Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Buddhist Scripture: The Heart Sutra

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 12:39:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
This is one of the most important texts in Buddhist scripture. It is like the "Our Father" Lords prayer of Buddhism and is recited by many Buddhists across the world.

Heart of Transcendent Wisdom Sutra

Adoration to the Omniscient!

When Holy Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva performed the deep practice in the Perfection of Transcendent Wisdom, he contemplated that there were five aggregates but observed that they were devoid of essential nature.

In this case, Shaariputra, form is voidness and voidness is itself form; voidness is not different from form, and form is not different from voidness; that which is form is voidness, and that which is voidness is form.

So it is for perception, conception, volition and consciousness.

In this case, Shaariputra, all things have the characteristics of voidness; they neither arise nor perish; they are neither defiled nor pure, neither deficient nor complete.

Therefore, Shaariputra, within the voidness, there is no form, no perception, no conception, no volition, nor consciousness.

Neither is there eye, ear, nose, tongue, body or mind
Neither is there form, sound, smell, taste, touch nor concepts.
Neither is there realm of sight, until we come to the non-existence of realm of consciousness.

Neither is there wisdom, nor ignorance, nor extinction of wisdom, nor extinction of ignorance, until we come to the non-existence of old age and death and the non-extinction of old age and death.

Neither is there suffering, cause of suffering, extinction of suffering, nor the path leading to extinction of suffering. Neither is there wisdom nor acquisition because there is no grasping

Depending on the bodhisattva's Perfection of Transcendent Wisdom, one dwells without any mental hindrance. Because of the absence of mental hindrance, one is fearless; freed from delusory thoughts, one will reach Nirvana.

All Buddhas dwelling in the three periods realize the highest, perfect enlightenment depending on the Perfection of Transcendent Wisdom.

For this reason, know that the Great Mantra of the Perfection of Transcendent Wisdom is the Great Wisdom Mantra, the Unsurpassed Mantra, and the Unequaled Mantra. It extinguishes all suffering, and is true and real because it is not false. It is the Mantra proclaimed in the Perfection of Transcendent Wisdom.

Namely, "Gone, gone, gone to the other shore; Gone completely to the other shore. Svaha."

Thus ends the Essence of the Transcendent Wisdom Sutra.

=======================================

Hopefully this shows you why I consider Buddhism Nihilistic, though not in the same sense as the people here.

It expresses Metaphysical Nihilism, not Moral Nihilism or Ontological Nihilism.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 12:42:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 12:39:00 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
This is one of the most important texts in Buddhist scripture. It is like the "Our Father" Lords prayer of Buddhism and is recited by many Buddhists across the world.

Heart of Transcendent Wisdom Sutra

Adoration to the Omniscient!

When Holy Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva performed the deep practice in the Perfection of Transcendent Wisdom, he contemplated that there were five aggregates but observed that they were devoid of essential nature.

In this case, Shaariputra, form is voidness and voidness is itself form; voidness is not different from form, and form is not different from voidness; that which is form is voidness, and that which is voidness is form.

So it is for perception, conception, volition and consciousness.

In this case, Shaariputra, all things have the characteristics of voidness; they neither arise nor perish; they are neither defiled nor pure, neither deficient nor complete.

Therefore, Shaariputra, within the voidness, there is no form, no perception, no conception, no volition, nor consciousness.

Neither is there eye, ear, nose, tongue, body or mind
Neither is there form, sound, smell, taste, touch nor concepts.
Neither is there realm of sight, until we come to the non-existence of realm of consciousness.

Neither is there wisdom, nor ignorance, nor extinction of wisdom, nor extinction of ignorance, until we come to the non-existence of old age and death and the non-extinction of old age and death.

Neither is there suffering, cause of suffering, extinction of suffering, nor the path leading to extinction of suffering. Neither is there wisdom nor acquisition because there is no grasping

Depending on the bodhisattva's Perfection of Transcendent Wisdom, one dwells without any mental hindrance. Because of the absence of mental hindrance, one is fearless; freed from delusory thoughts, one will reach Nirvana.

