conducive to understanding. It impedes rather than facilitates understanding.
Understanding is also easier when one realizes that they have an opinion, but so do others, and those opinions about matters of faith and religion are not all in agreement.
I think you're using the word "contention" in an inflammatory matter. You cannot work out differences without some contention...I would prefer the word 'differences'.
"Buddhism is not, therefore, atheistic in the modern understanding which developed in the West as a reaction to theistic Christianity. Rather, Buddhism affirms many forms of spirituality and belief in gods as means to elevate and improve worldly life. In its spread through Asia, it has been able to adapt to the various native religious traditions to promote the spread of Buddhism. In our modern and contemporary context, Buddhism can coexist with Western beliefs in God because it recognizes that such beliefs assist people in dealing with their everyday needs. However, we can only achieve enlightenment when we understand reality as it is, beyond all concepts and beliefs, and the nature of our own minds which become attached to concepts and beliefs."
from Buddhism and Atheism
link provided earlier
If we cannot use the words useless or wrong for the articles that clearly state that Buddhist can also be atheists which words do you approve of,? The fact is that I can find articles on line that do contradict your linked articles. So just take your word?
There have now been two threads directed at one poster to show him he cannot be an atheist and a Buddhist, but searching on line I find articles that he can be both. How is it both possible and impossible to be a Buddhist and an atheist att the same time.
If we cannot use the words useless or wrong for the articles that clearly state that Buddhist can also be atheists which words do you approve of,? The fact is that I can find articles on line that do contradict your linked articles. So just take your word? There have now been two threads directed at one poster to show him he cannot be an atheist and a Buddhist, but searching on line I find articles that he can be both. How is it both possible and impossible to be a Buddhist and an atheist att the same time.
you are seeking to take a reductionist and simplistic view
of that which has depth, richness, and nuance.
knee-jerk judgments of "completely useless" and "totally wrong" for that which a person openly recognizes he does not understand, well, that will prevent a person from gaining understanding. Maybe ask that question in the Buddhism section of the forum, and see what responses you get. Since your stated desire is to gain understanding.
The unavoidable truth about this issue is that Buddhism and Atheism share a single feature - there is No God in either. That is a rather central feature but it in no way makes them the same.
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.
Buddhism is not Atheism