All Buddhas dwelling in the three periods realize the highest, perfect enlightenment depending on the Perfection of Transcendent Wisdom.

For this reason, know that the Great Mantra of the Perfection of Transcendent Wisdom is the Great Wisdom Mantra, the Unsurpassed Mantra, and the Unequaled Mantra. It extinguishes all suffering, and is true and real because it is not false. It is the Mantra proclaimed in the Perfection of Transcendent Wisdom.

Namely, "Gone, gone, gone to the other shore; Gone completely to the other shore. Svaha."

Thus ends the Essence of the Transcendent Wisdom Sutra.

=======================================

Hopefully this shows you why I consider Buddhism Nihilistic, though not in the same sense as the people here.

It expresses Metaphysical Nihilism, not Moral Nihilism or Ontological Nihilism.

is true and real because it is not false.

?

http://en.wikipedia.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 12:55:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Just a correction here. The proper term is Existential Nihilism, not Ontological Nihilism. And also, Buddhism does not express Epistemological Nihilism either.

@Cody

How is that an argument from ignorance? First of all, you misinterpret it, but even if it meant what you think it means (it is not false, therefore it is true), that is a perfectly valid argument. Things are either true or false, so if something is not false, then it is true.

However, the sutra isn't making an argument, it is simply expressing that the mantra is true.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 1:01:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 12:55:37 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Just a correction here. The proper term is Existential Nihilism, not Ontological Nihilism. And also, Buddhism does not express Epistemological Nihilism either.

@Cody

How is that an argument from ignorance? First of all, you misinterpret it, but even if it meant what you think it means (it is not false, therefore it is true), that is a perfectly valid argument. Things are either true or false, so if something is not false, then it is true.

However, the sutra isn't making an argument, it is simply expressing that the mantra is true.

The argument of ignorance was slightly misrepresented by Cody. What that argument really is, is "if there is no evidence that it is true/false, then it must be false/true." Note - that this applies both ways, to thinking something is true, or thinking that something is false. It is often cited against religious beliefs in general, as it is.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 1:06:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I would agree that it is an argument of ignorance. It says it is true because it is not false, however, no evidence is given. Sure, I can say, "I'm right, you're wrong." but that doesn't make it true.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 1:27:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 1:01:05 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/4/2010 12:55:37 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Just a correction here. The proper term is Existential Nihilism, not Ontological Nihilism. And also, Buddhism does not express Epistemological Nihilism either.

@Cody

How is that an argument from ignorance? First of all, you misinterpret it, but even if it meant what you think it means (it is not false, therefore it is true), that is a perfectly valid argument. Things are either true or false, so if something is not false, then it is true.

However, the sutra isn't making an argument, it is simply expressing that the mantra is true.

The argument of ignorance was slightly misrepresented by Cody. What that argument really is, is "if there is no evidence that it is true/false, then it must be false/true."

Whoa whoa whoa whoa, that is a blatant strawman! It did not say that!

It can hardly be interpreted to mean that "because there is no evidence to the contrary, it must be true." If anything it is saying "I know that the contrary is false, therefore it's true.

How can it be an argument from ignorance when the mantra opens by saying that this knowledge came from the Omniscient one (Buddha)????

(Btw, whether that's a bare assertion or not is irrelevant. The point is, at least get the claim right if you're going to attack it. It doesn't say "I dont know any other explanation, therefore this is true," the argument says "I KNOW that the contrary is false, therefore this is true."

So the only valid criticism is to say it's a bare assertion, but NOT an arguement from ignorance. That's simply false.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 1:33:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 1:27:34 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/4/2010 1:01:05 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/4/2010 12:55:37 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Just a correction here. The proper term is Existential Nihilism, not Ontological Nihilism. And also, Buddhism does not express Epistemological Nihilism either.

@Cody

How is that an argument from ignorance? First of all, you misinterpret it, but even if it meant what you think it means (it is not false, therefore it is true), that is a perfectly valid argument. Things are either true or false, so if something is not false, then it is true.

However, the sutra isn't making an argument, it is simply expressing that the mantra is true.

The argument of ignorance was slightly misrepresented by Cody. What that argument really is, is "if there is no evidence that it is true/false, then it must be false/true."

Whoa whoa whoa whoa, that is a blatant strawman! It did not say that!

It can hardly be interpreted to mean that "because there is no evidence to the contrary, it must be true." If anything it is saying "I know that the contrary is false, therefore it's true.

How can it be an argument from ignorance when the mantra opens by saying that this knowledge came from the Omniscient one (Buddha)????

(Btw, whether that's a bare assertion or not is irrelevant. The point is, at least get the claim right if you're going to attack it. It doesn't say "I dont know any other explanation, therefore this is true," the argument says "I KNOW that the contrary is false, therefore this is true."


So the only valid criticism is to say it's a bare assertion, but NOT an arguement from ignorance. That's simply false.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I didn't mean that you said, "if there is no evidence that it is true/false, then it must be false/true." I meant that that is what argument from ignorism is.

But, moving on, evidence that buddah was omniscient, if you please.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 1:39:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 12:39:00 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
This is one of the most important texts in Buddhist scripture. It is like the "Our Father" Lords prayer of Buddhism and is recited by many Buddhists across the world.

Heart of Transcendent Wisdom Sutra

Adoration to the Omniscient!

When Holy Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva performed the deep practice in the Perfection of Transcendent Wisdom, he contemplated that there were five aggregates but observed that they were devoid of essential nature.

In this case, Shaariputra, form is voidness and voidness is itself form; voidness is not different from form, and form is not different from voidness; that which is form is voidness, and that which is voidness is form.

So it is for perception, conception, volition and consciousness.

In this case, Shaariputra, all things have the characteristics of voidness; they neither arise nor perish; they are neither defiled nor pure, neither deficient nor complete.

Therefore, Shaariputra, within the voidness, there is no form, no perception, no conception, no volition, nor consciousness.

Neither is there eye, ear, nose, tongue, body or mind
Neither is there form, sound, smell, taste, touch nor concepts.
Neither is there realm of sight, until we come to the non-existence of realm of consciousness.

Neither is there wisdom, nor ignorance, nor extinction of wisdom, nor extinction of ignorance, until we come to the non-existence of old age and death and the non-extinction of old age and death.

Neither is there suffering, cause of suffering, extinction of suffering, nor the path leading to extinction of suffering. Neither is there wisdom nor acquisition because there is no grasping

Depending on the bodhisattva's Perfection of Transcendent Wisdom, one dwells without any mental hindrance. Because of the absence of mental hindrance, one is fearless; freed from delusory thoughts, one will reach Nirvana.

All Buddhas dwelling in the three periods realize the highest, perfect enlightenment depending on the Perfection of Transcendent Wisdom.

For this reason, know that the Great Mantra of the Perfection of Transcendent Wisdom is the Great Wisdom Mantra, the Unsurpassed Mantra, and the Unequaled Mantra. It extinguishes all suffering, and is true and real because it is not false. It is the Mantra proclaimed in the Perfection of Transcendent Wisdom.

Namely, "Gone, gone, gone to the other shore; Gone completely to the other shore. Svaha."

Thus ends the Essence of the Transcendent Wisdom Sutra.

=======================================

Hopefully this shows you why I consider Buddhism Nihilistic, though not in the same sense as the people here.

It expresses Metaphysical Nihilism, not Moral Nihilism or Ontological Nihilism.

(Sorry if this is taking it off topic)

I've always wondered what it would be, to be enlightened.

"All Buddhas dwelling in the three periods realize the highest, perfect enlightenment depending on the Perfection of Transcendent Wisdom."

This statement. Suppose one is in such a state. Could he then view this world as the illusion it is supposed to be, and then proceed to do stuff that would be no less than "magic" to our enenlightened eyes? (Of course, the truly enlightened one wouldn't CARE to do such things, or something of that sort, I don't know. Who am I :))

If so, couldn't this be how Jesus might have performed his "miracles"?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 1:45:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 1:39:43 PM, Indophile wrote:
(Sorry if this is taking it off topic)

I've always wondered what it would be, to be enlightened.

"All Buddhas dwelling in the three periods realize the highest, perfect enlightenment depending on the Perfection of Transcendent Wisdom."

This statement. Suppose one is in such a state. Could he then view this world as the illusion it is supposed to be, and then proceed to do stuff that would be no less than "magic" to our enenlightened eyes? (Of course, the truly enlightened one wouldn't CARE to do such things, or something of that sort, I don't know. Who am I :))

If so, couldn't this be how Jesus might have performed his "miracles"?

I'm picturing Neo, from the Matrix.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 1:50:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 1:06:19 PM, OreEle wrote:
I would agree that it is an argument of ignorance. It says it is true because it is not false, however, no evidence is given.

Again, that's not an argument from ignorance. If you make a statement without evidence to support it, it's a bare assertion.

Never once did the mantra say "I don't know x, therefore this is true." (example of argument from ignorance)

It clearly says "it is true and real because it is not false." It claims to KNOW that it's not false and is therefore true.

Sure, I can say, "I'm right, you're wrong." but that doesn't make it true.

I know. It's called bare assertion, not argument from ignorance.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 1:53:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 1:50:17 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/4/2010 1:06:19 PM, OreEle wrote:
I would agree that it is an argument of ignorance. It says it is true because it is not false, however, no evidence is given.

Again, that's not an argument from ignorance. If you make a statement without evidence to support it, it's a bare assertion.

Never once did the mantra say "I don't know x, therefore this is true." (example of argument from ignorance)

It clearly says "it is true and real because it is not false." It claims to KNOW that it's not false and is therefore true.

Sure, I can say, "I'm right, you're wrong." but that doesn't make it true.

I know. It's called bare assertion, not argument from ignorance.

Besides the point, what is the evidence.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 2:00:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 1:45:30 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/4/2010 1:39:43 PM, Indophile wrote:
(Sorry if this is taking it off topic)

I've always wondered what it would be, to be enlightened.

"All Buddhas dwelling in the three periods realize the highest, perfect enlightenment depending on the Perfection of Transcendent Wisdom."

This statement. Suppose one is in such a state. Could he then view this world as the illusion it is supposed to be, and then proceed to do stuff that would be no less than "magic" to our enenlightened eyes? (Of course, the truly enlightened one wouldn't CARE to do such things, or something of that sort, I don't know. Who am I :))

If so, couldn't this be how Jesus might have performed his "miracles"?

I'm picturing Neo, from the Matrix.

Neo, is but just a scratch on the surface of what Jesus was (if those accounts are true) :)
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 2:15:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 2:00:24 PM, Indophile wrote:
Neo, is but just a scratch on the surface of what Jesus was (if those accounts are true) :)

You over-estimate the greatness of Jesus' miracles.

The Buddha explains why:

Buddha: "Ok, let me see those great powers of yours."

Sage: [Man walks on water.] "How was that? I have been practicing this for the last 25 years."

Buddha: "Oh great! But your gain is very insignificant dear sage."

Sage: "What?! What are you trying to say?"

Buddha: "Yes, it has no meaning. You have wasted 25 years as you can cross this river in a fairy just for a penny."

(Source: animated movie of the Buddhas life based on scripture.)
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 2:18:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 2:15:39 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/4/2010 2:00:24 PM, Indophile wrote:
Neo, is but just a scratch on the surface of what Jesus was (if those accounts are true) :)

You over-estimate the greatness of Jesus' miracles.

The Buddha explains why:

Buddha: "Ok, let me see those great powers of yours."

Sage: [Man walks on water.] "How was that? I have been practicing this for the last 25 years."

Buddha: "Oh great! But your gain is very insignificant dear sage."

Sage: "What?! What are you trying to say?"

Buddha: "Yes, it has no meaning. You have wasted 25 years as you can cross this river in a fairy just for a penny."

(Source: animated movie of the Buddhas life based on scripture.)

What are you talking about?! That saves the man a penny every time he wants to cross that river. He could save a couple of dollars by the time he dies.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 3:23:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 2:15:39 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/4/2010 2:00:24 PM, Indophile wrote:
Neo, is but just a scratch on the surface of what Jesus was (if those accounts are true) :)

You over-estimate the greatness of Jesus' miracles.

The Buddha explains why:

Buddha: "Ok, let me see those great powers of yours."

Sage: [Man walks on water.] "How was that? I have been practicing this for the last 25 years."

Buddha: "Oh great! But your gain is very insignificant dear sage."

Sage: "What?! What are you trying to say?"

Buddha: "Yes, it has no meaning. You have wasted 25 years as you can cross this river in a fairy just for a penny."

(Source: animated movie of the Buddhas life based on scripture.)

Although funny, it's unbecoming :) (Kinda like hitting below the belt)

I'm not ranking the miracles of Jesus. A miracle is a miracle. What are the inherent uses of a miracle? Making a penny appear out a boy's ear (truly) or raising the dead, how do you differentiate between the two? Both are equally miraculous.

To me, (if the accounts are true), Jesus will always be a notch above the Buddha. But that's just my personal opinion.

(And your spelling of 'ferry' as 'fairy' caused quite some confusion)
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 3:39:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 3:23:09 PM, Indophile wrote:
To me, (if the accounts are true), Jesus will always be a notch above the Buddha.

Explain why. Abilities? Teachings? In what way.

But that's just my personal opinion.

There are no opinions, especially on a debate site. "Opinion" is just another word for "unjustified belief which I am unwilling to prove to you."
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 3:56:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 3:54:06 PM, OreEle wrote:
So this has turned from a thread on Buddhist Scripture, to about Jesus.

No, it's related to Buddhist scripture because Indophile is claiming Jesus is superior to Buddha and I assume that he is referring to superiority of teachings (which are based in scripture).
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 4:00:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 3:56:28 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/4/2010 3:54:06 PM, OreEle wrote:
So this has turned from a thread on Buddhist Scripture, to about Jesus.

No, it's related to Buddhist scripture because Indophile is claiming Jesus is superior to Buddha and I assume that he is referring to superiority of teachings (which are based in scripture).

I'm still waiting on evidence for Buddha being omniscient, and thus making it "true because it is not false."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 4:23:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 4:00:56 PM, OreEle wrote:
I'm still waiting on evidence for Buddha being omniscient, and thus making it "true because it is not false."

First of all, it doesn't require an omniscient being to make that argument. It's simply statement based on classical logic. "If X is not false, X is true." That statement can be verified by anyone, omniscient or not.

As far as the omniscience of the Buddha, you have to understand what is meant by the word in the context of Buddhism.

See here:

"According to Collins Dictionary, omniscience means, first, "infinite knowledge or understanding" and, second, "very great, or seemingly infinite knowledge". If we adopt the second definition, it will be much easier to defend the claim that the Buddha was omniscient than if we adopt the first. On this reading, the Buddha had such Insight, such wisdom, that it seemed as though he knew everything, as though his knowledge was drawn from a bottomless well.
...
The Buddha claimed to see into the real nature of experience and phenomena, he did not claim to be some sort of transcendental know-all. Such a claim obscures the spiritual significance and orientation of his insight. It arises from a conflation of two different orders of knowledge; the Buddha's knowledge was of spiritual principles, even laws, not of mundane facts. There is no reason to believe that his mastery of the principle of Dependent Origination should also give him access to the total range of mundane facts. The two kinds of knowledge are of a different nature. The claim that the Buddha could potentially know everything obscures the spiritual profundity of his attainment and reduces him to some sort of human encyclopedia."

http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com...

Also, the Buddha knew the size of an atom.

"an NPR science blog run by Robert Krulwich, reveals how the Buddha guessed the size of an atom--and got it right. Krulwich and his friend Ezra Block discuss George Ifrah's book The Universal History of Numbers which recounts a story from the Lalitavistara Sutra (completed around the third century) in which the Buddha estimates the size of an atom during a competition for the hand of Gopa, a woman that the Buddha (then Prince Siddhartha) hoped to marry."

http://www.tricycle.com...
http://www.npr.org...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 4:38:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 4:23:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/4/2010 4:00:56 PM, OreEle wrote:
I'm still waiting on evidence for Buddha being omniscient, and thus making it "true because it is not false."

First of all, it doesn't require an omniscient being to make that argument. It's simply statement based on classical logic. "If X is not false, X is true." That statement can be verified by anyone, omniscient or not.

As far as the omniscience of the Buddha, you have to understand what is meant by the word in the context of Buddhism.

See here:

"According to Collins Dictionary, omniscience means, first, "infinite knowledge or understanding" and, second, "very great, or seemingly infinite knowledge". If we adopt the second definition, it will be much easier to defend the claim that the Buddha was omniscient than if we adopt the first. On this reading, the Buddha had such Insight, such wisdom, that it seemed as though he knew everything, as though his knowledge was drawn from a bottomless well.
...
The Buddha claimed to see into the real nature of experience and phenomena, he did not claim to be some sort of transcendental know-all. Such a claim obscures the spiritual significance and orientation of his insight. It arises from a conflation of two different orders of knowledge; the Buddha's knowledge was of spiritual principles, even laws, not of mundane facts. There is no reason to believe that his mastery of the principle of Dependent Origination should also give him access to the total range of mundane facts. The two kinds of knowledge are of a different nature. The claim that the Buddha could potentially know everything obscures the spiritual profundity of his attainment and reduces him to some sort of human encyclopedia."

If we take the second definition, then it doesn't matter, proof that it is true or that it is not false is required. "Because Buddha said so" is appeal to authority fallacy, unless it is true that he knows absolutely everything (which is not the case if we accept the second definition)


http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com...


Also, the Buddha knew the size of an atom.

"an NPR science blog run by Robert Krulwich, reveals how the Buddha guessed the size of an atom--and got it right. Krulwich and his friend Ezra Block discuss George Ifrah's book The Universal History of Numbers which recounts a story from the Lalitavistara Sutra (completed around the third century) in which the Buddha estimates the size of an atom during a competition for the hand of Gopa, a woman that the Buddha (then Prince Siddhartha) hoped to marry."

http://www.tricycle.com...
http://www.npr.org...

Irrelevant.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 5:51:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 3:39:20 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/4/2010 3:23:09 PM, Indophile wrote:
To me, (if the accounts are true), Jesus will always be a notch above the Buddha.

Explain why. Abilities? Teachings? In what way.

But that's just my personal opinion.

There are no opinions, especially on a debate site. "Opinion" is just another word for "unjustified belief which I am unwilling to prove to you."
True.

So, I'll try to explain my preference of Jesus over the Buddha.

Based on the accounts of Jesus' exploits and his teachings, I'm strongly of the opinion that he was a highly enlightened individual. And such people are rare.

Just like there is only one Einsten or one Newton that tower head over shoulders over other people and teach us the workings of our physical world, there will be few individuals (Jesus, Mohammed, Siddhartha, Mahavir) that will teach us about the workings of the world in a spiritual level.

And we know that there have been only a few such people.

All of these people have either been enlightened or chosen by a higher calling and are clearly superior to us (average normal people).

Taking that as a background, look at what Jesus and the Buddha have done.

Jesus gave the common people a way to get through this world, whether they be weak or strong, (intellectually or physically) and gave them hope. Especially in a violent world where there was lots of persecution.
He made sense of the world in such a way that common, lay people could understand. He totally gave himself to the world (which he need not have done).

(I kind of imagine him in this analogy. A highly trained computer scientist dedicating himself to make sure EVERYBODY knows how to at least operate a keyboard, if that makes sense. A less gifted person would be bored and will be off building androids or such...)

The Buddha did the same, you can say. But for common people, it comes over as detachment from the world. Life leads to suffering. That's not such a hopeful concept, is it? It takes a mind that works at a higher level to grasp this in a way that's not shallow.

(In my analogy of the computer scientist, the Buddha is taking classes on a Master's level on the theory of how computers work. How many might understand, or how many would even know enough basics to take these classes....)

I think this was the main reason Buddhism could not take root in India. There Hinduism was deeply rooted and they had their 4 dharmas to follow, and renunciation was but one path. The places where Buddhism actually took root, were places that were pre-disposed to such kinds of thoughts. Hinduism, is ultimately hopeful, and a highly celebratory kind of life. All-encompassing, the internal and the external. There is no eightfold path, or the middle way. There are infinite ways. Buddhism, to me, feels too internalized. Life, is not ultimately suffering. It is beautiful. It is a gift. Even if it is ultimately an illusion.

Jesus thought so. He tried to explain it to people the best he could, so that they can understand.

What people made of their teachings is another issue. Their legacy, their impact on the world are topics for another discussion.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2010 7:55:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 5:51:15 PM, Indophile wrote:
True.

So, I'll try to explain my preference of Jesus over the Buddha.

Based on the accounts of Jesus' exploits and his teachings, I'm strongly of the opinion that he was a highly enlightened individual. And such people are rare.

In what way? The Buddha was well versed in epistemology, phenomenology, meta-ethics, the nature of consciousness, ontology, cosmology, and the nature of reality.

The Jesus of the Bible has taught us nothing about any of the above (and if he did, like cosmology, he was way off). The Buddha knew the size of an atom, Jesus probably didn't even know what an atom was.

Jesus gave the common people a way to get through this world, whether they be weak or strong, (intellectually or physically) and gave them hope. Especially in a violent world where there was lots of persecution.

He made sense of the world in such a way that common, lay people could understand.

And the Buddha was able to do the same. The Buddha delivered discourses that the wise could understand as well as discourses that the simple-minded could understand.

He totally gave himself to the world (which he need not have done).

Probably because the Buddha knew that vicarious redemption could not possibly redeem the sins of mankind. Jesus is just a scapegoat so people can think that their sins are vindicated, but that truly isn't sensible nor possible.

"No one saves us but ourselves. No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path, but Buddhas clearly show the way." -- the Buddha

"Oneself, indeed, is one's savior, for what other savior could there be? With oneself well-controlled one obtains a savior difficult to find." -- the Buddha

The Buddha did the same, you can say. But for common people, it comes over as detachment from the world.

Which is a false impression.

"The Dhamma of the Tathagata does not require a man to go into homelessness or to resign the world, unless he feels called upon to do so; what the Dhamma of the Tathagata requires is for every man to free himself from the illusion of self, to cleanse his heart, to give up his thirst for pleasure, and lead a life of righteousness. And whatever men do, whether they remain in the world as artisans, merchants, and officers of the king, or retire from the world and devote themselves to a life of religious meditation, let them put their whole heart into their task; let them be diligent and energetic; and, if they are like the lotus, which, though it grows in the water, yet remains untouched by the water, if they struggle in life without cherishing envy or hatred, if they live in the world a life not of self but a life of truth, then surely joy, peace, and bliss will dwell in their minds."
-- the Buddha

Life leads to suffering.

Utterly false. You misunderstand what the Buddha said.

First Noble Truth: "Now this, monks, is the noble truth of stress: Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful, separation from the loved is stressful, not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful." -- the Buddha

"To enjoy good health, to bring true happiness to one's family, to bring peace to all, one must first discipline and control one's own mind. If a man can control his mind he can find the way to Enlightenment, and all wisdom and virtue will naturally come to him." -- the Buddha

He explains what parts of life are stressful and painful, so his teaching is that there is a way to overcome the suffering in life.

That's not such a hopeful concept, is it?

No, because you distort his teachings.

It takes a mind that works at a higher level to grasp this in a way that's not shallow.

Which shouldn't be held against him. We don't say that Stephen Hawking is inferior because people fail to understand him. We say he is superior because he is intelligent.

I think this was the main reason Buddhism could not take root in India.

Yet Buddhism is still the 4th largest religion in the world.

There Hinduism was deeply rooted and they had their 4 dharmas to follow, and renunciation was but one path.

Likewise with Buddhism. Renunciation is not required, it's a voluntary choice made by monks just like a Christian priest lives a life of monasticism.

The places where Buddhism actually took root, were places that were pre-disposed to such kinds of thoughts. Hinduism, is ultimately hopeful, and a highly celebratory kind of life. All-encompassing, the internal and the external.

"He who experiences the unity of life sees his own Self in all beings, and all beings in his own Self, and looks on everything with an impartial eye." -- the Buddha

"You yourself, as much as anybody in the entire universe, deserve your love and affection." -- the Buddha

"Thousands of candles can be lit from a single candle,
and the life of the candle will not be shortened.
Happiness never decreases by being shared."
-- the Buddha

There is no eightfold path, or the middle way. There are infinite ways.

Ok, you are condemning Buddhism for providing one way, while Christianity is explicitly and exclusively one way.

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." [John 14:6]

Buddhism, to me, feels too internalized. Life, is not ultimately suffering. It is beautiful. It is a gift. Even if it is ultimately an illusion.

And Buddhism doesn't deny this, as demonstrated above.

"Every drop of water is the ocean, but each individual drop does not know this truth!" -- the Buddha

"Life is a journey.
Death is a return to earth.
The universe is like an inn.
The passing years are like dust.
Regard this phantom world
As a star at dawn, a bubble in a stream,
A flash of lightning in a summer cloud,
A flickering lamp - a phantom - and a dream."
-- the Buddha [Vairacchedika 32; Diamond Sutra]

Jesus thought so. He tried to explain it to people the best he could, so that they can understand.

Jesus: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." [Ephesians 6:5]

Jesus: "Do not think that I have come to bring peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." [Matthew 10:35,37]

What people made of their teachings is another issue. Their legacy, their impact on the world are topics for another discussion.

I think I have far established the superiority of the Buddha's teachings.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 1:33:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Geo, have you ever heard of the principle of charity? It absolutely boggles my mind that your willing to take such a careful, nuanced position on Buddhist "scripture" yet take a hard-line rash stance without regard for detail on the scriptures of other religions (Christianity/Judaism and Islam in particular ). It's an ineresting inconsistency you have there...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 1:45:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 1:33:38 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Geo, have you ever heard of the principle of charity? It absolutely boggles my mind that your willing to take such a careful, nuanced position on Buddhist "scripture" yet take a hard-line rash stance without regard for detail on the scriptures of other religions (Christianity/Judaism and Islam in particular ). It's an ineresting inconsistency you have there...

You notice that too?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 1:46:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 1:33:38 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Geo, have you ever heard of the principle of charity?

Nope.

It absolutely boggles my mind that your willing to take such a careful, nuanced position on Buddhist "scripture" yet take a hard-line rash stance without regard for detail on the scriptures of other religions

Actually, I believe I do take the same careful consideration when it comes to other scriptures, it's just that you disagree with my analysis of your scripture.

(Christianity/Judaism and Islam in particular ). It's an ineresting inconsistency you have there...

Even if I did treat them differently, the scriptures themselves are different. They don't use the same language, same concepts, or same style of writing. So, it wouldn't be inconsistent to treat the different scriptures differently.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 3:06:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 1:42:33 PM, Puck wrote:
At 11/4/2010 4:00:56 PM, OreEle wrote:
I'm still waiting on evidence for Buddha

That too.

You seriously doubt the existence of the Buddha? Wow...

Well, here ya go: http://www.buddhanet.net...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat